Posts by Andrew Geddis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Oops: how some prisoners…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
It is of course possible that some of these prisoners were otherwise disqualified as at 16 December 2010 (it's not Corrections' job to know this)...
But highly unlikely, no?
They'll all be over 18. If they weren't NZ Citizens or permanent residents, they'd have been deported on release (thus not be subject to recall). And they certainly will have been in NZ for more than 12 months consecutively, whilst they haven't been outside of NZ for more than 3 (or 1) years.
I _suppose_ they may be on the corrupt practices list ... but, nah.
The only real possibility would be that as of 16 December, 2010 someone had been released from their prison sentence, but was still detained under a compulsory treatment order (which they had been subject to for 3 years).
-
Graeme,
This really is excellent work (and sorry for my snippiness on another comment thread – more fool me for not recognising the importance of the issue).
Did the OIA give you the names of the prisoners who would have been barred from voting, but now can? I’d be keen to do a post listing them and the crimes for which they were sentenced, and thanking Paul Quinn (with the support of David Farrar and active assistance of Sandra Goudie) for allowing them to reclaim their democratic entitlements, whilst removing it from burglars and disqualified drivers who happen to be in jail on election day.
-
He did decide that Gilbert had been “dismissed injustifiably” and ordered reinstatement and compemsation.
“injustifiably”?
“compemsation”?
-
Legal Beagle: The Police Investigation…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
If I had made the outlandish claim “having consensual sex isn’t a crime” would you have responded “But it can be. Under the Crimes Act, s.130 … [it can be incest]”?
If I had done so, would I be wrong?
All I was doing was tweaking your tail ... no offence intended by it.
-
Legal Beagle: The Police Investigation…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
If all you have is speeding, you haven't committed a criminal offence. You must not only have speed, you must also have danger.
But sufficient speed in and of itself is always deemed "dangerous" - meaning that your original claim "Speeding isn't a criminal offence" was technically incorrect and so left you open to an Edgelering. Hence, from the NZTA website:
If your speed is more than 40km/h above the speed limit you can get a 28 day licence suspension, and at more than 50km/h over the limit you can also be charged with careless, dangerous or reckless driving.
Of course, we could test the extent of any purported knowledge/intent requirement through you hopping in your car, driving out to the Hutt at 155 km/h, and then telling any officer who pulls you over "I didn't realise how fast I was going, and didn't think what I was doing was dangerous." What's your learned legal opinion on the chances of that claim getting you off any charge?
-
Legal Beagle: The Police Investigation…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Speeding isn’t a criminal offence.
But it can be. Under the Land Transport Act , s.7(2): A person may not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person.
Section 35(1) then designates this as an offence (without any necessary mens rea element), with section 35(2) then stipulating that the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500 (plus a mandatory six month disqualification).
If you injure or kill someone while driving at a speed that is, or might be, dangerous to the public, then the potential sentence increases markedly (see ss. 36&37) … again, without any mens rea requirement.
Did I just Edgeler the Edgeler? I think I did!
-
Hi Graeme,
Got to the end of writing a post saying pretty much what you've said, then discovered you'd said pretty much what I had just said. So I posted it anyway: http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/laws-like-the-spiders-web-catch-the-fly-and-let-the-hawk-go-free
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to Sacha,
Oh, and linkwhoring seems pretty welcome in these parts, especially when it's contributing to the conversation. :)
Yes, but:
(1) Linking to two different posts in two successive comments may be pushing the bounds of politeness; and,
(2) I'm scared of Russell. Very, very scared.
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to Sacha,
it casts an interesting light on the warning issued against Ambrose by Police Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess
Seems pretty clear (to me, at least) what happened here.
(1) The PM made a complaint, which the Police jumped to investigate ('cause it's the PM making it in the midst of the election campaign, so the Police have to pretend it is A Very Important Matter);
(2) Ambrose gave a pretty reasonable account of how the taping came to happen, meaning there was no real evidence that the mental element of "intentionally" recording the conversation was met (or, at least, no evidence that would meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" test);
(3) So the Police went looking at Ambrose's texts, in the hope that these might reveal a discrepancy with his original story (or, even better, an outright confession that he intentionally taped the meeting) ... because it's actually pretty common for the cops to seek the records of a suspect's communications, and quite a few people are dumb enough to use their phones to put their guilt in writing (or, at least, textspeak);
(4) However, here the messages only reinforced Ambrose's story, meaning a prosecution would have been almost certain to fail;
(5) But announcing to the world "there is no real evidence that Ambrose did anything illegal" would have made Key look like a dick. So the Police did the "politic" thing - they sternly wagged their finger at Ambrose ("we had enough on you to prosecute (mumble, mumble)"), while not actually putting that "evidence" to the test.
At the risk of breaching netiquette, I blogged on this at the time: http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/half-a-baby-for-everyone
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
"New"?