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.