7 Comments »

1. 

   At least she is honest about the act.
   It’s for protecting women and their children.
   It’s not about protecting people from DV.
   Also I will have to remember to compost hedge clippings.
   Burning them might be considered violent.
   She seems to be of the belief that nobody has the right to contest a protection order, examine the claims made, question the truth of the claim or allow realism to be part of any decision.
   If these women had it there way protection orders would be mandatory.
   If she wants to prevent violence why isn’t she advocating for the law to stop the descriminatory asset stripping of men.
   It’s what the anger was about.

   Justice Harrison listed the irrelevant considerations taken into account by the Family Court judge and said that the Family Court must “focus on the effect of offending behaviour rather than speculate on its cause”

   So obviously the judge is no scientist.
   Cause and effect.
   Ignor the cause and the effect is unavoidable.
   Ignor the cause and lawyers make more money.
   Focus on the cause, fix it and the offending may end.
   Unfortunately the legal system has to have integrity for that to happen.

   Comment by DJ Ward — Sun 9th July 2017 @ 8:42 pm

2. 

   I think the whole court system is a right botch up different judges if you do go back to court so you cant tell me they read every case. They just skim over the top, If your so called lawyer only open there gobs and say something, good god there would not be such a back log for court cases it really suxs how they drag it out to make more money.

   Comment by yen — Mon 10th July 2017 @ 6:55 am

3. 

   @1 what MacLennan is really saying:

   If the lawyer’s piece of paper ticks the boxes, the judge is obliged to exercise the rubber stamp.

   Her lawyer (that of the woman) is a civil prosecutor in disguise.

   Comment by Downunder — Mon 10th July 2017 @ 7:06 am

4. 

   #3 downunder
   Correct, a prosecutor.
   One with a defendant without the right to present a defence.
   A brutal thug being treated the same as the psychological abuse of a male who has never done anything, but she fears he will.

   Comment by DJ Ward — Mon 10th July 2017 @ 8:40 am

5. 

   One with a defendant without the right to present a defence

   I would agree with your wording if it was a subsequent arrest, rather that it is not given the opportunity to offer a response to the claim.

   I’ve also assisted a man defending the criminal charge at the Waitakere Court where the female duty solicitor said, before walking out;

   “If you’re not pleading guilty, I can’t represent you.”

   Comment by Downunder — Mon 10th July 2017 @ 9:01 am

6. 

   Look at this post and comments and compare the manner in which women are represented in the criminal system.

   Comment by Downunder — Wed 12th July 2017 @ 6:36 am

7. 

   I tried searching using the Justice Department search facility, but could not find it in 5 minutes.
   https://forms.justice.govt.nz/jdo/Search.jsp#/search
   Good news —-
   Dear old Google found the judgement, first time:
   https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/sn-v-mn/@@images/fileDecision?r=324.680052738

   I have very little court$ experience, thank dooGness, but Harrison was one of the least impressive that I saw in action. Now he is even older.

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 13th July 2017 @ 1:48 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ