Roger McClay charged

March 6th, 2010 at 11:30 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

have charged a former Government minister with abusing his ex-MP perk of taxpayer-subsidised flights.

is to appear in the Auckland District Court next Friday to face 56 charges of obtaining or using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage.

Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty would not confirm the criminal charges, citing sections of the Official Information Act that protect a person’s right to a fair trial and privacy.

Umm. What nonsense is this. If criminal charges have been laid, they are not a private matter. We have an system. If Roger McClay does not have name suppression (which seems obvious) then the charges should be public.

The Herald has the background to the charges. I don’t know at this stage whether the charges are disputed or not – I imagine we will find out on Friday.

Tags: , , ,

45 Responses to “Roger McClay charged”

  1. menace (402 comments) says:

    Its justa rort taht they even have thi sperk at all.

    The governent is our company and we are the theoretical directers, and i know we dont condone this, when will the polis actuall do what there people want?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dirty Rat (504 comments) says:

    Im picking 5.30 pm to be the time when he is defended and the lefties are blamed for this

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    DPF:
    “If Roger McClay does not have name suppression (which seems obvious) then the charges should be public.”

    Umm … he has yet to appear in court. Ergo, he won’t have had a chance to apply for name suppression yet. What you are arguing is that the police should make that decision on the judiciary’s behalf by confirming to the media the identity of the accused before the matter is considered by a judge. Now, I know you don’t like the idea of name suppression generally, but surely even you don’t think that it should be the Police who get to decide when and if a charged person’s identity will be made public?

    As for the “we have an open justice system” point – true. But we also have a right to fair trial, which is recognised in the OIA, s.6(c) as being a conclusive reason for refusing to release official information. So why not cool your jets ’till Friday, when all this will be heard in public court? Not THAT much of an imposition, is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Noreen Hegarty is probably a half educated socialist moron who does not know one jot of what principles or precepts the Justice system in NZ is founded upon. McLay’s charges should be made public. I remember well the infuriating and sanctimonious lectures that were the hallmark of this insipid socialist czar. If he has committed a crime, I will relish seeing him sent down for ten years or so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    Red, do you remember?

    “Roger McClay, did when he publicly agreed with a children’s rights lawyer who called for a national men’s day of shame.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3518308&pnum=0

    The so called children’s rights lawyer was Denice Ritchie and she was calling for Father’s Day to be a day of shame. McClay changed his tune after a few days but the misogynist bitch Ritchie refused to budge. Anyone who claims to care about children cannot hold such view about fathers.

    Do you remember McClay saying everyone deserves a second chance? That was in reference to Tania Gaye Witika caring for a baby she had to another man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    The Herald has an agenda here. Last week it was Bailey Kurariki, this week McClay. Neither has yet appeared in Court; in fact Kurariki hasn’t even been charged yet. But both have been named by the Herald, which tramples over their legal right to at least APPLY for name suppression. The Herald and HoS seem to want our justice system to become trial by media.

    As for McClay; if he is found to have abused his privileges, I hope that he is dealt with with the same severity as Phillip Field. But I also believe that the Herald has over-stepped the mark here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    redbaiter

    “Noreen Hegarty is probably a half educated socialist moron who does not know one jot of what principles or precepts the Justice system in NZ is founded upon.”

    Absolutely. If there’s anything that the police should be doing, it is ignoring the statutes passed by Parliament and telling the media everything they know about all citizens they have dealings with. Those are, after all, the principles and precepts of NZ’s justice system.

    Alternatively, you may be a moron. It’s a tough call.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    “As for McClay; if he is found to have abused his privileges, I hope that he is dealt with with the same severity as Phillip Field. But I also believe that the Herald has over-stepped the mark here.”

    A totally different thing and I sure the judge will see it that way as a while back a couple of them were caught doing something very similar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty would not confirm the criminal charges, citing sections of the Official Information Act that protect a person’s right to a fair trial and privacy. ”

    Except they don’t. The Official Information Act has merely given bureaucrats and the like the opportunity, by misusing that act, to abuse the public’s right to know who might be a criminal amongst us and avoid providing information on a myriad of subjects that should be open to the public view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Redbaiter:
    “” Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty would not confirm the criminal charges, citing sections of the Official Information Act that protect a person’s right to a fair trial and privacy.”

    Except they don’t.”

    OIA protection of right to fair trial – s.6(c)
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1982/0156/latest/DLM65366.html?search=ts_act_official+information_resel&p=1#DLM65366

    OIA protection of privacy – s.9(2)(a)
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1982/0156/latest/DLM65371.html?search=ts_act_official+information_resel&p=1#DLM65371

    Next player please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Manolo (13,828 comments) says:

    Another crook caught red-handed. No coincidence he’s a former politician, since most of them are corrupt to the bone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Next player please. ”

    Disgusting subjective shit that should have no place in law. We have had half educated socialist fuckwits like you AG fucking up our laws with your perverted language for far too long. On a political mission rather than a legal one, you write laws that are wide open to any possible interpretation, that anyone can fall foul of at anytime, and these laws are the work of knuckle dragging soviet style tyrants rather than refined and educated practicioners of traditional English law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Classic Redbaiter. Caught talking bullshit and comes out snarling. Like an incontinent old tom cat trapped under your house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Any system that lets the lawyers write the laws that are designed entirely to confuse the issues envolved and thereby increase the opportunity for lawyers to increase their incomes is a corrupt system. Time it was changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Inventory2 notes:

    The Herald has an agenda here. Last week it was Bailey Kurariki, this week McClay. Neither has yet appeared in Court; in fact Kurariki hasn’t even been charged yet. But both have been named by the Herald, which tramples over their legal right to at least APPLY for name suppression. The Herald and HoS seem to want our justice system to become trial by media.

    Thanks for highlighting the truly important point to all this, I2 (hint to others – it’s “wooeee I get to say nasty things about Roger McLay”).

    By tradition, people arrested by Police are not named until after their first appearance before a judge, at which time their lawyer has the opportunity to apply for name suppression.

    The Herald is by no means alone in flouting this of late, with arch descriptions of “prominent entertainers” and the like, which (along with their city of residence) narrows the field to a very small group of people and encourages irresponsible specualtion and gossip.

    Now they seem to have figured they’ll just throw it out the window altogether and start naming people regardless. That imposes an immediate and perhaps crippling penalty on someone who is later found to be innocent, particularly if that person has any prominence in any field of endeavour so that their name is more generally known.

    If you bear any malice toward another person, effectively all you need do is accuse them of something and gain the willing ear of a police officer. If it’s an ugly offence but one in which you’ve got a good excuse to have no evidence other than your say so (thus avoiding prosecution for a false complaint) then all the better – so make sure it’s something juicy like rape or child molestation.

    Never mind the outcome of the trial – as soon as it hits the media that person’s life is toast.

    Are National happy with this situation? If not, I’d expect the Attorney General to at least be discussing the idea of automatic name suppression till a guilty verdict for everyone, and blanket (with very few exceptions) publication afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Rex, suppose an alleged child molester has his identity hidden by the courts, and while he is awaiting trial, some unsuspecting and unknowing parent allows that molester access to his children and further molestation takes place. Where in this case has the public been served well by name suppression?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Malcolm what makes you think people are interested in your sad, bigoted and spite driven interpretations of events on Kiwiblog?. (no need to answer, its a rhetorical question.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    What makes you think people are interested in yours? Don’t answer, that’s also a rhetorical question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    I’ll answer because you’ve as usual missed the point. I’m giving opinions on the issues, not setting myself up as a fake umpire for the sake of my own damaged and hurting ego.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wikiriwhis business (4,018 comments) says:

    “Umm … he has yet to appear in court. Ergo, he won’t have had a chance to apply for name suppression yet.”

    Subjudice applies from the moment of arrest.

    Until the court permits the info is indeed priviliged.

    Privacy law did not have to be invoked. Again indeed a smoking mirror.

    The children are being spoken too again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Anyone interested in a Redbaiter sweepstake?

    10,000 comments!

    Its going to be a milestone.

    Register your interest now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. wikiriwhis business (4,018 comments) says:

    “some unsuspecting and unknowing parent allows that molester access to his children and further molestation takes place.”

    No one involved in a pending sex hearing is released back to the community.

    A child especially just has to make an accusation and the accused is held in custody pending trial

    No q’s asked.

    Any children belonging to the accused is taken off them and given to ex spouse or partner. Permanently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    I’m giving opinions on the issues, not setting myself up as a fake umpire for the sake of my own damaged and hurting ego.

    Your total lack of self-awareness is as always hugely entertaining. You could get some help with your damaged and hurting ego. Then you wouldn’t need to devote so much of your life to abusing people on Kiwiblog. LOL, AG points out that you’re talking shit so you accuse him of being somehow responsible for the legislation on which you’ve been found to be talking shit. Keep being you, old man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Redbaiter:

    You raise a good point. I’d imagine that, having been caught and awaiting trial, a child molester would be deterred from any further offending. Most offending takes place against children known to the offender (their own, relatives’ or friends’ kids) and the person’s arrest would most probably be known within that circle. It’s the wider public I’m concerned with.

    But you’re right in that a small proportion may well reoffend while on bail, and that of course is a risk we don’t want to take.

    My only solution is to impose on them the same regime we (I presume NZ has laws on this similar to Australia?) impose on child molesters after they have been convicted and served their term: regular reporting to the police, no contact with children, the Police at liberty to warn the parents of children with whom the offender is likely to come into contact.

    The law would need to be worded so that a concerned individual could tell another individual or even a small group provided they had a reasonable belief that those people would be directly at risk, or might also be victims. That would cover, for instance, parents telling other parents at the same school that police were investigating a teacher for molesting their child. But it would impose penalties on news media organisations and anyone else who caused the accused’s name to become widely known amongst those not directly concerned with the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    OK Rex, taking Wikiriwhis valuable input at face value, lets change the metaphor to some crime unconnected with sex offences. The principle remains the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Malcolm, its AG that is talking shit, as wikiriwhis business’s post verifies. As I said, your attempt to pass yourself off as an objective umpire is just arrogant self important deceit.

    Edit- Rex- I see you’ve now answered the point anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Johnboy,

    reddie’s 10,000th comment will be a cut and paste of the previous 9,999 – mix of wrong facts and a bit of invective. No surprises there.

    wikiriwhis business,

    I just don’t understand what you mean by saying “Subjudice applies from the moment of arrest. Until the court permits the info is indeed priviliged.” Certainly a media organisation may be in contempt of court if they were to publish information about an arrested person that interfered with a later trial. But in the absence of such a problem (which wouldn’t seem to arise in McClay’s case) there is nothing in law (but a good deal in terms of media ethics) to stop publication. Which is why the Herald’s actions suck.

    The OIA point arises because under the OIA, the police must disclose any official information they possess (including the names of people they’ve arrested and charged) unless there is a reason under the legislation not to do so. As I’ve pointed out, under the OIA there are reasons for refusing to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    wikiriwhis business says:

    No one involved in a pending sex hearing is released back to the community.

    A child especially just has to make an accusation and the accused is held in custody pending trial…

    Any children belonging to the accused is taken off them and given to ex spouse or partner. Permanently.

    I know those assertions to be quite wrong. The first – that a person accused of a sex crime is inevitably denied bail is demonstrated as incorrect almost every day in our courts. The exception would be an immediate guilty plea, in which case they’d be remanded in custody for a pre-trial report and sentencing, and their eventual sentence (usually) backdated to that day. Otherwise it is wholly dependent on a range of factors including the seriousness of the offence, the need to isolate the perpetartor from his victims (if they’re his children and he lives in the family home) and so on.

    As for the disposition of children, that too is far from clear cut. An offender on bail is not always separated from his children, unless those children were the victims or there is reason to believe they might have been. A married man having an affair with the teenage girl next door is not usually going to have his children taken from by the system him unless his wife separates and claims custody. Then it’s a Family Court matter – at least until his disposition in the Criminal Courts.

    If convicted of offences against his children then yes, it’s highly unlikely he would ever see them again until they were adults and able to decide for themselves. If however they were not the victims and the offender’s partner forgives them then the system tends to work on keeping the family together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    “Johnboy,

    reddie’s 10,000th comment will be a cut and paste of the previous 9,999 – mix of wrong facts and a bit of invective. No surprises there.”

    You misconstrue. I am not passing any judgement on the quality of a Redbaiter comment only suggesting we hold a sweepstake on the date and time of the 10,000th. It would be a milestone I believe for Kiwiblog. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    AG, that you might use a different and politically correct language does not make your posts in their true meaning any less offensive than mine, no matter the invective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    But the true meaning of my posts are true. Yours aren’t. That seems to me a reasonably significant difference.

    But you may believe anything you want. I give you permission.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    offtopic sorry… but is the comment counter even updating? When I look above I see “Redbaiter (9148)” prefacing every single one of his comments. Same with mine and other multiple commenters on this thread. Perhaps all this technology is a front and DPF actually employs some layabout to keep count with a 2B pencil and a pad and he’s dozed off to sleep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Rex: He has obviously decided to run with my sweepstake suggestion and is already using all the devious arts at his fingertips to skew the result. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    I think the count is your total, not the count at that particular comment. This comment should be 1028, until my next comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” But the true meaning of my posts are true. Yours aren’t. ”

    A good example of the elitist arrogance that allows you to impose your own version of morality by means of big all powerful government, believing in your unfailing correctness without understanding there are other perspectives. This leaves you with no other response to your critics but to attempt to ridicule or marginalize them some how. In fact you are most often as far from truth and reality as every other leftist blinkered and mentally confined by their single political experience.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    I think the post count is only updated on a daily basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Testing, testing, testing. I am now writing this comment at 2254/6.57 pm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Wrong Red it updates instantly. This will become 2256. We have a game if anyone is interested in a little flutter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Ok, I see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    See your post at 5:25.

    Then see my post at 5:33.

    See the difference?

    Probably not. You’re a bit too postmodern to get “truth”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    You should see my post at 10.08 am on the GD thread. Fits you to a T.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    The count updates straight away on all your posts. If you look at previous days posts they all have your current count.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    Quite true Red but as I post this reply they will all become 2257. This means that we can have my little sweepstake on your 10,000th comment as long as DPF freezes the moment.
    As he resembles a penguin this should not be a problem for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Johnboy (16,651 comments) says:

    “You should see my post at 10.08 am on the GD thread. Fits you to a T.”

    Ha ha. Not only quantity but quality as well! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Dirty Rat (504 comments) says:

    Damn

    I was out by 19 minutes , by the bizarre presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

    This must be a first for Kiwiblog

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote