|
Further
Editorial April 2006
Kia Ora,
The
current speed of Lifestyles in the 21st Century creates an equivalent need for
updating our Laws. Unless we have a secure and trusted Legal system we will be
headed back to warring on all levels.
The police must be respected well paid and trusted; rigorous efforts must go in
to ensuring that the trust is earned. When ‘society’ at large looses faith in
their safety every effort must go into rectifying the problem.
The recent trial of three policemen -- Clint Rickards, Brad Shipton and Bob
Schollum (two not part of the force now) -- found them “not guilty” but this is
not the view of so many NZers who have read the “suppressed evidence”
distributed widely on the Internet. As a member of the Press it is essential
that I uphold the Legal decision so do not deal directly with this.
The principle of Law, where history of the Defendant can be suppressed, is quite
valid in that someone who has some part of their past that could well influence
a Juror’s decision may not have been guilty in the matter before the Court.
This needs to be revisited under today’s realities.
Supporters of Louise Nicholas are furious for a basic “unfairness” in any case
of Rape. In this context, within the Court, the accuser and defendant are in
direct conflict with each other. While every effort is made to attack the
character of the accuser (the Victim when rape actually happened) but the
character of the defendant (the Victim when it didn’t) nevertheless is
protected by the Law.
What is not considered is the effect of prosecuting several people at the same
time. In a rape case the accuser must (again if it is true) face all accusers
across the Court. Anyone wrongly identified is tied to the evidence against the
other(s). [If, for instance three men steal a car, are chased by the police at
night and one gets away; the other two say the third man was someone they
dispise.] With the same technology that allows witnesses to give evidence by
video, a separate Jury could simultaneously see evidence in different
Courtrooms.
When the Judge has the power to suppress evidence after a Trial the public is
immediately suspicious and any supporter of “one side” of the conflict under
emotional stress can break the suppression order.
Last year the names of two of four men found guilty of a gang rape were
suppressed. A claimed fifth person involved was not identified. [See
News]
Were the police later to lay charges involving those found guilty of the earlier
offence, they may not be guilty this time. They, and certainly any other
defendant, would start with a prejudiced jury. If this was the reason for the
name suppression then it was justified. Of course, on that occasion the trial
outcome was in favour of the defendant.
In the USA the Press is virtually uncontrolled, a senior American lawyer told
me. The negative side of this is that the Press can create stories not based on
truth and are unlikely to be charge with slander.
The principle of suppression can also work against the interests of a defendant.
In Britain a Drugs trial that lasted over a year involved a dozen defendants.
In the case of one, it was claimed that he sailed with drugs into the Atlantic
where he met another who took the drugs from him and took them to Britain. In a
separate trial the accused recipient was found not guilty; GPS positioning
showed they never sailed within 200 miles of each other. But the jury was not
permitted to hear this evidence – which would have prejudiced the jury (in
favour of) all defendants. He was part of a blanket “guilty” verdict.
What
must happen in NZ is that the whole question around “suppression” and “group
defendants” must be openly discussed; although, just how, is itself a problem.
-- PER,
Managing Editor.
PS:
Column by Joanne Black [Listener,
April 15, 2006 Page 94] refers to the suppression and its effects -- well worth
reading.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VillagePRESS
Sub-editor John Henderson asks: might this be a solution ?
Go to …
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18910
…where Reviewer Bill McKibben : writes“ ..if you were going
to make a case for the Web having an invigorating political effect, you could do
worse than point your browser to
www.dailykos.com … which draws more than half a million visits each day.”
He suggests that the Web (site) could have “new possibilities for the American
political system that might help it break free of the grip of big money.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NB:
Once again this matter appears to be on the thoughts of ‘most NZers . Do
share yours with us – without your name having to be published (but your
identity known to Editor).
Puhoi's Tourist site*
www.puhoi.com Have you
taken photos in Puhoi? - Please let us know
Waiwera's Tourist site*
www.waiwera-nz.com Have you
taken photos in Puhoi? - Please let us know
| 
