Labour’s guilty until proven innocent law makes the UK newspapers

July 18th, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Independent (UK) reports:

New Zealand’s second-largest political party wants to reverse the burden of proof in cases if it gets into power, making defendants prove their innocence to reduce the trauma suffered by victims.

Andrew Little, the Party’s justice spokesman, has outlined plans for a monumental shift in the justice system in the run-up to the country’s general elections in September.

They won’t remain second largest as more and more people hear about their policy. But well done Labour on making international headlines for their policy.

Tags: ,

75 Responses to “Labour’s guilty until proven innocent law makes the UK newspapers”

  1. ashishnaicker (21 comments) says:

    I found this solution should someone get falsely accused of rape:

    “In order to later ‘prove’ you did not rape your partner, each partner should be required under law to have (1) an independent witness of each partner’s choosing; (2) a ‘joint’ witness of both partner’s mutual choosing; and (3) a suitably qualified independent witness unknown by either partner, all physically present and observing the sexual activity between consenting adults, and all required to sign affidavits within 24hours of said-sexual activity, confirming (a) all activity that took place; (b) any activity that did not appear to be mutually consenting; and (c) that they were impartial non-participants to the sexual activity, sane, sober, and fully observant of the activity.

    Further, a suitable audio visual record of the sexual activity must be openly recorded, and filed with a central authority, to be stored for not less than 7 years. All parties (partners and witnesses) shall receive their copy of the av. A statute of limitations should then apply that following the 7 years, all affidavits and audio-visuals be destroyed, and neither partner thereafter has any basis for comeback (no pun), complaint, or laying of charges.”

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    One wonders whether anyone in Labour gave this “policy” any real thought before announcing it…

    I am past the age of picking up women in bars, but anyone who scored on a Saturday night would be very well advised to have his prospective bedmate sign a lengthy consent before any activity occurred…and even that would not necessarily confer any protection from the “change the mind in the morning” women who could just as easily claim they were coerced into signing…

    Such a law change – coupled with the cops’ current policy of “let a court decide” in sexual complaints – would see an absolute avalanche of prosecutions…and the courts just love it when the floodgates are opened…Not…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    One wonders whether anyone in Labour gave this “policy” any real thought before announcing it…

    One wonders whether Labour will announce any policy that has been thoroughly thought through.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    I must say it’s interesting that Labour is lambasted for changing the burden of proof to guilty unless proven innocent, while on a nearby post there are arguments for being able to shoot suspected intruders regardless of proof of guilt.

    See http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/07/nz_first_self-defence_policy.html/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rex Widerstrom (5,349 comments) says:

    I see David Garrett has beaten me to it in noting the police pursue virtually the same policy as Labour want to introduce, the only difference being that the accused – after months on remand, often in custody – gets some chance to prove their innocence.

    The court system is already stacked against the accused in a sex case in a way it’s not in any other crime. Questions which can be asked of the complainant are restricted, both by law and by the tactical inadvisability of defence counsel looking as though they’re attacking the alleged victim – even when the defence team is convinced malice is the motivation for a false complaint.

    If the accused is lucky enough to survive this trial by fire and emerge with a not guilty verdict then, unlike the complainant if the verdict goes the other way – he (for it is usually a he) has nowhere to go to get financially compensated. And more pertinently, nowhere to go to get his reputation, family or anything else stripped from him by the ordeal, returned to him.

    Those castigating Labour – and rightly so – should also be raising their voices against the police. They have a duty to properly consider every case they hand up, not just on the prospect of conviction (which will always be high in even a completely unsupported she said / he said situation) but on the likelihood of there being a serious miscarriage of justice, even in the event of an eventual not guilty verdict, if a prosecution is commenced.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. pcplod (26 comments) says:

    Insane law worthy of contempt. These clowns should they gain power will suffer a huge backlash from the Police. The number of false rape accusations is already high; this policy would simply open up the floodgates for any woman with an axe to grind.
    If Labour get their way I for one will ere on the side of doubt with every single rape complaint.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    PG: Just when I think you are speaking sensibly…someone inside your house without your consent is not a SUSPECTED intruder you fool, he/she IS an intruder, who ipso facto has no right to be there, and would thus be subject to retaliatory action…Can you really not see the difference??

    Rex: I agree…there is in fact some small chance of the wrongly accused obtaining recompense…it is called the Costs in Criminal Cases Act…as its name suggests, it allows an acquitted person to apply for his costs in a situation where a prosecution ought never to have been brought in the first place…Such cases are very rare, but if something like this passed, a few hefty awards against the rozzers for indemnity costs would perhaps lead them to think more carefully before charging?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Grendel (996 comments) says:

    It was also mentioned by Reason magazine in the states. they gave both parties a brickbat, for nationals changing of the right to silence laws.

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/16/brickbat-it-is-better-that-10-innocent-p

    Nice of them to use a sheep in a paddock for their image as well, shows that everyone knows what NZs deal is :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ed Snack (1,849 comments) says:

    Also received a very negative mention in Tim Worstal’s blog. I suppose Labour are one of those followers of Muldoon’s dictum that any publicity is good publicity….

    Can someone point me to a good explanation of what Nationals proposal is around the possible removal of the right to silence ? There are degrees of this, for example the UK one where you are specifically warned against not mentioning something that you may later rely upon in court, the so called anti-ambush provision.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. queenstfarmer (774 comments) says:

    Here is a recent example of why Labour’s law is a bad idea:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2694254/Internet-dater-cried-rape-man-crept-hotel-room-sex-didnt-match-online-profile-jailed-18-months.html

    If this happened in NZ under Labour’s law, were it not for lucky CCTV footage the defendant would be guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    DG – regardless of why an intruder might be inside your house isn’t a right to carry out a death sentence on the spot contrary to Law 101?

    Intruding illegally in someone’s house (it does happen accidentally too) is a serious violation of someone’s privacy. Killing someone is a magnitude or two more serious. Can you really not see the difference??

    And what if the ‘intruder’ was a police officer? Tough luck?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Chuck Bird (4,847 comments) says:

    “Such a law change – coupled with the cops’ current policy of “let a court decide” in sexual complaints”

    That policy does not apply if you are an old boy particularly if you are a judge.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3552593

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Liam Hehir (123 comments) says:

    Pete George,

    There is a philosophical difference that I think you’re oblivious to.

    We place impediments and restrictions on the state because it’s police power is so vast compared to the power of the individual. Moreover, it’s continued existence can only be threatened by invasion or internal rebellion. Per Lord Action, power corrupts, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely – and there is nothing more powerful than the modern state.

    Left unchecked, the state could use its police powers to tyrannise the population. This is why we have criminal procedure, as imperfect as it inevitably is. It is a protection of the individual against the state.

    A person who shoots an intruder in self-defence – even if he or she does wrongfully – is not involved in administering the procedures of criminal justice. They are not making a formal declaration of guilt and punishment on behalf of the community.

    That might not be of any comfort to somebody who has been wrongfully shot, but it’s really not the same thing at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    PG: You really are a glutton for punishment aren’t you?

    Please describe how someone can be “accidentally” illegally inside your house? Someone inside your house is NOT just someone violating your privacy…they are there either to steal from you, hurt you, kill you, or all three..

    If the intruder was a policeman he would have made a whore of a noise identifying himself before busting in…don’t you watch any of the cop shows? Ever seen one where a single cop silently picks the lock and then enters the house where he/she thinks a suspect might be hiding?

    God you are a sanctimonious prat! Were you like this at school? I bet you told on the boys who did things behind the teacher’s back…come on, you did, didn’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    “All is fair in love and war”, and “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. Unfortunately those women who feel rejected, will have another avenue, to get revenge. This is something labour hasn’t thought through. Oh wait a minute, Andrew Little is a member of the law society. So if he gets his way, lawyers will be able to back the malicious liar, won’t they.

    So if you’ve got plenty of money, you might want to think about moving elsewhere if Labour gets in power, because they’re creating another avenue to make it easier for liars to take everything you own.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    The easiest way to kill this policy is by asking Labour the following:

    1 Hands up all Labour MP’s that have been sexually active in their lives? (Likely all would put their hands up)

    2 Hands up all Labour MP’s who can produce written consent obtained prior to ANY sexual encounter they have had in their lives. (Likely no hands would go up)

    Then ask them: If none of the Labour MP’s have ever obtained written consent why should they impose this on the rest of the population? (Natural consequence by reversing the burned of proof – how else can guys keep themselves safe?)

    Labour are bonkers. Solomon wrote that one of life’s greatest mysteries was the way of a man with a maid. Consent should be obtained by means of customary human mating rituals not by some leftist consent form.

    Also there are other absurdities that flow from this policy:

    Is Labour going to make the policy sexist? So only applies when the woman makes a complaint? What if the guy complains first? Do the cops charge the woman with sexual violation? What if they both lay charges against each other?

    What about same sex couplings? Who gets priority?

    Labour were smoking some happy gee gees the day they came up with this policy

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    DG: Please describe how someone can be “accidentally” illegally inside your house? Someone inside your house is NOT just someone violating your privacy…they are there either to steal from you, hurt you, kill you, or all three..

    You must have skipped this on the other thread:

    Ronald Westbrook, Alzheimer’s Patient, Killed After Being Mistaken For Intruder: Cops – November 28, 2013
    “Authorities say Westbrook was lost and disoriented.“

    Caleb Gordley shot and killed in Sterling, Virginia – March 18, 2013
    “Sterling teenager shot and killed after entering wrong home: A Sterling teenager was shot and killed after he apparently entered a home thinking it was his own and was mistaken for a burglar or home invader. Police said Caleb Gordley, 16, had been drinking and entered a neighbor’s home through a back window.“

    I’ve heard of drunks going into the wrong house in New Zealand too.

    You really are a glutton for not thinking things through very well. Are you helping Labour with their policy releases?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    jims whare, I agree with you, and I also have been thinking of another way to kill this policy. Its to take out the moral hazard of the DPB. Before the DPB existed, you had a social security account. When you paid income tax, some of this income tax went into your social security account. You were promised that when you hit retirement age, the more you put into your social security account, the more you had in your pension. People worked very hard.

    In the 1960s they introduced the universal pension, and scrapped the social security account system. 10 years later we have the DPB, as this change has allowed for a lifetime of welfare. So I would like to see that instead of the man losing his house, having to pay alimony, and losing his children.

    I would like to see the woman pay too. I would like to see, that every year she is on the DPB, she forfeits a year of her pension. She has to wait an extra year, when she’s retirement age. The reason they have men look like the bad people is too justify taking away everything. If domestic violence is a common law/criminal crime, why is the punishement losing your wealth, and your income from alimony? I thought common law crimes get you locked up.

    So if this was to happen, she would only cry wolf, if it was absolutely necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Why would Labour announce these Orwellian policies before an election unless they knew National would support them.

    My guess is National will ratify this after the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    PG: OK, valid point…in a country of 240 million, no doubt there will be a handful of cases like the above every year. Such aberrations – tragic though they are – can never sensibly provide justification for us not changing our laws…I have already pointed to a fact that everyone already knows: every second person in the US has a gun, usually a handgun…Now I don’t have to parrot ACT policy (actually it was never formal policy now I come to think about it) I do not support everyone carrying a gun…in fact I support the current law: that one has to be a “fit and proper person” to have a firearms licence, and then a gun…

    It’s probably true that once in a blue moon, if we adopted NZF policy, we would have a tragedy such as you have described. So what? Sometimes bad things happen to good people…life’s a bit of a bitch like that…probably more than half of those killed on the roads each year are entirely innocent…we don’t all stop driving as a result, or impose he death penalty for first offence drunk driving…

    Meatloaf: There are no “common law” crimes in NZ…they are all statutory…

    Wiki: Did you actually ever READ Orwell?? His warning was of excesses by the State, not about allowing citizens too many personal freedoms…one of which is the right to defend yourself and your property…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    Wiki: apologies…My mistake…forgot which thread I was on…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    For anybody who agrees with my last comment, I have written a petition, which will do just that. The longer someone is on the DPB, the less they get for their pension.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/marriage-partnership-fairness-genuiness-in-complaints-bill?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_week_one

    So for anybody who agrees with the idea, please sign. I’m putting my neck out, because if we don’t do something about this issue, it just might be too late.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    And I’m not saying that we shouldn’t look at changing our laws. Reviewing the self defence law relating to intrusions would be worth doing. But it’s something I think we have to be very careful with. Allowing people to feel as safe as possible is important, as is self protection, but care has to be taken to minimise reckless reactions under pressure.

    I’ve a number of potential weapons available to me, including a firearm (stored separately to ammunition and both couldn’t quickly be on hand) and I’ve given consideration to how I might protect myself and family from an intruder. I’m confident that if at all possible I’d try other things before resorting to harmful and potentially lethal action.

    Regardless of what actually happened the Pistorious case shows that allowing people to use weapons to defend against intruders has risks. And my opinion that case is that Pistorious is at least guilty of not following correct procedures in indentifying targets but there’s a high chance he deliberately shot his girlfriend, probably angry with her.

    Losing tempers and weapons are not a good mix.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rich Prick (1,682 comments) says:

    Now making themselves look silly internationally, this is another half-baked Labour policy. Labour (or Little, because Labour policy seems to be a pretty individual thing depending upon who has the microphone these days) hasn’t seemed to address the standard to which a “presumed guilty” defendant much prove his (because of our “rape culture” it will always be a him) innocence. Will one be required to prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, or just on the balance of probabilities?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. adc (592 comments) says:

    by labelling someone a “Victim” isn’t that prejudicial? E.g. it proceeds as if there is no dispute that it was a rape.

    Building policy on top of that seems very foolish.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Hamish_NZ (46 comments) says:

    Anyone asked Sue Bradford or her son how they feel about this proposal? I remember that her son went through a harrowing rape trial after being accused the next day of rape by the woman he’d had sex with the night before. She only claimed rape because others caught them in the act, and from memory she had a boyfriend.
    If this proposal was law, I’d bet he’d be in jail now. Just because she changed her mind after the fact for reasons of reputation.
    We know his reputation is now ruined, but we can’t say the same for her, because most of us don’t know who she is. She has no consequences, he has many. How is that fair? More would fall into the same boat with this proposal.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. cricko (303 comments) says:

    Hi Pete George,

    I see in the Caleb Gordley case you quote above no charges were filed even though one of the four
    dum dum bullets that hit him got him in the back.
    It’s legal to shoot a home invader in Virginia.
    File this one under, ‘shit happens.’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. lastmanstanding (1,281 comments) says:

    Don’t you people understand All Men Are Rapists. The only difference is the ones in the jail and the rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    Lastmanstanding, where have you been? The moon. So far every girl I’ve gone out with has wanted to sleep me with me after the first date. Maybe its cause I know how to kiss. In one year alone I had three stalkers. The simple fact of the matter is, when their’s a split, the man loses the house, pays alimony, loses the children, other men pay the DPB.

    And this can only continue, if they make men look like slimeballs. In common law, a crime puts you in jail. But with domestic violence, you simply lose your wealth, and some of your income. Can someone please explain why this is?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Rufus (655 comments) says:

    How is this any different than how good parents are currently being arrested and hounded by CYFS for alleged child abuse?

    They’re held guilty until they prove their innocence, and even then the CYFS ad police records will record the “abuse” for posterity – ie they are never deemed “innocent”.

    Some NZ woman made a video about this issue recently. The police do not want to make the call, so immediately arrest the parent (s), the kids are taken away, and the matter passed on for the courts to decide.

    Months later, the parents are finally off the hook, the kids might be returned, but the system monitors them as if they were guilty all along.

    Real people are having their world turned upside down because of this.

    Innocent until proven guilty? – yeah right.

    Meanwhile, those who never take notice of the law, continue to beat their kids.

    Sue Bradford is a bitch.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. cha (3,943 comments) says:

    Real people are having their world turned upside down because is this.

    Cite or you’re making shit up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Rufus

    The wealthy on this blog aren’t going to be affected by Sue Bradford.

    Only the battlers she deems to represent.

    But, funny how she’s slowly slipping from the political scene. Unfortunately after she created one of the biggest cowardly lies perpertrated on teh NZ public with the anti smacking law

    Now…..will Mr Farrar demerit me for calling her a coward as he did when I smeared National surrprting corporate corrupts as he did today.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. ashishnaicker (21 comments) says:

    Rufus,

    Calling a bitch ‘a bitch’, or speaking the truth in a ‘non-PC’ in this country especially by men will only bring out more feminist groups and white knights and enable Governments to impose more anti-male and anti-family policies.

    If a woman goes through domestic violence, everyone feels sorry, but if a man goes through psychological domestic abuse, nobody takes notice. Unless and until true gender equality is achieved, any show of aggression even by a small number of males is going to paint all males with the same violent, rapist brush.

    And to take advantage, we’ll have senior white knights like David Cunliffe going around apologising on behalf of all males.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    Hi Rufus, this is exactly what I’m talking about. A kid makes a call, the child gets taken from the parents, and there’s no trial by jury. I saw this on a video, by family first. And why is that? Our children are our greatest treasure, is CYFS slogan. Why do they pay for the child’s education? Why do they give working for families? Because the child when grown up is going to work and pay income tax. Anybody who interferes with a child’s development is a criminal.

    They’ve invested in the child, and so they have a claim on the child. The care of children’s act puts the mother as the protector of the child. So if a woman says he is molesting my child, that is enough to justify a split, and order him to pay alimony, and he loses his house.

    What is going on now, is an attack on fatherhood, and once fathers are out of the picture, then it will just be that much easier to control the divided family.

    So how come trial by jury, which is related to common law, doesn’t apply. This link might answer that question.

    http://freedom-school.com/reading-material/van-koten-v-van-koten.pdf

    Its explains that anytime their is a split, the only thing the court cares about is someone will look after the child. And someone will pay for the child. Earlier this year the law society, was wanting to do away with innocent till proven guilty, if relating to family court. This would complete what they are wanting.

    This is again why, I think it is wrong to make the man pay the full burden of the split.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Rufus (655 comments) says:

    Funny – the documentary / investigative report was presented by a woman, herself a victim of domestic abuse. Yet no one wants to know… the law is working fine as it is apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Rufus (655 comments) says:

    Just for Cha.

    http://protectgoodparents.org.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Rufus (655 comments) says:

    At least if Labour get in and pass this law they’ll be maintaining a fine NZ tradition.

    Shit law = shit law.

    Cops shouldn’t have to use their discretion where the instant and direct ramifications are this harmful to families and children.

    Can’t blame them for taking the easy route and passing the buck.

    They’ll do the same should Labour’s anti-rape “guilty until proven innocent” law makes it in.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. cha (3,943 comments) says:

    I apologise and withdraw, you pulled it out of Bob McCoskrie’s arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Rufus (655 comments) says:

    Cha,

    Guilt by association – weak.

    Truth is true whether you like it or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    Rufus, you might be interested to know, that an undisputed affidavit, stands as truth in the court. If you write an affidavit, and it isn’t disputed in 30 days, it counts as truth. That’s why its called court. If you hit it in the other person’s court and they don’t respond soon enough, you win. Just thought you might be interested in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    Meatloaf: Just out of interest, are you an older (my age) English trained lawyer?? Some of your ideas about the New Zealand legal system – such as common law crimes – are just plain wrong… And while this quaint rule about uncontradicted affidavits may be in the White Book, I am unaware of a New Zealand Court taking that position, if the person affected by the deponent’s affidavit was unaware of it..

    “Just sayin’ ” as I believe the yoof say…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    Hi David Garrett. I wouldn’t classify myself as a barrister lawyer, or a solicitor. However, I did one module of commercial law, and learnt about common law vs civil law. As I was saying about Affidavits, the person would need to get the information, and would need to be given an opportunity to respond. And if they haven’t responded, they would be in dishonor. I’m only learning now about Affidavits.

    However, in one case where I was assaulted. A month after reporting it the police, stated that you shouldn’t have run away. I just couldn’t understand why I was told you shouldn’t have run away despite being assaulted. Then when I heard about the undisputed affidavit, it clicked. The person I ran from, accussed me of something, and by me running away, I stood guilty of his accussation, despite the fact that I had been assaulted.

    In my law course we were taught that with common law, your guilty if it is beyond reasonable doubt. And in civil law, it is about who is more believable. So David Garrett, I understand you are or were a barrister lawyer, and that you even understand admiralty law.

    What can you tell me? I remember asking you questions before about two weeks ago receiving no response. So am I right about civil law vs common law. Am I right, that when you sign a contract, you are bound to perform that contract, and it is about who the judge believes.

    Finally according to rumour, when you become licensed you have to promise to not disclose certain information, to non-bar members. And finally, where does CYF and the family court get its jurisdiction to do certain things, without a trial by jury. I’m hoping maybe you can teach me something.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    Meatloaf: I suspect my training does not enable me to help you…I am no expert on civil law (the law which applies in continental Europe) but I believe the major difference with common law is that it is inquisitorial rather than adversarial…In other words, while in common law systems – such as ours – two sides present an argument…the “winner” is who the Judge or the Jury believes…The judge is supposed to play very little part in the proceedings.

    In a civil law system they are much more interested in determining the truth…not who had the most convincing story…The judge plays a much greater role – asking questions of witnesses etc. – and the lawyers a much lesser role.

    To address your last para, No; admission to the bar is not like being made a Grand Master of the Masons…there are no secrets which one must pledge not to disclose…at least not here in NZ

    I hope that helps.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    Hi David Garrett, yes that does help. That does help me finetune things a little. The difference between common and civil, is about the level of truth the court wants to find out. I’m not saying that Bar members are freemasons, or anything of the sort. I’m thinking more along the lines of if you tell your clients the tricks of the trade, you won’t be needed.

    Anyhow, as I’ve said this is helpful, there is a difference between common law, and civil law, and you’ve helped explain the difference. Anyhow, I’ve recently read books about law, that are from America. So there would be some sort of difference, but there would be some similiarities. Anyhow, I have a friend who’s been faithful to his wife, his wife has split, his children are nearly adults, and yet she’s asking for half of his wealth.

    His estate lawyer has agreed that marriage is a contract with the state. His divorce lawyer has not answered. And when he asked why didn’t you tell me sooner, they said we don’t have too. I was the one who explained that marriage is a contract. And no I haven’t charged anything for it, I did it as a friend.

    I guess the big mistake I’ve made is putting contract law as civil law.

    Anyhow thanks David Garrett.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    “In a civil law system they are much more interested in determining the truth…”

    What a load of shit Garrett in the civil law family court the truth is not a factor as unlawful gender discrimination allows lies to run for life times. Lawyers, psychologists and one eyed judges leech a living from the evil femily court.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    Hi dad4justice, so would you agree, that in family court, the man doesn’t get a fair trial. He doesn’t get trial by jury. It almost always goes to the wife and children. Now dad4justice, look at this link:

    http://freedom-school.com/reading-material/van-koten-v-van-koten.pdf

    In that court case, if you look further down, the mother was not allowed to forfeit her divorce settlements. And traditionally, the mother looks after the child. So, if it is true that a marriage license is a contract which includes the state. Would this explain how 99.9% of the time the woman ends up with the house and child. Its not just you who hasn’t had a fair go. I have many friends who can’t understand why the woman’s word gets taken at face value. Ah, but if its a contract, its about who the judge believes more.

    My friend’s estate lawyer has finally admitted that marriage is a contract with the state. The divorce lawyer won’t answer the question, they just try to sidetrack him, and he’s fed up with these people.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. David Garrett (7,110 comments) says:

    You show your ignorance Mr Burns…we don’t HAVE a civil law system in this country…the Family court is like any other court in New Zealand: it runs according to the principles of common law (as modified by statute)

    Take your medication man…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. big bruv (13,727 comments) says:

    “psychologists and one eyed judges leech a living from the evil femily (sic) court.

    Ok….so you are better placed to decide what is right for the child than a psychologist?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Oh here we go again, bloody hell I am sick of this crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. big bruv (13,727 comments) says:

    What do you mean here we go again D4J?

    I simply asked you a question, is that not allowed on here anymore?

    If you answered the question we might even be able to have an adult conversation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Civil law

    Garrett I thought this was fact but I could be wrong

    “Civil law governs the relationship between individuals or organisations, and is mainly concerned with disputes that society has determined are essentially private matters. It is developed from common law and is also found in statutes.

    Examples of civil disputes include:
    •disputes over business contracts, wills, tax, land or other property
    •recovering of debts
    •defamation
    •situations where one party’s negligence has caused someone else loss
    •family disputes such as care of children and division of relationship property.”

    bigot blouse STFU. Get treatment for your hateful UBF creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. big bruv (13,727 comments) says:

    D4J

    Nothing I have said tonight could be in any way construed as hateful. I simply asked you a question, a question that I had hoped might result in an adult conversation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    Dad4justice, this sounds about right. We were taught that when you do a crime, and the state takes it on, you are innocent till proven guilty. But in a civil case, if someone has something against you, the judge gives it to the person who is the most believable. But I only did one module in law, I’m not a licensed Bar member. I’m not saying I’m an expert it just sounds about right.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Nookin (3,282 comments) says:

    The term ‘civil law’ can be used in two ways. First, it serves to distinguish civil law from common law. Common law was developed in England following the Norman conquests. It is a matrix of judge made law and relies on the principle of precedent – the expectation that one court will follow the decision of another court in an earlier case.
    Civil law is founded on Roman law and involves codified rules.
    Within the common law, ‘civil law’ has the meaning mentioned by dad. It serves to distinguished one practice of law from, say, criminal law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Meatloaf don’t listen to Garrett he has identity issues. The truth is, the family court is gender bias and does not accept evidence from a male respondent that can prove allegations to be false. I think this sums the situation nicely;

    The “civil” family court is nothing more than a cess pit of lies run by creeps who ride the gravy train of misery. I will destroy that court in my book. I will name every vulture that plucked flesh from the false allegations!

    “The lack of corroborating evidence is, however, both understandable and frustrating. Like rape, domestic violence is rarely done in public; the lack of any ostensible indicators of what has happened does not necessarily suggest that it did not happen. Can it be fair, therefore, to penalise someone for making an allegation when they are unable to adduce evidence of an event not witnessed by others? Conversely, however, there is a difficulty for a man countering such allegations: angry that he is there, accused of such things, perhaps having been denied contact for some time, against a woman who comes with nothing but her tears and shaky voice to support her case. Is it really enough to rely upon a perception of those two, and their oral evidence, to get to the truth: one appears angry; the other a victim. On that alone, the result seems obvious, especially when giving the benefit of the doubt to wanting to ensure the child’s safety. ”

    bigot blouse STFU. Get treatment for your hateful UBF creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    Nookin, thanks, this sounds right to me. I know that Civil law was created in Rome. And I know that common law was thought up in England.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Rex Widerstrom (5,349 comments) says:

    There seems to be terminology confusion occurring here.

    The Encyclopedia of New Zealand: The law in New Zealand is divided into two broad parts – criminal law and civil law… Civil disputes are contests over business or other matters between individual people or companies.

    NZ Department of Justice: Civil law covers disputes between individuals, companies and sometimes local or central government. Civil law disputes are generally the cases in court that are not about breaking a criminal law. For example, disputes over business contracts or debts, or disputes between neighbours.

    Which is why people talk of “civil law” which is, broadly, “party vs party” whereas criminal law is “state vs party” and usually about whether the individual or company has breached some provision of a statute.

    So, David, what Peter is saying is broadly correct. Though of course, and as you know, the way courts handle civil disputes are governed by statute and are indeed, as you say, adversarial not inquisitorial.

    Family Court… well… if you’ve never set foot in there my advice is don’t. I gained an entirely new appreciation for my ex-partner’s reasonableness in being more than willing to sort matters out between us when I became embroiled in helping first one (male) friend and then another (female) through the Family Court.

    I’d assumed, as many do, that people like Peter are exaggerating or just, to put it bluntly, barking mad. They’re not. They may be being driven mad by Family Court, but I haven’t see one thing written by D4J didn’t have me nodding and thinking “Yep, that could well be true…”

    To cite but one example. In any other court, I could cast doubt on the veracity of a witness by pointing out (using transcripts and affidavits) that they had been caught lying in at least two other proceedings in the Magistrates Court, that they had convictions for drug dealing, that they’d lied during police interviews, that their own (now adult) daughter had led in evidence in the Family Court itself that the witness had been such a poor mother that she (the daughter) had repeatedly run away from home etc… and so on… a litany which ran to 52 pages of notes, all cross-indexed to the evidence which was to be presented to support it.

    Because Family Court wants everything in by way of affidavit before the hearing (in a sort of Clayton’s discovery) the judge had wind of all this. So when I attempted to put the first matter I was interrupted by the judge, who said “This is all historic. Got anything else?”

    I regularly stagger out of Family Court, head spinning. The Registry is no better… a few weeks back I gave up on a circular argument that held that I had to seek leave to seek leave… in the end I agreed to do so because to do otherwise would have seen the matter stall.

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

    Dad. I am sure what DG has said to warrant that comment.

    I will take issue with your assertion that the family court will not accept evidence from a man in rebuttal of falsehoods. that has never been my experience in the family court.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. big bruv (13,727 comments) says:

    D4J

    I have seen you make these allegations time and time again. The book that you mention is also something you have been promising for some time now.
    I have no doubt that there are some men who perhaps have a valid argument against the family court yet nothing I have ever seen from you would support your allegations that you have been wronged.

    You clearly have anger issues and you display more than a hint of narcissism. Did you ever stop and consider that perhaps the Judge got it right in your case?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Meatloaf (195 comments) says:

    Big Bruv, have you taken a look at the link:

    http://freedom-school.com/reading-material/van-koten-v-van-koten.pdf

    There was a court case where a marriage license was explained.

    Thanks Dad4justice, this sounds about right. Anyhow like I say, I have a friend who’s paid for his child, his ex ran off with another man, and now she wants half. And even his lawyers, want him to pay up half. I explained to him that license means permission by the state to do something, like a driver’s license means permission to drive, and I’ve explained that it is a contract, so that if their is a split, the caretaker of the child will have enough. His estate lawyer has agreed with me reluctantly, and the other lawyer refuses to answer the question.

    So, its getting very interesting, he’s putting in an offer to his ex, to pay the necessary costs of the child till the child is 19, and something on top of that, as he looks after the child 5 days a week, and she already has another husband. So I look forward to seeing what else happens, his lawyers don’t like that idea very much. And God gave him a verse Ezekiel 36:5. Once I explained to him that all a woman has to do is say child molester, she gets the house, the child, alimony, and he has to pay. That’s when he says God gave him that verse.

    He knows someone who wins cases by pen. She says show me what he owes you, and we’ll pay. And they have to state what the person owes for and how much, or they have to drop the case. This person has won every case. So I look forward to seeing what happens.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Nookin my experience in the family court was a cruel injustice which I can prove. I have waited a few years before I publish the whole sordid story, however thanks to malicious cowardly creeps like bigot blouse have made me more determined to make my story a book that will shock many and make me rather wealthy. I will name all judges, lawyers, psychologists ,cops, CYFS workers etc.. so if I am telling lies LIKE YOU bigot blouse I will be in trouble eh SNAKE.

    bigot blouse STFU. Get treatment for your hateful UBF creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Nookin (3,282 comments) says:

    Dad, I am not going to pretend that the family court is perfect. There will always be people who come away from a case with a deeply embedded sense of injustice and outrage. In only a few of those is the outrage justified.
    Over time I have appeared in criminal cases, civil cases, environment cases, and employment disputes. Family disputes are by far the most stressful and difficult to manage. They can become highly emotive and nasty – not because of the system but because of the clientele. Parties can get highly charged which is understandable. They face the biggest upheaval that they are ever likely to experience.
    As Rex pointed out there is a tendency to want to score every conceivable point and this involves dredging up historical complaints which, in reality, have no relevance to what is best for these kids right now. I have just finished a case where affidavits contained reams of conflicting stories. At the end of the day, they were not relevant to the situation before the court at the time of hearing.
    The other thing to bear in mind is that cases before the court represent the tip of the ice berg. A great majority of cases are settled, mainly amicably. Those that go to court are The hard ones. That is why the court gets its undeserved reputation

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    Well said nookin. Why, however, do lawyers put forward affidavits which are not relevant?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    “Those that go to court are The hard ones.”

    I had no option as I was a forced client of the sadistic family court. It was not “hard” for the lying maternal family. Without notice protection orders arrived out of the blue and I was guilty of no crimes. My children were used as weapons of war for them I will expose a vile corrupt court system. Sadly I found myself in a hateful gender bias court system that DID NOT allow evidence that would prove that I was the innocent victim of malicious false allegations. All involved will be accountable because I do not want any other decent father to have to go through what I experienced. As for family court affidavits , you will find toilet paper more useful. The truth does not matter in the femily court.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    “That is why the court gets its undeserved reputation”

    The Family Court is a vile dishonest cess pit of lies. My book will hopefully destroy it for once and all. Children deserve better than this dysfunctional gravy train of deceit. The damage the creeps that work within this evil court do to vulnerable and innocent children is horrific. It must be stopped.

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

    A number of reasons, Nos. sometimes the affidavits are relevant when filed but time overtakes them. Sometimes the client insists and sometimes the lawyer just isn’t any good. It is also a fact that we have confrontational lawyers who relish the adversarial nature of proceedings and problem solving lawyers who are more inclined to address the problem than have a crack at the other side. Antagonistic parties tend to gravitate to the confrontational lawyers and the sparks then tend to fly — though, as far as I am concerned, to lesser effect.
    I take the view that a consensual outcome achieved thru mediation is most likely to endure. An outcome imposed by a judge with limited options is more likely to be problematical. Adjudication basically means one party is right and the other is wrong. That is not a good foundation for an ongoing relationship.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. big bruv (13,727 comments) says:

    D4J

    Do you really expect the people who regularly frequent this blog to believe you given the numerous blatant lies you have told?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Does anybody know if an applicant to proceedings has ever been charged in criminal jurisdiction for telling lies in family court affidavits? Perjury in criminal law, but lies welcome in family law. What a vile unfair sick system .

    bigot blouse STFU. Get treatment for your hateful UBF creep. You are a lying snake post the emails ( a $1000 says you can’t) haha you sad loser. Get help or change your meds. Go away stop stalking me you fixated creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. big bruv (13,727 comments) says:

    D4J

    My comment is not an unfair one. You have been exposed as a liar time and time again on this very blog. It is just a stretch to expect those who have been here a while (although nobody has been here longer than you apparently) to believe that you were so unjustly wronged.

    Having said that, you do yourself no favours in refusing to let it go. If what you say is true and your kids are back with you would it not be better to move on, forget the past and prove that you are a bigger man.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    bigot blouse STFU. Get treatment for your hateful UBF creep. You are a lying snake post the emails ( a $1000 says you can’t) haha you sad loser. Get help or change your meds. Go away stop stalking me you fixated creep.

    God help you. I pray you stop your unhealthy obsession with me. What makes a sad person like you tick? Give me a call sometime maybe I can help you out. I really worry about lost souls like you. I mean to say you have been attacking me for several years and you hide behind your anonymity. Tough guy coward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    You know my email address just give me a buzz and I give you my phone number. I think I can get help for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. big bruv (13,727 comments) says:

    D4J

    Once again you are telling lies. It is not me who does the stalking, you are the one who cannot see a comment I make without making an abusive remark. Often it is not even on a topic involving you. In examples like that you display the worrying traits of a Narcissist.

    Sorry to tell you old chap that the world does not revolve around you.

    I am more than happy to come to this place and not engage with you, indeed, when you were “absent” for two years I enjoyed it a hell of a lot more, in fact how about this, I will no longer address you at all, if you were to do the same I am sure that we would both enjoy Kiwiblog a hell of a lot more.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    You have made false allegations bigot blouse and until you say sorry I will make sure everybody on blogosphere knows you are a malicious liar. I have challenged your deliberate lie to post the alleged emails I have sent you. I have never sent you anything which I can prove. Your lies and malicious attitude leave me no alternative but to reveal your real name and real agenda. You say sorry and stop telling fucking lies on kiwiblog and all will be good. Got that you stupid bent boy. Grow up you lying immature creep. I am sick and tired of your shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Nookin (3,282 comments) says:

    ‘I have never sent you anything which I can prove….’

    Isn’t that the point that BB is making?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. dad4justice (8,137 comments) says:

    Nookin every email I have ever sent is recorded on my computer. I can give it to you so you can check my email history eh. Would that be proof Mr Lawyer? I mean to say my history dates way back Mr Lawyer. I have already had my own lawyer give me advice on the matter and bigot blouse is nothing more than a malicious liar.

    Goodnight I have had enough of this bb crap.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.