The 2 Clauses that almost very defence and prosecution lawyers say are unjust & unworkable. Simon Bridges says many 100’s of innocent young men will be imprisoned
Clause 8. Can’t present previous sexual experiences with the person who claims they were raped.
Clause 14. Defence to present a year before the trial.
As you may be aware it is the inconsistencies between statements that finds if she is not telling the truth. The complainant could get to discuss their answer with the police or whomever they want for a year before trial.
Bill of rights report gives the new law the approval. Bridges says no lawyer could give the new law that approval.
Bridges says many 100’s of innocent young men will be imprisoned.
It’s a power and control game.
Feminists continuing to exert their legal influence in Parliament.
It won’t just be innocent young men going to jail. The shadow of the law in this case will destroy any relationship of equality, any level playing field … it will erase dad before he even becomes a father.
In short it is a pathway to social self-destruction when we allow the weakest women to rule through the law.
Such is Parliament, that what we allow that house to be, so will be our homes.
Thanks for this posting.
This is a convincing and important speech by Simon Bridges. Considering the emotive power of those in Parliament opposing him on this issue, it’s also courageous. Interesting that even he, a prosecution lawyer in many such cases, finds the law changes scary. The response by Faafoi is narrow and naive. He implies that every complainant is telling the truth.
Downunder I endorse what you are saying.
The path to resolution will eventually lay at the Supreme Court, 85 Lambton Quay Wellington. Where a man who has lost his liberty, his job, his family, his home and everything in it at the hands of Kris Faafoi and his followers. A place where Judges who I can assure you are infinitely better equipped in intelligence in a way that Kris Faafoi could not possibly have a hope to comprehend. Compensation will follow.
The International Court of Justice. Also known as the world court may have something to say about Kris Faafoi and his Bill. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/where-is-the-icj-located.html
The New Zealand Government has signed up to the international bill of human rights. And this tweak to justice goes against its principles. Its history traces back to the charter of liberties in 1100 and the Magna Carta 1215.
You may have noticed I am calling out individuals. I do this because I do not for a moment believe the persons responsible should not get to hide behind a company name. Those people need to be named as responsible for making a law that will put human beings in prison without a fair trial.
Kris Faafoi. A list MP who is the current Minister of Justice. He is now in my mind the minister of injustice. A list MP means the voters in his area voted him out, but his party overruled that.
We’ve been here before.
Mahoney was knighted for screwing us over on one hand.
On the other I’ve had lawyers – grown adult professionals crying into my telephone or visibly grey with shock from being threatened to keep cases out of court.
If you control parliament and stymie justice the tyrant wins.
This is how these cases have been stopped from progressing for so long.
If the country knew half the truth they’d be dumb with shock.
Telling the defence they must be silent.
Means the accuser must say everything.
The defence must present there case, a year in advance.
The prosecution must make there case, after a year.
Not my first thought, on this subject.
But there is an intentional, delay in justice.
So the persecution, the allegations have consequences, itself.
Can inherently harm the defendant, corrupting justice.
There is another issue in equal justice principles.
That the judge should make certain.
The defence, and prosecution have equal access to justice.
Generally ignored, looking at reality, of opportunity to evidence.
The feminists would argue, they have evidence.
Given time, could find evidence.
Or get knew statements, from witnesses.
Or create new ‘stories’, as to events.
Police: What happened Accuser?
Police: Collect relevant physical evidence.
Police: What happened Defendant?
Police: Collect relevant physical evidence.
Police: Accuser, did this happen, and how?
Police: Defendant, did this happen, and how?
Judge: Jury, is the Defendant Guilty, or Innocent.?
Government: Defendant persecuted, publicly for a year.
Government: Defence destroyed, by forced statements.
Government: Creates prosecution to suit forced statements.
Government: Creates imprisonments, punishment by accusation, against an identifiable group.
Inherently if on remand.
It must now be for more than a year.
IE a compulsory year imprisonment, by accusation.
This is an intentional, Crime Against Humanity qualified action by the Crown.
Inherently if employed at any Government job.
Unemployment must now be for more than a year.
IE a compulsory year, of the right to work lost.
This to, is intentional.
They will punish.
The guilty, and the innocent.
In there hate of men.
Meanwhile back in NZs Gynocentric Rape Culture, society.
Men’s lives are on mass, being ruined.
By female sex offenders.
An attempt at a joke?
Why did feminists campaign to make morning wake up sex, a sex crime.
The lights are on.
An issue I see alongside this;
“The mutually expressed will of Parliament across both sides of the aisle.”
What Bridges chooses to disagree with doesn’t make the rest of the legislation helpful.
National wholeheartedly supports the bill except …
This has a bearing on how the courts make judgments outside of any legal interpretation of the legislation.
This in my mind is probably the most significant difference between the US and the NZ in that their courts although the process is extraordinary in many cases often produces a better result.
Our system which I prefer relies more on the strength and integrity of members of parliament and this is where we let ourselves down.
Then with the Bill of Rights I find most people I talk to assume the government obeys this. They are advised if they haven’t adhered to the BORA but they’re not obliged to.
It works in reverse to public perception that people affected by the law of unintended consequences can take a case to court.
Then the court can rule outside the perceived will of parliament.
This is how I see the constitutional function and why political parties interfere in the legal system to stop judgments against them especially when it forces them to make retrospective changes to legislation.
How did we ever get to a point in time where a Government in New Zealand would allow innocent humans to be imprisoned for up to 20 years?
I am not going to explain this as good as a lawyer could.
It is no longer about the evidence or if a man is guilty or not. Its about a workaround to achieve more convictions by ordering the defence strategy to hand over evidence to the Police a year before trial.
I think history will show the police who should be investigators and first-hand testers of the evidence they gather must be neutral, unbiased. Basically, not taking sides.
It must be difficult to have a policy of a “we will believe you” as a start position and to be all those things I mentioned in the previous paragraph. The two cannot exist in one mind. Especially if you keep losing cases to juries of 12 and you have to make a sale.
One of the things Police rightfully do is to gather evidence from the complainant, any witnesses. Those witnesses are not people who saw the alleged incident. They are usually character witnesses who make out their concerns about the accused, or she told me about this years ago.
Not exactly witnesses to the crime but someone to step up and say that guy was there or nasty things about the accused.
When these statements do not line up, or in some circumstances the police discover the witness is for the accused, the police dump those statements, re write her statement. It’s a time where police should pause and review.
The risk of causing trauma to the accuser has become a barrier to the truth. That barrier is taken away at trial in a courtroom. With 12 jurors looking on who do not start with the “I will believe you”. They are independent and worldly citizens.
Knowing the practiced answers before the questions will convict men. Young men who should have had a fairer trial whereas the complainant can’t be allowed to be given the answers to a probe beforehand.
That’s the bit where the complaints right to not be traumatised for say up to an hour is more important than the person who is accused right to life.
And that being locked up is just part of it. That man will lose all he has. His home, family, friends, job, money. He will be so broken. Smashed to nothing. There are other victims too. He may have parents and what are they supposed to think and feel knowing their son is not in a safe place.
I am disgusted and sickened by the mindset of the MP’s who would allow just a low bar to the complainant and a very high one to the accused. I, like almost all barristers, am ashamed of our Government.
Courts are balanced places to find and test the truth. They are not a tool for Government to limit a human being’s right to defend themselves in exchange for appeasement by the vastly smaller group of irrational demented hard-line activists who go by the name of feminists. Not feminists who want equal rights, feminists who are nothing more than a hate group.