Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Like I said way back in this thread.
Clark stated that she has concerns, as do many others. I think that you would be pushing it to say that she was putting pressure on the police to change anything, she was "urging" the police not to let it drop. That, in my view, is acceptable behavior for anyone, including the Prime Minister.
-
Raymond.
Yes, unfortunately it is not at all uncommon for prosecutors to "overstep" their burden of proof threshold. By going for a murder conviction they needed a greater degree of proof than if they had gone for a "lesser" charge. -
A bit late to the discussion I am.
Ron Mark, I like him, he's a real stirrer. How about Winston Peters for Prime Minister and Ron as his henchman/tresurer, in Hoodies?
Now that would be a larf. I am just so sick of National and they have yet to even tell us what they plan to do.Hoodies in da House, Yasssss
-
Well.l Kyle and I agree.
I will celebrate by going out and buying a block of cheese, :-) -
Well put Kyle.
What would you say if the police now came out and said "We got it wrong. It's just one of those times when you blind yourself to evidence that doesn't fit your case. We are going back to have a fresh look so that all invoved can find closure"?
I, for one, will not be holding my breath on that one but what if they did? -
Q: What happens if somebody has been charged with causing the death?
Where an individual has been charged with causing someone's death, e.g. by murder or manslaughter, the Coroner may either:
postpone opening an inquiry;
open and adjourn an inquiry; or
adjourn an inquiry,pending the outcomes of any criminal charges. Before the inquiry is adjourned, the Coroner will establish the identity of the deceased and the cause of death. The Coroner will then register the death.
The Coroner may later open or resume an inquiry if satisfied that any charges against the person have been dropped or that to open or resume the inquiry would not prejudice the person charged, or thought likely to be charged, with a criminal offence relating to the death or its circumstances. In many cases, the Coroner will wait until any trial is over.
From Here
This would suggest that the Coroner could reopen an enquiry now that the trial is over and it seems unlikely that the police wish to appeal.
However. The coroner could only find cause and maybe time of death. They have no power to prosecute. -
In that case, what would we have the police do? They can't just put it on a shelf and wait for evidence that is never forthcoming. At some stage they have to make an arrest based on what they know (if they think they have a chance in court) and progress.
As IS stated before there is no statute of limitations on murder so the police could have just not prosecuted until they had a solid case, however long it took. Are we really seeing the result of "trial by Media" forcing the hand of the police? is there a chance that they brought the prosecution because if they had waited longer so much would have come out in the Media that a fair trial would have been nigh on impossible?
If that is the case then what is the solution? -
Steve: A prosecution would be hampered because the defence could simply say "six months ago you were dead certain that this other guy did it,and ruled out my client. What has changed? Is it simply that you did not get a conviction the first time, and are now desperately tying to pin the crime on anyone else"
Absent seriously compelling evidence (and unlike you, I do not take it as a given the police can get it on whoever they wish), this will raise quite reasonable doubts in the minds of most jurors.
And I said
I cant see a prosecution following a good and detailed investigation being hampered by the result of a failed conviction in this particular case, the reasonable doubt was based on the probability of "they got the wrong guy/girl" So if the case was strong enough the jury is likely to think "they got the right Guy/Girl this time"
The difference to what you are saying is in "following a good and detailed investigation"
as opposed toAbsent seriously compelling evidence this will raise quite reasonable doubts in the minds of most jurors.
I think we actually agree, but the devil is in the detail.
-
Craig and IS,
I agree with both of you on your main points. However. I cant see why a prosecution following a good and detailed investigation being hampered by the result of a failed conviction in this particular case, the reasonable doubt was based on the probability of "they got the wrong guy/girl" So if the case was strong enough the jury is likely to think "they got the right Guy/Girl this time"
This raises the possibility of the defence claiming that a fair trial is impossible so.................?
AndWe obviously have a difference of opinion on whether that line has been crossed, but I hope we both agree that the distinction is a worthy one.
Yes. But I believe politicians can be people too. Call me naive if you will.
-
I dont think we have a coroners court as such in this country, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.But if we do it would be close to the Australian version which has this function.
Where a serious criminal offence has been disclosed during the course of an inquest, the coroner cannot proceed with it if a person is to be charged with that criminal offence. The coroner stops the inquest and refers the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration and investigation. This changes the early colonial practice of coroners directly committing persons suspected of serious crimes directly for trial.
I dont think this would have had much impact on the Kahui case because the public wanted a result and, as has been seen before, the police delivered a suspect. They have, as well you all know, delivered convictions on even less evidence. In this case the "resonable doubt" was because there was a finger pointing somewhere else.