Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Herald again
Yeah, that’s linked above. It’s the one where the police explain that it took them six months to establish there was a defence of diminished responsibility, during which time they had to repeatedly refuse diversion because – wait for it – there was a defence of diminished responsibility.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Well, yes. If the police at the time didn’t think he was impaired in a manner likely to provide a defence, why would they divert? Diversion would be very very unlikely for a burglary charge.
So if he wasn't impaired he couldn't be granted diversion?
And if he was impaired he couldn't be granted diversion?
Graeme, I've discussed this case with criminal defence lawyers who deal with cases at this level all the time. They were astounded by the police's actions.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
At that stage, there are charges still outstanding, and it may be possible that a defence of whatever might not succeed. In the ordinary course, a non-association order with a co-accused isn’t that unlikely.
When they are partners and live together?
Arie was assaulted, deliberately subjected to a "perp walk" for the cameras, denied bail and separated from his partner for months. Police thumbed their noses at the judges who repeatedly referred the case for diversion.
Then, when he learned of the Sunday report, Inspector Derek Erasmus personally called the building owners (the first time they had heard from the police or were aware their building was involved) and put pressure on them to call TVNZ and try and have the programme pulled. When that didn't work, he called Sunday's producers and threatened them -- warning that they were "under investigation" for some unspecified offence. It remained unspecified when the police announced they had concluded their "investigation" a couple of weeks ago.
This was not acceptable police practice. Forgive me if I'm not buying their post-facto rationalisation today.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Sacha,
We’d need to see a timeline about the refusal of diversion and the withdrawal of the plea, but I suspect they happened in that order.
Yes, they did.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Sacha,
But he pleaded guilty, as Russell notes above.
As Graeme says, people who are innocent frequently plead guilty and receive diversion, sparing themselves the ordeal of a trial. I’d like to know what was so different in this case.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
People who should never have been charged (e.g. because a charge is not in the public interest) should not be diverted. They should have the charges withdrawn.
Which the police were at liberty to do at any point. Instead, they doubled down and were granted a non-association order by the same judge who granted bail after he’d been imprisoned for 10 days. That seems a bloody odd way to act if they really believed he had a defence.
It seems worth noting that the judges who repeatedly referred the case back for the police to consider diversion had a different view of the situation. I find it impossible to believe that the police were acting benignly in the circumstances.
Edit: The police are also claiming it dragged on for months because it took them that long to compile a report establishing that he was autistic. My arse it did. That information was received by the court in March. It was the basis for his bail.
-
The Police statement:
"The Police Adult Diversion Scheme is a mechanism that allows for some offenders to be dealt with ‘out of Court’ and without receiving a conviction. There are criteria which need to be met before a charge can be dealt with by Diversion. This includes that there is sufficient evidence to prove the charges and it is in the public interest for the matter to be prosecuted and the offender accepts responsibility. Therefore, when there are issues of intellectual impairment which may offer a defence, the Diversion criteria are not met. It is inappropriate to use Diversion as a tool for dealing with people who may have a defence to the charge."
Short version: We'd have granted diversion if only he hadn't been autistic.
Is there a lawyer who can comment on this twisted reasoning?
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Sacha,
From the Herald story:
Mr Cliff said Mr Smith-Voorkamp received “a bang to the side of the head” and accused him and Mr Davis of being intoxicated.
“After initially running from police, the men were not compliant and were forced to the ground to be handcuffed. Mr Smith-Voorkamp had a bang to the side of his face. The pair were affected by alcohol and potentially drugs at the time of arrest.”
Interesting time to suddenly pull out that claim.
Mr Cliff said it would have been inappropriate to give Mr Smith-Voorkamp diversion as he did not accept responsibility for his actions due to his defence of mental impairment.
This is an out-and-out lie.
Here’s the Herald story of March 28:
The police are considering whether Cornelius Arie Smith-Voorkamp, 25, should be granted diversion, which allows first offenders to avoid a criminal conviction if they admit the offence and make amends.
Smith-Voorkamp, who has autism, pleaded guilty to burglary and possession of equipment for burglary when he appeared in the Christchurch District Court held in the Rangiora Court House today.
He pleaded guilty, and was not pursuing an assault complaint. Senior officers, for whatever twisted reason, decided they wanted to punish him further.
And what are they saying? They'd have granted diversion had he pretended not to be autistic? Bastards.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Lucy Stewart,
There were, naturally, a number of other egregious flaws – particularly the bits about Maori – but that one was, um, special.
Indeed. Especially given that there were major earthquakes in
1848 (Marlborough, destroyed nearly every brick or stone building in Wellington), 1855 (Wairarapa, 8.2 mag, tsunami in Wellington Harbour) and 1888 (North Canterbury, took the spire off Christchurch Cathedral).The long list includes many more, including two biggies around the Whanganui River in 1838 and 1845. The former caused landslides and a backwash so large it left waka stranded up on cliffs.
I’d be feeling a bit brassed off with whoever wrote that pamphlet had I rocked up in 1836.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Hilary Stace,
And we haven’t even considered the Auckland cones.
Or more precisely, the prospect of a new Auckland cone -- the existing ones won't re-erupt. Which would be disastrous but not actually the end of Auckland.