Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Bart Janssen,
As I said going on a hunt to find the particular officers involved might be fun but it isn’t likely to engender any kind of willingness for the police to learn from their errors.
Given the quite highly-charged nature of the discussion here over the weekend, it’s worth noting that Jonathan Eaton described the original police actions as “understandable” in the circumstances. Not right, but not as consciously awful as what senior officers did later.
One thing it seems to me is needed is some kind of instruction sheet that can help police identify when they are dealing with something other than a bog standard criminal. Ignorance seems to have been the problem and ignorance can be cured reasonably easily.
Sadly, acting assistant commissioner of operations Dave Cliff seems determined not to admit that anything could ever be done better. He’s not serving his own officers by rejecting Autism NZ’s plea for better practices. He’s just being awfully arrogant.
-
David Clarkson has updated his story on Christchurch Court News:
The case was heading for trial and came to a pre-trial session before Judge Stephen Erber at the Christchurch District Court sitting in the Maori Land Court today. Judge Erber was one of the judges who had earlier advised the police to drop the charge after the first psychiatric report on Smith-Voorkamp, telling them they would have difficulty proving criminal intent.
The breakthrough came today with a psychiatric report which the police and crown had considered.
Crown prosecutor Phil Shamy told the court: “The police, having reviewed the matter, and the nature of the alleged offence, being at the lower end of the scale, and the potential penalty, and the fact that he has no previous convictions, seek leave to withdraw the charges against him.”
So, having repeatedly insisted that they had to proceed on account of the "seriousness" of the charge, the police now describe the alleged offence as "being at the lower end of the scale." Great.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to "chris",
Not to overlook others, but all of you and especially Russell and Hilary, deserve to be heartily congratulated for your unrelenting and passionate efforts here on this case.
It's probably fairly obvious that I'm motivated by the knowledge that my boys are at the same risks out there. I'm feeling it particularly this morning because I've been scanning several years' worth of official documents relating to Leo -- for another run at an unhelpful system -- and been reminded of how terrible things were for quite a long time.
It's empowering when this technology helps to make the world a better place, and that's only possible when people are prepared to go that extra figurative mile, stand up tall and make the right noise
It should be noted that not all the social media related to this case was helpful. At the time of Arie's arrest, there were 50,000 people signed up to a string-up-the-looters Facebook group. That created an emotional climate.
But Hilary sells herself short: she's a quiet and assiduous networker, she knows where things are and who needs to know.
And me? I might as well use this big megaphone I've got.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to petard,
which has all the hall marks of very bad subbing,because by the use of the word “looter” it manages to completely miss the point legally, morally and factually.
Fairfax has embraced the subbing sausage factory model along with APN now. Style, accuracy and institutional knowledge are a bit old-fashioned.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Cecelia,
I thought Celia Lashlie’s take on Wishart’s book was more measured.
I think it's superb. She finds out Wishart and still offers what we might learn from the book. I hope it's no insult to say it has the feel of very good Listener subbing.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Patrick Reynolds,
But here goes: ABs not to win the cup, and no clear result at the election. How do you like them apples?
You rogue.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Sacha,
That was his original lawyer. Do you mean him or the current one, Jonathan Eaton?
No, this was really early on.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Sacha,
I’d welcome clarity about how much of this was disclosed to the prosecution, and when. Whether it would be understood or not is another matter (see previous comment).
When Simon Buckingham took up the case, there was a meeting he described as “sensitively” handled, and apparently Arie’s treatment improved for the rest of the time he was imprisoned.
My guess is that senior officers ignored that because there’s a wider story of “rough justice” they didn’t want aired.
Here’s Erasmus saying last month that:
Erasmus says strict criteria must be met in order for diversion to be an option and one of the “fundamental requirements” was that the offender needed to admit guilt.
Arie had, of course, entered a guilty plea four months previously, and had diversion rejected.
Erasmus then issued a statement saying something subtly different:
"One of the fundamental requirements of the diversion process is that the offender needs to be able to make an informed admission of guilt"
Ah. So we couldn’t possibly grant diversion because the guy is a retard and couldn’t acknowledge responsibility on his own.
And now we have the current story: we wanted to do the right thing but rules are rules, and if he had the possibility of a defence, we couldn’t grant diversion.
FWIW, my defence lawyer friend has just described the police position as “absurd, somewhat smokescreenish, and certainly far from common practice.”
Edit: In the RNZ interview linked by Sacha, Arie's lawyer says he got a letter early on in the piece from the prosecutions office that said "because it arose from an incident that occurred in the aftermath of the earthquake, we are unwilling to divert."
So there's yet another story. It's probably closer to the truth than any of the pack of lies Erasmus et al have told since.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
Yes, I was rather astounded by this too. She wrote that she did not ‘know’ Wishart; surely she must know about him and his inflammatory ideas?
I lost quite a lot of faith in Tapu Misa when she enthused about Dinesh D’Souza’s writing.
D’Souza is the unpleasant nutbar who wrote The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. I mentioned it here, along with excerpts from the withering WaPo review and a bizarre interview with D’Souza by Stephen Colbert.
Anyone who could laud D’Souza’s moral fascism might well be into Wishart for all the wrong reasons. It’s quite sad, really.
Not that that invalidates this week’s column. I just think her judgement about how much to trust an account by Wishart might be a bit screwy.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Because there might be a defence, not because there was a defence.
And, while having reason to believe there was a defence, they secured and maintained a non-association order between Arie and a partner who acted as his caregiver.
I guess the point is, do you believe the police acted in good faith at all times and were guided by the letter of the law -- to, as you have noted, an unusual degree -- or that it's more likely the account they have offered today is a post-facto rationalisation for their actions?