A prime candidate for three strikes

August 17th, 2013 at 8:30 am by David Farrar

The Press reports:

A man whose “appalling” record of violent offending is the worst a judge has seen has jailed for five years and nine months.

Justin James Taia, 40, was sentenced today on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure after being found guilty by a Christchurch District Court jury.

Taia beat up a St Albans neighbour, Vaea Lam, who suffered serious head and brain injuries and had to have part of his skull removed. He lost five teeth.

Crown prosecutor Deidre Orchard said the head injury almost resulted in Lam’s death, and Taia had an alarming history of violence.

Lam was in court, and Taia called out: “Yeah, but I didn’t start this. You should man up, man.”

Full of repentence!

Taia had the most appalling record for violence he had seen, with 16 previous violence convictions.

Sadly he was in court just two years ago.

A man who punched and stomped on his mother, and attacked his wife, both of whom had protection orders against him, was jailed today. 

Justin James Taia, 38, was sentenced at Christchurch District Court after being convicted of assaulting his mother with intent to injure her, assaulting his wife, and two charges of breaching protection orders.

Judge John Strettell said these were Taia’s 12th and 13th assault charges and his sixth and seventh breaches of protection orders. …

He sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment, with release conditions to attend counselling programmes and treatment as recommended by his probation officer.

He came close to killing someone this time. I presume he now has his first strike offence. Its madness that he just goes in and out of jail time after time, and his list of victims grows larger.

Tags: ,

50 Responses to “A prime candidate for three strikes”

  1. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    What the fuck is wrong with there judges that talk tough at sentencing and then give this guy and others such a light sentence. If the judges hands are tied then the legislators have to do their job. Most of the guys at my local would do a better job of sentencing such low life for a lot less money.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Hodor (38 comments) says:

    More like a prime candidate for the 20c solution – a bullet

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    Three strikes should mean deportation for non-NZ offenders, even if they have been granted NZ citizenship; it would save our taxpayers millions per annum. We are feting too many foreign criminals lives of Riley in our 5-star prisons even, in some cases, giving them our hard-earned monies because they state they have been ill-treated. Time we got real on these losers, even though they may be a source of Labour/Green votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Judges and others seem to be very naive about all these court ordered courses , counseling etc..much of it never happens..I know a guy who has been ordered to have drug and alcohol treatment about four times by a judge..It is yet to happen because Probation is so slack..Almost no one wants to work there and most working there are just filling in time or they are Poms getting residency. This man’s family got him involved with a maori provider and were feeling hopeful that finally he would get on a course..He has been turned down cos he is considered ”a danger to himself and others.” It is is almost impossible to win in this system where words and orders virtually mean nothing. To be fair , he has received more indirect help thru the Maori provider than he has ever received elsewhere.
    Jamie Parker’s Judge is just as naive thinking the parole board will get him treatment..They are as useless as Probation..All these ”enforcers” who never themselves get anything enforced on them..It is a very expensive farce.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Simon (712 comments) says:

    No doubt in will be in the news again in a few years time.

    When he is on probation would house him in John Strettell’s street.

    Half way houses should be where DC judges live.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    I think there are very few half way houses left in NZ. There were big ones in the 80s.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. peterwn (3,211 comments) says:

    He presumably committed the earlier crime before 31 May 2010 or he would have copped strike 1 for that. I am assuming that the date when the crime was committed is what counts for the commencement of the 3 strikes system.

    Coming to think of it, the DCJ should have referred the matter to the High Court with a view of a Preventative Detention sentence. The HCJ probably would not impose Preventative Detention in this case (the hurdle is very high) but at least the appropriate reports would have been obtained and the judge would have had to spell out why PD did not cut the mustard.

    It is not clear when the prisoner’s outburst “Yeah, but I didn’t start this. You should man up, man.” occurred. If it occurred during the sentencing hearing, IMO the judge should have stopped the sentencing, or ‘recalled’ the sentence so the prisoner’s attitude could be taken into account. Again IMO, the circumstances fit the Preventative Detention criteria quite well, and that is what should have happened. It is almost certain that he will commit further serious crimes of violence and it is very likely that two more innocent victims are going to suffer grave injuries at his hands before he faces Preventative Detention.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Judith (8,402 comments) says:

    It sounds as though this guy has psychiatric problems that go beyond behaviour. It is highly unlikely he will ever be able to live in the open community without him being of danger to anyone that upsets him (in his own mind), unless he is on supervised care and on the appropriate medication.

    Sadly when we closed many of our mental facilities we have left people, such as this guy, without anywhere to live that makes the rest of us safe.

    He should be incarcerated at the Mason Clinic under legislation that makes his sentence indefinite. No one with a history of violence as severe as that can be considered as a ‘well’ or sane person.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. WineOh (601 comments) says:

    @ Hodor, your grasp of written language is impressive considering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Reid (16,096 comments) says:

    No one with a history of violence as severe as that can be considered as a ‘well’ or sane person.

    Judith there are tens of thousands of people just like him walking around NZ right now. He is not unusual. The report from yesterday said he had a propensity to take offence if he perceived someone was looking at him funny. That’s the tell for people like these. Mostly they’re young callow males but this guy, unusually, has retained that propensity into his late 20′s and 30′s when most people of this ilk, lose it.

    But make no mistake, this is common. As a male I understand it and I know exactly where it comes from and I can spot them a mile away and I’m not unusual. The issue is that the touchy-feely psychobabble approach to justice treats people with this attitude as poor little darlings who just can’t help it and that’s a big mistake, because if you take that approach to people like this they will simply turn around and figuratively spit in your face as you try, with this approach, to “help” them.

    The trick is that this attitude does arise from the lack of love they received as a child, and normally the correct response is to respond with love. But correcting this particular attitude actually requires the opposite response which is to descend on them with implacable ruthlessness like a ton of bricks. This is because the only thing people with this particular attitude understand and respond to is a greater anger than they themselves feel inside them. Only then do these people wake up and start to respond. Then and only then do you apply the love, as part II of the treatment plan. And if you don’t do both parts it won’t work, you have to do both.

    This is a distinct and treatable mental condition same as any other, but the problem is because the psychiatric profession is obsessed with politically correct psychobabble it’s not recognised as different from anyone else with an anger problem and they’re all lumped in together and given the same treatment plan. It’s an example of the same blindness that lefties have toward beneficiaries whereby they hallucinate that the way to help them is to provide “wrap-around” services so as to cuddle them rather than teaching them they are capable creatures of light able to do anything they wish, provided they discipline themselves. The former approach creates learned helplessness whereas the latter approach unleashes their human potential. Same problem exists here, just in the justice arena not the social welfare arena.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    Wait for the whanau of this animal to jump to his defense.
    Another poor victim of colonisation. Same old, same old.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. backster (2,122 comments) says:

    It seems he should have been charged with ‘intent to cause Grievous bodily harm” (max14 years) rather than intent to injure’ causing grievous bodily harm (max 7years) only semantics really but 7 years difference. Now he only ends up doing about 2 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    @backster

    If rape carries 20 year so should GBH. I would say in a case like the harm to the victim of GBH would be far greater than many rape victim. The sentence this guy got is pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Judith (8,402 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,712) Says:
    August 17th, 2013 at 11:22 am
    ———————————

    I believe in cases where the victim has only been saved due to advanced medical intervention, that a sentence equivalent to murder should be given. Rather than GBH, it should be attempted murder and receive the same sentence as it would have, had the person died.

    Why should the perpetrator be spared just because the doctors did a good job?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    Judith would you do me a big favour and quit posting the way you do. People have mistaken similar posts made as my words. You have been asked by someone else before.

    No one else posts like you so please stop it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Reid (16,096 comments) says:

    Judith the italic tag is easy, when you type your post you just surround the quote with the tag like this: [i]text[/i] except use a left and right arrow where the square brackets are.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    Firstly, the Crown chose the charge, not the judge.  The judge can only sentence on the charges that are before him. If you have a problem with that, then you all need to start criticising the Crown prosecutors involved.  But see what I write below before you do so.

    Secondly, the offender got 5 years 9 months out of a maximum possible 7 years, so that is very close to the maximum that the judge could have given.  If you have a problem with the maximum allowable sentence as set out in the Crimes Act then you need to criticise Parliament, which sets the maximum sentences.

    Thirdly, the judge is no fool and is fully aware that the chances of Taia getting the help he needs in prison is slim.  After all, the judge spent time as both a Crown prosecutor and a top level defence lawyer before being elevated to the Bench.  He is very familiar with how the system does not work.  But that is not the judge’s fault, it is the fault of Corrections for having a dysfunctional system.  The judge has to give them as much opportunity as possible to help treat Taia, even if much of it will be futile.  Unfortunately, the judiciary cannot force Corrections to meet their obligations.

    It seems he should have been charged with ‘intent to cause Grievous bodily harm” (max14 years) rather than intent to injure’ causing grievous bodily harm (max 7years) only semantics really but 7 years difference.

    Backster, as an ex-cop you well know that the level of offence charged is as much about what level of intent you can prove as much as anything else.  If you charge at a higher level than you can prove then you risk the jury coming in with a ‘not guilty’ verdict.

     Now he only ends up doing about 2 years.

    And that is rubbish, and you know it.  He is eligible for parole in just under 2 years, but there is no way he will get it.  Most likely Taia will serve almost all of his sentence.

    Please note, everybody, that nothing I have said justifies either Taia or his attack on the victim, nor has it argued for a lighter sentence.

    Now, go ahead and downvote away!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. cha (3,850 comments) says:

    If only the dumb Maori had killed his victim and then disposed of the evidence the most widely read blog in the country would’ve ignored him.

    /

    Pakenham was also sentenced on two separate charges of injuring with intent to injure two other women in Auckland between 1990 and 1992.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10913336

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    @cha

    If you want to make racist comments like that why not use you full real name? We have a practicing female white lawyer who on the balance of probabilities assisted in some pretty gruesome murders. Now physically but I would bet Mr Asia got some advise from her. Of course I cannot prove it but I think the majority of people around at the time would agree with me.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. cha (3,850 comments) says:

    You know chuck, I’m consoled by the fact that you’re an old man whose prurient interest in other peoples lives will be over soon enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Michael (899 comments) says:

    Slightly off topic, but remember when three strikes was introduced and there were cries from those of a left leaning persuasion that people would be receive disproportionate sentences for the crimes committed? Yet, we only hear about rat bags like Taia who it would seem that three strikes is two too many.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    we only hear about

    This is a key point, Michael.  There is a lot that happens that never makes it to the newspapers or the TV, so the public ony get a small sample of what actually happens in the Courts.

    Unfortunately, it means that the public have a very skewed sample when it comes to making assumptions about criminal justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    We have a practicing female white lawyer who on the balance of probabilities assisted in some pretty gruesome murders.

    That is an allegation that suggests that you don’t really understand what the balance of probabilities is (it requires actual evidence, not just association), plus it is getting close to being defamatory.  Are you in a position to prove that assertion on the balance of probabilities?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    I understand the balance of probabilities better than some judges and most definitely better than Judge Ninnie.

    Could be getting close but on the balance of probabilities I would say I am right and I think so would the majority of a jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. labrator (1,846 comments) says:

    I’m consoled by the fact that you’re an old man whose prurient interest in other peoples lives will be over soon enough

    That’s a pretty sick thought to have let alone put to paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    Michael: Not only were the leftie opponents of 3S loudly decrying how it would create disproportionate sentences for repeat offenders (I got a little tired of trying to explain that that was the whole POINT; keep doing it, and the consequences get exponentially more severe) but those people are still doing it.

    The latest minor outcry and major piece of sophistry is crododile tears over second striker Elijah Whaanga, a vicious thug with more than 20 convictions as a adult. Whaanga was repeatedly described as “a playground bully” – despite his not being a schoolboy, and his crimes having been committed in street agg robbs – because his second strike offence involved the violent theft of a skateboard.

    No mention in the Nat Rad programme (the BSA has my complaint) of his FIRST strike offence, which involved a vicious beating in the street, and the robbery of $68, which happened to be all the victim had on him. No mention of his 60 plus previous convictions before that, 20 of them as an adult.

    I do admit I hope the first third striker – who we will probably have within 12 months because lenient judges have given short first and second strike sentences – will be a bit harder to portray as a misunderstood choirboy, and the victim of colonization.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. smttc (711 comments) says:

    Actually DG, I would be quite happy if Whaanga is the first to get a third strike and the maximum sentence for the associated offence. It would send a message to the criminal community as to how easy it is to incur some serious penal time if you do not mend your ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    David do you lose sleep at night with injustice of some scumbag getting a longer sentence than a case when somebody who was an even more violent thug?

    Some Appeal Court judge should tell these scumbags lawyer to inform his client that live is not fair and it certainly was not fair for his victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    Chuck: Well said…and talking of life being not fair for victims, I am involved right now in trying to settle claims for William Bell’s remaining victims (Hobson having been finalised a couple of weeks ago). the stories of the impact on the families would make a stone fucking statute cry…and full marks to the Chief Exec of Corrections – the third one since the murders – to finally front up to the families.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    What do everyone think James Parker’s lawyer? If he a fucking moron or plain dishonest. If he thinks Parker can be cured would he happy for him to babysit his kids or grandkids?

    We here all this shit from FES that there is no guarantee Parker will not out ever. He seems to think non lawyer are stupid. We bloody all that.

    Parker is a low lifes sociopath but he ain’t fucking stupid.

    Has FES considered the differect effect on his victims if Parker get 7 year MNP or they throw away the bloody key.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    What a bunch of redneck bastards you lot are.

    Taia is clearly a victim of colonisation and as such he cannot be responsible for his actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    Chuck, your bitterness with the legal profession and with me is showing through and it isn’t a good look.

    Now, with regards with the off-topic points that you raise:

    What do everyone think James Parker’s lawyer? If he a fucking moron or plain dishonest.

    He is neither.  What is lacking is your understanding of the role that Parker’s lawyer plays in the process.  Parker’s lawyer has been in practise for 42 years, so he is no fool.  He was making submissions based upon his instructions, which are the vital point. 

    A defence lawyer’s role is to put forth what his client would say if his client had the knowledge and skills of the lawyer.  What the lawyer must not do is present his own opinion, that is neither his role nor his place.  In this case, he was making submissions to the Court based upon what his client instructed him.  No doubt he thought that there was something within the expert reports that allowed those submissions to be made in accordance with his instructions.

    And before you say that a lawyer can lie to the court if instructed, stop; that just isn’t true and we exercise our judgment on such things regularly.

    If he thinks Parker can be cured would he happy for him to babysit his kids or grandkids?

    Perhaps he would, perhaps he wouldn’t.  The main point is that he was advancing his client’s opinion, not his own.  What Mr Witten-Hannah thinks of Parker is entirely irrelevant to his representation of him.

    We here all this shit from FES that there is no guarantee Parker will not out ever.

    I am not sure what comment of mine you are referring to, with this.  It is possible that he will get out, but it is not at all guaranteed.  I note that, of 250 odd people subject to such a sentence, I think under 20 are currently on parole.  That doesn’t bode well for Mr Parker ever being released, but much will depend on psychiatric reviews once the MPI part of his sentence is done.

    He seems to think non lawyer are stupid.

    I have never said that and I don’t think that.  Indeed, I have often said the opposite.

     We bloody all that.

    I have no idea what that means.

    Parker is a low lifes sociopath but he ain’t fucking stupid.

    Entirely possible.  I don’t know what the diagnoses was in the psych reports available at sentencing.  Obviously they were not good for Mr Parker.

    Has FES considered the differect effect on his victims if Parker get 7 year MNP or they throw away the bloody key.

    Again, I don’t really know what this means.  I have had nothing to do with the Parker case and I have not criticised the sentence at all.  The 7 year MPI is the minimum that he must spend in prison.  In no way is it a maximum. 

    To be honest, I think the above quote is mostly gibberish.  Have you been drinking, Chuck?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Same ole same…wet bus tickets handed out to all when in reality they should be locked up for life.

    Like all the child beaters/killers…a week of tut tutting on blogs , in the newspapers etc and…scumbags found guilty , slapped with wet bus tickets , out in 3- 5 ready to do it again…

    Countries a joke. No one listens to Joe Public anymore. Treated with contempt by an out of touch judiciary.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    Excellent points LAJ.

    If people break the law in the first place, then why shouldn’t judges when sentencing? Once we get over that minor procedural hiccup, then the courts could run on-line opinion polls in order to enable Mr J Public to arrive at an appropriate sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    LAJ: Only partly justified IMO..Certainly 3S was necessary because there were – and are – a number of Judges who were either unprepared or unable to reflect the attitudes of the society on whose behalf they act. Those judges still get considerable discretion at strike two, in that they can give a lesser sentence knowing it will be served without parole. At stage three though – and we are rapidly reaching the point where will be get our first third strikers – that discretion is mostly removed, and that is exactly what the legislation intended.

    However…in the case of this POS Parker, I think Justice Heath got it pretty well right…he must act within the constraints of the law and sentencing practice as it stands, and in that context, PD for a person who has never been before the court before is a heavy sentence…in fact it wasnt even possible until quite recently. Had he given – say – conssecutive sentences on each charge, he simply would have been overturned on appeal, and got a spanking from the Court of Appeal. They too must apply the law as it is, and not what they might like it to be.

    If FES is still here he can correct me if I am wrong: Isn’t the burden and standard of proof quite different for a Preventive detainee who seeks release as opposed to an “ordinary” parolee? I believe it is. I thought Justice Heath’s explanation as published in todays Herald for why he imposed the sentence he did was pretty sound…I would strongly suggest that those commenting on this particular sentence read that first.

    Still interested to hear from FES or Graeme E on the differing burdens and standards of proof for PDers and ordinary candidates for parole.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    FES, I will just address you last point tonight and come back to the rest tomorrow.

    The only part you claim to be gibberish is that I said 7 year MNP instead of MPI.

    I find it bloody amassing you do not know the difference for the victims if Parker has a chance of parole of no chance.

    If he is there till he croaks the victims can move on with their lives. If he can be paroled that means the victims have the difficult choice of not appearing before the parole board because it brings back memories or reliving the offending.

    I will tackle you first point tonight. So you are trying to tell me that Parkers lawyers duty is to follow his clients instructions even if it includes lying on behave of his client. I bet he know like 90%+ of the Public that Parker is very likely to offend if released even if he is castrated or tol old to get it up.

    When he says Parker can be cured that is a true but bloody dishonest statement. Of course he can be cured but maybe a volcanic will erupt in Auckland tomorrow. He is playing with words to mislead the court. He knows the chances are bloody slim of Parker not re-offend if released. The sentence the judge gave Parker is bloody unfair on the victims.

    No need to tell me the role of the lawyer. I bloody know they are paid often by the State to lie for their scumbag clients.

    In an earlier life I worked as a trainee psychiatric nurse at the old Oakley Hospital. Maybe some old fashion aversion therapy could help. Have you hears of a Peter meter?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Graeme Edgeler (3,276 comments) says:

    Still interested to hear from FES or Graeme E on the differing burdens and standards of proof for PDers and ordinary candidates for parole.

    Very much so. People on indeterminate sentences – whether it’s life or preventive – have a much harder time getting parole. It is impossible for someone to get parole at first eligibility for preventive detention or life imprisonment. The system simply is not set up to work that way. It used to be possible for lifers, and I guess you could come up with a scenario, but not really.

    If someone has a finite sentence, they will get released, so while they might not get parole first time up, they will get it at some point, unless they are a really really bad prisoner (we’re talking close to Stewart Wilson levels). The simple fact is that if the parole board knows you are getting out they will think (I think sensibly) that the public will be safer if when you are released, they are empowered to impose the special conditions that they can during parole. If they wait until the very end, they can only impose the much more minimal standard conditions, and don’t have the threat of recall to prison.

    With someone on an indeterminate sentence, this isn’t the case, so the assessment of whether there is an undue risk doesn’t need to take account of the concern “well, if we release you six months later but without the power to have a parole officer supervise you, you will be more of a risk”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Reid (16,096 comments) says:

    I rather suspect Parker is going to be the veritable model of the “good” prisoner because I rather suspect he’ll follow every single instruction the system will give him and every course they assign him for his “therapy,” so following the first hearing at which such will be assessed and noted, at the second hearing onward it’s going to be difficult for the Parole Board to find a reason to keep him inside.

    Won’t that be inconvenient.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    @Graeme Edgeler

    “If someone has a finite sentence, they will get released”

    With respect I disagree. If he got 7 years consecutive for each victim it would be a long time before he came up for parole.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    Chuck,

    you are being an idiot. What I have said is plain and clear. Don’t pretend it means other that what it says and then give me answers to what you pretend I am saying. Like I said, your bitterness is showing through and it isn’t pretty.

    Graeme,

    I’m not aware of any legislative imperative or judicial decision that gives a reverse onus for parole on the prisoner in cases of indeterminate sentences. Do you know of anything of that sort?

    I read your comment to say that s7 Parole Act has the effect of making it much tougher on people sentenced to Preventive Detention to gain parole, given that the stated puporse of Preventive Detention gives a very neat answer to the question(s) that s7 requires the Parole Board to answer (and I agree with your points, btw).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    @FES

    We just have different views. You care more about the viscous criminal or sex offender and that due process. This is obvious as it did not even occur to you the stress caused to victims going to repeated parole hearings. If you think you know so much tell us how many parole hearing the parents of Michael Choy went to? I presume you know who Michael Choy was.

    “you are being an idiot”

    When logic fails try character assassination. Typical lawyer’s tool.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. cha (3,850 comments) says:

    Have you hears of a Peter meter?

    Wow chuck, I had no idea that you see yourself as a top with a devotion to sexual sadism – sort of fits in nicely with your enduring love of cock and other men’s clackers though.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    You care more about the viscous criminal or sex offender and that due process.

    No to the first, absolutely to the second.

    This is obvious as it did not even occur to you the stress caused to victims going to repeated parole hearings.

    Eh?  How is that relevant to me and anything that I said on this thread at all?  You brought up Parker on a thread that is about Taia.  Anyway, most victims never attend a parole hearing related to offences against them, nor even make a submission about it.

    If you think you know so much tell us how many parole hearing the parents of Michael Choy went to?

    What?  Again, how on earth is that relevant to anything?

    I presume you know who Michael Choy was.

    Of course I do.  I still don’t see the relevance.

    That is it, I am sick of your thread-jacks, off-topic rants, and aggressive bitterness towards me. No more.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    Chuck

    So I’m guessing that hearing didn’t go to well then. Or was it the remedial comprehension course at night school that didn’t turn out for you? Perhaps you should ask for a refund.

    You could just take up graffiti. That way you can dispense with the transparent pretence of maintaining a dialogue with someone who has relevant expertise and has taken the trouble to engage with you in a logical and rational manner.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    @thedavincimode

    The judge took a sicky. Are you able think for yourself?

    I am fairly confident i will win my case in the District Court. However, the likelihood of actually getting money out of the failed property developer, failed lawyer and failed dead beat dad are slim.

    Nothing is certain in court so i could lose but not likely. It does not make sense to employ a lawyer who may improve my chance of a judgement but not of getting any money in my hand.

    I could end up with a lawyer like FES who does not think it his duty to take cost benifit analysis into account.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    Are you able think for yourself?

    Actually yes. That’s why when I read your exchange with FES it seemed to go something like this:

    FES: “The moon is made of blue cheese.”

    Chuck: “Wrong, because there is too much tomato sauce in my hamburger”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Judith (8,402 comments) says:

    @ Chuck

    I think you need to stop and take some of the comments aimed at you, on board.

    Obviously you are experiencing a stressful time, part of which seems to have been made worse by the fact you refuse to engage professional legal advice.

    Despite that point, you seem to take great exception to the fact that the courts won’t accommodate your special requirements because you’ve made that decision. On top of that, you now appear to find anyone that is a member of the legal profession to be at least partly responsible for the position you find yourself in.

    FFS, either get over it or get a lawyer. But for goodness sake, this campaign of yours is getting tiresome to read. You’ve made your point, no one appears to agree with you, and bullying them is not going to change that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Chuck Bird (4,759 comments) says:

    @Judith

    Thank you for taking my advise. I was quite embarrassed when someone attributed one of your posts to me because of your unique way of responding to posts.

    What really concerns me is that some of these arrogant lawyers may become judges.

    I know some on this site think I am arrogant because I have simple philosophy and that is if there is a conflict between between common sense and ideology or so called due process I will go for common sense every time.

    As much as I admire Judith Collins for her courageous handling of DB’s compo claim and but she is wrong in the case of Pora.

    It is plain common sense that the probability of Pora being guilty is extremely remote. He should have been out jail a long time ago and could be out tomorrow rather that follow due process.

    Another thing. If these judges are so bloody smart how come there are so many innocent people being convicted and guilty ones walking.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Honeybadger (189 comments) says:

    ‘He came close to killing someone this time.’ Oh well, next time,,,,, then maybe strike no 2?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. corrigenda (142 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird: Another thing. If these judges are so bloody smart how come there are so many innocent people being convicted and guilty ones walking.

    The trouble with the judges is too much of the “old boy network” and the way they work with the lawyers, after all they were lawyers themselves once. We have a case of a lawyer lying in a court document and the judge says ok, so no punishment for the lawyer and the judicial committee says judges word law!!!! Pack of corrupt a**holes the lot of them!!!

    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.