Police unhappy with ruling that stops formal written warnings from being supplied to employers.
Police unhappy with ruling that stops formal written warnings from being supplied to employers.
Let’s not make this confusing. There are a number of players here.
1. The Police have for a long time believe they are Judge and Jury by providing criminal history that has not been tested.
2. Justice Davison knows he is the decider on who has criminal history.
3. The teacher may or may not have been grooming the 15 year old girl.
4. The 15 year old girl believes she was not groomed and will not participate in a trial.
5. Clinical psychologist Kathryn McPhillips thinks it’s a useful workaround when victims who say they are not victims to stop people without convictions getting employment.
6. Professor Andrew Geddis said it could cost the Government $$$ is a possibility under the NZ Bill of rights act for the harm people have suffered.
7. Andrew Geddis thinks the Government should legislate to stop money being paid out to men who have suffered this side stepping on the NZ Bill of rights act.
I think any Court Of Appeal Judge will agree with Justice Davison.
I further think the Government may create a law to remove men’s rights under the NZ Bill of rights retrospectively. This would be a big step. But a step this Government may be willing to take since the latest sexual violence act that removes the right to a fair trial almost all lawyers are against here. Innocence Protection Project
What do you think?
