Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 96706	2009-01-20 00:02:00	MP	Sweep (90)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
740347	2009-01-21 00:45:00	And yet you have the freedom to make this criticism without any fear that "they" will be kicking in your doors in the middle of the night? There isn't a judge or a lawyer who wouldn't go to the wall to preserve this right for you. The law is a system of rules that cannot forsee every possible circumstance around which any given rule might apply. That is why there is an open court system, lawyers, judges, news media, a right to freedom of opinion and elections... You might better question your own idea of the word "correct". Perhaps by doing so you will gain some insight into your disaffection with the justice system? Life isn't black and white. Why is it a surprise that the law isn't either? I believe I have a right to question the justice system but I could be held for contempt of court in certain circumstances could I not? I have the right to vote but as we have MMP I personally have no say as to the list politicians who get into Parliament and they make the laws. As to what Parliament intends well who knows. There are poorly drafted laws for example which may be very difficult to enforce. Then there are rules of evidence which the Court adheres to one hopes. The Police have been known to omit supplying evidence in Court to get the conviction and in fact have been known to possibly plant evidence. Touching you on the shoulder is an offence against you and you would also have the right to complain. Whether or not the Court (in the event were charged) would find you guilty is another matter. Justice and Laws are not equal in my opinion. For example I object to some ads on this site such as "married but looking" Then if we compare this to the rules of the forum we are told it is a Family forum. But Fairfax allow adverts that may seem to encourage adultery. Just reread the rules and found that Jan edited the rules on 13/01/2009. Very much like the law and all amendments possibly. Is the Family Court open? If so it is a surpise to me. The Media is not allowed to publish names untill names are allowed to be published.	Sweep (90)
740348	2009-01-21 01:36:00	Then of course we have this by John Key. home.nzcity.co.nz	Sweep (90)
740349	2009-01-21 02:41:00	Then of course we have this by John Key. home.nzcity.co.nz I think we will see more of Key thus,a willy woffler.	Cicero (40)
740350	2009-01-21 03:52:00	I believe I have a right to question the justice system but I could be held for contempt of court in certain circumstances could I not? It depends what you mean by this. A judge's courtroom is a peculiar place in that the judge has inherent jurisdiction there. Quite what inherent jurisdiction means is a curly subject - but judges are not employees in the normal sense of the word. They do have special powers that other people in society do not have and this has been shown to be necessary so that there is a separation between legislature, executive and judiciary. There are poorly drafted laws for example which may be very difficult to enforce. Quite true - and you'll find judges have no fears about making this clear when they are expected to enforce them. See R v Poumako [2000] 2 NZLR 695 and R v Pora [2001] 2 NZLR 37 Both are quite interesting cases and in R v Poumako His Honour Justice Thomas actually remarked that the law was "...incompatible with the cardinal tenets of a liberal democracy." Touching you on the shoulder is an offence against you and you would also have the right to complain. Whether or not the Court (in the event were charged) would find you guilty is another matter. Touching me on the shoulder might be something that I could allege was an offence. However, I rather doubt that even a pair of beginner JPs would trouble the court with it. Is the Family Court open? If so it is a surpise to me. The Media is not allowed to publish names untill names are allowed to be published. You're quite right - the Family Court is not an open court. It's judgments, however, are open and are reported (in the Law Reports) like the decisions of any other court of record.	Deane F (8204)
740351	2009-01-21 09:24:00	It depends what you mean by this. A judge's courtroom is a peculiar place in that the judge has inherent jurisdiction there. Quite what inherent jurisdiction means is a curly subject - but judges are not employees in the normal sense of the word. They do have special powers that other people in society do not have and this has been shown to be necessary so that there is a separation between legislature, executive and judiciary. Quite true - and you'll find judges have no fears about making this clear when they are expected to enforce them. See R v Poumako [2000] 2 NZLR 695 and R v Pora [2001] 2 NZLR 37 Both are quite interesting cases and in R v Poumako His Honour Justice Thomas actually remarked that the law was "...incompatible with the cardinal tenets of a liberal democracy." Touching me on the shoulder might be something that I could allege was an offence. However, I rather doubt that even a pair of beginner JPs would trouble the court with it. You're quite right - the Family Court is not an open court. It's judgments, however, are open and are reported (in the Law Reports) like the decisions of any other court of record. Well let us take this a little further if you wish to for the sake of debate. In the event you are so surprised by my touch and fall as a result then that issue may come to Court by me being charged with manslaughter in the event I caused your death for example. By enforcement I mean any person whom has the right to stop, arrest any person for an alleged offence. Please note the offence is not proven until the the person gets to court and sufficient evidence is available to convict. An arrest in New Zealand used to involve a touch on the shoulder by the way.	Sweep (90)
740352	2009-01-21 19:02:00	By enforcement I mean any person whom has the right to stop, arrest any person for an alleged offence. Please note the offence is not proven until the the person gets to court and sufficient evidence is available to convict. It is within the power of anybody to make an arrest. What is unique about the police is that they are immune from civil liability for wrongful or false arrest - or from any injury etc as a result of an arrest. And sure, you can invent a circumstance in which a legal test for the commission of an offence is met such as tapping somebody on the shoulder etc etc - but it still doesn't mean that the machinery of the State can necessarily be brought to bear on the transaction. Neither the law nor the police and court system are computer code in which Condition A computes to Output B. A great deal of discretion is built into the system - for good reason.	Deane F (8204)
740353	2009-01-22 03:59:00	Maybe we should agree to differ Deane F. Infringement notices handed out by the Police or local bodies is a case in point. Most (I suspect) never get to Court in so far as proving guilt is concerned. Added to that the infringement specifies a fine which is the same for everyone regardless of the circumstances or their ability to pay. Not only that. It can take a very long time for people to appear in Court which in itself seems to be against natural Justice. Sometimes I may have trouble recalling what I had for dinner last night far less what I may remember of an event which may have happend several months or even years earlier. Of course you know where you were on the 22nd Jan 1980 at 5:00 pm.	Sweep (90)
740354	2009-01-22 04:52:00	Infringement notices handed out by the Police or local bodies is a case in point . Most (I suspect) never get to Court in so far as proving guilt is concerned . Most instant fines are for offences which are strict liability offences - that is, there is no burden to prove mens rea or the guilty mind . All that needs to be proven is actus reus or the guilty act . But anybody can defend an instant fine at law - in court . Added to that the infringement specifies a fine which is the same for everyone regardless of the circumstances or their ability to pay . That is simple justice, is it not? The point is not that a millionaire can easily pay a $200 fine - but that the $200 buys the same amount at the corner dairy for the millionaire as it buys for anybody . Not only that . It can take a very long time for people to appear in Court which in itself seems to be against natural Justice . And there have been quite a few accused persons acquitted on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied . Anyway, though it may seem that our system can drag on a bit at times, the speed at which we manage to get cases to court in New Zealand is the envy of several Western democracies . We got it good, in other words . Sometimes I may have trouble recalling what I had for dinner last night far less what I may remember of an event which may have happend several months or even years earlier . Of course you know where you were on the 22nd Jan 1980 at 5:00 pm . Of course, like most people I was eating all my greens so I could watch Space 1999 . . .	Deane F (8204)
1 2