Hard News: An unacceptable failure of care
72 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I wrote that the police “should have had cause to fear [young women and girls] were being systematically sexually assaulted”. I think that’s fair.
You did, and it is. I think what Rich is referring to is the misunderstanding that Beriah Hales's father was one of the members of the Child Protection Unit involved. As I understand it, he is not. [edit] Given that it's your blog, you are the "publisher of record" and therefore liable for any libel raised (correct me if I've misunderstood you, Rich).
-
The findings of the IPCA include this clear statement:
14.6 The fact that the father of one of the young men was a Police officer had no influence on Police’s handling of the investigations.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Given that it’s your blog, you are the “publisher of record” and therefore liable for any libel raised (correct me if I’ve misunderstood you, Rich)
Yes, I am. Let me look at that.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Given that it’s your blog, you are the “publisher of record” and therefore liable for any libel raised
I’m wondering how that should work in an online forum.
Let’s say it’s effectively a ‘conversation’ and someone raises something libellous (and incorrect – I think truth is always a defence?)
Others in the conversation argue with this statement, convincing the original libeller (and any reasonable reader) they were wrong (like this could actually happen on the internet!? But it’s kind’ve what’s happened here.)
Without the original libellous statement, the whole conversation is rendered meaningless, and somehow there’s less enlightenment all round.
I’d like to think a judge would see the thread/conversation/discussion as a whole, and accept that people in discourse get things wrong, get heated, make mistakes, sometimes boast or talk shit, and that's a part of free speech.
It definitely shouldn’t put the owner of the house in the dock. I hope it’s not here :) but I hope we get some case-law on this soon. It’s an issue that won’t go away, but right now nobody seems to know where the boundaries lie. -
nzlemming, in reply to
Let’s say it’s effectively a ‘conversation’ and someone raises something libellous (and incorrect – I think truth is always a defence?)
Essentially, it has to be incorrect to be libellous – truth is a defence, yes.
I’d like to think a judge would see the thread/conversation/discussion as a whole, and accept that people in discourse get things wrong, get heated, make mistakes, sometimes boast or talk shit, and that’s a part of free speech.
Free speech means that government can’t stop you speaking – it doesn’t mean you can say what you like. You can qualify your comment explicitly as opinion, but even that is not absolute. If I were to go on (for an absurd example) Slater’s blog and say “In my opinion, Russell Brown is a small-minded lefty woofter”, I’d probably be able to mount a credible defence of personal opinion. If, however, I posted “In my opinion, Russel Brown screws small animals and buries their bodies at the beach.” Russell would probably be within his rights to firstly demand that Slater take it down and secondly to bring action against me for defamation, which I could only defend by digging up the supposed bodies.
It definitely shouldn’t put the owner of the house in the dock. I hope it’s not here :) but I hope we get some case-law on this soon. It’s an issue that won’t go away, but right now nobody seems to know where the boundaries lie.
I’m sure the Edge will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there is already case law on this (see http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/online-defamation-nz-google-case-supports-aust-not-uk-conclusions-ck-132351) which definitely points at the owner of the house.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’m sure the Edge will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there is already case law on this (see http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/online-defamation-nz-google-case-supports-aust-not-uk-conclusions-ck-132351) which definitely points at the owner of the house.
Yes. And the fact the terribly defamatory things get said in the comments of certain other blogs every day is no impediment to someone taking action on something said here.
We are in the process of becoming Press Council members, which does offer an alternative process, one I would be happy to embrace.
-
Boys named sue...?
Please delete my earlier comment if it is in any way a possible legal impediment, but I would really like to know if there was less of an inquiry because one of the boys' fathers was a policeman, that he might have been at the same station as the Child Protection Team, to my mind, makes it worse, if it is true that none of the boys' parents were approached formally or in any recorded fashion (ie a paper trail or notes)...
Hearing Greg Connor try and say they were overworked and under resourced, when they didn't even do the basics, makes my blood boil - especially if they could have just talked to the parent-officer on site! -
Sacha, in reply to
I would really like to know if there was less of an inquiry because one of the boys' fathers was a policeman
See the statement I quoted above. The IPCA says no it wasn't a factor. I presume they investigated that angle before making such a firm statement.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The IPCA says no it wasn’t a factor. I presume they investigated that angle before making such a firm statement.
They hadn't even made the connection in the case of the first two complainants.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Specifically, they say they found no evidence of any impact. But that is quite literally all they say about it, before concluding that there was thus no impact. It's hard to think what evidence there really could be, since anyone asked would simply deny it, unless it was some really blatant thing like a direct order to lay off the colleague's son.
But does the pressure to treat a colleague's family differently even have to be articulated? It's considered so likely to be prejudicial that I wouldn't be allowed to sit on a jury if the defendant or victim were a colleague's child. For really, really obvious reasons. It seems like a systemic failure that the case wasn't immediately passed to police officers with no connection at all to the father.
-
The bit that sticks out on the report to me is this:
Young men and their families
105. Contrary to their engagement with the young women and their families, the investigating officers’ contact and interaction with the young men and their families was, in all six of the cases investigated by CPT staff, inadequate or non-existent (see paragraphs 93 — 96). The failure of Police to make contact meant that the young men were never held accountable for their behaviour and, without any appreciation for the consequences or repercussions, there was no
motivation for them to discontinue their behaviour. Furthermore, given that the parents of the young men were never made aware of several of the incidents and the details of their sons’ involvement, they were unable to intervene or act to address the behaviour. -
Sacha, in reply to
They had access to all the communications and paperwork around the case. As you say, that wouldn't show tacit influence.
-
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...
"Strictly off the record but.... Keep it under your military looking hat but....
'cos he's one of us.... Guvner..."
Off the record that was never kept hence the lack of communication leading to the cock-up. -
Police corruption is a big allegation to make. Perhaps we can agree it looks bad that one of the alleged perpetrators is a cop’s son and leave it at that.
Police culture and competence in the area of rape and child abuse is clearly at fault. It’s hardly the first time the justice system has massively failed the survivors of rape. We must press for an overhaul of their system.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Thank you Lilith, and while you're at it, I'll just say
I'm disgusted, but not surprised. I know the process. Sometimes it feels like " FTP!".
IMO jus'sayin' nothing to do with Russell Brown, just me. -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Police culture and competence...
Top cop 'forgets' crime files in cupboard!!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11421129Yet Rodney Hide weighs in on on how dirty police cars are - apparently that really depresses him!!!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11421086and I see court documents have 'disappeared' from files on the Pike River case
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/67466264/Pike-River-court-file-goes-missingseems that having systems is no guarantee of people following them.
be nice if police and justice always extended a helping hand rather than sitting on them. -
-
Where can I get a hard copy of this report so I can throw it at the head of the next person who says "Why didn't she go to the Police?"
-
Police culture and competence
On a general point find this case shocking for the girl and their families. And on police culture I don't know how deep competence checks go and how and if they are done.
But locally,the police cant be trusted to get anything right. They jump in hobnail boots and all when its not required, and turn a blind eye when they should be investigating fully and properly. Even tho they may be nice folks and all, professionally they just cant be trusted to get anything right, apart from issue traffic tickets.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Even tho they may be nice folks and all, professionally they just cant be trusted to get anything right, apart from issue traffic tickets.
They are pretty good at hovering over houses dangling buckets of blue poison too.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
They jump in hobnail boots and all when its not required
Amen. Lest we forget the persecution of the alleged Christchurch light bulb looter, whose name I won't invoke out of respect for his presumed desire for privacy.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Police corruption is a big allegation to make.
It certainly is. But observing that there seems to be no process by which a potential criminal investigation is given to people who are guaranteed to be impartial, rather than people whose partiality is easily questionable is not an observation of corruption, but of very poor practice. Questions of corruption should never even come up in a well designed system. It should be standard practice that an investigation into any accusations against a person should not be conducted by people who know his father socially or professionally. There are separate police for investigating police, and perhaps the same should go for families of police.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Well, yes, I was referring to the comments. Fairly widespread liability for libel predates the internet, newspaper sellers are, I think, jointly responsible for any libels in the papers they sell (at least in the UK, NZ might have removed this).
But also, I suspect (and hope) a libel case is unlikely, both because of the cost and because such a case would require X and Y to deny the allegations under oath, something they might not be well advised to do.
However the HDC Bill, if ever enacted as proposed makes legal action a simpler process and truth not an absolute defence. That would definitely chill discussion such as this.
-
Sue, in reply to
They jump in hobnail boots and all when its not required
Amen. Lest we forget the persecution of the alleged Christchurch light bulb looter, whose name I won’t invoke out of respect for his presumed desire for privacy.
Arthur Alan Thomas, David Bain, Teina Pora
victims of the police -
Lawyer Catriona MacLennan is concerned amongst several things that the previous Operation Clover review repeated some of the same deficient reasoning about laying charges.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.