Can someone explain this?
A Nelson businessman who secretly recorded his wife, who was having an affair, says it is unfair that he has been portrayed as a sexual deviant, but has admitted the charges against him so he can “get on with life”.
Pat, 53, pleaded guilty in the Whakatane District Court to four charges of publishing an intimate visual recording and one charge of making an intimate recording.
He has been ordered to pay his wife $5000 compensation.
Click on the link for the full story.
I don’t understand what he did wrong. It seems he shared the evidence with some people. I don’t know how this is described as publishing but that seems to be the only thing that I can see that he did that might be illegal.
I am very confused about this.
She was screwing a married man.
That seems to be jsut fine.
Plus she is preventing the childiren spend time with him post divorce.
That also seems to be fine.
He got evidence to confirm his suspcions.
Was that wrong?
I don’t think it was nice for him to share it with anyone. Except that agree he had a duty to tell the wife of the man having an affair.
Can someone explain what he did wrong to me?
I don’t understand what his crime was.
He got evidence to confirm his suspcions.
Was that wrong?
In the eyes of the state apparatus -yes.
The courts dont want evidence – they want a balance of probabilities.
Yes he made a mistake – showing it to other people (Publishing?)
But put in context this does appear to be using the legal system to attack the father during family caught proceedings and it appears very spitefull.
Bet lawyers said charge him, it will help you in the FC.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 13th June 2010 @ 11:59 am
Dave asked…
He has done exactly what was necessary and moral. Two other individuals were committing a fraud against their partners and children on his property. He did only what was necessary to bring that fraud to light.
Only in the faerieland that is our courts has he done anything wrong. He is guilty of what seems to be becoming almost a capital offense. That of a penis bearer upsetting a woman.
Comment by gwallan — Sun 13th June 2010 @ 1:29 pm
Firstly, a pretty clear cut breach of the law unfortunately Dave – which is black and white in terms of covert intimate recording another person without their knowledge in an intimate situation. Part 9A, s 216H of the Crimes Act 1961 (Crimes against personal privacy) applies.
Parliament introduced the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Act 2006 (a Statute) not long ago and the Police are keen to get legal precedents in place by convictions. I’d say this was a relatively light sentence because of the circumstances and the defendant’s approach to the prosecution. The law is applied by a combination of three things: Statute (the law you are charged under); Common Law (legal precedent set by decisions in other cases); and Equity (allowances or ‘fairness’ applicable to the unique circumstances of the case). This case illustrates all three.
Statute Law is what they call ‘Black Letter’ (as in black and white). Parliament has decided you simply can’t go around filming your wife cheating on you in bed doing a sexual act with another person despite the moral issues – Common Law doesn’t factor the morals into it. This guy broke the law and pleaded guilty – so he had to be convicted. He got the lighter sentence because the judge applied equity (the third part of how our legal system works). Having applied Statute and Common Law to convict him, the judge then looked at mitigating circumstances (such as a guilty plea and do doubt the relationship issues), and note he convicted and discharged the man. He was cutting the guy some slack in as much as he can after finding him guilty.
Note Judge Peter Rollo described it as “a sad case” that had resulted in untoward effects for both the man and his ex-wife. This is him commenting on Equity and both parties “suffering”. The $5000 compensation ordered was by way of acknowledging the woman’s “hurt” at being filmed shagging the boyfriend. I note no mention of him getting compensation (no doubt lying very low if married as alleged). Hence Equity was applied to both parties. Whether we think this fair is another issue. As we all know from our own personal experiences the law has nothing to with what is actually moral and indeed often fair or what is actually right.
I’m not defending the legal system, just trying to explain how it works because it sometimes helps us to understand it better. In Iran the wife would have been stoned to death under Sharia Law — which is the other extreme end of unfairness. Our caught system here is seen as treating men unfairly when it comes to adultery, in Iran it is the women who often unjustly suffer crueler and harsher penalties.
But as for this poor chap in the Whakatane District Court, I’d urge him to invoke s 4(3) of the Care of Children Act 2004 and learn it by rote to fire back at LfC and his ex-wife’s counsel. This states “A parent’s conduct may be considered only to the extent (if any) that it is relevant to the child’s welfare and best interests.” Any man facing COCA proceedings should learn this section off by heart in my opinion and ensure the judge is reminded of it if the man is facing criticism. This guy’s “crime” has no relevance to him being a good Dad.
Comment by Gerry — Sun 13th June 2010 @ 3:23 pm
Gerry,
Will bet you that this will be discussed at the FC and impact on the outcome.
Regards
Scrap
P.S. as its a closed court I wont be able to collect LOL
Comment by Scrap_The_CSA — Sun 13th June 2010 @ 4:18 pm
I think I already owe you the money Scrap!
That is why I hope this chap really hammers home s 4(3) and I’d advise he go on the attack if it is thrown at him. I’d argue the wife’s goings on with the boyfriend under the same roof as the child had more relevance and impact on the child’s best interests and welfare than the father’s regretable actions – which did not involve the child in anyway…could the same be said for the other party’s behaviour?
Comment by Gerry — Sun 13th June 2010 @ 4:32 pm
Well you seemed to have summed up New Zealand law in one sentence. I always thought that the purpose of the law was to defend the people against immoral, unfair or unjust actions of others. I also was under the impression that the justice system is supposed to be impartial, but obviously it isn’t.
To separate law from morality is dangerous at best and it is truly disturbing if our legal system is not defending all the people equally. If the justice system is playing favourites does this not change it from a justice system to simply another system of control that is utilised to oppress and abuse certain groups of people? From all observations, this certainly seems to be the case.
It’s interesting too that a man gets fined for filming his wife who is cheating. I think it’s important to remember that she would not have been filmed having sex if she hadn’t been cheating in the first place. If she had been true to her husband the only filming would have been of her at home. So while he is responsible for covert filming, SHE is responsible for being filmed having sex. He is responsible ONLY for putting in internal security cameras, WHICH SHE KNEW ABOUT!!! So who is responsible for her getting filmed screwing around? SHE IS!!!!
And then of course she gets off (pun intended) without any consequences. This is despite the fact that she has most likely broken a legally binding contract. Marriage is a contract between husband and wife, and it usually includes a clause of some kind about having sex ONLY with your spouse. If it is not included in writing it is usually included in the wedding vows, which are a verbal contract. Verbal contracts are just as legally binding as a written contract.
It’s strange how the divorce industry and society in general seems to forget about the legalities and the clauses in a marriage contract and puts them aside if they become inconvenient. Clauses such as “Til death do us part.” have little to no meaning anymore, despite them being verbally binding contracts enforceable by law.
So what is the consequence to her. NONE. NOTHING. ZIP. No consequence for allowing herself to be videoed and no consequence for having sex outside marriage. The man, as usual is held totally responsible and is the only one who has consequences for his actions, while the woman gets away with her behaviour yet again.
One final comment when it comes to these types of situations. The legal system applies differently to children because they are considered incapable of taking responsibility for their actions, or being held accountable due to their age and inexperience. If women are also considered incapable of taking responsibility for their actions, and are also not held accountable then what does this say about the modern woman? Does this mean in the eyes of the law that she is considered to be in the same league as a child?
Comment by Phoenix — Sun 13th June 2010 @ 11:56 pm
I issue I had Phoenix when I first started studying law was confusing natural justice with law. The two are quite separate and many people (understandably) confuse the two. I did. Westminister-style law is a thing called Positivism which has no inherent or necessary connection between law & ethics or morality. Judges freely acknowledge this. What a law says, it means, but judges have the option of exercising equity to make it seem more fair in certain cases. Know thine enemy.
Comment by Gerry — Mon 14th June 2010 @ 7:56 am
Simple.
Sexual apartheid.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 14th June 2010 @ 10:43 am
Feminists wanted and achieved no-fault divorce and toothless marriage laws. The marriage “contract” is a joke; there is no enforcable contract at all and no penalty for breaching it. The law now firmly protects women’s right to be unfaithful. There was a contributor here I think earlier this year who had a protection order granted against him because he briefly shouted some abuse at his wife and her lover when he caught them having sex in his bed.
The law in relation to recording people says what it says because that’s how feminists want it. You can be sure that if a man was having an affair and the woman filmed this for evidence, the Courts would never convict her of anything but would criticize the man’s immorality and the emotional pain he caused the woman.
Feminists also wanted, and now have, marriages in which the woman is under no obligation to contribute anything or keep to any rules or promises. But if the man does anything that displeases the woman, just watch the law support her and put the boot into him.
The partial defence of provocation was removed recently, as if men are robots who are never overwhelmed by emotion when provoked. But watch out; behind the scenes feminists are lobbying to allow a “slow burn” provocation defence specifically to allow women to kill their male partners with impunity as long as she claims he had been violent to her. Somehow, the “slow burn” reaction is considered more justifiable than reacting immediately in the provoking situation, even though in the case of the slow burn a person had ample opportunity to think about the response and other options for addressing the problem.
I urge everyone here to be vigilant for when the public start to be softened up for the introduction of a “slow burn” defence. As intended by feminists, this defence will basically give women a licence to kill men. They already have the right to enslave men to provide regular money with no reciprocal obligation, so allowing women to kill men is actually only a small step from the present situation.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 14th June 2010 @ 10:32 pm
Yes Hans,
You’re astute as usual and I take your warning about slow burn provocation as a defense seriously.
Thank you for that.
Only one minor quibble I have and that is with the term ‘toothless marriage laws’.
I think many men in NZ could testify that whilst a marriage contract was indeed toothless in the sense of not being worth any more than toilet tissue that when it came to being treated with humanity and fairness at time of separation all of a sudden they they experienced marriage laws that weren’t toothless at all but had rows of fangs!!!
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 14th June 2010 @ 11:06 pm
Now let me see if I understand you correctly, because the marriage contract IS a legally binding contract, and I certainly agree that it is not actually viewed or enforced as such, certainly not in the western world.
Does this mean that under feminist rule, the law firmly protects a womans right to commit breach of contract? In essence, this would mean that the law firmly protects a woman’s right to break the law.
Does anyone else see a contradiction here?
Comment by Phoenix — Tue 15th June 2010 @ 11:05 am
Just a quick addition. I don’t believe that feminists either wanted or achieved no-fault divorce. What they aimed for and got, was man-always-at-fault divorce.
This is despite the fact that at least 75% of relationships end because of the woman. I’ve read that it may be as high as 95% when women coercing men into ending a relationship and making his life a living hell is taken into account. It’s not us guys that have a problem with commitment.
The question that must be asked, if marriage is no longer viewed, or upheld as a legally binding contract that BOTH parties must adhere too, is why ANY man would bother getting married.
Comment by Phoenix — Tue 15th June 2010 @ 11:13 am