The jury reflects the public’s degree of discernment
Coughing fit led to elbow attack, court told.
Crown prosecutor Mr Mcdiarmid told the jury an assault was to touch someone intentionally without their consent, and didn’t need to be hard or cause an injury.
This case will hold an interesting outcome for two reasons:
1. Will a jury view a case, with no injury inflicted and no witnesses to the event, strong enough to convict on?
2. How will the judge direct the jury?
Mr Mcdiarmid’s statement to the jury is ridiculous and contrary to the telos of the legislation (or is it? In case law intent on contact is paramount) and in my opinion has a political bias in its implementation. I ask you, for what reason do you think the police pursued this case and how many crown prosecutors have used it to prosecute a female partner?
Defence lawyer Russell Fairbrother QC would cost the defendant around $1000 per hour, making the cost of defending this case being in the region of at least $30,000.
Most defendants would roll over rather than defend.
If he is found not guilty he will avoid a criminal record and probably a short probation period. However the police will know dam well that they have, by laying dubious charges, punished him regardless. My term for this sort of prosecution is ‘Back door justice‘.
The NZ Police became gender political during Helen Clarke’s era and the boys in blue behind the desks are PRICKS and in particular those in South Auckland. The managments pro-feminist stance encourages the staff on the beat to treat Polynesian men like dogs. One has to wonder if Mr Mcdiarmid has ever read any un- biased reports on Domestic violence
The only way to raise the bar is allowing full compensation from the police for the defendants legal costs should the jury find the defendant not guilty. The feasibility of this requires debate but for the sake of JUSTICE it does need to happen.
My heart goes out to Matthew Crann and I pray that, like me, the jury has wisdom.
What’s the odds that there is a relationship property case going in the family court too.
Man cleared of elbow assault charge
The people have spoken and are not as stupid or politically driven as the NZ POLICE might hope. It is a pity that the police did not heed Judge Claire Ryan’s view to the jury and to ignore any sympathy or prejudice they may have towards any of the witnesses, and make their decision to prosecute based on the evidence. Mr Crann is now free of a conviction and will have a moment of joy until he is required to pay his lawyer.
Heather McCracken from the Herald might like to enquire as to why the police took such a weak case to court. She would find some smelly dead rats in the corridors for sure.
For those facing the justice system, the next best thing to having the anatomy to qualify for a pussy pass is to be an agent of the justice system. This police inspector assaulted two teenage boys after his 14yo daughter had sneaked away from home to drink alcohol with them. We would bet that if it had been two women he assaulted or even one, he would not have been discharged without conviction. If he had physically punished his daughter he would not be discharged without conviction. But his victims were only second-class citizens, males, so the assaults didn’t matter much.
The case also highlighted the interesting issue of males being seen as responsible for females’ behaviour. That a senior police officer believed he should punish males for his daughter’s rule-breaking behaviour is concerning.
Yes, here’s another interesting case. A mother accidentally kills a baby by placing ‘it’ on an airport luggage belt. Letting the mother off the hook started almost immediately from law enforcement people (“It all appears to have been an accident…”) but I bet it would have been a different tune if it had been the father who left the baby on the belt. Also, we can expect the father to be under the spotlight for not supervising the child sufficiently; that is, for not supervising his wife’s actions closely enough. He will almost certainly be seen as responsible even though the mother was in charge of the baby at the time. Yet if the gender roles had been reversed it would be most unlikely for the mother to be seen as responsible for the father’s actions. What’s more, if the gender roles had been reversed the mother would have been seen as a victim and there would have been enormous sympathy for her, quite appropriately. The news article would have commented on how traumatized the mother was by this man’s carelessness. But since it was the mother who did the deed, we read absolutely nothing about how the father was feeling or coping.
That’s the way of our world.