Crown Prosecutor Tries to Avoid Conviction for Theft
The New Zealand Herald has continued its habit of White Knight chivalry by refusing to name the female Crown Prosecutor who was caught deliberately stealing almost $200 worth of groceries by putting them in her own bag, covering them up, then paying for just $11 worth of items that she placed in the supermarket basket. The woman is now trying to get a discharge without conviction by blaming her thievery on an eating disorder. Mmm, maybe I can steal my neighbour’s car and blame this on petrol-head syndrome. The Herald mentioned that she was “seeking help for personal and medical issues” and this apparently was enough to protect her from public exposure. Mmm, I could address my petrol-head syndrome by copious administration of medicine at the local pub; so can I go now your honour?
This thief’s excuse is no more meritorious than that of someone with a gambling disorder that they feed by stealing money.
Does anyone know who this thief is? She is a lawyer highly paid by our hard-earned taxes, and you can bet she earns enough to supply the needs of any known eating disorder. I have never seen a case in which the Herald withheld the name of any male offender in the absence of Court name-suppression, and I really object that this thief should be accorded that advantage apparently simply because of her gender. Let’s expose her. If anyone reading this ever finds themselves in Court being prosecuted by her, you deserve to know the background of the person pointing the finger. Some letters to the editor and demonstrators outside the Court calling for equal justice to all would also be welcome.
Oh come on – you’re being far too harsh.
There is a good reason men get treated so much more severely by the law. They are reformable. Either as a jail-bird, or as an example to all other men looking on, men can be motivated by, and appealed to, by that abstract thing called “consequences”. The law punishes men because it works. It doesn’t punish women because it does not work.
Punishing a woman for doing wrong is likely punishing your dog for not understanding algebra. You get the feeling you are wasting your time, and the dog thinks you are just being mean.
This may not be what the law says out loud, but it is definitely what it seems to be saying quietly. Never judge the judges by what they say, but by what they do.
Comment by rc — Tue 13th December 2011 @ 6:44 pm
We protect our own. Say no more.
Comment by Family Court Judge — Tue 13th December 2011 @ 7:16 pm
Yes, it’s probably foolish idealism that drives anyone to expect equal treatment, but expect it I do. At present, it’s not the law I’m objecting to (it will be though if she is discharged without conviction), but it’s the Herald’s sexist policy.
There must be someone who knows the identity of this thief! Shopkeepers everywhere will be grateful if we publish it. I understand there is no name suppression.
Comment by Hans Laven — Tue 13th December 2011 @ 9:37 pm
A Crown prosecutor arrested for shoplifting while on a break in a court case can now be named. Emily Jane Toner, 33, chose not to seek suppression when her case was called in the North Shore District Court yesterday. Toner, who…
Source: http://news-junkie.co.nz/charged-lawyer-for-shoplifting-named-20111122
Comment by Wayne — Wed 14th December 2011 @ 6:12 pm
how could a crown prosecutor keep their job putting people behind bars for stealing etc and then get caught stealing herself..dismissal should be first on the list
Comment by Ford — Wed 14th December 2011 @ 7:01 pm
Thanks Wayne (#4), so now we know.
And I agree with you Ford (#5), but instead Ms Toner is trying to get the Court to discharge her without conviction which will probably enable her to keep her job. I have already written a letter to the editor of the Herald expressing my objection to their chivalry. A bit of pressure from the public will make it difficult for the Court to avoid convicting her. We know that feminist groups won’t say anything; they only complain when it’s a male offender who is shown any mercy. So it’s up to us!
Compare this story today – read the last sentence – in which the Herald is legally challenging name suppression given to a male. In the case of this male, the ‘victim’ of the man’s offence (providing deserved and no doubt effective discipline) is his own son who will also suffer the consequences of his father’s name publication. What heroes the Herald staff are, bodly fighting for open justice on behalf of the people but only when men and their children will be damaged by it. On the other hand, when there’s a damsel in distress the white knight Herald seizes every opportunity to rescue her. How sickening.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 14th December 2011 @ 8:22 pm
Well dons, Hans. Your letter has been printed in today’s NZ Herald. I’ll post tomorrow if there has been any comment about it by other readers.
Comment by golfa — Fri 16th December 2011 @ 7:55 am
Thanks golfa (#7).
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th December 2011 @ 11:14 am
When Toner appeared in court she did not seek name suppression and was named by the Herald alongside details of her alleged crime. The fact that the NZ Herald has subsequently decided to not publish her name again alongside continuing updates doesn’t bother me. Having found this to be necessary it would bother me if she turned up as a crown prosecutor again.
What concerns me more is the comparison that is being drawn with the All Black case. Other parents have suffered media scrutiny of criminal charges for family discipline.
“News media including the Herald are set to oppose permanent name suppression if it is sought.”
Why not?
The damage in these cases is not a media issue or a suppression issue – that totally misses the point.
“Until now, only bare details of the charge have been made public although the case was always considered to be one of excessive discipline than a more serious assault.”
Guardianship only exists now between parents when there is an issue in the family court. Outside of this any other person can challenge your parenting of a child through the criminal justice system. If any other person can challenge your guardianshipless parenthood why can’t the media report it? The greater danger here is not putting people in the spotlight it is allowing them to hide in fear behind suppression. The damage has already been done. The state and the accuser have broken into this house and ripped its structure of discipline apart. They will have done irreparable damage to the family relationships and undermined the authority and future of the family. Suggesting that we should help them out by allowing suppression of the case is only serving to make worse what was always a bad law. The future damage to this family and its individual members will be far greater than anything this father is being criminalised and harassed for – and I don’t mean harassed by the media. Look what happened in the secrecy of the family court.
Comment by Down Under — Fri 16th December 2011 @ 1:23 pm
Down Under (#9): Interesting perspectives, thanks. The chivalrous decision in itself to withhold further mention of this thief’s name doesn’t particularly bother me either. But it does bother me that I have seen the Herald and at least one of its regional papers do this on various occasions for women offenders and only once for a male offender (that being the policeman who shot Steven Wallace). I guess that gender is not the only ground on which to protect people, being involved in law enforcement seems to be another.
I agree with you that the more important issue in the All Black case is that of an arrogant state wrecking families and damaging children’s development. I agree also that publishing the name of this father and therefore his son may throw a brighter spotlight on the state’s foolishness, perhaps turn the man into another symbol of the struggle between wisdom and feminism. However, he is the one applying for name suppression and I don’t agree that the wrong done to him and his son should be further exacerbated by publicly associating his name with that wrong. However, even that per se is not the main concern for me. The double standards shown by a major NZ newspaper is.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 16th December 2011 @ 7:53 pm
Congrats on getting letter in The Herald Hans.
How about posting a link to it?
Comment by Skeptic — Sat 17th December 2011 @ 2:26 am
Id like to read it too
Comment by Ford — Sat 17th December 2011 @ 8:08 am
There is no internet publication of letters to the editor. Following is a draft of the letter I sent (it will have minor differences because I changed some words when I sent it on the Herald’s web page):
I have since discovered that there was one case in which the Herald withheld the name of a man whose name hadn’t been suppressed. That was the policeman who shot Steven Wallace, who wasn’t an offender as such and was cleared of wrongdoing. However, a cursory search found six examples of women’s names being withheld voluntarily by the Herald.
Several years ago I wrote to the Bay of Plenty Times challenging their withholding of the Court-published name of a woman who had trained her children to shoplift for her. I made the point that the newspaper had never shown reluctance in publishing names of offending fathers whose children would be affected. The editor published my letter but took umbridge and added a reply something like “I strongly reject your implication”. Well actually Mr Editor, you were called out red-handed for gender discrimination and I’m glad you found the allegation so objectionable.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 17th December 2011 @ 8:45 am
Good for you Hans. The pussy pass is just a form of corruption, hiding in plain view. It infects everything with which it comes into contact. Maybe a few more readers will start noticing it.
Comment by rc — Sat 17th December 2011 @ 9:32 am
Hans, the Herald named her today (in a sidebar about another Lawyer)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10774966
Comment by golfa — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 9:18 am
Yes, thanks golfa, I noticed that. And the Herald is trying to get name suppression lifted for another female lawyer who smuggled contraband in to an inmate.
I would like to think that my letter to the editor contributed to the Herald’s change of tune. Illuminating discrimination tends to discourage it. That’s why our contributions here on MENZ are so important; it’s one of the few places in NZ that misandry and femaleism are exposed.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 23rd December 2011 @ 10:12 am
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11125418
Emily admits P addiction:
She ‘almost’ lost her certificate:
Comment by Downunder — Mon 16th September 2013 @ 2:11 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11125298
I don’t believe what I’m reading in this case a teacher stole a child’s medication.
Aubrey is remanded on bail pending sentencing on October 8.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 16th September 2013 @ 2:22 pm
Yes, thanks for that Downunder (#17 and #18). And note that the judge would not allow Helen Aubrey to be photographed in Court. This despite the fact that her victim would in no way be identified or harmed through this. Yet men often have their photos allowed to be taken and published when they are accused of all manner of things even before their guilt has been decided in a trial.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 16th September 2013 @ 10:04 pm