<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>




<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: A grand jury?</title>
		<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/</link>
		<atom:link rel="self" href="https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/rss/" type="application/rss+xml"/>
		
		<description><![CDATA[A talking shop where we put the questions and our community illuminates the issues.]]></description>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<copyright>Copyright (c) 2026 Public Address</copyright>
			

		
			<item>
				<title>Kyle Matthews</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91216#post91216</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91216#post91216</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Though often as much of a problem (IMHO) is their crazy holding onto bits of it as if they're stuck in stone.</p><p>Personally I think America would get safer if they made some changes to the 2nd amendment that, so people would stop raving on about their right to conduct…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:01:20 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Paul Campbell</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91189#post91189</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91189#post91189</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Rich I equally agree with you too &ndash; the one thing the americans got to do was throw everything away and try to craft a working whole from scratch &ndash; but they made it all so stable they sort of got stuck there.</p><p>The problem is that you want a…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:00:04 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Peter Ashby</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91162#post91162</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91162#post91162</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>Or a bit more refined because we aren't stuck with the way things were done in 1800</p></blockquote><p>Indeed, you will hear many Americans complain that their ossified constitution is often more of a hindrance than a help. There are some mighty Byzantine things done in the US purely because they…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:58:40 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91139#post91139</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91139#post91139</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>Plus, I note our Parliament seems to handle "no confidence" motions easily enough...</p></blockquote><p>The US doesn't have no-confidence motions of course, because the executive doesn't have to retain the confidence of the legislature. In some ways the Clinton trial was a proxy for a no-confidence motion, though with the Republicans…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:46:47 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Paul Campbell</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91116#post91116</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91116#post91116</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						The US also considers the courts as an equal part of the "separation of powers" &ndash; theoretically the executive (president and cabinet), the congress (house and senate) and the judiciary (in particular the supreme court) are independent &ndash; but check each other through the ability of the congress to impeach,…
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:58:28 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91115#post91115</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91115#post91115</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						The idea that Parliament is the "highest court in the land" comes from the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy &ndash; if the Government ever loses is Court &ndash; even if it loses it the Supreme Court &ndash; it can get Parliament to pass a law over-ruling the decision.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:56:10 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Kyle Matthews</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91114#post91114</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91114#post91114</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						Isn't parliament the highest court in NZ in some circumstances? Or am I making that up.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:28:56 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Kyle Matthews</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91113#post91113</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91113#post91113</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>Clinton was "tried" by the legislature rather than the judiciary, who can hardly be expected to give a fair trial to a political opponent.</p></blockquote><p>In America, where judges are often elected, or appointed along political lines, this is also sometimes true of the judiciary.</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:18:27 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91112#post91112</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91112#post91112</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>Clinton was "tried" by the legislature rather than the judiciary, who can hardly be expected to give a fair trial to a political opponent.</p></blockquote><p>The Senate trial wasn't a criminal trial, but a trial to see whether Clinton should be removed from office &ndash; by its very nature it's political.…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:16:58 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91107#post91107</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91107#post91107</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>The events were roughly this:<br />&ndash; Paula Jones, a state employee, sued for sexual harrasment, alleging that he invited her to his room and propositioned her.<br />&ndash; She called evidence that he had had relationships with other employees to support her case. <br />&ndash; Clinton denied this.<br />&ndash; the trial judge…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:35:24 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91102#post91102</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91102#post91102</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>Come on Graeme. I expect better of you.</p><p>The Clark case was not a case of forgery, what was forged? neither the painting nor the signature.</p></blockquote><p>The police determined that it there was sufficient evidence to charge Clark with forgery over the matter, but elected not to prosecute because there…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:17:44 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Steve Barnes</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91096#post91096</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91096#post91096</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>the decision not to charge Helen Clark over the art forgery?</p></blockquote><p>Come on Graeme. I expect better of you.<br />The Clark case was not a case of forgery, what was forged? neither the painting nor the signature.<br />The fact of the matter is Ms Clark autographed the back of a…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:54:52 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Kyle Matthews</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91094#post91094</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91094#post91094</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>I had understood that the issues being raised were around the Whitewater grand jury investigation, and had nothing to do with the impeachment.</p><p>Clinton was found in civil contempt for his false testimony in the sexual harrassment case, and was fined $90,000.</p></blockquote><p>Ah OK.</p><p>Wikipedia says the false testimony was…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:53:54 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91091#post91091</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91091#post91091</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p><em>I think that the US abuse of compelled testimony, prosecution by politicians and the investigation of non-crimes (such as in the McCarthy and Clinton cases) has rather discredited the Grand Jury, at least under that name.</em> </p><p>Didn't Clinton lie under oath at a hearing of a sexual harassment case? And…</p></blockquote>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:41:19 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Gareth Ward</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91090#post91090</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91090#post91090</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>I suspect our only body run along inquisitorial lines will remain the Waitangi Tribunal.</p></blockquote><p>NOBODY expects the Waitangi Tribunal! <br />Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:39:59 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Paul Campbell</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91077#post91077</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91077#post91077</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						actually technically Clinton was "impeached" &ndash; in the US impeachment is essentially the same as "indicted" &ndash; there the house acts as a Grand Jury and decides to prosecute ("impeach") while the senate acts as a court and tries the subject. In Clinton's case he was impeached by the house…
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:14:18 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>BenWilson</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91075#post91075</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91075#post91075</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>That is not its purpose.</p></blockquote><p>Hence the hypothetical. But I'm glad to hear it.</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:08:18 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91074#post91074</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91074#post91074</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Actually, perjury requires the evidence to be material in a trial.</p><p>The trial judge in the harrasment case at a fairly early stage ruled that, even if Clinton had behaved as alleged, he hadn't committed any offence. Consensual sex between adults is not a crime, or even a tort, in…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:06:51 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Kyle Matthews</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91069#post91069</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91069#post91069</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>For one thing such a body would have too little to do in New Zealand which would lead to inevitable function creep.</p></blockquote><p>According to its annual report:</p><blockquote><p>During the year, the Authority received 2073 complaints and accepted 1690 for investigation1 (either by the Authority or by Police under the Authority’s…</p></blockquote>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:53:54 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91052#post91052</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91052#post91052</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>Has NZ ever considered having an independent prosecutor in the Scottish fashion?</p></blockquote><p>It gets mentioned occasionally, but I don't believe it's received serious consideration.</p><blockquote><p>Or indeed going further and having an investigating magistrate after the fashion of Continental Europe?</p></blockquote><p>Far less likely. The possibility that an inquisitorial system might be…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:17:42 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91048#post91048</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91048#post91048</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>If the purpose of the PCA is simply to recommend conviction or not, then the police have lost a powerful tool for internal improvement.</p></blockquote><p>That is not its purpose. Indeed, it often waits (waited?) for criminal proceedings to be completed before making its reports.</p><blockquote><p>A properly independent review of controversial…</p></blockquote>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:05:15 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Paul Campbell</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91040#post91040</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91040#post91040</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						There's another abuse in the US from the Grand Jury system (at least IMHO) &ndash; some places have standing Grand Juries (empaneled for a year or more) who go out looking for things to prosecute on their own &ndash; this can result in someone on the jury with a gripe…
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:25:55 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>BenWilson</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91031#post91031</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91031#post91031</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						Some good ideas. A properly independent review of controversial police actions, whether it be a judge or a jury doing it, would serve to enhance the reputation of the police <em>if they acted lawfully and appropriately</em>.  If they did not, it would quite righteously discredit them. The idea of in-house…
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:57:22 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91018#post91018</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=91018#post91018</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>I think that the US abuse of compelled testimony, prosecution by politicians and the investigation of non-crimes (such as in the McCarthy and Clinton cases) has rather discredited the Grand Jury, at least under that name. </p><p>Has NZ ever considered having an independent prosecutor in the Scottish fashion? Or indeed…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:48:35 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Matthew Poole</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90992#post90992</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90992#post90992</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>the then Police Complaints Authority (which may still be ongoing?)</p></blockquote><p>The PCA completed their investigation, and found that Abbott's shooting was justified. Just like every other investigation. The IPCA has now opened its own investigation, with a purview that includes whether or not all options were pursued, amongst other things.…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:10:33 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90985#post90985</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90985#post90985</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>How about the people directly affected by the actions of the individual being investigated?</p></blockquote><p>So Steven Wallace could have for being shot (if he'd lived), but his family cannot (given that he didn't)?</p><p>Why could no-one have challenged a hypothetical decision not to charge Phillip Field, if they thought the…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:11:14 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>3410</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90979#post90979</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90979#post90979</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>Feelings that police are protecting their own, or are bowing to political pressure, are best avoided, but they should not be avoided by the "prosecute first, ask questions later" solution some seem to be proposing.</p></blockquote><p>G.,<br />Regarding the first half of this, do you not think that the possibility of…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:28:26 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Lx</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90974#post90974</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90974#post90974</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>There would also be inherent problems given the scope of judicial review &ndash; it generally only looks at process and legality, and in reviews of prosecutorial discretion you may really just be looking at people who disagree with the decision.</p></blockquote><p>I thought that the scope also extended to the substance…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:11:34 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90961#post90961</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90961#post90961</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>I am also interested in your thoughts on Depositions</p><p>At the moment they seem to be mostly used as a fishing expedition by the defence and seldom is there a verdict of "no case to answer"</p></blockquote><p>The main utility of depositions isn't about getting to a finding of no case…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:15:30 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Raymond A Francis</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90959#post90959</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90959#post90959</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>An iteresting idea Grame and worth serious thought, just how much scope do you think we should give Grand Juries<br />Just called for infringements with a political background or rather a potential tricky political problems</p><p>I am also interested in your thoughts on Depositions<br />At the moment they seem to…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:59:09 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90951#post90951</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90951#post90951</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<blockquote><p>Is a decision not to prosecute subject to judicial review?</p></blockquote><p>It is not.</p><blockquote><p>If not, would it be appropriate to make it so?</p></blockquote><p>I'm not sure that wouldn't be a much bigger change.</p><p>There would also be inherent problems given the scope of judicial review &ndash; it generally only looks…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:17:51 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Peter Ashby</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90949#post90949</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90949#post90949</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						I think wrt the Naitoko case a grand jury system would be cheaper than the sort of independent police complaints commission that has evolved over here in the UK. For one thing such a body would have too little to do in New Zealand which would lead to inevitable function…
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:10:15 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Lx</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90943#post90943</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90943#post90943</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Is a decision not to prosecute subject to judicial review? If not, would it be appropriate to make it so? Resurrecting a grand jury for such limited purposes seems like a big move.</p><p>Also am I right in thinking that a private prosecution has a lower standard of proof than…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:43:35 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Public Address</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90942#post90942</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-a-grand-jury/?p=90942#post90942</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Discussion from blog post.</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:43:35 +1300</pubDate>
			</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
