About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

May 10, 2007 1:32pm by David Farrar

Subway charges dropped

Police have dropped the charges against Jackie Lang. Common sense wins out. Now hopefully the employment issues can be resolved.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment23

Uncategorised
New Zealand

Related Stories

More Urerewa charges dropped
The Wikileaks rape charges
Uber charges dropped

Comments (23)

Login to comment or vote

David MacGregor

Unfortunatly the Police deciding not to prosecute their charges is not evidence of commonsense. It is more likely a pragmatic approach.

No judge in their right mind would find Jackie Lang guilty of the charge, so it would be a waste of resources. Had common sense prevailed it would have done so earlier. The allegation would have been immediately dismissed as frivolous or a matter for some other authority (the employment court for example).

Hopefully the Police will exercise their discretionary powers more judiciously when the first allegation comes up under the newly amended Section 59 – and certainly before another humiliating PR meltdown forces their hand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 3:59pm
Mr I.P .Freely

Does this mean theres no real case to procede with ,IE shes thought innocent ,ie SUBWAY REALLY stuffed up,or a tossier hitler boss got it REALLY wrong, ,this subway branch SHOULD suffer ,and the parent company, should be shown the public scorn,they deserve ,yes i know they are all inderpentant,they have the company logo out front
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 4:14pm
Clueless

It actually really annoys me when the police drop charges before it gets to a trial – when the defendant has still spent a couple of hours in a police cell, and has no avenue for redress. It basically means police can arrest people without any evidence etc, drop the charges, and have still caused huge inconvenience to the person involved.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 4:16pm
Clueless

It actually really annoys me when the police drop charges before it gets to a trial – when the defendant has still spent a couple of hours in a police cell, and has no avenue for redress. It basically means police can arrest people without any evidence etc, drop the charges, and have still caused huge inconvenience to the person involved.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 4:17pm
David MacGregor

Unfortunatly the Police deciding not to prosecute their charges is not evidence of commonsense. It is more likely a pragmatic approach.

No judge in their right mind would find Jackie Lang guilty of the charge, so it would be a waste of resources. Had common sense prevailed it would have done so earlier. The allegation would have been immediately dismissed as frivolous or a matter for some other authority (the employment court for example).

Hopefully the Police will exercise their discretionary powers more judiciously when the first allegation comes up under the newly amended Section 59 – and certainly before another humiliating PR meltdown forces their hand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 4:17pm
FDg

I believe the employment issue has been “resolved”. She stole drinks and gave them to her mates and was fired for it.

I don’t quite understand what else you expect to happen?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 6:24pm
Thinking

“She stole drinks and gave them to her mates and was fired for it.”

She shared one drink. A drink that she was allowed by company policy. I can’t see how theft comes into it at all.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 6:39pm
burt

FDg

What the lefties expect to happen is for it to be handled in a way that justifies how Labour handled their $826,000 theft. All she should have needed to do was deny it, denigrate the accusers, delay it for as long as possible, eventually agree that it was theft and take as long as she wanted to pay it back.

Simple eh… justify your position by forcing others to act the same way! I think Subway over reacted/made a bad call – but the boycott organised against Subway is just madness. Applying that logic all voters should boycott Labour over the actions of Taito Field…. Bet no lefties call for that blanket boycott.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 6:45pm
ThrashCardiom

Burt, as you obviously haven’t noticed, it isn’t actually a left/right issue. Those taking part,both bloggers and those signing various partitions are not just on the left.

The constant tendancy for commenters on this blog to polarise every issue regardless of the actual subject matter is very tiresome. Why don’t we all try judging issues by the reported information instead of one’s bigotry.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 7:38pm
Murray

Hey Burt I was the first to use the B word, am I a leftie now?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 7:48pm
Mr I.P .Freely

trashcardiom, putting it bluntly ,someone in that managment team is thinking(shit we stuffed up here),stupid stupid decision ,was it a ploy to scare the staff or stop the unions , Good money couldnt have paid for such BAD publicity.Would you put a 100%effort in to your job when you think that the managment could fire you AND have you dragged of to the cells???
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 8:26pm
Murray

Hey Burt I was the first to use the B word, am I a leftie now?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 9:08pm
Paul Marsden

Hey. Re-trial for David Bain. Im estactic. Hope the judicary hang their colective heads in shame.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 9:18pm
Southern Man

Oh yay, a retrial for a mass murderer.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 10:27pm
Southern Man

Ok, so he goes on trial, again. When hes found guilty, again, will you deluded Bain supporters shut up?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 10:33pm
Paul Marsden

Southern Man. I can only assume you are a pleb with little or no personal experiences of how the ‘system’ works. If you do have some experiences on which to base your opinion, please enlighten us?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 10, 2007 10:40pm
SPCS

Re “Subway Charges Dropped”

What do two shared cups of Diet Coke, Sue Bradford’s flawed Anti-smacking Bill, CYFS (Child, Youth and Family Services), the Dunedin Police and a local Dunedin Subway (fast food) management team have in common? Before answering this conundrum, here’s a hint. Consider the latest news:

Family-values opponents of Bradford’s Anti-smacking Bill have expressed outrage and disbelief that Dunedin police exhibited such poor “discretion” prior to laying a criminal charge of “theft” against a full-time Subway worker, Ms Jackie Lang, for her “theft” of two cups of Diet Coke.

Dunedin-based members of The Young Labour Party, who took to the streets in protest at the “unjust” treatment of Ms Lang by Subway, claimed that she only “shared” her coke with a friend and committed no action worthy of criminal prosecution. The protestor’s vitriolic performance was only directed at Subway, NOT the police. More astute commentators outside the Labour Party ranks, have accused the police of just buckling under Subway pressure when they laid the charge for an “offence” that almost every reasonable-minded New Zealanders would consider “to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution”. The police prosecuted Lang AFTER she had been notified by Subway of her dismissal and apparently after she indicated to Subway that she intended to take the matter to the Employment Court (over what she said was her unfair dismissal without warning – a response by Subway out of all proportions to her actions).

Conundrum Answer: “DISCRETION”

(1) Choosing largely sugar-free Diet Coke over normal Coke involves “discretion” and sharing it with a friend involves careful “discretion” (wipe the cup before sharing your potent disease with a friend!).

(2) Bradford’s bill involves an affirmation that “discretion” must be applied by police prior to them laying charges against parents for “inconsequential… offences” (the term “police … discretion” has been inserted into the bill for the purpose of supposedly protecting good parents from being prosecuted for lightly smacking their kids for the purpose of “correction”).

(3) Subway management applied “discretion” – albeit a very poor fast-food flavoured variety, when they insisting that the police lay a charge of theft against Ms Lang, for her “theft” of two cups of Diet Coke with a retail value of $4.00. (Subway is a franchise and the outlets are individually owned).

(4) Dunedin police applied “discretion” – albeit a very poor taxpayer funded variety, when they laid a criminal charge against Ms Lang.

(5) CYFS has a well-documented track record of making many discretionary judgements relating to children and young persons, within the context of domestic violence, that their numerous critics have described as “appalling”, “ill-conceived” and “stupid”. And yet CYFS ‘expert’ judgements by their largely unqualified social workers, significantly inform and impact police prior to the latter using their own “discretion” in choosing whether or not to lay charges involving domestic violence – including smacking complaints.

The Society for Promotion of Comunity Standards Inc. believes that the Dunedin Subway case raises serious questions about Bradford’s flawed Anti-Smacking Bill that Parliament is set to vote on next week. It puts the focus onto one of the key issues – the use and misuse of “POLICE DISCRETION” – applied before charges are laid under a reworked s. 59 of the Crimes Act (1961). Police already have a comprehensive list of guidelines issued by the Solicitor-General’s Office informing them on what matters must be considered before laying criminal charges following formal complaints, including those involving all forms of domestic violence.

Two of these considerations have been affirmed in the latest amendment to the flawed Anti-Smacking Bill that has been approved by the vast majority of MPs, which states:

[Clause 4]: “To avoid doubt it is affirmed that police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child, or person in the place of a parent of a child, in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”

The nature of the evidence establishing a prima facie case that an offence(s) has taken place and the issue of “public interest” factor regarding proceeding with a prosecution, are all weighed up before a charge is laid by police, in all cases where PROPER police discretion is applied. Clause 4 is only a reminder to police and does not change Bradford’s flawed anti-family bill – in that all use of force used by a parent on a child for correction is still constituted a criminal offence.

Despite the candy-coated addition embodied in clause 4 – to a bill that tens of thousands of New Zealanders consider a “poison pill” – the vast majority of New Zealanders opposing the bill (over 80%), do NOT have confidence that the police are always capable of applying proper discretion in the laying of charges, when it comes to domestic violence, let alone considering Subway complaints of “theft”.

CYFS will have renewed leverage under Bradford’s bill to ensure that parents, who apply reasonable force to smack their kids for correction, or apply any other reasonable force for correction, will be prosecuted. If police can buckle under the strain of a Subway franchise holder they will also buckle under the force of the ideologues within CYFS and other child advocacy agencies to prosecute good parents. Bradford and her supporters are determined that Nanny State has the powers to reach into homes to force good parents to deal with children in a way that conforms to the State-sanctioned philosophy and secular values.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2007 11:27am
SPCS

Re: Poor use of “Discretion” leads to Police Backdown: “Subway Charges Dropped”

Great News! Dunedin Subway worker, Ms Jackie Lang, who had a charge of criminal “theft” laid against her by the Dunedin police, for ‘sharing’ (=stealing) a glass of Diet Coke with her friend, has had the charge against her dropped by police.

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standsards Inc. has criticised the very poor use of “discretion” by the police in laying the charge for an “offence” that the vast majority of reasonable-minded New Zealanders would consider “to be SO inconsequential that there is NO public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.”

Consider the waste of police time and resources involved in this trivial and inconsequential case if it had proceeded to Court. The police did charge Ms Lang and then dropped the charges. If this was a Section 59 case involving police “discretion” under Sue Bradford’s Anti-smacking Bill, involving parents facing false charges of “child abuse” for light smacking; their children would have been removed from them and put into CYFs care for however long it took the police and CYFS to concede that they had got it wrong in their application of their “discretion”. In the case of a parent most families would not want, what should be their private family business, splashed all over National media, such as has happened in Lang’s case”.

The Society believes that the police were influenced in this backdown by the enormous public outcry over their questionable and ill-advised actions to prosecute – a very poor use of their “discretion” – and perhaps even by an opinion piece in the Dominion Post yesterday by Peter Cullen. He concluded that Lang’s case of unfair dismissal against her employer would probably succeed in the Employment Court because of an earlier decision issued by the Court in a parallel case. He did not comment on the strength or otherwise of the police case against Lang.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2007 11:38am
SPCS

The Dismissal of the Subway Worker in the light of the Dismissal of a ‘Naughty’ Doctor.

Peter Cullen, who writes a thoughtful column for the Dominion Post, yesterday made comparisons between the recent dismissal of a Dunedin Subway worker, Jackie Lang, for “theft” of two glasses of Diet Coke valued at four dollars; and the dismissal from a New Zealand public hospital of a ‘naughty’ senior doctor for inappropriate, sleazy, and unprofessional behaviour involving the recording of and attempted transmission of sexually explicit images of his genitals to a friend using the hospital IT system.

Lang was prosecuted by the Dunedin police, but just yesterday they dropped the charge of “theft” under huge public pressure. The police demonstrated how they can and do totally screw up in their application of “discretion” when it comes to assesing whether or not it is in the “public interest” to prosecute a criminal offence: one in this case “considered [by overwhelming public opinion] to be SO inconsequential that there is NO public interest in proceeding with the prosecution”.

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards Inc. has pointed out that these cases shed light on the disaster awaiting good parents and their children once Sue Bradford’s flawed Anti-smacking bill becomes law. The use of ALL force for the purposes of correction. will be constituted a criminal offence in law for the first time. There will be no line of defence for the appellant. The “reasonableness of the force” used will no longer be a “question of fact” for a defence involving correction as it is in the current section 59(2) of the current Crimes Act. This section has been deleted with respect to “correction”. Each criminal case will be prosecuted solely on the “discretion” of the police, in many cases goaded by managerial ideologues, child advocasy and social workers from Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS).

The only cases police will be guided by policy NOT to prosecute, will be those “where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution” as stated in clause 4 of the amended bill. These guidelines are supposed to offer comfort claims John Key, to good parents that they will not be prosecuted for light smacking. However, nothing significant has changed in the effect of the Bill with the addition of clause 4.

Throughout the country the public are asking: Who pushed the police to prosecute the Subway worker for stealing a cup of coke? Why aren’t the police capable of properly assessing what’s in the “public good”? If spurious and unjustified prosecutions are made by police against good parents for lightly smacking their children for the purpose of correction and the matter is not highlighted in the media, does a lack of media uproar over such cases constitute a ground for them proceeding? What constitutes “public interest” in the mind of the police? Given that there is nothing in law to define what an “inconsequential… offence” is, is it right for Bradford to be allowed to get away with promoting a bill in which no question of fact, can be addressed by the defence?

Bradford’s flawed bill has made an utter ass of the law. Legal cases turn on disputed facts. This bill leaves everything to the police and their role usurps the proper function and role of the Courts. The Society agrees with one Dominion correspondent who wrote today:

“The courts are the place for interpretation and application of the law. They are founded on precedent and the appeal process. Police should not be used as the scapegoat by MPs for making bad law. It is unfair to them and to the public”.

The actions of the dismissed doctor were no doubt considered by hospital authorities to be of “public interest” but were not deemed to be unlawful. In contrast stealing from an employer IS a crime. Sending a sexually explicit image of yourself to a friend using a work computer is not a crime but this action was considered so utterly inappropriate, that the doctor was dismissed.

Cullen wrote:

“The senior clinical doctor in question works in a public hospital and was dismissed for serious misconduct because he took a number of photographs of his genitals using his hospital-supplied cellphone.

“He attempted to send these as an attachment to an email to a female friend using the hospital’s IT system. The hospital said the doctor’s conduct and serious lack of judgment had deeply impaired or seriously undermined the hospital’s trust and confidence in him.

“The Employment Court held the dismissal was unjustified, both in terms of the reasons for dismissal and the process that was followed and reinstated the doctor.
The court pointed out the changes to the test for dismissal in the 2004 Act. Now, more than ever, a sensible and realistic approach to what will or will not amount to serious misconduct must be followed by employers.

“So, if it is good enough for the doctor to get reinstated given what he did, it seems that Jackie Lang has a good argument to say that she should not have been dismissed either.”

The Society wishes Ms Jackie Lang every success should her employment grievance with Subway come before the Employment Court and hopes that it is speedily resolved.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 11, 2007 11:57am
anonymous

I witnessed Jackie Lang take drugs at her birthday party last week along with her friends. I reported it to the police. So, she is hardly the example of a responsible person.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 16, 2007 9:49pm
anonymous

I witnessed Jackie Lang take drugs at her birthday party last week along with her friends. I reported it to the police. So, she is hardly the example of a responsible person.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 16, 2007 9:52pm
anonymous

I witnessed Jackie Lang take drugs at her birthday party last week along with her friends. I reported it to the police. So, she is hardly the example of a responsible person.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 16, 2007 9:53pm
anonymous

I witnessed Jackie Lang take drugs at her birthday party last week along with her friends. I reported it to the police. So, she is hardly the example of a responsible person.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 16, 2007 9:53pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« DPF on Agenda

Interesting Thinking »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

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

Top Stories

General Debate 02 May 2024
Genter under fire
General Debate 03 May 2024
TVNZ and poll results
This is how you deal with road obstructors
Hipkins demands Peters is sacked for telling the truth
Guest Post: WHO OWNS ‘PALESTINE’?The PALESTINIAN CLAIM to ISRAEL.
How Hipkins hid the $400 million school move blowout
The assumptions you need to make to back corporate welfare for the Christchurch Cathedral
It's called a growing economy

Recent Posts

How Hipkins hid the $400 million school move blowout 3 May 2024
Health research benefits not measured 3 May 2024
Some three strikes data 3 May 2024
Guest Post: WHO OWNS ‘PALESTINE’?The PALESTINIAN CLAIM to ISRAEL. 3 May 2024
General Debate 03 May 2024 3 May 2024
Genter under fire 3 May 2024
The assumptions you need to make to back corporate welfare for the Christchurch Cathedral 2 May 2024
Hipkins demands Peters is sacked for telling the truth 2 May 2024
It’s called a growing economy 2 May 2024
This is how you deal with road obstructors 2 May 2024
General Debate 02 May 2024 2 May 2024
TVNZ and poll results 2 May 2024

Never miss a post

Email Address

Recent Comments

Genter under fire
AitchW
Health research benefits not measured
KH
General Debate 03 May 2024
thirteenstars
Guest Post: WHO OWNS ‘PALESTINE’?The PALESTINIAN CLAIM to ISRAEL.
Geri Sjovik
How Hipkins hid the $400 million school move blowout
AitchW
Guest Post: WHO OWNS ‘PALESTINE’?The PALESTINIAN CLAIM to ISRAEL.
Geri Sjovik
General Debate 03 May 2024
NeverMindTheBollocks
Guest Post: WHO OWNS ‘PALESTINE’?The PALESTINIAN CLAIM to ISRAEL.
Dave
Some three strikes data
jkt
Genter under fire
NeverMindTheBollocks
Genter under fire
NeverMindTheBollocks
General Debate 03 May 2024
sungsamning
Health research benefits not measured
Phronesis
Some three strikes data
jkt
Guest Post: WHO OWNS ‘PALESTINE’?The PALESTINIAN CLAIM to ISRAEL.
iMP

Links

An awkward coincidence!
No Right Turn
Penn Raine: ‘A little learning…’
Breaking Views
Housing Deregulation as Poverty Policy
Not PC
Winston Peters delivers a speech about NZ’s relationship with China but media focus on Bob Carr’s talk of legal action
Point of Order
Daily review 03/05/2024
The Standard
The TDB Daily 3rd May 2024 – Best NZ Left, Independent and Progressive Politics opinion daily reading list
The Daily Blog
Capitalists Sincerely Want You To Be Rich
No Minister
The Israel/Palestinian metastasis.
Kiwipolitico
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Public Support for Phone Ban In Schools
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
May Day: Appeals Court Rules Against Kids’ Climate Lawsuit
Utopia
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 16
Stats Chat
THE NEWS MEDIA IMAGERY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Mana or Money
NZCPR
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d