Geiringer on Slater’s diversion

Felix Geiringer @BarristerNZ

  1.  Before offering diversion, the Police MUST consult the victim. In this case they did not even tell the victim there had been an arrest.
  2. Reparation is one of the two primary purposes of the scheme. In this case, Slater was not required to do anything by way of reparation.
  3. Diversion is generally only offered to first time offenders but http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10673417
  4. Diversion is only offered for minor offending. In Hager case, Manukau District Manager described offences under this section as serious.
  5. To qualify, Slater had to admit responsibility and show remorse. His media statement claims he has never done so and still does not.
  6. Diversion is “unlikely to be appropriate” where the “offender refuses to identify co-offenders”. Who was Slater’s mysterious “funder”?
  7. Diversion is “unlikely to be appropriate” where offender was the organiser. Eg, the offender was soliciting others to commit crime.

I’ve run out of steam. There are probably more.

Geiringer will be very familiar with the Hager case as he has represented Hager.

Leave a comment

17 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  10th May 2016

    the judge stated “He has accepted his guilt” – of the charge of “counselling and/or attempting to procure Mr Rachinger to access the computer system of The Standard website to obtain property or a benefit, namely computer files (ss 249(2)a and 311, Crimes Act 19621).

    And Geiringer thinks Hager was not guilty of receiving stolen property?

    Reply
  2. Before offering diversion, the Police MUST consult the victim. In this case they did not even tell the victim there had been an arrest.

    What victim?

    Reply
    • Dougal

       /  11th May 2016

      Correct! Nothing happened, ergo no victim.

      Reply
    • Prentice was the complainant and claims to be a victim.

      The test in the law about victims is the amount of harm. It cost me more than a week of very hard work.

      Bloody Cameron even with his pathetic skill levels was up after a couple of days after his hack because he was able to pay someone (with his sleazy earned cash – which you appear to have facilitated) competent to do it and because it was obvious what had happened.

      It is a lot harder looking for something that may have happened.
      http://thestandard.org.nz/the-plot-to-hack-the-standard/#comment-1171737

      And that link shows that Matthew Hooton is a victim of lprent’s moderating.

      Reply
  3. Addressing Geiringer’s assertions above with regards to diversion and victim status #1 and #7. I think a Judge, charged with objectivity and with the facts to hand, was more than able to assess the crime and the accused’s suitability for diversion. Geiringer, on the other hand, is a man whose interpretation/ opinion of anything politically criminal should be taken with more than just a pinch of the proverbial salt. If we’re to accept Slater’s account, he was, (yet again), the victim of a takedown. His account tells us he was set up by BR who proposed addressing a narrative Slater was fixated about. If a (commissioned or proposed?) crime is never committed, then how can there be an actual victim?

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  11th May 2016

      I suppose that if someone was hired to kill me, and I had the terror of finding this out, I’d be a victim in the sense that I have had a terrifying experience and will take a long time to recover from this.

      Reply
  4. Brown

     /  11th May 2016

    “Geiringer will be very familiar with the Hager case as he has represented Hager.”

    Don’t like him already.

    Reply
  5. Ratty

     /  11th May 2016

    So in conclusion to the analysis and findings are :

    ‘Oh … but Hagar….”

    That’s that sorted then

    Reply
  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  11th May 2016

    The police are politicians first and foremost. Their track record of dealing with political issues is fundamentally self-protection and avoidance. In one sense this is not a bad thing, meddling would be much worse.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  11th May 2016

      Lawyers can’t really turn down a client on the grounds of personal dislike, I suppose.

      Reply
    • Alan, if you really believe that our Police are “politicians first and foremost” then I am really concerned. I note you relate this to political issues. and accept that the Commissioners appointment is a political selection, but I really am not persuaded that our Police are in any way playing politics. I am not naive and understand that being political has a broad spectrum of activity but to say what you have ,needs some evidence. Or was it a casual reference?

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s