How stupid is the Judge feeling now?

July 9th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

A video of the Maori King’s son has emerged showing him making an expletive-laden rant. …

The source said Mr Paki was his school’s kaitataki tane (male leader in a kapa haka group) but was kicked out of the team for bad behaviour while on the trip and sent home.

In the 25 second video, Mr Paki says; “rubbish c###, rubbish…I’m the f###### man boy. I’ll f###### show you how to lead a f###### roopu (group) boy, I’ll f###### show you what the f### is up c###.

I’m the f####### kaitataki f###### tane (male leader)..o te motu boy. I’m the f###### man, I’ll show you what is f###### up c###.”

And the Judge let him off his crimes on the basis it may stop him becoming the Maori King one day. Yeah, right. You don’t need to be a genius to work out his older brother will succeed, and  is no potential successor.  Of course even if he was, I think it is repugnant that someone gets a lighter (or no) sentence purely on the basis of who his parents are.

Tags:

193 Responses to “How stupid is the Judge feeling now?”

  1. deadrightkev (327 comments) says:

    There is no such thing as The Maori King.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Mighty_Kites (83 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 45 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. altiora (217 comments) says:

    I do wonder whether the Law Society can move against the lawyer for making false submissions, assuming he was aware of this.

    That said, I doubt it. I was taught at Professionals Training to say when making submissions on sentence such rubbish as “my client comes from [insert name of posh suburb] and is highly respected around those parts, and this conviction has had a terrible effect on his standing in that community” etc etc.

    When I remonstrated to my instructor as to how the offender’s suburb could be relevant, and as to the morality and troubling implications of such submissions (ie, those in less posh suburbs should get the full penalty), my concerns were dismissed by the instructor as mere quibbles.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dubya (222 comments) says:

    No, Mighty Kites, his co-accused got exactly the same (fucking) sentence as him.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    So John Key’s son would get off similar charges because he might want to be PM one day ?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (7,919 comments) says:

    Ditch the treaty.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. altiora (217 comments) says:

    Mighty Kites: there is no principle in law that requires the co-accused to get the same sentence; the sentence is imposed having regards to the individual circumstances of the offender and offending. You should review some of the postings on this matter by some of KB’s lawyer readers, which set out why the sentence is extremely peculiar. And one might add, why it is likely that the Crown will appeal the sentence.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Elaycee (4,332 comments) says:

    Dame Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu will be turning in her grave.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. All_on_Red (1,487 comments) says:

    Maybe the Judge thinks #boys will be boys…

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. questions (186 comments) says:

    Bloody Maaarriis, they always get it easy in the justice system.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. SW (229 comments) says:

    altiora and kiwiblog lawyer readers – please set out what was unusual about this case with a link to the judgment if possible.

    Upon further reading this seems to me like a very sensible sentence and has nothing to do with the boys parentage.

    I don’t see why the Judge would feel embarrised about a video of the kid swearing quite frankly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Yes questions, I mean Maori are only 50% of the prison population: it should be a lot higher.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. unaha-closp (1,137 comments) says:

    Around such kings are republics built.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. holysheet (297 comments) says:

    What do you expect from a failed lawyer.
    Good lawyers remain lawyers.
    All the bad ones become judges.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Yogibear (348 comments) says:

    Mikenmild

    Thanks for pointing that statistic out. Given the left are very keen to use demographics and statistics as the basis for apportioning fault, when will Cunliffe make his Maori MPs apologies for the crime rate?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. 2boyz (255 comments) says:

    I think it will be a case of how many times can a guy be let off, I expect he will be appearing in front of a judge in the future (probably soon going by his current behaviour). Media etc. will be watching like a hawk to see the outcome next time round.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dubya (222 comments) says:

    Actually, Cunningham used to be a nurse, my mum worked with her in the 1970s. Said she seemed all right back then. Not sure what the hell she’s on now.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. wreck1080 (3,798 comments) says:

    Isn’t it about time that sentencing is based on what you did rather than who you are?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Unity (395 comments) says:

    On top of everything this guy committed his criminal offence whilst already out on parole for another one. It certainly sounds as though he had learned his lesson??!! I think not.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. altiora (217 comments) says:

    SW: the main reason is discharge without conviction is normally granted for minor and isolated one-off offences; it is not normally granted on the basis of a string of unrelated and relatively serious offences. The discharge without conviction is there for people who, quite out of character, make an error judgment and go off the rails in circumstances where it is clear the offending was out of character. This sort of offending seems to be perfectly in character for the defendant, a fact that is now starting to come to light as people acquainted with this gentleman start providing evidence for their perception. From a procedural point of view, while the judge is entirely allowed to entertain submissions about the impact of conviction and sentencing, it is patently clear that the lawyer told a fib: the defendant is highly unlikely to succeed to the “throne”, and in any event who cares if he was the heir, future status should not matter one iota. It is also clear from the judgment that the judge was influenced in reaching her view by this alleged heir-status.

    This being law, I am entirely open to the possibilities that there are alternative contrary arguments. But how the judge has handled this case has been atrocious, and has resulted in the wide perception that justice has not been done. It is the judges’ job to ensure that justice has been seen to be done, even if people disagree with the decision.

    Finally, one might add, that most of the opposition is coming from Tainui people who are rightly angered that Tainui’s mana has been besmirched by this sentence.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. rouppe (940 comments) says:

    DPF: Do judges read the newspaper? I thought they had their own publication. I think its called “The Alternate Reality”

    Mighty_Kites: There is no rule saying all co-accused get the same judgement and sentence. Just look at Rebekah Brooks vs Andy Coulson. Or the sentences for those involved in Jhia Te Tua’s killing.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. SW (229 comments) says:

    altiora – are you a lawyer by any chance?

    My (albiet limited) understanding is that a discharge without conviction may be granted when the consequences of a criminal conviction outweigh the seriousness of the offence.

    What I’m unclear about is how much the Judge took into consideration the defendant’s ‘throne succession’. It seems entirely plausable that it wasn’t a major factor, evidenced by the three coaccussed also getting discharges without conviction.

    In otherwords, was the ‘seriousness’ of the offending not a more important factor than the ‘succession’. Otherwise, why didn’t the other three young men get convictions?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    Once upon a time, it was a reasonably common occurence for the Crown to appeal cases, nowdays it is extremely rare. Why is that ..??

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. gump (1,542 comments) says:

    In their defence, a Judge can only make decisions based on the facts before them.

    If additional evidence emerges after their judgment then there’s not really anything they can do about it (unless an appeal is lodged by one of the parties).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dirty harry (444 comments) says:

    I’m so disgusted with this case I have written to Judith Collins my employee, demanding an explanation.

    I urge others to bother her as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. soundhill1 (117 comments) says:

    The punishment in some countries for theft has been removal of a hand. Would that be an equal punishment for a singer musician as for a drummer?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. SW (229 comments) says:

    Why are you so disgusted dirty harry and have you read the judgment?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Zapper (954 comments) says:

    SW, I’m also not a lawyer but wouldn’t the co-defendants have recourse to appeal if they received a different sentence for the same crime?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. altiora (217 comments) says:

    Yes I am a lawyer. If you read my two earlier posts that would have been evident.

    Your problem is that you’re plucking one consideration — consequences of conviction — and ignoring the other considerations that are needed to be balanced, specifically those who commit offences should be convicted, discharge without conviction should be exceptional, discharge should be given for offending where it is out of character and one-off, and that discharge without conviction should NOT be given to repeat offenders who clearly exhibit criminal tendencies.

    As I say, it is entirely possible that reasonable people can reach different conclusions as to whether discharge without conviction is appropriate. However, as I have observed and as many other lawyers have observed here on KB and other fora, the decision in these circumstances is extremely peculiar. The defendant seems to be the very person whom discharge without conviction should not be entered.

    As for the sentence — as I have observed in my earlier posting — there is no principle of law that requires co-defendants to receive the same penalty. The penalty depends on the individual circumstances of the offender and the offending. I would be interested in knowing about the co-defendant’s circumstances. If he doesnt have a criminal offending record, then perhaps the decision to discharge is appropriate. But I repeat: what is appropriate for one defendant is necessarily appropriate to another defendant, and accordingly you should “lump them together”.

    As mention in my last post, the relevance of the alleged heir-status is dubious to say the least. It may have been a minor consideration in the judge’s mind. However, the fact that it was taken account — together with the other considerations mentioned above — cast doubt on the correctness of the decision. On appeal, the court will take account of the cumulative effect of the judge’s reasoning to decide whether she misdirected herself; the fact that the consideration might have been minor doesn’t mean that it will be ignored on appeal.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. goldnkiwi (1,151 comments) says:

    SW (202 comments) says:

    July 9th, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    Or could it be taken in the other order? Was Paki’s eventual ruling ‘understood’ when the others were sentenced and that they could hardly be convicted when he was not going to be as there would surely have been a greater outcry about unfairness?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. altiora (217 comments) says:

    Typo in earlier post: should “not necessarily” and “should not be “lumped together”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Ross Miller (1,679 comments) says:

    dirty harry 2.59 … do you not understand the separation of the executive from the judiciary? The Minister has no power to demand any sort of explanation from Cunningham. She was appointment by a previous (Labour) administration and is there for life (meaning age 72) unless she goes ‘Doolally’ or is convicted of a serious crime.

    The Chief District Court Judge has the power to reassign her to some nondescript tribunal or authority where she can do less damage and I would hope, considering her ‘form’, Judge Doogue is considering that option.

    I also hope/trust that Crown Law will appeal the (non) sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. SW (229 comments) says:

    Thanks for your reply, and sorry hadn’t read your first post.

    I can respond more fully later, but in short:

    I haven’t made an argument one way or the other, just commented that reading more into this it doesn’t seem that unusual to me;
    The basis of that initial comment is not ‘the consequence of the offence’, but rather the ‘seriousness of the offending part’.

    Completely get it’s not law to ‘lump them together’ and wasn’t saying it is. My point is that doesn’t that further suggest the offending just simply wasn’t serious enough to warrant conviction of a stupid but supposedly decent 19 year old kid?

    Lastly, have you actually read the judgment?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    SW

    My point is that doesn’t that further suggest the offending just simply wasn’t serious enough to warrant conviction

    WTF – It’s not normal for Maori King’s sons normal people to get off burglary and drink driving convictions !

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    So none of you ever made stupid mistakes, and/or lost your cool and swore at an adult when you were 19 years of age?

    None of you ever drank alcohol and drove a car (remember the youth limit is extremely low)

    and all of you think a person should be disinherited should they make mistakes when they are young – or is that only when they are Maori? White fellas are not included in those rules?

    I’m just wondering, what about girls that post naked photos of themselves on the internet, should they also be disinherited, no matter what excuse they have for it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Komata (1,140 comments) says:

    Out of idle curiousity:

    IF (when?) the ‘discharge’ IS appealed, will that bring all the ‘usual suspects’ out of the woodwork wailing and flailing, and accusing the Police (or whoever brings the appeal) of being ‘Racist’, because the ‘dear, sweet, INNOCENT little lad is ‘Maori’? Its happened before, so in (this instance ) that sort of action ‘by those who are concerned about such matters’ is even more likely to occur especially as the ‘innocent offender’ (yes, I know, an oxymoron) is a ‘Kings Son’ and therefore should be (especially) ‘exempt’ from such things.

    As I said, out of idle curiousity; just wondering.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ burt (7,707 comments) says:
    July 9th, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    Actually, yes there are many young people that get off such offences, depending on the circumstances. There a many people that are discharged without conviction or get diversion etc for same or similar offences. Especially those that have already begun to make restorative attempts before being sentenced.

    Other than this young man’s status, there is absolutely nothing unusual about it. He had done 160 hours community service, paid for damages etc, and shown remorse for his actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. SW (229 comments) says:

    Judith – that’s true. Particularly white middle class kids studying law with parents who can afford QC’s. I have one or two examples (and my examples include good people – my point is to imply that a discharge without conviction is the bastion of Maori youth is very misconcieved)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Maggy Wassilieff (310 comments) says:

    When the three co-offenders got off the theft charge there was nothing to suggest that any of them were on parole for a previous offence as was Mr Paki. One of them did have a criminal background but the judge considered that it was unrelated to the theft of surfboards. …..

    well at least that’s what I read in the Gizzy Herald
    http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article/?id=37576

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    Rubbish, excrement, trash, scum, human detritus, are all terms applicable to the young “prince”.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. tvb (4,242 comments) says:

    Judges sometimes get it wrong that is why there is a general right of appeal from the District Court to the High Court. Just relax this will sort its-self out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Maggy Wassilieff (221 comments) says:
    July 9th, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    I’m not sure if I’m reading your post right, but Mr Paki was NOT on parole for any offence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    Judith

    What has “disinherited” got to do with it ????

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. altiora (217 comments) says:

    SW: I can state the my point very simply: many lawyers with more experience than I greeted this decision with the reaction “WTF?”. The reason is that they were able to contrast the defendants with clients with similar circumstances but who were not discharged; those lawyers struggled to see any reason in legal principle for distinguishing the defendant from their clients; the only apparent difference between the defendant and their clients was the latter were not alleged heirs, or spares, to a “throne”.

    Whether a judge discharges or not depends on the judge’s discretion, so it is inevitable that reasonable minds will differ in some cases as to whether the discretion was appropriately exercised. But that is usually on the margins — cases that could go either way. This case screams “do not discharge” and that is why people are asking questions.

    Still I think the King of Huntly, Tuku and the lawyer have egg on their face: if they thought that making appeals to so-called “royal status” was a good strategy, they were sorely mistaken and now the entire issue has blown up.

    As for the judge, I do wonder if she registered that this was a high profile case and whether she sought guidance from the Chief District Court judge as to how she should proceed with the case.

    But as someone above sagely noted, this is what appeals are for and it will be sorted out in due course.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ burt (7,708 comments) says:
    July 9th, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    Because that was the basic argument for the discharge. That should he be convicted, he would not receive his ‘inheritance’ (which in this case was to inherit the Crown from his father).

    The Court assesses, and is able to by law, whether the result of the conviction would ‘cost’ the offender a lot more than the ‘value’ of the associated crime. In this case, it would have, given all the various aspects involving age, immaturity etc, there was no reason to convict him, as the cost would be too high. However, it was his last chance, one minor breach of law will see him handled differently in future.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ altiora (162 comments) says:
    July 9th, 2014 at 3:49 pm

    The three co-offenders were also discharged. The King’s son was not treated any differently to anyone else, despite what might have been argued by his father’s lawyer or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. dirty harry (444 comments) says:

    This judge seems to continually get it wrong. She is the same judge who let off the pedo comedian for trying to shag his daughter. The wise judge thought he made people laugh and the world needed more laughter.

    This woman is so far out of touch with reality that she needs to be stood down immediately .

    Judith: Drink driving and burg are far from stupid mistakes..do you really need that pointed out to you? and why bring skin colour into the argument..stupid woman.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ dirty harry (382 comments) says:
    July 9th, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    Because if you’ve read every comment on this blog about this situation, you will see that being Maori, does appear to be of importance to some people regarding how they feel about the offender- you pathetic man.

    I guess you’ve NEVER driven a car when you’ve been drinking, or did any stupid pranks with your mates, when drunk. You’re not just pathetic, you are actually probably a total bore, as well.

    PS. Two cases out of how many the judge deals with and you say ‘continually’ – please apply the same insult given above again!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. MH (682 comments) says:

    Do not question the use of the Royal Prerogative,or shrunken heads will roll.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RRM (9,636 comments) says:

    I’m no fan of the trucker’s prodigal son… but is this expletive-riddled rant REALLY materially relevant to the case?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Zapper (954 comments) says:

    Judith, no I never committed a burglary when I was 19. If I did, I expect I would have been punished as no-one created a pretend throne for my Dad.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. dirty harry (444 comments) says:

    Get back in the kitchen woman

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    I can get my head around that there might be consequences for the defendant because of his culture/family after all it is consequences to the defendant that count. Whether it was an appropriate consideration in this case would take a review of the evidence.

    BUT the kicker is that consequences must be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending.

    This turkey committed dishonesty offences whilst on bail including burglary. To me that’s the real issue. Even if a conviction had real consequences it’s tough. This isn’t a cock up or error of judgement it’s on going offending.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    He got exactly the same fucking sentence as his co-accused you idiot
    If that is correct then that should also be appealed.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden (977 comments) says:
    July 9th, 2014 at 2:55 pm
    Once upon a time, it was a reasonably common occurence for the Crown to appeal cases, nowdays it is extremely rare. Why is that ..??

    I am not sure if it was “reasonably common” but I understand that it has become even less common. The Crown have generally been slow to appeal, partly because it seems unfair to ping someone after they’ve been sentenced and also because there is a range of sentences that are acceptable. They tend to appeal where there is an issue of public importance of bad precedent – more about protecting the system than the individual case.

    I understand as a result of crown law cuts that there are now even more stringent guidelines to appeals being run.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ RRM (9,384 comments) says:
    July 9th, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    No it is not. It was two years ago, and was not illegal, whilst it may have been disrespectful, it was very typical of many 16/17 year olds, who frequently talk to teachers, elders and others in such a manner.

    I’m really amazed at how so many on here seem to have been perfect as teenagers.

    If the drink driving limit was as low when I was a youth, damn near everyone would have been caught for it. This guy did wrong, I’m not defending him, but I don’t see anyone saying that those who were with him should not have been discharged.

    It appears they think that just because he is the Maori King’s son, he should have been punished more severely than the others that took part. God forbid when we start getting punished for who or what our parents are. It is clear that the fact he was the King’s son, didn’t affect the discharge, because the others also received the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Maggy Wassilieff (310 comments) says:

    @ Judith 3:49pm… Forgive me, I think I meant ‘on bail”, not “on parole”. (Shows how unfamiliar I am with Courts/law).

    Mr Paki had been arrested for drink-driving in October 2013 and was awaiting sentencing on this charge when he and three others carried out thefts in March 2014.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. dirty harry (444 comments) says:

    “Why are you so disgusted dirty harry and have you read the judgment?”

    A 5 year old can tell you that justice has not been done here. Collins is the Minister of Justice and I want a fuckin answer as to why this criminal Paki has been let off serious charges without even a wet bus ticket slapping.

    She will come forth..it is election year remember.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. jackinabox (759 comments) says:

    “I do wonder whether the Law Society can move against the lawyer for making false submissions, assuming he was aware of this.”

    Fat chance, even if its a obvious as hell the poxy Law Society won’t do a thing about it, they will simply ignore the obvious and hive off on some bullshit tangent and then demand that you pay them if you want the bullshit matter that you didn’t even raise taken further. Bastards!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Maggy Wassilieff (222 comments) says:
    July 9th, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Yeah he was definitely NOT on parole, he was on bail for the previous charge, which had not been heard in Court.

    Offending whilst on Parole is a very serious charge. He had never had a conviction so therefore could not have been on parole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    Judith

    Because that was the basic argument for the discharge. That should he be convicted, he would not receive his ‘inheritance’ (which in this case was to inherit the Crown from his father).

    Right, so your comments about young people doing silly things is just a distraction – it was always about special privilege (being above the law) ?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Maggy Wassilieff (310 comments) says:

    @ Judith… Tx for clearing that up….. So Mr Paki must never had been convicted of boy-racing /dangerous driving when he was charged by the police following his June 2011 crash? I can’t find out what happened.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10730520

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    Maggy

    I think we need to move on, he’s special – and Judith and SW are here to defend him now so lets keep it real and say – lots of people get let off drink driving !

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    A 5 year old can tell you that justice has not been done here. Collins is the Minister of Justice and I want a fuckin answer as to why this criminal Paki has been let off serious charges without even a wet bus ticket slapping.

    She will come forth..it is election year remember.

    Well know, she will shut up and leave the matter for the Courts to deal with rather than blur the constitutional line between executive and courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. RF (1,342 comments) says:

    Have some down time and have been scrolling back through many older posts on KB. Interesting people post on here with one self opinionated regular poster who delights in putting others down. Not a nice person who obviously has far much time on her hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. SW (229 comments) says:

    Haha yea sorry burt – not actually trying to defend him, just questioning whether there has been special treatment or not here.
    It seems possible that the Judge has had a blow out but noone appears to have read the judgment is simply trusting that DPF has got it right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    SW

    I get that youth do silly shit, I was young and I did my share too. But burglary and drink driving…. that isn’t kicking over a letter box or shop lifting !

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. OneTrack (2,793 comments) says:

    Unity – ” It certainly sounds as though he had learned his lesson??!!”

    He has learned A lesson. I’ve got a fair idea what that lesson is.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mister nui (1,006 comments) says:

    Why can’t this judge be hauled up in front of us, i.e. by the media, preferably someone like Hosking, and made to defend her actions????

    Everybody else is answerable to the public, why should a god damn judge not be? We’re their bloody paymasters, dammit.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    SW

    What I find particularly apologist from you is your casting the argument ‘white law students with parents who can afford a QC ..”

    I’m picking you think that’s wrong when that occurs ? That access to better lawyers shouldn’t be the deterministic factor in court ?

    Yet you cast that as justifying somebody else getting off because it might effect their “entitlement” to an artificial crown – it’s like you are saying – He’s not the only one so it’s OK ! Is that how you see it ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. goldnkiwi (1,151 comments) says:

    Why does becoming ‘King’ of Tainui require no convictions? Isn’t it hereditary? I doubt that it requires a “police’ check.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. RF (1,342 comments) says:

    My post timed at 4.37pm was perhaps better suited for GD. Maybe the subject of the post in question should have been a judge. The decision made by Paki’s judge was disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Keeping Stock (10,168 comments) says:

    Was it not Judge Phillipa Cunningham who earlier had discharged The Comedian without conviction on a charge of sexually abusing his daughter because he “made people laugh”?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. SW (229 comments) says:

    burt – my understanding is that the ‘burglarly’ was the four boys drunkingly picking up some surfboard that weren’t theirs to take.

    It wasn’t going in with balaclavas and taking jewlery type stuff. And I thought the discharge was not for the drink driving charge which hasn’t been heard yet?

    Regardless, like I said above I have friends who have gotten off drink driving charges. Needless to say they didn’t end up catching DPF’s attention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. burt (7,992 comments) says:

    I have friends who have gotten off drink driving charges.

    Was he required to make a donation to SPCA then crow about it in a pub while unknowingly sitting next to a deputy police commissioner ???? ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Tarquin North (206 comments) says:

    I think most of us can pretty much agree that justice has not been well served in this case. Instead of getting upset I’m off to the pub(assuming it’s still standing in the gentle breeze up here) to have a nice cold beer and see if I can find someone to bet against me on the odds of this piece of trash having at least one conviction, if not many more before Christmas. Don’t rate my chance high, most people aren’t that silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. altiora (217 comments) says:

    SW: your friends didn’t have their “royal” Dad holding press conferences when they were charged, nor did they have lawyers drawing the court’s attention to their “royal status”.

    If the King of Huntly had any sense he would have simply said “my son has been charged, let justice be done” and stayed well out of it and not have the lawyers make ridiculous submissions. Had that happened, I don’t think this case would be preoccupying the news to the extent that it has.

    The King of Huntly has only himself to blame.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Yvette (2,743 comments) says:

    17 June 2013 –

    King Tuheitia’s [eldest] son will be taking over his father’s duties for up to 18 months while the king battles diabetes.

    A King’s Council, known as Te Kaunihera a te Kingi, was also set up over the weekend to help the his eldest son Whatumoana Te Aa Paki in the new role.

    A spokesperson for the Kingitanga says Kingi Tuheitia is being treated for a range of complaints, mostly related to diabetes. He is at home, but it is expected that he will not be able to fulfill his duties for the next 18 months.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/137865/son-to-take-over-maori-king's-duties

    And the Judge let him [younger son] off his crimes on the basis it may stop him becoming the Maori King one day.

    Why?
    Are the sons handling this like Grant Robertson – “David will have three or four turns at Prime Minister, then I may have a go?”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. dirty harry (444 comments) says:

    “my understanding is that the ‘burglarly’ was the four boys drunkingly picking up some surfboard that weren’t theirs to take.”

    That would be theft SW not burglary.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. cricko (282 comments) says:

    SW @ 4.48

    I hereby call you out as a bullshit artist.

    A sicko, sado bullshit artist.

    You say you have friends who have, ‘gotten off drink driving charges.”

    How did ‘they’ get off ?

    You poor sick fuck.

    (I will apologise if you can explain, you sick fuck.)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. SW (229 comments) says:

    Dirty Harry – not if they stole the surfboards from inside a building (see s 231 of Crimes Act).

    Altiora – my comments are mainly on the reasoning of the Judge. I just want it confirmed that his ‘royal status’ was a material factor in the Judges decision.

    If it wasn’t, then everyone is getting upset for the wrong reason. If it was a material factor, I agree you would have to question the Judge’s decision.

    I raised examples I knew of to make the point that DWC are not reserved for the royal youth, and are particular not reserved for young Maori youth.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. dad4justice (7,964 comments) says:

    And people think our justice system is satisfactory. I could tell you some stories how bent our judges are. But who cares, this is New Zealand the land of lies. Time to clean up our judiciary for my grand kids sake at least. Disgusting shit from a bias system.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. SW (229 comments) says:

    cricko – what I mean is that they have been charged with drunk driving but successfully argued in Court that they should get a discharge without conviction.

    Hence, despite committing the offence they have ‘got off’.

    Does that make sense?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. dad4justice (7,964 comments) says:

    SW the judge needs a lobotomy now that would “make sense”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. cricko (282 comments) says:

    No. you sick fuck.

    It doesn’t make sense.
    If you can give examples it might, otherwise you, and “your friends” are full of shit.

    And I don’t often call out correspondents on this site as ‘full of shit.’
    But you are the ultimate example of a bullshit artist who is full of shit.

    Give us just one example of one of your friends who has ‘got off ‘ a DIC and why.

    You pathetic sick fuck.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. dad4justice (7,964 comments) says:

    Go cricko go, answer the question SW. Example please so the jury can decide.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. SW (229 comments) says:

    I have answered, do you want a name or something?

    The person drove to McDonalds in the early morning after coming home drunk from town, got pulled over, breath tested, failed, arrested etc etc.

    The person was a law student (Dad was a partner at a law firm) and got good legal counsel at the hearing. Conviction would have meant possibly no law career, the Judge accepted that the person had a clean record and was otherwise decent and so allowed a DOC.

    It’s not exactly an uncommon occurance, so quite why you are vehemently disbelieving of me is a little bizare.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. SW (229 comments) says:

    Sorry DWC*

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. altiora (217 comments) says:

    SW: I have ordered a copy of the judgment from the District Court.

    However, the NzHerald court reporter who was present at the sentencing quotes verbatim what the judge said:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11287123

    In sentencing, Judge Cunningham said she was “driven to the conclusion” that he would lose out on being a successor if convicted.

    “There’s only two sons and in my view it’s important that the king at the appropriate time has the widest possible choice of a successor and it’s important for Mr Paki, as one of those two sons, to have the potential to be a successor in time.”

    It is quite dubious also to think that conviction would deprive him of what small chances of succession anyway.

    There are two points here: (1) Why are we paying attention to Paki? Answer: Because some idiot thought it a good idea to flaunt his “royal status” and “what a surprise) people aren’t happy about it when they see preferential treatment.

    (2) Did the judge take his alleged “royal status” into account. Answer: Assuming that the reporter didn’t make up the quoted words, the judge did indeed take it into account and it was more than minor consideration.

    A little research SW could have answered your questions. What’s your address? I’ll invoice you for my time.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. dirty harry (444 comments) says:

    Bereals back..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. SW (229 comments) says:

    Thanks for clearing that up altiora, and sorry I was quite wrong above saying that the kids parentage wasn’t taken into account!

    Not the Judge’s finest hour by the looks and it will be interesting if it gets appealed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. cricko (282 comments) says:

    SW the bullshit artist says, “I have friends……etc.”

    Now he changes his story.

    Then quotes some bullshit generic account straight out of his arse.

    So was the accused in that case your ‘ friend’ SW or are you just a bullshit artist ?

    Come clean, you say “Dad was a partner….”

    His Dad ? Your Dad ?

    See the difference it makes to your credibility SW ?

    I bet you can’t even grasp the point you sick fuck.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. holysheet (297 comments) says:

    altiora said
    There’s only two sons and in my view it’s important that the king at the appropriate time has the widest possible choice of a successor and it’s important for Mr Paki, as one of those two sons, to have the potential to be a successor in time.”

    If my memory serves me it is not the king who appoints his successor (how can he once he is dead) but the council of chiefs from all tribes that recognise the maori kingship and after a long hui, decide whom they want as their king or queen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. altiora (217 comments) says:

    holysheet: Yes you’re correct: the same is true of all Maori chiefs — there is no guarantee of succession in the family; if the “heir” isn’t fit, he or she can be challenged by a rangatira and if that rangatira has sufficient support, the “heir” can be removed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. cricko (282 comments) says:

    holysheet and altiora

    You are both talking academic crap.

    So if there was a first ‘Maori king,’ and it was Te Wherowhero, how did he come to be the king of us Nga Puhi ?
    Let alone Nga Tahu.

    Please explain ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    I wonder who is the thickest – this arsehole or Her Honour Judge Cunningham?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. dad4justice (7,964 comments) says:

    Hi Chuck I think judge Cunningham was involved in the LAX incident.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Yvette (2,743 comments) says:

    In sentencing, Judge Cunningham said she was “driven to the conclusion” that he would lose out on being a successor if convicted.

    “There’s only two sons and in my view it’s important that the king at the appropriate time has the widest possible choice of a successor and it’s important for Mr Paki, as one of those two sons, to have the potential to be a successor in time.”

    Unless I am really missing something, here is the utterly fucking silly crux of this matter –
    with, or without a conviction, the father King knows exactly what has happened, as does the entire bloody nation.

    Regardless of a conviction, the King in his presumed wisdom will make a decision – as if it really fucking matters to anyone beyond him and his “advisors” – on what he actually knows.

    The judge, despite her backwards leaning disposition, should be fucking irrelevant in the final decision.

    We can’t now unknow what we know.

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

    altiora,

    firstly, welcome to the legal fraternity of KB; the more the merrier!!

    Secondly, given your quotes of what was said in deciding the application, surely it cannot be said that the lawyer fibbed? The judge appears to have been aware that the defendant was not the first in line.

    Anyway, still an odd decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. altiora (217 comments) says:

    cricko: I think you will find that it is not “academic crap” but tikanga. Maori have never had an inviolate “first born is heir” rule; the chiefs have always been able to be challenged and removed if support is there. It doesn’t happen in practice granted, but the judge was erroneous to think that Paki or his brother can automatically become king. Let’s hope this case alerts Tainui people to the power they have and that they can remind this so called King and his family that they are not to take their positions for granted.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Yvette (2,743 comments) says:

    Chuck – thanks for the video.
    It’s good to see he is at least bi-lingual, like my last slightly less expressive comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    This ruling by Judge Cunningham is not only manifestly unjust, it is an affront to the citizens of New Zealand. Crown Law must appeal it or, face public opprobrium and a further diminishing of the wafer-thin confidence that the public currently have, with the NZ judiciary.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. cricko (282 comments) says:

    Thank you Chuck Bird,

    all New Zealand should thank you for posting that clip.

    I can’t speak for all Maori but I do thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    D4J

    What LAX incident?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. cricko (282 comments) says:

    And then we have a typical flea lawyer such as F E Smith comming down on the side of….

    Well, you tell me how to interpret what this total fuckwit was trying to say ?

    Can sumwum explain ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    ‘Anyway, still an odd decision’
    That comment from F E Smith must have been a bit too complicated for cricko to understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. altiora (217 comments) says:

    And cricko: As for to being the “king” of NgaPuhi, David Rankin doesn’t espouse that view:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5107893/The-King-of-Huntly-perhaps

    And I am not aware that Ngai Tahu recognise this “king” as their king either. The kingitanga movement was never intended to supplant the authority structures of the individual iwi and hapu who voluntarily recognised the leader of the Kingitanga movement.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. altiora (217 comments) says:

    @ F E Smith: the fib (or “lack of research” as it is politely termed) arises from the submission that the sons of the current “King” are automatically entitled to succeed him (ie, that they are truly to be considered “heirs” in the same sense that Prince Charles is), that there is some rule that persons with convictions cannot be King, and that not convicting him would somehow keep him eligible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    “I could tell you some stories how bent our judges are.”

    Go on then D4J, tell the stories and name the judges. Otherwise, some of us might be forced to think you are simply talking shit again.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. cricko (282 comments) says:

    maybe a great brain like you mikenmild can interpret.

    F E Smith needs your help.

    You would be just the one to spell it out.

    Go for it baby, what was F E Smith trying to say ?
    Waiting…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I’m just guessing here, but I think F E Smith was saying that it was an odd decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. altiora (217 comments) says:

    mikenmild I think it is very clear what FE Smith was saying — “an odd decision” to quote his words.

    Quite why cricko needs to engage in vitriol over that is a mystery to me. Must have had a bad day.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Mikemild
    We’ll put that last comment in the finals for understatement of the year. I suspect that he’s been on the turps and his befuddlement is causing some internal dissonance. I didn’t think that there was much doubt about what FES was saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. dad4justice (7,964 comments) says:

    How stupid is big blouse . Do you not think I understand your U.B.F? Your obvious attempts at hiding your intense hatred does tell me why I press your buttons. Can you please stop malicious comments to my blog as I am so dam tired of deleting them. Man you have a real disorder. You frighten me. I hope the “Watchers” understand ? All will be revealed in due time.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. cricko (282 comments) says:

    Oh dear,

    poor old F E Smith needs mikenmild and altiora to try and explain WTF he was trying to say.
    How sad.

    Can you speak for yourself F E Smith ?

    Like for example your effort @ 6.41
    WTF did that effort mean, in your mind ?

    Can u spell it out without needing weak interpreters like mikenmild to stand up for you ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Um, we just repeated what he said. You seem to suffer from comprehension difficulties.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. SW (229 comments) says:

    cricko – I might be a sick fuck and argumentative, but I’m not a bullshit artist. I don’t really know what else you are looking for from me?

    The example I choose to tell you was a she not a he, and it was her father who is Partner in a high profile NZ law firm. It’s not straight out of my ass, it is a real and pretty uncontroversial story. I’m sorry it is too ‘generic’ for you.

    Another DIC specific example I have is a she from chch (but more friend of a friend) who got discharged without conviction by playing the future lawyer card. I don’t really know the circumstances around her getting pulled over, just know that she got charged and managed to get off.

    Another ‘friend who got off a drink driving charge’ was a male (one of my best friends at the time), and he managed to get off by having a good lawyer argue that he was on private property when pulled over by the police.

    You said you would apologise if I explained. I’ve explained. What more do you want?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Commenter’s whose handles end in the letter “o” seem to be currently prolific and universally dumb! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Altiora.
    People like cricko spray their splatter here from time to time. You will just have to accept that having nailed your legal colours to the mast, or whatever the saying maybe, that you are now open to scorn abuse and derision. You also have to accept that in the eyes of some, the legal profession brought about the black plague, crimean war and global warming.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. altiora (217 comments) says:

    Johnboy: I’d add those whose handles end with “th”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    It’s more the fact that the legal eagles brought about the ripping off us peasantry by their hijacking of the law to suit their own bank accounts that piss us off Nookin. However I must admit cricko is an utter prick! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. nasska (10,868 comments) says:

    But “a” & “y” are all good. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. altiora (217 comments) says:

    Thanks Nookin for the clarification. I was mystified by Cricko’s assault on those who actually were in agreement with his general position on this matter. With friends like Cricko who needs enemies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Thank God that chaps whose handles end with “oy” are all pure saints! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. holysheet (297 comments) says:

    Criko, you bush pigs are all the same, too thick to understand simple english.
    When the present King of Huntly was appointed, it was after a hui at turangawaiwai. There ALL the tribes who recognised the maori king movement decided on the appointment of the present king. The fact that some tribes didn’t attend or accept this appointment doesn’t mean jack shit to me or most of the citizens of new zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    D4J

    Oh please, while it is clear that you are an extreme narcissist I can assure you that I don’t give you a second thought. I will admit that I enjoy poking you with a stick from time to time just to see the reaction but as for an “intense hatred”….nah, you don’t factor at all in my life.

    What you should do though D4J is get some help with that temper of yours, it might also help if you had a bit of counselling to come to terms with your sexual orientation.

    Now, while I have you, how about telling us those stories about the judges, and while you are at it, how about naming them as well?

    Or D4J, are you just spouting shit again because you have been on the receiving end of some very good judges who found against you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    When Cunners takes power in Godzone and sacks Charles the Third you will all bow down and laud King Paki the First! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. dad4justice (7,964 comments) says:

    “What you should do though D4J is get some help with that temper of yours, it might also help if you had a bit of counselling to come to terms with your sexual orientation”

    Malicious lie that could see you in Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. altiora (217 comments) says:

    Johnboy when you’re getting ripped off by a lawyer, just remind yourself that they were too dumb to go into medicine. Also therapeutic is to return to them their correspondence with the spelling and grammatical errors highlighted.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    big bruv (12,976 comments) says:

    July 9th, 2014 at 7:10 pm
    “I could tell you some stories how bent our judges are.”

    Go on then D4J, tell the stories and name the judges. Otherwise, some of us might be forced to think you are simply talking shit again.

    Vote: 1 0

    Well, I know of one high court judge who crossed the line and took a personal interest in matters and later, an Appeal Court judgement stating that this particular judge failed to apply even basic principles and tenets of law. It was a horror story that opened my eyes as to how incompetent and bias judges can sometimes be. Worse, there are no automatic sanctions which apply to wayward judges when they err, and that they are free to wreak further havoc, un-counselled, un-sanctioned, un-penalised, and as if nothing has happened. This is a serious anomaly with the NZ judiciary which desperately needs to be addressed

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. CharlieBrown (921 comments) says:

    What idiocy does a judge have to show to be fired? The judge clearly needs to sanctioned publicly to at least restore some faith in the justice system. If that bastard was to drive drunk and kill someone what would happen to the judge.

    The inaction of some judges is morally repugnant and they should be held for account.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    None of the bastards can look after sheep properly either altiora! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Come on D4J

    Name the judges and tell us the stories.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. dad4justice (7,964 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden I can email you the name of a District Court judge that has a protection order.

    big blouse – fuck off mental psychotic .

    Nostradamus – get a doctor to treat big blouse FFS.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. CharlieBrown (921 comments) says:

    Isn’t it possible in other professions to be criminally sanctioned for such gross ineptitude that leads to loss of life? If it is then the same standard should be applied to judges that let someone off that then re-offends and causes such damage. That would give the judge a personal reason to get it right as at the moment the consequences of their ineptitude falls upon random future victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    “This is a serious anomaly with the NZ judiciary which desperately needs to be addressed”

    That is true but it is not unique to NZ. Have you heard of the Canadian porno judge?

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

    So D4J, once again we find that you are no better than your pal Bedwetter. You make fanciful claims, yet time and time again you cannot substantiate those claims.

    Have you always been an attention seeker?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. SW (229 comments) says:

    CharlieBrown – would that give the Judge an incentive to never ‘let someone off’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. UpandComer (523 comments) says:

    Dpf, you know how I know it’s bullshit – if it happened to me or one of my brothers we’d get made an example of and the sentence would fuck us over as hard as possible. I need a tan

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. nasska (10,868 comments) says:

    Small wonder that people are pissed off with the judge’s actions but let’s not forget why the Judiciary are set up as to be nearly impossible to remove.

    It protects them from political or bureaucratic pressure to make “acceptable” judgements.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    It also allows very ugly looking folks to become chief justices nasska!

    Smash the glass ceiling merely by looking at it and seeing your reflection! :)

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

    That just has to be Beryl, just has to be!!! Hi Bereal, it has been a long time!!!

    altiora,

     But none of what was said was wrong, or untrue. Harry is as much a potential heir as William is, so it is wrong to say that because there is one in front therefore there is no chance of inheriting. Indeed, that apppears to have been mentioned. So far, I think, the inheritance has been entirely in the family line. I have read, although it could be wrong, that kaumatua were consulted as to the boy’s chances of being accepted if he had convictions and they said it was unlikely, which still left a chance that he might even if convicted.

    I don’t think that there was misrepresentation or a lack of research on the part of the lawyer. I suspect that Her Honour was under no illusions as to the boy’s position, but that the discharge was on the basis of a chance, not a certainty. However, I simply think that the discretion was exercised wrongly. That is, of course, just my view.

    just remind yourself that they were too dumb to go into medicine. 

    Entirely untrue on my part, I assure you.  It is just a job that I wouldn’t want to go near.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Farming is far more satisfying FES! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    Judge Cunningham has form. She was the judge who discharged, without conviction, the high profile NZ comedian who sexually assaulted his 4 year old daughter.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. nasska (10,868 comments) says:

    …”Farming is far more satisfying”…..

    But a bloody sight harder on the body. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    Judge Cunningham loves a good joke! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    If you put enough alcohol into their water troughs they can’t be fucked trying to run away from you nasska! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. altiora (217 comments) says:

    @ F E Smith: Nor was I too dumb; but now I am also in the habit of teaching lawyers, I’m continually amazed at how thick many of them are. The legal profession no longer seems to be inhabited by great minds.

    I can see your point regarding the submission. However, the problem is that there distinctly an element of deception involved in the interests of avoiding conviction; and it is that deception that is troubling many in Tainui and elsewhere in Maoridom. It was for that reason that Dover Samuels called this “cultural hypnosis”.

    The simple fact is that the conviction or lack of would not alter anything: the entire New Zealand knows his criminal behaviour, and it is this behaviour that would diminish Paki’s chances of succeeding (such as they are).

    That fact is not affected whether he receives a conviction or not, and for the submissions to suggest that conviction would matter was just pulling the wool over what seems to be a quite naive judge.

    I can understand fully that the lawyer wanted to advocate as strongly as possible for his client, but concocting a “poor little prince” story stretches the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    The simple fact is that the conviction or lack of would not alter anything: the entire New Zealand knows his criminal behaviour, and it is this behaviour that would diminish Paki’s chances of succeeding (such as they are).

    Oh, I agree, but Judge Cunningham appears to have disagreed with both of us.

    That fact is not affected whether he receives a conviction or not, and for the submissions to suggest that conviction would matter was just pulling the wool over what seems to be a quite naive judge. 

    I disagree.  The submissions appear to have been informed based, at least in part, upon the opinion of others who were well versed in the topic.

    I can understand fully that the lawyer wanted to advocate as strongly as possible for his client, but concocting a “poor little prince” story stretches the truth.

    The role of the lawyer, as you will know, is to say what the client would say if the client had the knowledge and skill of their counsel.  In this case I disagree that there was any deception at all.  The judge was aware, and counsel in no way misled the judge.  The submission was a submission that could be made and the client wanted it to be made.  The fact that it was made is no reflection on his lawyer at all, nor should it be taken as such.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    Johnboy,

    I did think about that, coming from a rural area myself, but I have to agree with nasska on the point!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “……Yeah, right. You don’t need to be a genius to work out his older brother will succeed, and Korotangi Paki is no potential successor…..”

    I called that when it first happened:

    “…….He didn’t get the tatts, bad mates, drinking problem, poor attitude, no respect for private property, uncivil behaviour ect in the last couple of months…………he’s been out of control for years……and is just 19………..so he was never in the hunt as a successor…………”

    The judge and/or lawyer are simply full of shit. Everyone can now see that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Johnboy (15,537 comments) says:

    He’s not as photogenic as little Prince George you would all have to admit! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. altiora (217 comments) says:

    We will have to agree to disagree on that F E Smith. I think lawyers should exercise greater control over what they say on behalf of their clients consistent with their overriding obligations as officers of the court. I have always made it my responsibility to apply the BS detector, to ask questions of clients and to research matters myself so that I am satisfied.

    But I reserve the right to pester you if my copy of the judgment supports my view. In particular, I am curious to find out what was said about the so-called need for no conviction in order to succeed as King.

    To change the focus: the main flaw of the judge’s reasoning is that she has given too much weight to matters that, to borrow the tortious term, are too remote: Paki would only suffer the alleged consequences if the elder brother dies and does not have issue, the rangatira accept Paki’s claim to the position, and there are no other credible alternative candidates. I find it quite difficult to think that a conviction can rightly be said to deprive Paki of anything apart from a theoretical chance of succession. I am not sure that this is quite what Parliament had in mind in giving the judges the discretion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. OneTrack (2,793 comments) says:

    FES – “Oh, I agree, but Judge Cunningham appears to have disagreed with both of us.”

    On the face of it, 85% of the country disagree with Judge Cunningham.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    As a prominent, Auckland barrister once told me…”Paul, the law is just a game…The court is the playing field and the judge the referee. You play the game anyway to win”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. altiora (217 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden: that comment is entirely true; barristers only care to win the case in front of them, often with little regard to the wider social and legal implications. For that reason, I treat barristers as liars until proven otherwise. Sadly they get away with it, even with flagrant misquoting of cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nostalgia-NZ (5,027 comments) says:

    Things are getting bad. Apparently a Judge now needs to take into account ‘general or specific conduct’ of a defendant before sentencing them – even if they don’t know about it. So this teenager spits vitriol, is that somehow expected to be taken into account. What next exam results, work performance, whether he or she does the dishes or not? Maybe 85% of the country would have been happy if the Judge told this youth that despite being 2nd in line to the throne, that because he hadn’t been blessed with good looks it was off to the penitentiary he goes.

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

    I think lawyers should exercise greater control over what they say on behalf of their clients consistent with their overriding obligations as officers of the court. I have always made it my responsibility to apply the BS detector, to ask questions of clients and to research matters myself so that I am satisfied.

    I never said it should be unquestioning, altiora.  I take my obligation to the Court very seriously, but that doesn’t mean that I have to identify with the position that my client is taking in order to advance their case.  After all, we are not advancing our own opinion.

    But I reserve the right to pester you if my copy of the judgment supports my view. In particular, I am curious to find out what was said about the so-called need for no conviction in order to succeed as King. 

    Go for it!

    the main flaw of the judge’s reasoning is that she has given too much weight to matters that, to borrow the tortious term, are too remote: Paki would only suffer the alleged consequences if the elder brother dies and does not have issue, the rangatira accept Paki’s claim to the position, and there are no other credible alternative candidates. I find it quite difficult to think that a conviction can rightly be said to deprive Paki of anything apart from a theoretical chance of succession. I am not sure that this is quite what Parliament had in mind in giving the judges the discretion.

    I agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. F E Smith (3,314 comments) says:

    barristers only care to win the case in front of them, often with little regard to the wider social and legal implications.

    The wider social and legal implications are not my concern.  The law and the evidence is.

    For that reason, I treat barristers as liars until proven otherwise.

    That is a very harsh thing to say about people that you don’t know.  Do you think that I am lying about what I have written tonight? Or that I am a liar in general?  After all, I hold a barrister’s ticket and I doubt that I have proved much to counter your opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. altiora (217 comments) says:

    F E Smith I think you’re a tad overly sensitive. In part I am being facetious. I have also operated in past life as a public sector solicitor and legislative drafter; I much prefer lawyers who can focus on the big picture rather than being mere hired guns. When you work outside the court system, you see things very differently and holistically; and you don;t suffer the myopia of this “only one side can win and it must be my side”.

    That said, there is one species of lawyer with ethics lower than barristers: so called negotiation lawyers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. CharlieBrown (921 comments) says:

    SW (213 comments) says:
    CharlieBrown – would that give the Judge an incentive to never ‘let someone off’?

    Not if they had reasonable grounds to do so. I’m not suggesting they get prosecuted every time an offender re-offends, but they should go through the same sort of investigation that other professions do every time they get something so horribly wrong. Worst case scenarios would have them prosecuted for their very preventable screw-ups just as any other profession.

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

    I much prefer lawyers who can focus on the big picture rather than being mere hired guns. When you work outside the court system, you see things very differently and holistically; and you don;t suffer the myopia of this “only one side can win and it must be my side”.

    I tend to take Rule 13.13 and Chapter 14 of the Rules fairly seriously, so in effect I am a hired gun. It is very much the nature of the beast when it comes to being an advocate.  Generally, neither my criminal nor my civil clients like it a lot when their barrister says that they are looking at the case holistically…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. altiora (217 comments) says:

    I am not too sure about that. Some partners of the major firms I work with do look at things holistically, because they’re not only thinking about their present client, but also their other clients and future clients; and many of the really bright ones do see it as their role to help develop the law as a whole.

    Different lawyers have different outlooks; the frustration from my past experience is when hired gun lawyers don’t recognise that the public sector lawyer needs to deal with things holistically and consider the bigger picture, and instead keep saying “but my client this, my client that”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    When I hire a lawyer, I expect them to work for the money I pay them, I do not expect them to work for the interests of others whilst on my time.

    The same if I should hire a cook, or a cleaner. Unless I instruct them to, I would not expect them to clean my neighbour’s house because it needs it more than mine, or to cook a someone that is hungrier a meal with my ingredients and on my time, unless that is part of their job description.

    Why should lawyers be different to anyone else – if you want the social caring bit, you higher a social worker etc. If you want legal representation, you hire a lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    @ Nostalgia-NZ (4,864 comments) says:
    July 9th, 2014 at 10:13 pm

    Exactly, and the fact that the young man was only a teenager, and the ‘swearing’ took place two years prior it is irrelevant to the actual crimes being dealt with by the Court. Teenagers change very quickly – they are known to have a short fuse. I would say, compared to some, and despite the words used, he managed his anger rather better than many. Often teenage males would have smashed something, and/or hit the person they were angry with at the time. Verbalizing his disgust was the least worse thing he could have done – even if it was pretty disgusting.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Judith (8,372 comments) says:

    The simple fact is that the conviction or lack of would not alter anything: the entire New Zealand knows his criminal behaviour, and it is this behaviour that would diminish Paki’s chances of succeeding (such as they are).

    What most of you seem to forget or just not care about, is that the other offenders involved also were discharged without conviction – including one that was previously under the police radar, therefore the sentence was equal to the co-offenders. Even without the ‘excessive punishment’ argument, he was unlikely to have received the kind of sentence being requested by many of you.

    I do think we need to look at the legislation surrounding young offenders. I think we are wrong with the way we excuse early offences, and only give harsher, or more intensive sentences once they commit a serious crime or have a long list of petty crimes. I believe attention should be given to first time young offenders, as a preventative measure.

    Personally I would like to see the old ‘behaviour bonds’ etc reintroduced. When a young man such as this, gives indication that he is on the wrong track in life, but hasn’t offended seriously and of whom convictions would impact negatively on his chance to improve himself – I believe they should be put on a lengthy period of suspended sentencing. If after, perhaps a year or more (a defined period) they are crime free and have fulfilled requirements such as community service – paid reparation etc, then their conviction can be discharged. If they offend during the period, even if its very minor, the original offence is added to their convictions and they are punished for it accordingly.

    We need to give these young people the incentive to get their lives together, and not force them into an illicit lifestyle because of their immature stupidity.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    “Generally, neither my criminal nor my civil clients like it a lot when their barrister says that they are looking at the case holistically…”

    In other words lawyers acting as an officer of the court instead of telling obvious lies for their client.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Couchpotatoe (28 comments) says:

    I see pitchforks and folks with a rope a wanting to hang that uppity and thoroughly cheeky little Darkie.

    Just as well we have the inter web these days,especially for the por folks and niggras as you fine folks an do this virtually now without getting your unsullied hands dirty.

    Being young & dumb is not a crime that requires your undivided visceral hatred and loathing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Nostalgia-NZ (5,027 comments) says:

    I was more concerned about the Auckland businessman Judith who, because of his plea bargaining, was discharged with out conviction using a sanitised summary by police – they left out the claim by the 11 year old son that his father had banged his head twice on concrete which became the ‘son fell over’ or similar. That normally would have resulted in imprisonment and there are questions about the Court being misled deliberately.

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

    and many of the really bright ones do see it as their role to help develop the law as a whole.

    I keep on getting the feeling that you just don’t like many of your colleagues much, altiora, because you are often mildly disparaging of so many of us. 

    Of course it is my role to help develop the law as a whole.  That doesn’t prevent me from properly representing my client according to their instructions.   And taking an holistic view at the expense of your client’s case is, of course, bad practice.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    I just heard on the news that Labour is backing off on this loopy policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Altiora said

    “I much prefer lawyers who can focus on the big picture rather than being mere hired guns. When you work outside the court system, you see things very differently and holistically; and you don;t suffer the myopia of this “only one side can win and it must be my side”.

    That said, there is one species of lawyer with ethics lower than barristers: so called negotiation lawyers…”

    In a criminal case only one side can win. The accused is guilty or not guilty. The barrister is not there to make any sort of judgement on the social implications of the case or whether a particular interpretation may have unexpected consequences down the track. The lawyer is engaged by the client to act in the client’s interests. The only over-riding boundary is the barrister’s duty to the court.

    Civil cases are quite different. Sure, there are lawyers who are so convinced of their own infallibility that they go to the court every time and who are blessed by having a clientele which is never wrong. They get work because there are a lot of people around who think that they are infallible and that they are blessed with the trait that they are never wrong.

    Most lawyers, I think, take a more “holistic” view to adopt your term. The focus is still on the client’s interests – but not limited to “I win, you lose –eat that”.

    I am a lawyer and have mediation qualifications and experience. I am setting out to establish a mediation practice. I would put myself in the category of “negotiation lawyers” who, for some reason, you decry for their lack of ethics.

    I make no apology for my practice of focussing the client’s attention on how best the client’s interests may be served. Once I have taken a case, it is irrelevant whether the interests of other clients may be served or otherwise by the proceedings/negotiation. If their interests conflict, then this should have been realised from the outset and the case turned down because of the conflict of interest.

    There is one thing that I want to be quite clear about. It doesn’t matter whether you are a barrister, negotiation lawyer , conveyancer or whatever. If you do not demonstrate a high standard of ethical behaviour then the courts and your colleagues will not trust you and you will find yourself painted into a very tight corner.

    I suggest that in making your comments, you may have fallen into the trap of stereotyping lawyers by reference to the lowest (as in the bottom of the barrel) common denominator. An opinion founded of a stereotype is generally unconvincing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    F E Smith, It appears some lawyers have a conscience. If a lawyer lying for his client in a civil case is acceptable then the system is wrong.

    If incompetent and biased judges cannot be held to account then the system is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. alex Masterley (1,498 comments) says:

    FES,
    Good to see you again on KB. Been a while.
    I agree with Nookin (and good luck on your venrture) and his comments, especially his 2nd last paragraph.
    Loss of trust can be catastrophic for a lawyer and any professional adviser for that matter.
    Most of us have little black books in a corner of our minds that contain the names of those we don’t trust and we act accordingly when we deal with them.
    Oh and Chuck, the NZLCDT has been known to strike lawyers off for lying to clients, misleading the court and breaching undertakings.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    “Civil cases are quite different.”

    Nookin

    It is good to hear a lawyer like you who does not try to claim the system is near perfect which it clearly is not.

    It is harder to prove that someone lied than someone committed rape. If John Banks testified under oath that he could not remember his helicopter ride no one could prove his memory was not faulty but anyone with a degree of common sense would know he lied.

    If a client told you a yarn in a civil case and common sense told you that there was a 99.99% chance would you blindly follow his instructions and state his lies to the court as fact?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    “Oh and Chuck, the NZLCDT has been known to strike lawyers off for lying to clients”

    How about lying FOR clients?

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

    Hi Alex,

    yes, got busy for a while there! I agree with you that Nookin puts it superbly. With civil cases I am still there to represent the client and get the best result for them. If that means recognising the strengths of the other side’s case and negotiating accordingly then so be it, but that is always done in order to achieve the best result for my client, not for the other side’s client!

    And Nookin, I second Alex’s best wishes in setting up your mediation practice. All the best with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    FES, I thought you just did criminal cases. Are you getting short of work and venturing into civil law?

    It is your attitude that is responsible for many members of the public holding lawyers in such low regard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    I just read in the Manukau Courier and item by Pat Booth where he mentions Judge Cunningham’s track record. I quote him below

    “Just as well judge Cunningham took up law rather than medicine.

    If she had made a series of mistakes in the operating theatres she could have been struck off by now.”

    I wonder how those who support a system of judicial unaccountability would be happy if their doctors were similarly unaccountable. Appeals are not an appropriate answer to incompetence or worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. alex Masterley (1,498 comments) says:

    Ever thought of the Judicial Complaints Comissioner?
    Except he is busy dealing with complaints by Mr Orlov and Mr Deliu.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    Thanks for the suggestion. I sent a complaint in about this judge in October 2013. I received an acknowledgement shortly after but nothing since. I have also written to the Chief District Court Judge about the biased and unfair treatment by another judge. She also suggest the JCC which I had already told her I had. She then suggested an appeal which is not a reasonable solution when a judge’s honesty and integrity should be beyond question. Sadly, this is not the case.

    What needs to happen it that civil cases are treated totally different than criminal cases. The inquisitorial system should be seriously considered for the Family and Civil Courts. If this was done in the Family Court we might see a few less domestic murders or murder suicides.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    Jock Anderson’s Caseload: Inside Judge Cunningham
    11:47 AM Thursday Jul 10, 2014

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11291156

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. altiora (217 comments) says:

    FE Smith et al: stop taking what are patently broad brush comments personally. Your personal identity and your profession should be kept separate; it is healthy and allows you to maintain a critical perspective. My remarks are reflective of my personal experience as a lawyer dealing with other lawyers. Of course, I haven’t dealt with all lawyers, so my reflections are not to be extrapolated to all lawyers. In that sense, they are not “stereotypes”. I am constantly coming across, especially among the younger lawyers, a profound inability to properly analyse the law and the situations they have been asked to advise on, in particular many lawyers seem to lack basic case analysis and legislative interpretation skills (if I hear one more lawyer talk to me about the “mischief rule” or that they are adopting a “liberal” interpretation, I shall be in danger of personal harm). It also seems impossible for some lawyers to see the issue globally — I think my previous term “holistically” was probably not ideal — and to articulate basic arguments about the desirable development of legal principle (over and above its application to the facts at hand) and to recognise the influence of policy in judicial decision-making. I contrast New Zealand lawyers with their UK, USA and Canadian counterparts, with whom I have worked, and the contrast is not flattering to the former group.

    I blame the Law Schools for this lamentable state. It is now perfectly common for students to be taught by foreigners who have no expertise in black letter law; preferring the more glamorous areas of “international law” [sic]. That said, the Law Schools are not entirely to blame: law has lost so much of its allure and prestige over the years, and seems to not attract the bright minds it once did. This view comes from marking exam scripts and assignments over the years. The construction of a basic sentence seems to be an increasingly rare skill.

    As for negotiation lawyers, I once thought that they would be a breath of fresh air in the sense of reducing the influence of this courtroom obsession many lawyers have. But I have increasingly seen a growing trend among negotiation lawyers to be economical with the truth, shall we say.

    I end saying this: it is always healthy to maintain a critical perspective about one’s profession. Harnessed properly it can make you a better lawyer, and can encourage the profession to lift its game.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    ” But I have increasingly seen a growing trend among negotiation lawyers to be economical with the truth, shall we say. But I have increasingly seen a growing trend among negotiation lawyers to be economical with the truth, shall we say.”

    Some are. A good negotiator, however, should usually ask the rogue negotiator to justify a questionable statement — particularly if it involves an assertion that is fundamental to the negotiations. If caught out, the rogues names goes into Alex Masterley’s proverbial black book.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. alex Masterley (1,498 comments) says:

    altiora,
    I note your comments about law schools. They are well made in my humble opinion.
    We are unlearning or re-educating a recent graduate at the moment as what is learnt at Law School is entirely different to what is required in the course of professional practice be it as a court room lawyer, which I once was, or a humble suburban general practitioner as I am now.
    The term “negotiation lawyer” is new to me. Can you expand.
    My aim in life is the best outcome for my client within the strictures of our general professional obligations, the CC rules and the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    Alex, does the best outcome for your client include taking your fees into account and informing your client of his chance of success even if he does not ask you and a good honest panel beater would do? For example telling him his your fees are likely to be higher than the amount in dispute.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Another social activist appointed by Cullen. None of them are worth a blurt.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. goldnkiwi (1,151 comments) says:

    By negotiation lawyer, do you mean one who will attempt mediation between the parties with their lawyers present, as opposed to heading straight off to court?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. altiora (217 comments) says:

    Well I am merely talking about a species of lawyer who specialise in negotiation; in the same way a tax lawyer is a lawyer who specialises in tax law. I once referred to meditation as negotiation and was subjected to a very dull hour being corrected by a practitioner of that dark art.

    As for that DC judge:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11291156

    Met another recently appointed DC judge, sharing more than one similar characteristic with the aforementioned judge; needless to say, I wasn’t impressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Mediation is a dark art?

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

    altiora,

    stop taking what are patently broad brush comments personally. Your personal identity and your profession should be kept separate;

    Sorry, that doesn’t make sense. Perhaps you should not make “broad brush” disparaging comments that you don’t intend to be taken seriously?   When you make such comments about barristers then you include me in that category because I am a barrister.  When you say the same about ‘negotiation lawyers’ (which most advocates are to some extent) you therefore automatically include Nookin.  It is a bit cute to then say “oh, but I don’t mean you, just barristers/negotiators in general” and then wonder why we are disagreeing with you.

    I also disagree with you about the standard of NZ lawyers when compared to overseas colleagues (with whom I also have experience). 

    it is always healthy to maintain a critical perspective about one’s profession

    I agree with this completely, and I do that as a matter of course.  However, it does not mean that I should make ‘broad brush’ stereotypical comments disparaging various groups within the profession.

    Like Alex, however, I do agree with your comments re law schools.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Chuck Bird (4,749 comments) says:

    “Met another recently appointed DC judge, sharing more than one similar characteristic with the aforementioned judge; needless to say, I wasn’t impressed.”

    Good to see a lawyer who does not try to justify judges continuing to almost totally unaccountable.

    I can understand why the Minister of Justice cannot intervene in court cases but someone of somebody has hold incompetent or even biased judges to account.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. eaglewatch (62 comments) says:

    Apparently he got let off due to the judge reaching the conclusion that the consequences of his actions (if convicted) would outweigh the crime he chose to commit.
    Can someone please explain to me how these consequences are any worse than a self employed contractor (black, white, brown or other) with a wife, four kids to feed, a huge mortgage and business loan to be paid etc, etc, etc, getting caught D.I.C. and having his entire life torn to shreds when he looses everything???
    Taking into account the fact that he was NEVER going to sit on the “mythical Maori throne” as his brother has been groomed from birth for the role, this whole scenario really does stink to high heaven… the consequences for him in terms of becoming the Maori king are simply non-existent and dont even come close to the afore mentioned scenario.
    When you factor in that he was already on bail for previous convictions (theft, burglary and god knows what else)… WTF!!!
    I have heard theories that he was discharged without conviction to keep it consistent with his co-accused being let off, has anyone thought that it may in fact be the reverse? perhaps they were let off in order to enable them to use this theory of consistency thus enabling him to get off the charges???
    If what they were saying is true regarding his co-accused and keeping in mind this theory of consequences outweighing crimes etc, what were the consequences etc in relation to his co-accused… were they also heirs to some mythical maori throne?
    Anybody who thinks this man was discharged for any other reason than him being the son of the Maori king is simply delusional and should promptly make moves towards pulling their cranium from their lower orifice.
    Dover summed it up beautifully, that judge was definitely under some sort of cultural hypnosis, perhaps that’s why she was chosen for the job at hand?
    This makes a complete mockery of this countries judicial system and Korotangi makes a complete mockery of Maoridom in general, his and the judges actions only further promote the racial hatred and separatism that the likes of Hone continually perpetuate and further alienates Maori from mainstream New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.