'Supreme' Court?

[kopia 1]

The decisions delivered by the Chief Justice ( Elias ) does not make sense. How can a law be 'faulty' in the case of 11 people , but then, because of the seriousness of charges against another 4, so called 'in-admissible'evidence be allowed? And these people were engaged in the same alleged criminal endeavour. The Govt. is quite correctly rushing to amend legislation to prevent this 'Justice' creating law as she/they have done in this instance but the effect of what that Court has done is to let 11 people walk free..were they guilty of anything? We'll probably never know. The point of this post is that in my opinion, what the Supreme Court has done has usurped the role of any jury appointed over these charges. It should have been a jury's role to determine the admissibility or otherwise of that evidence, properly cautioned by the presiding Judge that the evidence 'may' have been unlawfully obtained. that point could have been argued in the Court and considered alongside what other evidence presented by the Crown. Nowwe have a group flaunting their success at having walked free from serious charges: time will tell if what was going on in the Ureweras was as serious as the Police allege-I think it may have been..

[Thrush 0]

Your post is factually incorrect on just about every point raised.

Parliament draft bills which become law. The bills have to be carefully worded so they convey the intentions of Parliament, but they also have to be drafted in a broad manner to account for any unforeseen eventualities.

When Courts interpret legislation their sole purpose is to find the intention of Parliament when the Act was passed. They use various statutory interpretation rules to achieve this, including inserting or ignoring certain words if they believe it will lead to Parliament's intent being found.

What the Court cannot do is alter the legislation to the effect that it no longer meets Parliament's intent. That would be a breach of the doctrine of the 'separation of powers'.

In the Supreme Court's decision they clearly stated that they could not find Parliament's intent. Thus the charges laid (that were dismissed) were not consistent with the Act.

Further, the Court also clearly invited Parliament to rewrite the Act so that their intentions were clear, and to provide certainty within the law. Certainty is a fundamental element of any legal system.

With regard to the inadmissbale evidence, our adversary system has quite clear rules as to what is admissable and what isn't. For example, any evidence produced must be capable of being examined and cross-examined by both parties. I don't believe the Suoreme Court have released details as to what was inadmissable but I'll bet my bottom dollar that their knowledge of the law is far greater than yours.

[kopia 1]

I've just listened to a very sensible discussion/ argument on this very point involving one-time politican Stephen Franks.,a barrister,.who pretty much concurred with what I wrote above ( or I concurred with him,whatever) but then what does he know?

[Thrush 0]

I didn't hear what Franks said so I can't comment on whether you interpreted it correctly or not.

What I do know, and Franks does as well, is that it's not the duty of a jury to decide what is admissable and what's not. That is for the Court to decide and anyone who knows anything about our judicial system will tell you that.

The law is vast and complex. Hence issues such as the admissability of evidence is left to trained professionals.

Further, I repeat what I said earlier about the Supreme Court's decision. They clearly said they couldn't find Parliament's intent (as the Act was written some 50 yrs ago), but they invited Parliament to re-write the legislation to make it clearer for the Court (and all citizens).

Had the Supreme Court acted in the manner that you are suggesting then it would have been a severe breach of their Constitutional powers.

[kopia 1]

Really? Please let us know then how any 'trained professional'can make a judgement whereby evidence-which is apparently of a very similar nature- is excluded on the basis of how serious the charge is. It sounds like the Supreme Court are having a dollar each way here. In fact the decision in the Court was 2-2 with Elias having the casting vote and it appears that the decision to allow some of the accused to face the evidence against them is a trade-off. That is what I referred to earlier re letting a jury decide these issues-which is exactly what the Supreme Court is saying except it doesn't apply to all the accused! Figure that out.

[Thrush 0]

Trained professionals = lawyers & judges; not ANY trained professional (I thought that would have been self-evident).

So the SC voted 2-2. What does that tell you? It should tell you that the law (as written) was unclear and ambiguous when applied to 'today's World'.

Further, I really don't think you have a grasp on the role of the SC and courts in general. There are some issues that can only be decided upon by judges due to the legal complexity involved; admissible evidence is one of them.

I'm not going to bang heads any further as you clearly have an agenda and are obviously not interested in expanding your knowledge of our judicial system.

[Thrush 0]

I should add that though I haven't read the whole decision from the SC, the conclusion that at least two of the judges reached may have something to do with policy reasons.

Courts have a tendency to rule against any situations that might allow the 'floodgates to open'.

[STRAIGHT STRIKE 37]

It wouldnt suprise me if he was in the process of forming some sort of terrorist group.

This iti fellow is a s/stirrer Maori radical to the max,it wasn't that long ago he was charged with firearms offences in relation to standing armed with a rifle stopping people (NZ'ers) from entering "his" (Crown) land somewhere in the Hawkes Bay.

[berleybag 0]

or ever condone its use.....but what about his former mate te kaha. tama broke his jaw in three places with a tiaha, and assulted a tvnz cameraman a couple of years ago.

[STRAIGHT STRIKE 37]

or ever condone its use.....but what about his former mate te kaha. tama broke his jaw in three places with a tiaha, and assulted a tvnz cameraman a couple of years ago.

he is a radical with a huge chip on his shoulder who could be dangerous with some influence, very dangerous.

Does anybody know what this fellow iti does for a job ? or is he on a Pakeha Govt. "Sickness Benefit" ?

[bblunt 334]

Spook - A derrogatory slur for a person of African descent. equiv: Nigger. e.g. Dem spooks like to play bones and shoot dice

Keep em coming David you're a real beaut

[Carbine01 0]

he is a radical with a huge chip on his shoulder who could be dangerous with some influence, very dangerous.

Does anybody know what this fellow iti does for a job ? or is he on a Pakeha Govt. "Sickness Benefit" ?

Racist

[Carbine01 0]

Iti actually works two jobs. You must have a good job yourself Straight Strike. You have lots of time for posting here that's for sure.

[kopia 1]

I didn't hear what Franks said so I can't comment on whether you interpreted it correctly or not.

What I do know, and Franks does as well, is that it's not the duty of a jury to decide what is admissable and what's not. That is for the Court to decide and anyone who knows anything about our judicial system will tell you that.

The law is vast and complex. Hence issues such as the admissability of evidence is left to trained professionals.

Further, I repeat what I said earlier about the Supreme Court's decision. They clearly said they couldn't find Parliament's intent (as the Act was written some 50 yrs ago), but they invited Parliament to re-write the legislation to make it clearer for the Court (and all citizens).

Had the Supreme Court acted in the manner that you are suggesting then it would have been a severe breach of their Constitutional powers.

I suggest you read the provisions of the Evidence Act 2006 and re-consider your post.

[Thrush 0]

I suggest you read the provisions of the Evidence Act 2006 and re-consider your post.

What an incredibly vague answer, considering the size and length of the statute.

What particular provision are you talking about? Are you referring to Section 14, Provisional admission of evidence?

"If a question arises concerning the admissibility of any evidence, the Judge may admit that evidence subject to evidence being later offered which establishes its admissibility".

If it is this section you are referring to, then I'm hardly going to reconsider my post, as this just confirms what I have been saying.

But please be more specific, as there are 216 sections in the Act.

[Thrush 0]

...it's ok to admit you were wrong, and any apology offered by you will be gladly accepted.

[Thrush 0]

...I know you're out there, and surely you haven't emptied your water pistol just yet?

You seemed so sure of your argument, so why the disappearing act? Is it because you know you're getting a whippin!

[STRAIGHT STRIKE 37]

Spook - A derrogatory slur for a person of African descent. equiv: Nigger. e.g. Dem spooks like to play bones and shoot dice

Keep em coming David you're a real beaut

could you imagine running into him if you were in the Ureweras say on a Deer hunt and he sprung up out of the bushes., just imagine it !!

[STRAIGHT STRIKE 37]

Racist

was 1/2 Maori ? , also i have several Maori relatives, who incidently absolutely despise and are totally embarrassed by the likes of Harawira and Co.

[bblunt 334]

could you imagine running into him if you were in the Ureweras say on a Deer hunt and he sprung up out of the bushes., just imagine it !!

Probably p myself laughing, call him a cheeky darky, sit down and spark up a doob and have a chat about the plans to catapult cows and buses at the president

[kopia 1]

...I know you're out there, and surely you haven't emptied your water pistol just yet?

You seemed so sure of your argument, so why the disappearing act? Is it because you know you're getting a whippin!

Bugger it work can wait. Actually Thrush I have a theory-first year law students ( which is what you sound like ) should be required to spend 6 months in a Police patrol car, see the effects of criminal action on ordinary people, see the way criminals giggle and sneer when they are released from custody after a legal aid funded lawyer has astounded some court with his brilliance and let a dangerous felon loose..see the heartache of dead victims families...get my drift? I don't have an agenda,just a long time in a career where I saw the reality of the justice system in this country..AND you still haven'told me how a so-clever judicial panel can say evidence against a serious criminal can be treated any different from that against a person charged with a lesser crime..? Go ahead, make my day!

[Thrush 0]

Bugger it work can wait. Actually Thrush I have a theory-first year law students ( which is what you sound like ) should be required to spend 6 months in a Police patrol car, see the effects of criminal action on ordinary people, see the way criminals giggle and sneer when they are released from custody after a legal aid funded lawyer has astounded some court with his brilliance and let a dangerous felon loose..see the heartache of dead victims families...get my drift? I don't have an agenda,just a long time in a career where I saw the reality of the justice system in this country..AND you still haven'told me how a so-clever judicial panel can say evidence against a serious criminal can be treated any different from that against a person charged with a lesser crime..? Go ahead, make my day!

It's called 'cops and robbers' Kopia. The cops wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the crims, and there's also a fine line between what divides a cop from a crim. Just ask Arthur Alan Thomas, David Dougherty, and Scott Watson!

Don't need to go riding around in police cars either Kopia. I've been involved in many criminal defended hearings where both sides have told blatant lies in order to prove or disprove their case, with the Police normally winning because of their higher reputation in the eyes of the law.

First year law student!

As for your question, I have indeed answered it. What I cannot do however is raise your intellect level so that you can understand it.

But how about you answering my question? You know, the exact enactment provision you vaguely referred to!