Paul Goldsmith released:

The revelation that fewer than 70 cases have been supported by the Government’s strangulation initiative means hundreds of victims have missed out on support they were promised, National’s Justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says.

“$20 million was allocated to this cross-agency initiative in Budget 2020, to aid the prosecution of strangulation as part of the Government’s response to family and sexual violence.

“The Government promised 869 cases would be supported each year – yet a year and a half since the announcement, nowhere near 869 cases have been supported and the initiative appears to be in its infancy. Even worse, only $54,000 of the $20 million has been spent on help for victims.

Example No 732 of how the Government’s only skill is making announcements.

Incredibly sad to read about the lives of those killed in Buffalo by Payton Gendron. It was beyond doubt racially motivated mass murder and terrorism. He appears to be partially inspired by the Christchurch terrorist, quoting much of his manifesto in Gendron’s own manifesto. Gendron self-describes himself as a fascist, a white supremacist and an antisemite.

He claims Jews are responsible for non-white immigration and that non-whites will overwhelm and ripe out the white race. He expressed support for Nazism. The Times of Israel notes:

He said he had targeted Black people, but that Jews were “the biggest problem.”

He said Black Americans were killing white people and taking public funding, and Jews were responsible, and that although he was targeting Black Americans, Jews “can be dealt with in time.”

In the manifesto, Gendron allegedly called for a war between Jews and non-Jews.

“The real war I’m advocating for is the gentiles vs the Jews. We outnumber them 100x, and they are not strong by themselves,” he wrote.

“By their Jewish ways, they turn us against each other. When you realize this you will know that the Jews are the biggest problem the Western world has ever had,” the manifesto said. “They must be called out and killed.” …

“The Jews are responsible for many problems that we in the western world face today,” he wrote, saying Jews mainly used control of the media to spread propaganda. “For our self-preservation, the Jews must be removed from our Western civilizations, in any way possible.”

Such hatred is sickening. It is incredibly sad to see these copycat events, especially having people slaughtered as they go about their daily lives.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has ruled himself out of the running in the upcoming Tauranga by-election on the day that nominations closed.

The former MP for Tauranga had been widely tipped to run for the seat once more, but has officially backed away from the June election despite giving the matter “serious consideration”.

This means the main candidates are:

1. National – Sam Uffindell
2. Labour – Hon Jan Tinetti
3. ACT – Cameron Luxton
4. New Conservatives – Helen Houghton
5. NZ Outdoors and Freedom – Sue Grey
6. ALCP – Christopher Croker
7. New Nation – Andrew Hollis

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

In the 12 months to March 2022, crime increased in Auckland city and more people began living on the street. Police statistics reveal 1971 assaults, 148 aggravated robberies and 1666 thefts from stores in that period. This was about 30 per cent higher than pre-pandemic levels.

Since then there have been the ram raids, intimidation of shop-keepers and break-ins.
Contrast this with Sydney and the rest of New South Wales, which recorded a drop in crime during the pandemic lockdowns. …

As one of 38,000 central city residents, I’ve had to come to terms with the escalating lawlessness in the CBD in the past two years. I’ve been threatened multiple times by the layabouts plonked outside the supermarkets in Victoria St and Queen St. Chased up Queen St by druggies wanting money. I’ve yet to see them moved on or trespassed — particularly during the four-month period when Auckland was locked down late last year.

There’s been intimidation by drugged-up thugs and patched gang members coming into office blocks to supposedly use toilets. I’ve witnessed others pushed into the midst of Quay St while police on the other side of the road did nothing.

I’ve put up with 501 deportees from Australia checking into our central city residential block intimidating fellow residents then running amok in city stores.

I’ve heard the tales of other residents around town who have been mugged and beaten, or had their gear stolen. Heard from them about the elderly 501 deportees from Australia running drugs from their apartment blocks with a steady stream of “customers” entering the place they call home.

There is fear in the city.

The most basic responsibility of Government is to keep its citizens safe. Auckland, Wellington, Rotorua and many more cities have become very unsafe.

AP reports:

Finland’s government declared a “new era” is underway as it inches closer to seeking NATO membership, hours before Sweden’s governing party on Sunday backed a plan to join the trans-Atlantic alliance amid Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Russia has long bristled about NATO moving closer to its borders, so the developments will be sure to further anger Moscow. President Vladimir Putin has already warned his Finnish counterpart on Saturday that relations would be “negatively affected.”

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Sunday the process for Finland and Sweden to join could be very quick. He also didn’t expect Turkey to hold up the process.

Putin claims he invaded Ukraine as he didn’t want NATO bordering Russia, and his invasion has achieved the very thing he didn’t want. Finland has 1,272 kms of land border with Russia and Sweden surrounds the Baltic Sea,

The Herald reports:

New Zealand On Air has been labelled out of touch and wasteful for awarding $200,000 of taxpayer money on a documentary about Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick.

The Act Party said Swarbrick should reject any role in the publicly-funded documentary.

NZ On Air today said “misinformation” was being sown after groups including the Taxpayers’ Union criticised the funding.

Swarbrick was not involved in pitching the project.

Irrelevant – she is cooperating with it, and it benefits her political aspirations massively.

“This is a gross misuse of taxpayers’ money,” Act leader David Seymour said.

NZ on Air must have lost their collective mind to think this was appropriate.

Media commentator Bill Ralston said the NZ On Air funding decision appeared to be problematic, even tone-deaf.

Ralston said it could be argued if the agency wanted to fund a documentary about a Green Party MP, it should do the same for all other parties in Parliament.

“It looks craven … It’s not a good idea by New Zealand On Air.”

How about we spend zero taxpayer dollars on fawning documentaries on any sitting MP.

Swarbrick directed queries to a producer who helped make 2020 film OK Chlöe.

Producer Letisha Tate-Dunning said the new project was a documentary following Swarbrick’s personal journey and daily life as an MP over the next two years.

So this in fact will be the second taxpayer funded “documentary” about the Green MP.

“Neither NZ On Air, the Green Party, or Chlöe herself have editorial control of the film. Chlöe does not benefit financially from the film,” she added.

“The producers want to make the film because they feel it’s important to show the reality of working within politics and how a young woman reconciles this with what and who is important to her.”

The benefit is political. Why did they not do one on ACT’s Brooke Van Velden?

Sean Plunket also writes:

our tax dollars all $199,9999.00 of them will fund this piece of electioneering and another $20,000.00 has already been tipped in for script development by another tax funded body, the Film Commission.

Now I’m not getting down on Chloe or the producers (one of whom is the wife of a prominent left-wing journalist) but there’s simply no way on God’s green earth that this can be seen as anything but taxpayer funding of a politically partisan puff piece. The decision to fund it with your tax dollar is bent, crooked, corrupt, and wrong.

To compound the problem it’s the second time NZOnAir has funded such a project. An earlier and much shorter film called “Ok Chloe” has already received the largesse of your tax dollar through NZOnAir.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pulled out of a similar project involving the same producers when she correctly read the room and realised how corrupt such funding looks.

It is impossible to imagine NZOnAir didn’t know exactly what they were doing when they approved this funding, but if they didn’t they are incompetent and if they did they are corrupt.

Harsh but true. The problem is they are so removed from the New Zealanders who fund them, that they probably can’t comprehend how anyone objects to a $220,000 taxpayer funded hagiography on a Green MP. I mean, all their friends will love it.

My solution is to move NZ on Air from the Wellington CBD to say Taihape. That will get them in touch with real NZ.

The Daily Wire reports:

A new corporate culture memo from Netflix is taking a hardline stance on attempts to silence artistic expression by warning those who are offended by the streaming service’s content that they may want to go find a job somewhere else.

Variety reports that the change in Netflix’s company culture appears to be in large part due to the backlash the streaming service faced from woke employees last year over its Dave Chappelle special, which the employees claimed was transphobic.

The updated Netflix Culture memo includes a new section called “Artistic Expression” that states that it will not “censor specific artists or voices” even if employees consider the content “harmful.”

“If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you,” the memo states, later adding that employees may be required to work on projects that they “perceive to be harmful” and that if they have a hard time accepting their work assignment, they might want to consider working somewhere else.

“Entertaining the world is an amazing opportunity and also a challenge because viewers have very different tastes and points of view. So we offer a wide variety of TV shows and movies, some of which can be provocative,” the new section reads, later adding, “we support the artistic expression of the creators we choose to work with” and that “we let viewers decide what’s appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices.”

This is great news. So many major corporations have allowed a couple of dozen woke employees to force them into censorship. You’ve seen publishing staff try to blacklist JK Rowling’s book, Netflix staff try to cancel Dave Chappelle etc and all too often they succeed when it is is someone who isn’t a global star.

Netflix’s response is what you want – if you don’t like who we publish or broadcast, then go find a job elsewhere.

They have probably seen what happened at Disney. DIsney changed their policies because of a protest by 0.3% of their staff and have had a massive backlash from conservatives. Their share price has dropped from $142 to $104 in six weeks.

Enter captions below. As always we want funny, not nasty.

Stuff reports:

But for the past month, 68-year-old Maria Barrett has kept herself locked inside her home, never tempted to leave a window or door unlocked.

She and other residents on the street have been left shaken after a neighbouring tenant had drawn a knife, sworn and threatened to murder them.

At this point any decent landlord with an ounce of common sense would evict the person threatening to murder your other tenants. But no this is Kainga Ora, whom Labour has instructed not to evict anyone ever.

“He spotted me sitting in the garage, and he said “what are you looking at you f…..g c…, I’ll stab you and all your family” and he was just going off, I just closed the garage.

“I was shaking…once he’s off you don’t know what’s going to happen.”

“It makes me feel really unsafe…why am I afraid to stay in my own home,” said Barrett.

No-one should feel this unsafe, let alone a 68 year old.

Residents in the neighbourhood have repeatedly called on landlord Kāinga Ora which manages the properties to remove the tenant and introduce tighter actions when screening tenants, but they say nothing has been done.

Kāinga Ora said they had 200,000 people living in their homes and the well-being of those residents was important to them.

No it isn’t. Actions speak louder than words.

In a statement they said complaints related this incident had been made since November last year and they were working with police while introducing new measures that could result in the removal of tenants if they were disruptive.

Translation: We have spent six months doing nothing but talk.

Steven Joyce writes:

There were more datapoints this week suggesting the public of New Zealand and its Government are currently inhabiting different planets.

Going on the statements from the Beehive, ministers are clearly focused on growing the public service, doling out a big climate change slush fund, taking the long handle to the public’s preferred means of getting around, implementing co-governance of public assets, and pouring another massive dollop of borrowed cash into the hungry maw that is their giant new health bureaucracy.

The public, on the other hand, are dealing with a runaway cost of living, shrinking household budgets, rising mortgage rates, diminishing asset values, a surge in aggressive criminal activity, long queues at the local hospital, a declining education sector and the growing realisation that economic activity is being frustrated by an obstructionist political class.

Such an excellent summary of where things are.

The Prime Minister and the Finance Minister have made it quite clear that it is for everyone else to tighten their belts — not the Government.

The Government is increasing spending, running deficits and increasing debt, which leaves taxpayers having to fund it all, plus cope with 7% inflation.

Newshub reports:

Since 2019, the transport agency’s spent $145 million on consultants, covering things like the environment and planning, versus just $200 million on actual construction.

Isn’t that amazing? Almost as much on consultants than on actually building roads.

But the Waka Kotahi spend up doesn’t end there. Since 2017, it’s more than doubled its PR team from 32 staff to 88 – 65 of whom are earning $100,000 or more.

NZTA used to build and improve roads so that non urban roads could be safely travelled on at the open road speed limit. Now they think their job is to not improve roads, so that they can lower speed limits on them, and hence they need more comms staff to explain why they are not building roads.

The public results are here.

Party Vote

• National 36.8% (-1.0% from April)
• Labour 34.2% (-2.6%)
• ACT 10.9% (+2.5%)
• Greens 9.7% (+0.3%)
• Maori Party 2.4% (-1.2%)
• NZ First 1.8% (+0.1%)
• TOP 1.4%
• Conservatives 1.3%

Seats

• National 47 (+14 from election)
• Labour 44 (-21)
• ACT 14 (+4)
• Greens 12 (+2)
• Maori Party 3 (+1)

Government

• National/ACT 61/120
• Labour/Greens 56/120

Country Direction

• Right 34% (-7%)
• Wrong 48% (+5%)

This is the first time the Taxpayers’ Union/Curia poll has shown the centre-right able to form a Government.

Newshub reports:

The National Party’s health spokesperson Dr Shane Reti claims the life expectancy for Māori has improved over time.

Appearing on The Hui on Monday night, Dr Reti challenged the idea that health outcomes for Māori had been abysmal and said Māori life expectancy had improved. He said in 1840, Māori life expectancy was 30 years of age and today it’s 73.4 years, so it had in fact improved.

This is not a claim. It is historical fact.

Incidentally in 1950 Maori life expectancy was 78% of non-Maori. Now it is around 91%.

What is wrong with NZ on Air? They hand out $220,000 for a hagiography about a second term Green Party MP. Why should taxpayers fund a 90 minute hagiography about an MP seeking re-election?

It comes from some of the same team who also wanted funding for a hagiography about Jacinda Ardern and how she was the true hero of the Christchurch Mosque Massacre.

Stuff reports:

Te Pāti Māori says it considered standing a candidate in the Tauranga by-election, but opted not to over concerns about safety and racism in the region.

Party president Che Wilson said racism and hate speech in Tauranga made it a “safety issue” for the party to participate in the upcoming by-election.

Astonishing that Tauranga is so unsafe for Maori as it has had a Maori MP for 35 of the last 38 years!

I think Auckland Light Rail has eclipsed Kiwibuild as the Government’s worst delivery failure.

Jacinda’s first promise as Labour Leader was Light Rail to Mt Roskill would be complete in four years. Now they are saying it will take seven years just to complete the business case!

If they were a company, you would sue them for false advertising.

By comparison National signed off on a business case for Transmission Gully after just one year in office.

A guest post by Gary Benner:

A White Paper on How to Better our Parliament & Electoral System

It is suggested that these changes be referred to the “Ardern Changes”, not because they are
advocated by our current PM, but for the reason that they are necessary because of her performance
at the head of a party with an absolute majority in the New Zealand MMP based Parliament.
This experience has disenfranchised so many New Zealanders, and enabled career politicians to
take control of not just the economy, but the very culture of New Zealand, promoting a divisive and
hateful atmosphere throughout the whole of our society.
The current experience with our government raises a number of issues to be
addressed:

The House of Representatives does not represent the citizens of New Zealand anymore
(not sure it ever did actually). Once MP’s are elected and move into the “House of
Representatives”, they are no longer truly able to represent their constituents, as they almost
all have to adhere to Party dictates, as evidenced clearly by the existance of Party “Whips”.
This then gives inordinate powers to just a few people at the top level of the party in
power.

The “Party System” in conjunction with MMP enables the control of the parliamentary
process by elite members of the various political parties, and a dominance of a generic “left
versus right” polarisation that drowns out creative and dynamic solutions being developed
and implemented.

Where dominance of one party exists, they have the ability to control all processes such as
Select Committees without any checks and balances.

Lack of independence with the Speaker of the House. The current one is a prime example.

So called “Captains Calls” that bypass the democratic process.

The position of Governor General has no significant function, apart from ceremonial, and
needs to given some teeth.

The total lack of transparency and accountability, despite this being part of the current
government’s election promises.

A group of major national media organisations trained to be dependent on government
handouts, with the apparent lack of an aggressive questioning of government policies and
actions.

Out of date statistical data on what is really happening in our country.

Proposed changes:

1 All 60 Electorate MP’s must be independents, and not aligned to any political party. They
should have a commitment to represent solely the region for which they were elected. Their
campaigning should be directed at their track record in governance, business acumen,
and backed by a local team to hear and include the ideas and needs of all persons in their
electorate.
2 The 60 List Members will be as at present, party aligned, and will campaign on their Party’s
policies, track record, and the skill sets of their members. Each Party registered must
document a set of planned policies which they will be allowed to put forward for voting in
parliament during the next term, should they be elected. This allows parties to attract
talented individuals who do not wish to split their focus between their career speciality
and local service.
3 The party with the most votes have the mandate to form a cabinet and elect a PM from
within their ranks, and to set the legislative calendar as per their documented policies
published prior to the election. Any additional legislation introduced, as driven by
circumstances will have a higher percentage level of votes in parliament to pass.
4 Select Committees will remain, and should be assigned to List MPs. The Party with the most
votes gets to select the Committees it wishes to head, as per their proportion of members.
Obviously Finance will be the first they will choose. Then the party with the next greatest
number of MP’s chooses its allocation, and so on. The same process will then apply to
Committee membership, with no Committee having more members in proportion to the
Party count. This would allow for the removal of the 5% minimum for MMP representation,
and the need for parties to have to formally create coalition arrangements. Simply, the party
with the most votes gets to lead.
5 The Speaker of the House has to have a role re-definition, focusing on the operational
processes of the House alone. The appointment should come from outside the members, and
perhaps a member of the Judiciary that is satisfactory to a minimum of 75% of the House
members as a whole. Nominations could be approved by the current Governor General.
6 All legislation brought to the House must be debated in full, with matters of “urgency”
meeting specific criteria, that will be allowed only by a preliminary vote of 75% of the
voting members. This criteria should be available only for matters of National Emergency,
such as adverse events, war etc. All other legislation should proceed through the full
process.
7 All legislation brought to the House, to proceed through the standard process, will proceed
through the three stages as at present, but voted on by the electorate MP’s alone. List
elected Members will not participate in the vote, as this is an affirmation stage for legislation
they bring to and formulate for the House to consider. This is what creates the balance – one
side creating the legislation, knowing it has to be approved by the other. A poor man’s upper
house.
8 A legislation review process should be implemented, so that all legislation must be reaffirmed
after 12 months. Any legislation that fails to be re-affirmed should be removed
from the books. This is similar what I believe is the Swiss System. As a background process,
all past legislation over 25 years will require an affirmation, or marked for review as
appropriate. Perhaps one a month chosen by ballot submitted by all MP’s. This will ensure
legislation is refreshed, or removed as appropriate.
9 The Governor General to have an enhanced position, and one that is elected every five
years. In the current situation, the Queen, or her successor, must approve the election of her
representative. In the event of a rejection, should that ever happen, then the reasons must be
communicated, and a new election held. Or perhaps candidates nominated need the Royal
assent to be on the ballot.
The requirements for the position of Governor General are one that ensure the person is able
to fulfil the special role.
9.1 They have never participated in public party political activity during their life
9.2 They have had a career encompassing governance, public duty, have not been
part of any organisation advocating for, or public lobbying for action on behalf of a
specific group or set of moral or political goals, and they must have an unblemished
reputation.
9.3 They are retired from any current career for a period of two years, prior to being
nominated. Nominations must be supported by a full resume of the individuals career
and experience, achievements and proof of party independence.
9.4 All duties with other organisations, or any association where there is a potential
for partiality are relinquished
9.5 If they have significant investments (greater than $1M), these are placed into a
Blind Trust managed by a fully independent professional firm for the duration of their
appointment.
9.6 Their duty is to affirm all legislation passed by the House of Representatives, that
in their view, it serves the best interests of the citizens of New Zealand as a whole. They
have the following options for every item of legislation:
9.6.1 affirm the legislation as presented
9.6.2 return the legislation to the House with a list of concerns – if returned then
any further voting requires a 70% threshold. Any such legislation passed in this
manner is then automatically entered into the books.
9.7 The Governor General should have access to enough resource to take take
specialist advice on matters of a technical nature, but this must be limited, and not an
excuse to create a separate public service.
10 To ensure that Electorate MP’s are fully engaged with their electorate voters, a
number of activities must be implemented as a minimum:
10.1 They will employ a local team of three staff who are working constantly in the
region to deal with issues raised by constituents.
10.2 Monthly public “town hall” meetings, live streamed, with “all comer” questions
able to be asked. Those asking technical questions should indicate in advance, or expect
the answer to be deferred to the next meeting. In large electorates these must be
distributed around the region, with at least one remote location every three months. (eg.
East Cape). Maybe also have the opportunity for (local) List MP’s also to attend and
answer questions.
10.3 An online forum available for all constituents to air opinions on current matters,
and where the elected MP must respond to those issues, for all to see.
10.4 A recall election for an electorate MP must be held if a petition with 5,000 or
25% of the voters (whatever is the lessor) signatures is received by the Electoral
Commission. Only one per term can be held in each electorate. Each application must be
validated by the Governor General to ensure it is not frivolous.
10.5 Parliament should only need to sit two weeks every month, giving the time for
select committees in Wellington to undertake their work, and electorate MP’s to spend
time in their respective regions.

Comments

1. This does not require a change in regard to the current Monarchist vs Republic debate, as it
   will work for both.
2. Little change to resources required in Parliament, as there is only role re-assignments.
3. Some changes for the Governor General, and at a local level, but worth it in the longer term,
   and would provide a segue to any republic moves in the future.
4. It ensures that the frustration felt in the general public that lead to the Convoy 2022 and
   public occupations around the country has not reason to happen again.
5. That the public has an ability to engage almost daily in political matters, instead of being
   relegated to literally a binary choice, in a once every three years circus, highly managed in
   the media, and leaving citizens unable to exert influence in real time.
6. There has to be mechanisms to ensure the independence of electorate MP’s. Non-aligned to
   any organisation, and a period of 3 – 5 years since holding office in any body advocating for
   a specific political outcome ( eg. Business Roundtable, Union etc).
   Other:
7. That all state funding of, and investment in media organisations is banned.
8. That voting patterns of all Electorate MP’s is published online in “real time”, so constituents
   can see and rate the independence of their MP.
9. That Statistics NZ have a mandate to publish all performance and quality information online
   for all government departments in real time, in complete form. This could involve the creation of
   “Dashboards” showing the current state of, and trends in all areas – Health, Education, Business &
   Finance, Crime & Justice etc. This data should also be shown relative to the same information
   (where possible) in other major countries. For instance we currently have extremely manicured
   health statistics, some of it obscenely out of date.
10. The independence of local MP’s is critical, and there may be a period of adjustment
    required, as it would be foolish to suggest that many good current MP’s aligned to the current model would be excluded immediately.

Emma Priest writes:

I was a senior Crown prosecutor for 11 years, prosecuting many sexual trials before I became a defence lawyer. Although my view on the criminal justice system as it applies to sex trials will be unpopular with some, I feel it is my duty to correct some misconceptions.

Rape is a devastating crime for the victim. A false conviction for rape, however, is a devastating injustice for an innocent defendant.

A conviction for sexual offending means years in jail, often followed by no employment, travel, and very real restrictions for the rest of one’s life. The stakes are enormous and the jury has to get it right. Measures to depart from traditional jury trials for defendants may be attractive but that does not make them just or desirable.

There is a reason we require conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Moses ben Maimon in the 1100s said “it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.” and this principle remains with us today.

It has been law for a long time that New Zealand lawyers cannot cross-examine complainants about their sexual history or reputation unless a judge decides it is relevant and a miscarriage of justice would result without it. It is unfair to suggest that slut-shaming is a hallmark of cross-examination. Complainants now have the protection of automatic name suppression, support people in court, and often appear via CCTV. Judges intervene where lawyers (infrequently) get close to the line.

It is important to distinguish between bullying and testing the evidence where the allegations are denied.

The term “bullying” has become as misused as “unsafe”. Vigorous cross-examination is not bullying.

Sometimes the complaint arises years or decades later. People make complaints to the police about a party that happened 20 years earlier. Think back to a party in your 20s, when maybe you met someone and had a sexual encounter. You were both a bit drunk and you thought they were “into you”. The police contact you now, 10 or 20 years later, tell you she didn’t want sex that night and that you are to be charged with rape. There is no statute of limitation in New Zealand and you can be prosecuted 10 years later – or 30 or 40.

I do wonder if there should be a statute of limitation on certain crimes in New Zealand. How do you defend yourself when your memories of 30 years ago about a specific event will be very poor. Having said, that you don’t want people to get a free pass because of time, especially if they were in a position of authority over the complainant – such as a parent or teacher.

We must push against a criminal justice system that starts with the presumption that complainants are telling the truth. Yes, I accept many are telling the truth, but there is much greyness. A complainant can honestly have not consented but, in that same encounter, a defendant can honestly believe there was consent. Both are right. This doesn’t take away from the complainant’s negative experience, but also it doesn’t mean the defendant is guilty of rape.

I think it is fine to start with a presumption of truth, but it shouldn’t end there.

The question must be “has the defendant broken the law?” not “do we believe the complainant?”

Yep.