The stupidity of our justice system defies belief...
When two men are charged in two different courts for the same crimes; that is, they allegedly committed them together, you would expect that a) the lawyers might act in concert when it comes to suppression orders or b) the judges at the least may do what the lawyers have not. In the Scott Guy case, a glaring example of the utter lack of understanding of the internet by the upholders of our laws is making a mockery of not only themselves but the whole justice system.
In the first instance, the lawyer for the 21 year old builder who is up on six charges, but not including the murder of Scott Guy, asked for name suppression at his client's Queenstown court appearance. This was granted, but every detail of the six charges was plastered in the Southland Times, The Otago Times, the Herald etc etc - and the internet.
In the second instance, the lawyer for Ewen McDonald, who is up on charges relating to the murder of Scott Guy, did not ask the Palmerston North court for name suppression, but did ask for suppression of the details surrounding the six other charges he is facing. In both instances, both judges granted the suppression orders.
Now, it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that if you really want to know what those six charges were, simply look up the news on the 21 year old's court appearance.
If, as one lawyer uses as the excuse for suppression, it is to ensure their client has a "fair trial", then surely they could have done their homework a whole better than it is obvious they have - isn't that what we pay lawyers such exorbitant fees for?
What is it going to take for the legal profession to begin to understand the power of the internet? The most determined rubber neckers in the world know perfectly well that any information is available anywhere - if a suppression order stands here in this country, it is of no use whatsoever if someone based in America puts it on a blog that has as its server something based in a country that has never even heard of New Zealand.
Is it perhaps time we really looked hard at revisiting the suppression orders altogether? It's bullpuckie and insulting to potential jurors intelligence to think that browsing the net is going to replace the cold, hard facts that are presented to them in a court case. The only way that could be said to prejudice that is if the offender has quite a record for similar offences - and as the jurors currently are not allowed to know that (which is the height of blinding justice) that could be a fair call. But the Weatherstons and McDonalds of this world often don't have previous criminal convictions, so even that is a moot argument.
So to use the 'fair trial" excuse is to my way of thinking lame-brained in the extreme; a lawyer seeding himself a betting hedge. Nothing can take the place of the information that is put before jurors in a court of law; they get to see, hear and experience far more than any journalist or armchair critic ever will.
To use suppression to protect identity should only ever be in the case where a parent or other close relative has sexually abused a child - the child could be identified. Outside of that, these particular kinds of maggots should never have the luxury of such protection. The boot on the other foot was graphically depicted just recently when the 'comedian' was charged with raping his daughter - name suppression meant everyone was throwing names into the ring, which made it highly offensive to the innocent comedians who also have daughters.
Our laws are draconian in some instances and the lawmakers mills of change grind so exceedingly slowly that what changes are made quite often are still half a century too far behind the current eightball.
We need to ensure our judges particularly, who make these judgments understand how the internet works a heck of a lot better than they seem to. If the Palmerston North judge did - he'd have shaken his head at Ewen McDonald's lawyer and asked him why he hadn't done his job properly vis a vis working with the 21 year old builder's lawyer, so that both sets of suppression orders could be the same - and look to be professionally concerned enough to have done the job properly.
Perhaps it is time we looked at changing the system markedly so that we have professionally trained pools of jurors who do this on a full time basis.
I don't know - but what I do know is the case that is before us now hasn't even got off the ground and at least one of the lawyers and a judge have made a bit of an ass of themselves. Whatever next?
In the first instance, the lawyer for the 21 year old builder who is up on six charges, but not including the murder of Scott Guy, asked for name suppression at his client's Queenstown court appearance. This was granted, but every detail of the six charges was plastered in the Southland Times, The Otago Times, the Herald etc etc - and the internet.
In the second instance, the lawyer for Ewen McDonald, who is up on charges relating to the murder of Scott Guy, did not ask the Palmerston North court for name suppression, but did ask for suppression of the details surrounding the six other charges he is facing. In both instances, both judges granted the suppression orders.
Now, it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that if you really want to know what those six charges were, simply look up the news on the 21 year old's court appearance.
If, as one lawyer uses as the excuse for suppression, it is to ensure their client has a "fair trial", then surely they could have done their homework a whole better than it is obvious they have - isn't that what we pay lawyers such exorbitant fees for?
What is it going to take for the legal profession to begin to understand the power of the internet? The most determined rubber neckers in the world know perfectly well that any information is available anywhere - if a suppression order stands here in this country, it is of no use whatsoever if someone based in America puts it on a blog that has as its server something based in a country that has never even heard of New Zealand.
Is it perhaps time we really looked hard at revisiting the suppression orders altogether? It's bullpuckie and insulting to potential jurors intelligence to think that browsing the net is going to replace the cold, hard facts that are presented to them in a court case. The only way that could be said to prejudice that is if the offender has quite a record for similar offences - and as the jurors currently are not allowed to know that (which is the height of blinding justice) that could be a fair call. But the Weatherstons and McDonalds of this world often don't have previous criminal convictions, so even that is a moot argument.
So to use the 'fair trial" excuse is to my way of thinking lame-brained in the extreme; a lawyer seeding himself a betting hedge. Nothing can take the place of the information that is put before jurors in a court of law; they get to see, hear and experience far more than any journalist or armchair critic ever will.
To use suppression to protect identity should only ever be in the case where a parent or other close relative has sexually abused a child - the child could be identified. Outside of that, these particular kinds of maggots should never have the luxury of such protection. The boot on the other foot was graphically depicted just recently when the 'comedian' was charged with raping his daughter - name suppression meant everyone was throwing names into the ring, which made it highly offensive to the innocent comedians who also have daughters.
Our laws are draconian in some instances and the lawmakers mills of change grind so exceedingly slowly that what changes are made quite often are still half a century too far behind the current eightball.
We need to ensure our judges particularly, who make these judgments understand how the internet works a heck of a lot better than they seem to. If the Palmerston North judge did - he'd have shaken his head at Ewen McDonald's lawyer and asked him why he hadn't done his job properly vis a vis working with the 21 year old builder's lawyer, so that both sets of suppression orders could be the same - and look to be professionally concerned enough to have done the job properly.
Perhaps it is time we looked at changing the system markedly so that we have professionally trained pools of jurors who do this on a full time basis.
I don't know - but what I do know is the case that is before us now hasn't even got off the ground and at least one of the lawyers and a judge have made a bit of an ass of themselves. Whatever next?
No comments:
Post a Comment