General Debate 20 August 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment214

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (214)

Login to comment or vote

Left Right and Centre

dime 2:37 pm NZRU policy. Distance between Europe and NZ. Size of NZ rugby market.

Means a mix of the best and next best players. Not the best players eligible to play playing for the All Blacks.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 8:14pm
Chuck Bird

” I am more than happy to correct myself if I have mistyped something, misquoted something, or just changed my mind.”

How about if you are just plain wrong?
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 8:22pm
bhudson

How about if you are just plain wrong?

Is that “just plain wrong” as in fact, or “just plain wrong” as in doesn’t agree with you?
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 8:28pm
F E Smith

In criminal cases? Or other areas of law?

Crime. But if the Governement brings in a Family Law Service and thus becomes NZs biggest family law firm in addition to being NZs biggest Criminal Defence firm, then I presume that might occur there as well.

It would seem that the PDS isn’t as popular as the Government would like ot think. It is also more expensive on the bigger cases than the private bar, but we knew that already. Right now they mostly duck the big cases, but sooner or later they will have to step up and then watch their cost per case blow out!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 8:35pm
F E Smith

hey, bereal, I mispelled ‘to’. See, it says ‘ot’ when it is meant to be ‘to’.

Thought I would just alert you to that…
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 8:42pm
Left Right and Centre

I’m guessing I appreciate warmer weather more so than my countrymen who use heaters with reckless abandon. It’s toasty warm and I’m loving it and it’s just such a relief from the coldest of winter.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 8:45pm
thedavincimode

Is that “just plain wrong” as in fact, or “just plain wrong” as in doesn’t agree with you?

Neither I suspect hudson. It’s just plain wrong.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 9:53pm
bhudson

^^ Ah, well that explains it then.

Scales from eyes, and all that jazz.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 9:59pm
muggins

F E Smith

You may not see this tonight , but if you do,here is another question.

If your client says that he will admit to wearing “something” that is in evidence are you obliged to tell the prosecutor that your client will be admitting to wearing that “something”?
I don’t quite understand what you mean the lawyer would have opened on that. Do you mean when the lawyer takes his client through his evidence-in- chief?
What I am getting at is if your client has told you he will be admitting to wearing something would you not be obliged to tell the prosecutor that?
That way the prosecutor would not have to ask your client is he was wearing that “something” because you would have told him your client would be admitting to that [in his evidence-in-chief].
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 10:08pm
F E Smith

muggins,

No, you are not obliged to tell the prosecutor that. However, if it is not a fact that is being contested by your client, but it is one that is important in the case, then it might be admitted in advance through an agreed statement of facts, or you might lead it in evidence-in-chief. Also, if you do so early on then you might get a little credit for it from the judge if your client is found guilty.

Most defence counsel do not tell the prosecution what their client will say in the witness box, except in situations where we are challenging a prosecution witness where they are contradicting what our client will say in evidence. If that happens, then we are obliged to put the contradictory evidence (and only the contradictory evidence) that the defendant will give to the prosecution witness for their comment.

When I say that you might have opened on it, I mean in an opening statement to the jury, or to the judge alone if you are given permission to make one.

Although we are supposed to discuss the case with the proseuction early on now, we still don’t have to give them everything that comes our way. We do have to notify them of what any expert witnesses will say, and the prosecution also has to tell us if they have an expert witnesses.

Hope that answers your question. If you would like me to clarify more, just say.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 10:25pm
Kanz

muggins (2,538) Says:
August 20th, 2013 at 10:08 pm

muggins, just get over yourself. The answer is no! Your hero either double crossed his client or he is lying now.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 10:26pm
F E Smith

muggins, just get over yourself. The answer is no! Your hero either double crossed his client or he is lying now.

Have I missed something?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 10:27pm
Kanz

Have I missed something?

What he is talking about is the lawyer apparently telling the prosecution something the defendant will admit to, before a trial, then the defendant saying the opposite when being cross examined.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 10:34pm
F E Smith

Oh, that is seriously embarrassing. Not a good look at all, and one reason why you should not tell the prosecution such things without authorisation in writing!!!

EDIT: Of course, if the defendant authorised it and then changed his mind, then there really isn’t much you can do about that. Still embarrassing, though.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 20, 2013 11:13pm

More comments:

‹
1
2
3

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« What will growth reach?

Will Lianne allow Orion to price gouge? »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

#ANZAC: "year after year, the numbers grow fewer, who remember what we're not forgetting"
Not PC
Maori Party (with “disgust”) draws attention to Chhour’s race after the High Court rules on Waitangi Tribunal’s summons
Utopia
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Maori Party (with “disgust”) draws attention to Chhour’s race after the High Court rules on Waitangi Tribunal’s summons
Point of Order
Die In for Palestine Marks ANZAC day – Peace Action Wellington
The Daily Blog
"Comity" versus the rule of law
No Right Turn
New Zealand Needs a Security Alliance Fast
The Standard
Memory
No Minister
Jacinda’s legacy – Increasing number of abortions
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
REEFTON – THE NEW PARIS
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 15
Stats Chat
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz