All posts in category Crime

Stink justice – doctor beats wife, threatens to kill, cheats, discharged

It is very difficult to accept that this case is fair justice. A doctor on significant assault charges has been discharged without conviction so there is no adverse affect on his employment. NZ Herald reports in Would-be surgeon avoids wife-bashing conviction:

“It seems to me your behaviour was out of character, with a background of particular stress, both marital and personal, and I accept Mr Schulze’s submission that you are at a low risk of reoffending.

“It is fair to say any conviction is going to impact adversely on your employment.”

Judge Cooper discharged Rose without conviction and ordered him to pay $3000 to the prosecution.

Oliver Rose appeared in the Rotorua District Court on three charges of assaulting a female, all relating to his wife. The three offences which Rose had pleaded guilty to in August.

  • In January this year, Rose dragged his wife outside to the ground where he repeatedly kicked her in the back of the leg, leaving her with serious bruises.
  • In February, Rose had grabbed his wife by her hair and repeatedly slapped her on both sides of her face.
  • In June, Rose threatened his wife, saying he would kill her if she had been with another man. He pushed her to the bed then held a beanie over her face.

That sounds serious to me.

Rose suspected his wife was having an affair, which led to his developing a relationship outside his marriage.

The suspicions of a violently jealous husband ‘led to’ him being a cheating prick – dreadful behaviour and a dreadful excuse for more dreadful behaviour.

The judge accepted Rose was “at a low risk of reoffending” – what if he becomes stressed again? What if he becomes jealous again?

Not even an insistence that Rose take measures to address his violent tendencies.

Are doctors exempt normal standards of responsibility and justice?

by Pete George on December 20, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on December 20, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/12/20/doctor-beats-wife-threatens-to-kill-discharged/

The Conservative Party’s ‘castle’ doctrine

Whale Oil’s Burglar Load post yesterday was in itself was controversial – but amongst the discussions there and on Kiwiblog the right to defend life and property came up, including the ‘castle’ doctrine.

BR

If a homeowner catches someone on his property committing a crime, he should have the legal right to shoot the bastard dead on the spot.

Bill.

And this was linked to the Conservative Party:

GregM

I absolutely agree Bill.
Until like minded persons lobby to get the law changed, if we did such a thing we are just as criminal as the person we have just put a few holes in.
This is one thing I agree with the Conservative Party on, the “castle law” needs to be looked at.
Greg.

And:

2ndAmendment
Vote Conservative for the Castle doctrine – then eliminating criminal scum is not on legal, it will be – in law – a civic duty!

And when I spoke against the post:

CastleDoctrine
Fuck off you sanctimonious prick

How does relate to Colin Craig’s Conservative Party? They have few written policies, but they do cover Law and Order, including this:

POLICIES

The Conservative Party will support the following:

  • Clarifying the rights of citizens to defend themselves and their property, both inside and outside the home.
  • The Party supports the “castle” doctrine under which persons who invade others’ homes or property have few rights, and law abiding citizens can – within some limits – do whatever they deem necessary to defend themselves or their property. Only in the rarest and most extreme circumstances should law abiding citizens find themselves facing charges arising out of situations where they have protected themselves against criminals threatening either themselves or their property. Those “rare and extreme circumstances” should be clearly stated and enshrined in legislation.

This is extreme policy.

As a result the Conservative Party is being supported by people that have even more extreme views, who seem to think it will virtually give them a license to kill at will (anyone threatening their property or life).

This is not conservative, it is pandering to and encouraging nutters anonymous.

And, while I doubt it was Whale Oil’s intention, he has been a party to promoting this.

UPDATE (From Stuff): A US man fatally shot a masked teenager he thought was a burglar in self-defence outside his neighbor’s house and then discovered it was his son, state police said.

by Pete George on September 29, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime, Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 29, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/29/the-conservative-partys-castle-doctrine/

Public Protection Orders – good intent, bad idea

Judith Collins announced the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill yesterday. It is intended to protect the public from potentially dangerous ex-criminals by keeping them in custody indefinitely at the end of their sentence.

Dangerous ex-prisoners targeted

Highly dangerous ex-prisoners who are being supervised in the community could be recalled to jail indefinitely in a law change due next year.

Authorities could apply to have child sex offenders and violent criminals kept in prison after finishing a finite sentence, or returned to prison if they had been released into the community under a bill introduced to Parliament yesterday.

Justice Minister Judith Collins said the legislation was likely to apply to a “very small number of extremely dangerous” people – between five and 12 offenders over 10 years.

I have serious concerns about this. The intent – to protect the public from ‘evil’ people – seems ok on the surface, but this would set a very bad precedent, and is contrary to basic principles of justice.

What does Labour have to say about this? Charles Chauvel:

“The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill, introduced today, was first promised by Judith Collins and John Key almost exactly one year ago, during the election campaign.

“Labour raised concerns five months ago around the fact the Government had not delivered on its election promise. We offered to discuss with Ms Collins the problems she said the Bill was designed to address, and also – in light of reports of divisions in Cabinet about the shape of the Bill – the intended design of the legislative solution.

“We heard nothing from Judith Collins until the introduction of the legislation in the House today. In the interim, one of the five to 12 offenders it specifically targets – Stewart Murray Wilson – has already been released.

“The delay of 12 months in introducing legislation first foreshadowed during the election campaign, allowing one of the targeted offenders to be released last month…

Chauvel is criticising National for not consulting – fair enough. But he’s complaining that it hasn’t been rushed through faster.

Kiwiblog’s legal contingent have other views commenting on this post:

F E Smith Next on the agenda, a District Police Superintendant will be able to apply to have persons believed to be likely to engage in criminal behaviour held in prison until they convince the High Court that they will not offend…

F E Smith In which case, why has this law been passed? To address cases where the offending wasn’t serious enough to warrant Preventative Detention, but where the prisoner is considered so dangerous as to warrant continued detention? Or is the very high bar to be read to a very low threshold?

GPT1  This actually proposes to lock people up not for criminal acts done but the possibility of criminal activity in the future. What is the next step? Pre-investigation detention just in case someone might be a criminal in the future?

Even if there is no next step this bill seems like it intends well, but would set a very bad precedent for locking people up in case they might commit a crime. There are a lot of criminals who might fit that category.

by Pete George on September 19, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime, Politics
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 19, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/19/public-protection-orders-good-intent-bad-idea/

No benefit if on arrest warrant

Government plans to stop benefits of anyone who has an outstanding arrest warrant has not surprisingly been controversial. Some have hailed it as “why wasn’t this happening already”, some have condemned it as diversionary and another beneficiary bash.

Different sides argue this on Kiwiblog – Half of those with arrest warrants on a benefit – and from here at The Standard. The Standard has just startedtopic on this which will build comments today – Trouble? Re-announce a distraction…

I see Paula Benefit is up to her old tricks again. As the government desperately wants to be doing something other than not attending huis over water rights, it’s up to Paula to pull a benefit bash. But she’s obviously run out of ideas so now we’re re-announcing the old bene-bashes.

Kiwiblog reports on the stats:

“Of the approximately 15,000 people with a current arrest warrant, around 8,200 are on benefits,” says Mrs Bennett.

A lawyer who’s a regular on Kiwiblog comments and answers some queries:

  1. F E Smith  Says:
    September 5th, 2012 at 6:14 pm That low, huh?  I thought it would be a greater proportion than that.By the way, I think it is a fantastic policy.  Should have been implemented years ago.

    Are there checks to ensure the people concerned know that there is an arrest warrant for them?

    In my experience, 98% of people subject of a WTA are fully aware of it.  Of those who weren’t, many at some point were aware of it but then forgot about it.  Often Corrections will be the most likely organisation to apply for a warrant in lieu of service, which means that almost all of those people should be aware that there will be charges coming for not complying with a sentence.

    The person receiving the benefit is the same person with the arrest warrant and not just someone with a similar name

    Well, that does happen, but not very often.  The level of incidence is so low, in my opinion, as to be able to be discounted.

    because now, those crims who have their benefits cut will return to crime to feed themselves.

    Gee, if you believe this then I have a good sized bridge in Auckland to sell you.  In my experience there is very little crime out of necessity, especially the necessity to feed oneself or one’s dependants.  Very, very little.  On the other hands, there are quite a number of people receiving a benefit who continue a life of crime quite happily.

And…

  1. F E Smith Says:
    September 5th, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    FES – how much if any effect will removing benefits be likely to have on offending of individuals?

    Oh, take their benefit off them and they will scream!  I expect it to be quite effective, to be honest.

And another view…

  1. tristanb Says:
    September 5th, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    Inky: Are there checks to ensure the people concerned know that there is an arrest warrant for them?

    No. There’s no checks to ensure it’s not a similar name [strong sarcasm]. WTF?! Plus they’ll find out when they don’t get their benefit! Arrest warrants aren’t things that we develop for no reason (like rashes) – you actually have to commit a crime to get one.

    You’ve just got to find something wrong with this don’t you?

    Lee C: because now, those crims who have their benefits cut will return to crime to feed themselves.

    Yes, starvation is the most common motive behind crime in NZ. That’s why people rape – because they can’t afford a MacAttack. (Also strong sarcasm.)

    You’ve never actually met a criminal have you? They’re arrogant, they get every entitlement they’re “entitled” to and more. They’re nasty and they only care about themselves – that’s why they commit crime – because they don’t consider how traumatic it is to have your windows forced, and have someone rifle through your house before stealing family heirlooms.

And another lawyer on the other side of the argument:

mickysavage

A lot of these warrants will be for unpaid fines where notices have been sent to a former address.

Even a temporary suspension of payments will cause hardship.  Many of these people are on the breadline and a temporary cut will mean they will not be able to make the next week’s rent or grocery bill.

For political gain and minimal savings Bennett intends to make it that much harder for them.  Shame on her.

And another:

Kotahi Tāne Huna

Failure and incompetence are the hallmark of the National Party, so they hide behind these distractions.

The question is: will the Labour Party come out strongly and promise to reverse this and other attacks on New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens?

Perhaps a promise to fully compensate any person who can show that this policy caused genuine hardship?

Or will we hear about an old guy whose neighbour didn’t pay a fine?

Criminals are “New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens”?

by Pete George on September 6, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime, Politics
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on September 6, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/09/06/no-benefit-of-on-arrest-warrant/

Not the usual low life toe rag

The revelations of all the charges against Ewen Macdonald indicate an extensive habit of offending against fellow farmers.

Federated Farmers Manawatu-Rangitikei provincial president Andrew Hoggard said: “We genuinely thought crimes like this were committed by some low-life toe-rag who’d never worked a decent day in their life.

“It is a real shock to discover Macdonald has admitted to what are acts of sabotage.”

I guess it depends on whether you exclude an award winning and  seemingly respectable farmer from being a ‘low life”.

Farming communities are often very close knit and supportive, a sort of rural extended family. I grew up in a rural community. When one of your own offends, especially on this sort of scale, it can be very disturbing and sobering.

It looks like Macdonald will get some more prison time, but after he’s rel;eased it will be difficult for him to be accepted into any rural community, especially in the Manawatu-Rangitikei area.

From NZH: Macdonald’s secret ‘revenge missions’

by Pete George on August 3, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on August 3, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/08/03/not-the-usual-low-life-toe-rag/

The Ewan MacDonald suppressions

Three other charges against Ewan MacDonald were made known during the Scott Guy murder trial…

  • Theft: Driving to a nearby farm and shooting two trophy stags. He put them on his trailer and buried them in a pre-dug hole on the Guy family farm, where he was a manager.
  • Criminal damage: Burning down an old farm house on the back of removal trailers at the site of Scott and Kylee Guy’s new home. The house and trailers were destroyed.
  • Criminal damage: Vandalising Scott and Kylee Guy’s new home once construction had nearly finished.

…and three more charges have just been revealed…

Ewan Macdonald’s other crimes revealed

  • Criminal damage: Slaughtering 19 calves belonging to Himatangi dairy farmer Paul Barber on the night of August 9, 2007. The calves had been struck on the head with an object.
  • Criminal damage: Emptying 16,000 litres of milk from a vat belonging to another Himatangi farmer, Graham Sexton, on the same night the calves were culled.
  • Arson: Burning down an historic Maori whare built in 1888 which was on Mr Sexton’s farm. Macdonald used an LPG bottle and boat fuel to start the fire. The whare was used as a family sleep out and a duck shooter’s shelter.

When seeing what the additional charges were I initially thought that, fair enough, they weren’t relevant to the murder trial. Obviously they don’t affect the evidence of the trial.

The three other charges were suppressed after his lawyer argued they’d unfairly influence the jury.

Maybe, but the charges certainly paint a picture of MacDonald as a vindictive person who was destructive and killed animals.

MacDonald was caught poaching on Mr Sexton’s property by a neighbouring farmer Paul Barber in 2007.

He apologised, but weeks later came back. Macdonald and an accomplice emptied thousands of litres of milk from Mr Sexton’s milk vat, and on the same night slaughtered 19 calves in a shed on Mr Barber’s farm.

Six months later they burnt down the Sextons’ historic hunting whare – Mr Sexton says MacDonald knew it would hurt his family.

And in the TV3 interview Sexton said MacDonald admitted doing these things because he could get away with it.
Ewan MacDonald is still Not Guilty of murder. There was still insufficient evidence to convict him. But it’s easy to see why the police thought they had their man, and are not looking for anyone else.
by Pete George on August 2, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on August 2, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/08/02/the-ewan-macdonald-suppressions/

Precisely worded smacking legislation?

There’s been a difficult smacking case in the news – Parents’ hell after choice to strap child – which ended up Smacking conviction overturned on appeal. It was a very difficult family situation where the mother was “convicted after they strapped their 8-year-old son, over his pyjamas”.

Anti-smacking law critics say the case is an example of good parents being criminalised, contrary to assurances from politicians when the law came in.

Family First director Bob McCroskie says…

…the case involved an extremely difficult child for whom the mother had repeatedly sought help, but none was available. He says there is a lack of support for parents who are struggling.

I’m sure he’s right there.

Mr McCroskie also says…

…the legislation is confused and needs to be precisely worded.

First point, this prosecution could have happened under the old version of the law.

And second – how can a smacking law be worded precisely so it caters for every varied situation? Does McCroskrie think the law should specify that any smacking using a belt is legal? Any smacking using any device or implement? Where would he precisely draw the line?

Even the word “smack” is imprecise. It could be used to refer to a tap on a nappied bum. It could also be used to describe a smack over the head with a four by two.

I don’t see how smacking laws will ever be able to be precise.

Smacking will always require discretion by parents. And police.

by Pete George on June 3, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime, Issues
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on June 3, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/06/03/precisely-worded-smacking-legislation/

Dotcom case “totally off the rails”

It’s looking more and more like the Dotcom case is a disgrace.

I was surprised by the manner of the initial Dotcom raid and arrest, and I was concerned about the emerging story.

I’ve just seen coverage of a day on court today (Campbell Live), where it showed a performance by Kim Dotcom’s representative, Paul Davison, that seemed to be restrained but forecful incredulousness – and very disturbing.

Davison suggested, I think with good cause, “the whole process is totally off the rails”.

FBI may have Dotcom’s PC data

Today Kim Dotcom appeared to learn that the police have given the FBI copies of data from his hard drives.

There were extraordinary scenes at the Auckland High Court today, as Kim Dotcom and his legal team appeared to learn that the New Zealand police have provided the FBI with copies, or clones, of material on the hard drives taken from his home during the police raid in January.

The police have repeatedly refused to provided the same copies, or clones, to Dotcom himself.

The Crown asserted it was always clear the FBI’s intention was to take the documents back to America.

But whoever has the documents has a decided advantage, as prosecution and defence teams prepare their cases.

The Dotcom team had sought assurances that the material would not be provided to the FBI before them.

Crown lawyers had written back saying “that has not happened and will not happen without prior warning”.

But it appears it has happened.

The Dotcom legal team started in a fairly restrained fashion, but as the afternoon went on, they couldn’t disguise their surprise and even anger.

(full report video link)

The more that emerges on this case the more disquieting, disconcerting it gets. If what is already known is confirmed it indicates disgraceful policing and legal process.

Seems like shameful Kiwi policing and justice (or lack thereof).

Edit: A fairly uncomplementary comment has been posted by a lawyer on Kiwiblog:

F E Smith  Says:
May 24th, 2012 at 12:41 pm Re the latest Dotcom stuff-up:

The biggest mistake made by Dotcom’s counsel was accepting anything said by Anne Toohey as being trustworthy. That prosecutor exemplifies the high-handed, condescending, self-righteous attitude of so many Crown prosecutors these days. Plus, you just cannot trust her. If Toohey was a part of the evidence handover, then she has really landed her colleague in the soup, poor bloke. I bet the Chief High Court Judge was furious!

The problem is, and the Crown knows this, what’s done is done and there ain’t too much that can be done to fix it. Especially given the very wide latitude US investigators are allowed by their Courts when it comes to obtaining evidence.

by Pete George on May 23, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on May 23, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/05/23/dotcom-case-totally-off-the-rails/

Disturbing Dotcom

When the Dotcom raid happened and the four were arrested and paraded in court my initial reaction was that someone had decided it was time to clean up the Internet a bit.

But the gung ho scale of the raid seemed out of place for alleged Internet crime.

And it seemed remarkable that all assets would be frozen and a large businesses effectively brought to an immediate standstill – locking up legal files of many users of Megaupload. I’m not sure if they have been or will ever become available to legitimate owners.

As time went by and more information came out, bail was refused, contested and then appealed when granted, things I gradually grew suspicious of the motives behind the FBI led US invasion of New Zealand justice.

Kim Dotcom was interviewed by John Campbell tonight. It seemed to confirm a lot and filled in a few gaps.

Shutting down Megauploabecause some may have been using it for illegal breaches of copyright is a bit like shutting down NZ Post because some people post copies of CDs and DVDS.

Many people don’t find Dotcom a particularly endearing sort of personality, some have jumped to conclusions based on initial impressions. But this issue is much bigger than a very big hulk of a rich dude.

Yeah. It’s kinda like weapon of mass destructions in Iraq, you know? If you want to go after someone and you have a political goal you will say whatever it takes. These are fabrications and lies. There are a hundred other companies out there that offer the same service like us. Why has not something happened to them?

Unfortunately he might be close to the truth of the matter.

There could be some great revelations on the extradition/prosecution side of the argument that change my view, but at the moment I’m very concerned Dotcom and New Zealand have been chosen as easy targets for what looks like big business running US law enforcement.

Kim Dotcom’s first TV interview: ‘I’m no piracy king’

- video

- transcript

by Pete George on March 1, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 1, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/03/01/disturbing-dotcom/

Smacking getting out of hand

The problem with smacking getting out of hand:

Child beaten for mispronunciation

A Wanganui man beat a child who could not pronounce a word properly, using a slipper and drumstick, in an attack that left the child needing hospital care.

The man, who has name suppression, turned himself in to police the day after the August incident.

Whanganui District Court was told he was attempting to tutor a child and became frustrated with the boy’s inability to pronounce a word. He punished him with a slipper, and then a drumstick, with repeated blows to the back of the hand, and then to his head.

The assault stopped while the child tried to improve his skills, but continued again with a smack on the backside. The child again tried to pronounce the word, and when he couldn’t, the man slapped him around the head.

The next day the boy had swelling about his body and the man arranged for him to be taken to hospital.

Good that the man dealt with the situation appropriatelt when he’d gone far too far (or realised he would be found out).

But this incident illustrates the danger of promoting smacking as a means of punishment. Not everyone is smart enough and always in control of their emotions enough to know when to stop – and in any case physical punishment in this case was totally inappropriate.

by Pete George on September 29, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Crime
Tagged ,

Posted by Pete George on September 29, 2011

http://yournz.org/2011/09/29/smacking-getting-out-of-hand/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers