Up Front: A Kink in the Pants
125 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
OK, so we've got to be careful what we say about the man who painted a dead woman as a kinky little twist who, I guess, just forgot that the safe word was 'aubergine' but...
-
OK, so we've got to be careful what we say about the man
I've got to be careful. Should this column engender mass fuckwit-calling, I'd hardly be responsible for that.
-
Sure, the defence needs to aim for reasonable doubt. But there's a line where you go from putting up your client's side of the story to actively creating a bullshit fantasy all by yourself - Mr Comesky isn't just bordering on that, he's through Customs and ordering a Mai Tai by the pool
-
Huzzah! But the horrble thing is that everyone accused of murder is entitled to a defence, but does the 'dirty skank brought it on herself' line have to come out as easily as a well-lubed butt-plug during a fit of mega-flatulence? And. yes, I think Chris Comeskey knows exactly what dogs he whistles for at any given moment.
-
Has he forgot that Nai Yin Xue told his daughter (her words) that mummy was just tired and sleeping,that his car was parked up outside their house the entire time before he was gone (in her car before flying off ). We would drive past and suggest the cops should look in the boot along with photographers and news stations and onlookers, all over it.If someone else had his car before then he should know who that person was, but no mention of that. Who had the keys to his car? That would help to know how the lady was in there.He didn't come across as generous so can't imagine him offering his keys to some boyfriend to take her on a date.
-
And. yes, I think Chris Comeskey knows exactly what dogs he whistles for at any given moment.
Such as 'vigilantes', P-heads and medal thieves? Who next, Allen Stanford?
-
does the 'dirty skank brought it on herself' line have to come out as easily as a well-lubed butt-plug during a fit of mega-flatulence?
I don't think my day would be complete without reading at least one of your brain-exploding similes.
That said, agree totally with your underlying point.
-
And. yes, I think Chris Comeskey knows exactly what dogs he whistles for at any given moment.
Yes, I'm doing the man the favour of assuming he's malicious, not stupid.
-
It's hard to imagine, given the paucity of the defence case, that Nai Yin Xue could appeal successfully.
Quite, but what you are asking is that the defence case be non-existant or at least against the wishes of the defendant. Nai Yin Xue's defence was that his wife was having kinky sex with other men and died as a result. If his lawyers refuse to make this argument then Nai Yin Xue has grounds for appeal.
-
Thank you Angus.
In that situation Comesky would be in breach of Rule 13.3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008:
...a lawyer must obtain and follow a client’s instructions on significant decisions in respect of the conduct of litigation...
The consequences for the lawyer can be severe.
This sort of breach would be a serious matter in terms of the rule of law regardless of the situation, but it is of particular significance in a criminal case where there is so much at stake for the individual defendant.
-
Quite, but what you are asking is that the defence case be non-existant or at least against the wishes of the defendant. Nai Yin Xue's defence was that his wife was having kinky sex with other men and died as a result. If his lawyers refuse to make this argument then Nai Yin Xue has grounds for appeal.
Actually, what I'd like is if the lawyer sat down with his client and said, 'look, dude, there's no evidence to support this position, and it's my advice to you that an appeal would be unsuccessful'.
We're never going to know what goes on between a lawyer and their client, and we shouldn't. And I do believe that even the 'obviously guilty' are entitled to the best defence they can get.
As a non-legal-person, I have a dilemma, as Craig touched on above, where that right becomes a right to blame the victim for their own death or to make extremely distressing person comments about them.
-
Yes, I'm doing the man the favour of assuming he's malicious, not stupid.
I'm assuming he just loves all the attention.
-
"Nai Yin Xue's defence was that his wife was having kinky sex with other men and died as a result. If his lawyers refuse to make this argument then Nai Yin Xue has grounds for appeal."
That doesn't explain his continued propagation of that line after the case, when speaking to media. Make the case if you must; then accept the verdict and move on - or appeal.
-
Actually, what I'd like is if the lawyer sat down with his client and said, 'look, dude, there's no evidence to support this position, and it's my advice to you that an appeal would be unsuccessful'.
We don't know that he didn't. A client is under no obligation to take their lawyer's advice.
-
OK, so we've got to be careful what we say about the man
I've got to be careful. Should this column engender mass fuckwit-calling, I'd hardly be responsible for that.
Yay! Free for all fuckwit calling with Emma's approval!
Where to start...
Seriously, I have some sympathy for the line that Comeskey had to do the best he could with pretty much nothing. If his client maintains he's innocent, Comeskey has to do his job. But as I indicated above, I found his comments to the media after the case unnecessary. Surely if there's a good chance they'll appeal, a 'no comment' would be more judicious?
-
That doesn't explain his continued propagation of that line after the case, when speaking to media. Make the case if you must; then accept the verdict and move on - or appeal.
Are you talking about the client or the lawyer? The client can say what they like. The lawyer is not allowed to substitute their own views for the client's instructions.
-
Actually, what I'd like is if the lawyer sat down with his client and said, 'look, dude, there's no evidence to support this position, and it's my advice to you that an appeal would be unsuccessful'.
We're never going to know what goes on between a lawyer and their client, and we shouldn't. And I do believe that even the 'obviously guilty' are entitled to the best defence they can get.
As a non-legal-person, I have a dilemma, as Craig touched on above, where that right becomes a right to blame the victim for their own death or to make extremely distressing person comments about them.
As I've said the "extremely distressing person comments" are legit in court if they're part of the case you're lumped with, but he should have dropped it after the verdict (and pending possible appeal).
I wonder if your dilemma isn't related to a concern I've had for a while now: maybe our adversarial system isn't the best option?
-
Are you talking about the client or the lawyer? The client can say what they like. The lawyer is not allowed to substitute their own views for the client's instructions.
Sorry, should have been clearer: the lawyer. Comeskey commented to direct to the media further about the defense case after the trial, instead of just saying "no comment" or commenting only generally. It would be different if he said something like: "my client continues to maintain his innocence, and we are looking at an appeal".
-
His client is maintaining his innocence and has indicated he'll appeal. Where's the bit that says the lawyer should disregard this and drop it?
Steve I think the point you make about the adversarial system is the discussion we should be having here. Discomfort with its manifestation is valid, but perhaps only symptomatic.
-
Yeah, I'm wiith you Mrs Skin, or even why trials need to be held in the public domain. If this had been behind closed doors, it would have been a non issue.
-
Sorry, should have been clearer: the lawyer.
After I posted I realised that the client is probably in no position to be talking to the media. I haven't been reading the papers lately; I'm studying for a legal ethics exam.
Comeskey commented to direct to the media further about the defense case after the trial, instead of just saying "no comment" or commenting only generally.
My point is that it may not be his choice. His client may have instructed him on this element too.
-
why trials need to be held in the public domain. If this had been behind closed doors, it would have been a non issue.
eek!
-
Cases like this: Reason number 7,347,213 I won't touch criminal law with a barge pole.
-
It's also worth remembering that there's a whole lot of people who don't necessarily see these 'aspersions' as a flaw at all.
The whole 'aspersions' angle sounds like it was cooked up by Xue Nai Yin (if I may) misguidedly under the impression that this kind of witch damning would wash in a sexually enlightened country like Aotearoa. From that angle Comeskey could just be a disingenuous messenger.
-
eek!
I hear your eek!, but to me it seems to come down to how much you really trust the democratic system more than anything, if you trust the system, then I see no problem with that at least until trial is over, by which time Mr Xue's accusations could be conveyed in some context.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.