Christie’s Law

October 22nd, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Mr King said he supported parts of Christie’s Law, the proposed amendments to the Act campaigned for by Christie’s parents after her death in November last year. …

Mr King said parts of Christie’s Law were “sophisticated” and “thought-through” but he said a suggested risk assessment tool to judge judges was “costly gobbledegook”.

He backed changes to the law that currently give a strong presumption of bail for those who are under 20, saying it would have made a difference in Christie’s case.

Rare for a defence lawyer to support a law change which will make it harder for defendants (under 20) to get bail, so good to see this. I think the key point is that the current law made it very hard for a Judge to refuse bail, and removing the presumption of bail may have meant Chand would not have got bail, and hence killed .

Tags: , ,

55 Responses to “Christie’s Law”

  1. F E Smith (3,304 comments) says:

    It is a bad case on which to base a law change, given the verdict and now committal of Chand to a hospital. It appears that a psych assessment would have been more appropriate, in which case bail could have been refused pending the report. Does anybody know if this was brought up?

    Personally, I have no issue with the current law. We should do all we can to avoid placing young people into Crim Uni. I am not surprised Greg does (each to their own) but note that he only supports parts of the law. I have found that most of the stuff coming out of the Sensible Sentencing Trust is incomprehensible, populist garbage. David Garrett’s involvement with the 3 Strikes Law made that campaign a welcome change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Why was he bailed to an address so close to hers?
    What assistance did probation provide?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Even if Chand had not been bailed, he was likely to be freed at some point in the near future, at which point he could have murdered Marceau. Those who try to turn the clock back seem to be living in a world where everything is simple and black and white. It’s similar to the Jill Meagher case in Melbourne. If she had gone home earlier, she might have lived. Yes, but some other poor woman might have been murdered by the same guy who allegedly killed Meagher.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Reid (16,227 comments) says:

    Why was he bailed at all? That’s my question. It would seem the law did allow bail refusal because it was first refused then granted on the basis of a letter that seemed sincere. As FES says a psychiatric referral was the way to go and how come the judge went down the release road when that option was available? Is it possible one becomes so inured after dealing with criminals all day every day for most of your working life, that one fails to see the innate badness and madness behind what Chand did in the first place? Doesn’t that show sufficient badness and madness to justify high suspicion or is it more like this sort of thing happens almost everyday so on the relative scale of things this guy doesn’t seem very bad nor mad at all? Cause he sure as hell sounded nuts to us when we first heard of what he did, before he got bail. I mean crikey, what the hell was he thinking, as he read the letter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    “We should do all we can to avoid placing young people into Crim Uni”

    One might argue we should do all we can to protect society from these characters. I couldn’t care less if you consider Prison “Crim Uni”- If violent offenders are inside it protects my family from them. Don’t try to tell me that some piss weak ‘Community Based’ sentence is going to stop a potential murderer/rapist, Steel bars will.
    Chand should have been behind bars after he was charged with kidnapping the poor girl. If he was held in Custody she would still be alive today….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > If he was held in Custody she would still be alive today….

    Wishful thinking. He would have served a finite and relatively short sentence…and then been released.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Stuart (41 comments) says:

    >Wishful thinking. He would have served a finite and relatively short sentence…and then been released.

    And during that time it likely would have been realised that he had serious mental issues, and either treated or an order made to keep him in a hospital. Even if this did not occur, bail leaves no opportunity to stop these criminals, custody does. His original crimes were not at all minor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    He kidnapped a person. Without doubt was guilty of that kidnapping trial or no. If you don’t get locked up for kidnapping and use of a knife there is something wrong with both the thinking and the law.

    FFS Stop being nice to arsewipes. Try protecting those that are subject to this type of shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Rightandleft (662 comments) says:

    Letting people out on bail just because they’re under 20 is ridiculous. If they are to be treated as adults under the law there’s no reason to have arbitrary rules around bail still treating them like kids. That part of the law needs to change right away. The rest of Christie’s Law concerns me, especially the naming of the law after a crime victim. Too many draconian laws in the US have been passed because nobody wants to vote against a bill named for an innocent crime victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. F E Smith (3,304 comments) says:

    reid,

    if the judge isn’t told that there is a psychiatric issue then the judge cannot do anything about it. If a judge does know, then he/she usually does take the appropriate course of action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Reid (16,227 comments) says:

    But FES surely he shouldn’t need to have been told that Chand had a ‘psychiatric issue.’ Surely to anyone sentient what this man did in the first place to initially place himself in custody, was prima facie both nuts and dangerous? I mean I just don’t understand how anyone reading about what this man did and said to Christie the first time, could conclude this guy didn’t have a psychiatric issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. duggledog (1,505 comments) says:

    In the absence of any protection by the State, (as if) does anyone know what steps Christie’s immediate family took to prevent the creep coming round? Was there a plan they made with Police, anything? Any security like a panic button or an alarm? A baseball bat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Reid (16,227 comments) says:

    A question to lawyers about this case. Is there a law whether ACC or anything else that rules out a civil suit for wrongful death being taken in due course against the Crown for the negligent actions of a judge?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    FES, eveyone opposed bail except the Judge.
    The judge failed in his duty to protect the innocent in favour of the “rights” of a kidnapping ,knife welding individual.

    He rubber stamped according to due process and without satisfactory enquiry. No doubt advised by some court lackey as well.

    We apparently pay these learned gentlemen and women a shit load of money to dispense justice and make various rulings. Clearly not worth the money. One would have to say lazy because most of the time the rulings have no consequences so thought time and enquiry given no effort..

    Just like other outfits that use/dispense the law in NZ there is no penalty for doing wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    I think there were some psychiatric reports earlier on FES, judging by what Marie Dryberg said last week. I think there may have also been an assumption that Chand either had help available or could source help. It’s unfortunate that this subject is so freely debated when few, including myself, know the full story.
    This has aspects of the Weatherston case about it, if only for it’s rarity. Here Chand found not guilty by reason of insanity and Weatherston giving all the impressions necessary of someone insane. It is a bad case on which to base a law change. I’d like to know why Chand wasn’t considered for electronic monitoring, or if that only applies to those already convicted.
    Being perfectly detached about it, and not wishing to be offensive to her, things might have been entirely different if Mrs Chand had contacted the police, particularly after her daughter also became scared of Chand and moved out. Psychiatrists from both sides confirmed that Chand had a mental illness with particular deterioration from early last year from what I recall reading.
    Because not all is known here something reported yesterday, that Chand had given Christie large amounts of money, that he ‘relented’ during the kidnapping, might have had some significance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. F E Smith (3,304 comments) says:

    reid,

    I’m not that familiar with the details, but if he was charged with kidnapping and threatening, then it doesn’t necessarily mean that a person has psychiatric issues at all. It might mean that they simply committed a crime. Some people are just not nice people, or are willing to do bad things if they don’t get their way.

    Judges are not clairvoyant, and they keep on getting told that the justice system costs too much money. If the Police thought that there was a psych issue then they should have flagged it in an opposition to bail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    Reid 5.12

    There’s one going against the Justice Department right now, the first – isn’t there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. F E Smith (3,304 comments) says:

    I think there may have also been an assumption that Chand either had help available or could source help

    That is an all too familiar statement when it comes to mentally ill people in the justice system, unfortunately. The thing is that those with mental disturbances of some sort often don’t think that they need psychiatric help and so do not seek assistance.  Or, if they seek assistance, those providing it are often dismissive or only provide minimal help.

    But, as you point out, this is a lot like Weatherston, which was another bit of poor, populist, law making, based upon a absolutely rarity of a case. 

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kea (12,030 comments) says:

    The last thing we need in this country is more emotive knee-jerk legislation. Exceptions do not make a rule and you can not make laws for every conceivable situation.

    The Judge made a mistake. You avoid can not eliminate human error.

    We need no more laws and should, instead, be repealing many we already have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    but if he was charged with kidnapping and threatening,

    He should be locked up till trial. End of story.

    Why is it that lawyer’s cirlce the wagons to protect their own overpaid brethern from making incompetent rulings?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. F E Smith (3,304 comments) says:

    V2,

    By ‘Everyone’, I presume that you mean the Police and the deceased’s family? Or did the lawyer representing Chand request a remand in custody on Chand’s behalf?

    He rubber stamped according to due process and without satisfactory enquiry. No doubt advised by some court lackey as well.

    No, the judge did not rubber stamp anything.  A decision is made and dictated for the file, giving the reasons as to why bail is being considered.  It was perfectly acceptable for the Police, if they felt so strongly that bail should not have been allowed, to appeal the decision on an immediate basis.  If they didn’t, then surely they should also be given some of the blame?

    I don’t know what you mean by ‘advised by some court lackey’, but given what you usually say about things like this it wouldn’t surprise me if you don’t know either.  The decision is the judge’s.  Information can be provided by Police, defence, Forensic services, or Community Probation.  However, as I said above, the Police could always have appealed.

    Go and read the law that Parliament passed and that the judge applied.  Sometimes there are unfortunate consequences from decisions that appear to be correct.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but until we can tell the future we cannot operate with that advantage in the present.

    One thing that should be remembered is that acquittals due to insanity are pretty rare in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Reid (16,227 comments) says:

    …if he was charged with kidnapping and threatening, then it doesn’t necessarily mean that a person has psychiatric issues at all.

    Yeah I know FES but with respect, why is that germane to my comment?

    Judges are not clairvoyant

    I don’t require that of them FES, but I do require sentience and that seems to me to be lacking here based on my I-live-life- like-we-all-do-and-sometimes-it’s-just-obvious law. I admit that’s not a real law (which isn’t fair), but it seems to me that if the common law is any good, then this action should be possible based not on law but on simple common sense and fiduciary duty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. F E Smith (3,304 comments) says:

    reid,

    I may have misunderstood you.  I was responding to this:

    surely he shouldn’t need to have been told that Chand had a ‘psychiatric issue.’ Surely to anyone sentient what this man did in the first place to initially place himself in custody, was prima facie both nuts and dangerous? I mean I just don’t understand how anyone reading about what this man did and said to Christie the first time, could conclude this guy didn’t have a psychiatric issue.

      Which is not necessarily the case. 

    And the common law has nothing to do with this; it is all about legislation, which is a different kettle of fish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    I don’t know what you mean by ‘advised by some court lackey’, but given what you usually say about things like this it wouldn’t surprise me if you don’t know either. The decision is the judge’s. Information can be provided by Police, defence, Forensic services, or Community Probation. However, as I said above, the Police could always have appealed.

    Its always the first line of defense to blame the system or someone else. As I said, were the consequences of decisions made subject to penalty, them more effort would go into making correct decisions. But like Union reps there is no penalty and they still get paid , never mind the results for those that they suppossedly represent.

    The judge represents our community and its efforts to keep it safe from criminals and scum. Our legislation may not always focus on that factor but its the Govt.’s absolute duty to protect its citizens from harm and it pays Judges a shit load of cash to do that.( along with people like police etc.)
    That they fail to do that is rightly subject to criticism and if whichever Minister was onto their duty as a Minister in Charge of Citizens saftey that person should be kicking some arse very hard.
    Oh you can’t mix the two you will say, but we pay tax to a Govt. who pays these people to do just that so why are they not accountable?

    Perhaps our Judges should be elected to their position rather than getting their by time served, like teachers.

    FES,Criminal Lawyers and Judges should see themselves as others see them sometimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Reid (16,227 comments) says:

    Which is not necessarily the case.

    I submit it is FES. I can’t understand how a Court of Common Sense would not conclude his decision wasn’t flawed, on the facts he had available. This is not a 20/20 hindsight issue, the prima facie assumption of danger to victim and not mentally stable, was obvious, at the time. This is not a media beat-up, either (for a change). It. Was. Obvious.

    And the common law has nothing to do with this; it is all about legislation, which is a different kettle of fish.

    I know but we’re talking torts and constitutional law here aren’t we which are highly subject to common law and I was really asking, has the common law addressed this issue of judicial competence before, as this incident surely isn’t the first in the commonwealth. I’m just wondering aloud, that’s all. If I were the parents I’d be talking to Mai Chen in due course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (12,030 comments) says:

    If I were the parents I’d be talking to Mai Chen in due course.

    I am not sure Mai Chen is the ideal lawyer, if your after the system being tougher on offenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    ‘This is not a 20/20 hindsight issue, the prima facie assumption of danger to victim and not mentally stable, was obvious, at the time.’

    Haven’t read that Reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,435) Says:
    October 22nd, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    ‘This is not a 20/20 hindsight issue, the prima facie assumption of danger to victim and not mentally stable, was obvious, at the time.’

    Haven’t read that Reid.
    —-

    Apparently suffering from the same inability to put a simple 2+2 =4 from the case in front of the Judge.
    Kidnap, Knife, threats etc etc
    Hardly rocket science even for a lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. F E Smith (3,304 comments) says:

     V2,

    The judge represents our community

    That is incorrect.  The Judge sits in place of the monarch in making decisions as an impartial arbiter between two sides in a case initiated by one of those sides. 

    The important word there being ‘impartial’.

    Our legislation may not always focus on that factor but its the Govt.’s absolute duty to protect its citizens from harm

    Of course.

    and it pays Judges a shit load of cash to do that.( along with people like police etc.)

    No, it doesn’t.  It pays the judges a large amount of cash to act as a judge in a case brought by a plaintiff in a case.  If the case is a criminal one, then we call the plaintiff a prosecutor.  

    That they fail to do that is rightly subject to criticism and if whichever Minister was onto their duty as a Minister in Charge of Citizens saftey that person should be kicking some arse very hard.

    Ministers have nothing to do, nor should they have anything to do, with the performance of judges on a day to day basis.

    Perhaps our Judges should be elected to their position

    Oh yes, because that is just what we need in the justice system: more populism.

    reid,

    But it isn’t a court of common sense, it is a court of law.  Law is passed by Parliament.  The constitutional protection of judges dates back to the Glorious Revolution.  Before that, judges could be (and were) dismissed if they displeased the Monarch. Which is basically what seems to be what everyone wants to return to

    So why not get rid of the risk? Get charged with a crime, then no bail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Reid (16,227 comments) says:

    So why not get rid of the risk? Get charged with a crime, then no bail.

    FES this decision was legitimately in this judges’ purvue. As you know I’m not arguing the purvue so I’m not sure why you raise it, but anyway, IMO the judge got it wrong just like the Captain of the Titanic got it wrong. Both did. It’s obvious. The only question is, should one pay in those circumstances, or not? And if so, how should that mechanism work to bring about the truly just result? That’s all I’m saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    I don’t know all the circumstances of the Titanic sinking Reid. This Judge made a decision according to the presumption of the Act already mentioned above and after considering all the facts submitted to him – I don’t how you can say that he got it wrong. It was the wrong decision knowing what we all know now, but he wasn’t in that position – either were apparently the police. I’m not sure at what point Chand’s mental illness was fully appraised – but certainly at some point psychiatrists for both the Crown and Defence agreed on it after his arrest for murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    Police opposed bail.
    The judge (with infinite wisdom) ignored police concerns and released Chand into the community.
    He promptly went round and slaughtered the girl.

    It staggers me that people here are suggesting the judge ‘got it right’…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    The Judge didn’t ignore police concerns, he took them into account.
    The police weren’t aware of the extent of Chand’s mental illness or else it would have been brought to the Court’s attention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. F E Smith (3,304 comments) says:

    Longknives,

    nobody is arguing that the judge got it right given what happened, it is just that it is far easier to see that it was an unfortunate decision with hindsight than at the time. In applying the law, the decision was most definitely open to the judge, so I, for one, don’t criticise the judge for making the decision he/she did. Sometimes things go wrong in a very bad way. We cannot, however, require judges to take such a low percentage approach to grants of bail. There are tens of thousands of grants of bail every year, yet very few ever have such serious consequences.

    Nostalgia, if the police didn’t know then the Judge didn’t have much chance of knowing either. So the mental illness was a factor that was very relevant to the murder, but was not apparent in court. That is a very important point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    I agree long knives it is,unbelievable idiots can say the judge got it right when he got it so obviously wrong. Mental illness has nothing to do with it – he went against the best advice.

    So

    “The Judge didn’t ignore police concerns, he took them into account” and then thumbed,his nose at everyone.

    Bring on judicial accountability laws.

    And Richard Nixon ‘s prattish remark that prisons are crim universities are as dumb as he was.

    No institution can churn out criminals as efficiently as the dysfunctional New Zealand family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    What ‘best advice’ was that Kevin? The advice against bail was given by the police, suddenly you know more than them? I haven’t read that they asked for a remand in custody pending a psychiatric report, have you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Viking2 (11,368 comments) says:

    Kidnapping. Against the law.
    Threatening bodily harm with a knife. Against the law
    Threatening to rape. against the law.
    Threatening to kill. against the law.
    Shall we go on?

    The bastard broke some serious law and a highly paid individual didn’t think to question his state of mind.

    Well it doesn’t matter as he gets his salary and is not affected by the result of his poor judgement and lack of inquisition.

    FES. You simply cannot hide behind your black coat and silly hat.
    In our local rag in the last day or so.
    Man sent to jail for threatening to kill a policeman. No Bail. Is there two standards for policemen and citizens?

    http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/33621-prison-threatening-police-officer.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    Police opposed his bail Nostalgia….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    V2- If you read the link he actually assaulted the cop as well…and one would imagine his criminal history isn’t exactly ‘squeaky clean’ to be sent to the clink

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kevin:

    And Richard Nixon ‘s prattish remark that prisons are crim universities are as dumb as he was.

    That’s a big call. Nixon may have been many things (and I think he got a bad rap, myself, all thing considered) but dumb was not one of them.

    And in this case he was 100% correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    The police generally oppose bail for god reason.

    This judge was just following the long tradition of the judiciary thumbing their noses at our safety. Sian Elias has done it to perfection and got rewarded with the job of Chief Justice.

    Many here give these judges too much of the benefit of the doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    So why not get rid of the risk? Get charged with a crime, then no bail.

    You were doing OK till that brain fart.

    Were you just playing DA?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yes I’m sorry for calling him dumb,luc. He was the opposite and got a very bad rap. He was seriously misguided about prisons though, probably just parroting some doper advisers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kevin

    In the circles I moved on for much of my life, they agreed with Nixon 100%. They reckoned prison was great for learning their trade – such as it was, mainly burglary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kevin (1,122 comments) says:

    Yeah but we make the mistake of letting them out.

    Although as i said they have now been far surpassed by the dysfunctional family. Judges excuse 40, 60, 80 crimes until they do something so heinous that prison is the only option. So you can NOT argue that prisons are training them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    Yes they did Longknives but apparently weren’t concerned enough to ask the Court for a remand for psychiatric evaluation. That’s the issue, his condition was not as apparent at the time of his bail, as it is now, and looking back to other events that show he has been suffering depression and illusions.
    The Crown is agreed on that position, as the Prosecutor said last week.
    If you read between the lines Chand seems to have thought he was in a relationship with Christie, on the other hand he was ‘serving’ voices that drove him to kill her – most particularly so because he seems to have ‘trusted’ her to not reveal what had happened in the incident for which he was first charged. By most accounts he was seeking vengeance or revenge. if ever it became so apparent – it was never more than his reply to Christie’s mum when she told him that he had killed Christie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    “Yes they did Longknives but apparently weren’t concerned enough …”

    You seem confused Nostalgia- A Police ‘Opposition to Bail’ is exactly as it sounds, an ‘Opposition to Bail’, meaning Police OPPOSE bail for the defendant as they have concerns about victim safety, reoffending, failing to appear etc etc
    Don’t let your well-known hatred of Police cloud this one Nostalgia- The Police were clear that they did not want this person released back into the community and the Judge simply ignored their concerns and chose to bail him…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Funny how times change……once upon a time a non white boy even bothering a white woman would have been beaten half to death and lynched from a tree……not allowed to keep doing it and eventually murdering her.

    Time moves on…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    Longknives

    If you have any proof that the Judge ‘simply ignored’ the police concerns take it up with the Justice Department, but apparently your concerns are just a tired old diatribe and not in anyway constructive, you are trying to cover a proposal that the Judge should ‘know’ things that aren’t before him or which he should somehow investigate himself.
    You seem to be totally confused with the fact that the Judge heard from the two sides and made his decision, he was not able to ignore either set of submissions and either party had the right of appeal. We know the police didn’t appeal, which would indicate that they hadn’t ‘seen’ the depth of insanity Chand was submerged in, or was about to become submerged in. If he’d told the Court, the police, or his counsel that he was hearing voices and that he had ‘cervical’ cancer then alarm bells would have sounded.
    We don’t know at this stage what the police submissions were against bail, but it is probably fairly evident from the fact that he was a first offender that the police had more contact and discussion with Chand than his own lawyer. It remains that the police having had that opportunity in court, and from contact with Chand, didn’t ask for a remand subject to a psychiatric report. Such requests are seldom denied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. kowtow (8,186 comments) says:

    karl du fresne’s take on the case. The Judge got it badly wrong.Bail is too easy.

    http://karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/what-was-that-about-accountability.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    ‘Police also opposed bail, pointing out to the judge that Chand was bent on revenge and that Christie was terrified of him.’

    Haven’t seen any evidence of this. In fact don’t believe it unless proved otherwise, not only because I doubt that not only would the Judge have overlooked it, but that police would have appealed. Presenting an ‘ongoing’ threat would have resulted in an application for bail being rejected. This claim is completely at odds with what Dryberg and King have said and put their names to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > He promptly went round and slaughtered the girl.

    Actually he didn’t. He waited a few weeks before he murdered her. If he’d been convicted – as he was subsequently – he might have served a year before being eligible for parole…at which time he might have murdered Marceau. Then all the Right Wing nutters wouldn’t be complaining about bail laws, they’d be complaining about parole. And if it wasn’t parole, it’d be something else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Police did oppose bail. Interestingly, Chand was initially denied bail. He made a second application before bail was granted.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10841266

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “The police opposition document said the biggest risk in allowing Chand bail was that he might interfere with witnesses – namely Christie and her mother.”

    Interfering with witnesses is presumably not the same as harming them. Did police actually oppose bail because they were fearful of Marceau’s safety? It is not at all clear that was the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nostalgia-NZ (5,097 comments) says:

    This desire for revenge still exists,” it said

    From the Herald article it shows that indeed it was said that a desire for revenge still existed. However, that was the police contention and was opposed by Chand’s own letter. Reading all of that again it still is clear that there weren’t concerns about the nature of his psychosis or that it was considered he was psychotic at all.

    Probably shows again that Chand’s mentall illness either wasn’t present during his time on remand, or during police interviews because there is nothing mentioned about it in the police submission. Clearly they didn’t know and of course following that the Judge couldn’t have known. A very rare and sad case.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.