Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Not just…, in reply to Jason Kemp,
Great post, Jason. I'll link to this on Friday.
-
The Prime Minister's weird, mendacious Morning Report interview.
He holds the rest of us in contempt.
-
Polity: Saudi sheep: Misappropriating…, in reply to Sacha,
One of the most limp #nzqt displays by Labour I’ve seen in a long while lets the Nats dodge questions and re-run their usual lines of it all being Labour’s fault (with the connivance of the Speaker as usual).
Sigh. Didn't watch, but I'm sure you're right.
It's just a little depressing that so much of accountability seems contingent on Opposition parties coming up with the perfect gotcha. Surely there's more to it than the game ...
-
This seems a good time to call back that old favourite: McCully's Tourism Board fiasco:
In February 1998, something odd happened. A little tourism advisory unit was transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Internal Affairs in order that it might be combined with another unit. Together, they became the Office of Tourism and Sport.
Can anybody else see a compelling synergy between tourism and sport - beyond the fact that McCully was minister of both and the impression that he wanted to build his own little empire at the taxpayer's expense?
Incredibly, it didn't stop there. McCully set up another body, known as the Tourism and Sport Ministerial Advisory Board. Its role, apparently, was to advise and support the director of the Office of Tourism and Sport, which in turn would advise the Minister himself.
You might well wonder what the hell was going on here - especially given that the auditor general could find no evidence that Cabinet even knew about the TSMAB, let alone approved it. It was entirely McCully's idea, and the way it is constituted - with the minister himself appointing all members - has no precedent in the New Zealand public service.
While all this was going on, a strategic review of the Tourism Board's business was completed. Among other things, it called for internal restructuring of the Tourism Board's operations. It was over this that relations began to break down.
McCully told the auditor-general what he told the public - that he was unhappy with the board's progress and that he was under pressure from prominent figures in the industry to make changes. To this day, unfortunately, not one of those people in the industry has emerged to confirm that this was the case.
McCully turned on the board, especially those members he had appointed. A further, independent review of operations was recommended in the board's purchase agreement. It was carried out by Price Waterhouse. Or, rather, most people thought it was.
But, to widespread surprise, McCully's man at the Office of Tourism and Sport, Scott Morrison, declared that it was his report, even though he had no authority at all to do so.
It turned out that he had told the Price Waterhouse people the same thing. Even McCully was surprised by this. Morrison also took it upon himself to broaden the review's terms of reference from a simple study of operational costs to a broad-ranging study of the whole business. Again, he had no authority to do so.
Having had their review hi-jacked - our money again, folks - the board members were, at Morrison's order, not even allowed an opportunity to comment on it. If it was a turf war, then only one side was in it.
Morrison wrote to McCully saying the report had uncovered extremely serious shortcomings, so much so that Mogridge, the board chairman, should be dismissed immediately. The auditor-general was surprised by this advice, especially given that the board had never even seen a draft of the report - and that its authors at Price Waterhouse made plain their view that their report did not support or justify Morrison's advice to the minister.
Readers will doubtless note similarities to the present debacle.
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to David Tong,
For a cannabis supplier to get a two year end sentence – so in the range where home detention becomes possible – without a guilty plea is very unusual. That will reflect the Judge using all the discretion he could to discount van Gaalen’s sentence.
The final question in sentencing would have been home detention. Again, there, the Judge has a discretion that is very constrained by case law. It is supposition to guess why a 12 month home D sentence was ruled out,
And yet in writing the original post it took only minutes to find the case of Ian Cole in Westport, who was sentenced in the same week to nine months home D and 150 hours community work – despite pleading not guilty and having been caught with all the trappings of commercial supply, $2000 cash, seven kilograms of cannabis and 20 plants and some LSD. The difference, I guess, is that a jury found him guilty of possessing for supply only the heads found in his car – but that was still twice what was found in van Gaalen’s house.
I remain extremely unconvinced that McDonald’s hands were tied to the extent he said. Also, why wasn’t the option of community work explored? It would seem a very appropriate way to deal with van Gaalen.
ut I’m guessing the denial of the offending and other factors let the probation service and Crown to think recidivism was likely if van Gaalen received home D at her home address. It is, again, rare for a supplier to be allowed home detention at the address where they offended.
Cole seems to have been allowed to live in his house – and so were the Havelock couple who McDonald sentenced to six months home D after they admitted commercial dealing and growing, and selling BZP:
Judge John Macdonald ordered the sentence despite a probation report which said it did not recommend people serving home detention at the same address because tensions may flare.
The sentence involves people living at an approved address for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, unless they have permission from their probation officer to leave.
Judge Macdonald said the service’s rule was for the safety of Watkins, but the couple had been together for a long time and Watkins was old enough to look after herself.
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Katharine Moody,
And that’s what I’m saying – those folks who live in Whangarei and elsewhere locally that might be existing and/or potential future clients should boycott the firm in a very public way.
To what end? To try and force them not to work for the Crown?
Sure, taking their business down for just “playing the game” by the rules sounds unfair to them, but such is the cost of putting right injustices and recovery is much easier for the privileged.
But it's not "playing the game", it's what they're professionally required to do. Seeking three years seemed excessive relative to other cases noted, but the judge is supposed to be able to sort that out. It's his job.
-
Hard News: Deep Dream: Looking at clouds, in reply to JacksonP,
Wow! Which generator are you using?
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Nick Russell,
Far better to reform the law than enforce it selectively.
Yes. I don't have a particular quarrel with the police or the Crown prosecutor for that very reason. On the other hand, that Salient story does give a pretty strong indication that the police have been "decriminalising" cannabis by that means.
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Nick Russell,
If it had been commercial she probably would have got more than 2 years.
And yet I was easily able to find examples of same that did not attract a custodial sentence.
My former (and now deceased) neighbour was caught manufacturing heroin and didn't go to jail, despite a long list of previous. An acquaintance, also with previous, was busted with pot, pills, speed and $15k in cash and only got home detention.
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to David Tong,
There’s a lot of supposition going on here. Has anyone seen Judge McDonald’s sentencing note?
No. But given that he had plenty to say about his decision, surely he'd have mentioned any material factors such as those you've noted?
I've just been told that the reason we haven't heard from Doug Blaikie is that he was so shocked by the sentence he had a stroke shortly afterwards.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 295 296 297 298 299 … 2279 Older→ First