Nicholas rape trial outcome discussion

[terbang]

Bumped into a couple of prison guards the other day that had stopped for coffee, they had a buch of crims in a bus and were headed south. Got talking about the weather and shit and I quipped that they almost had 3 coppers to take with them to which they replied "well we allready have 2 of them inside serving time for previous rape charges anyway" once jaws were picked up from the ground they told us that it was evidence that was suppressed or withheld or something like that. They also said that the word on the street was that these rozzers had been boasting for years about deeds with a police baton..!
What the fuck is going on here..? they tell the whole world about your drunk driving charges but not your rape charges..? What sort of message is being sent to the cops.? Go for it guys you won't be found guilty..?
What sort of message is being sent to NZers here about our Police integrity..?
If you cant trust cops (and priests for that matter) then who can you trust..?

[kickingzebra]

If only I could say I was surprised. Seems nothing is sacred.
The thoughts probably echo everyone elses, but what exactly is our justice system? The law seems sometimes to be not only an ass, but the excrement proceeding from it.
What does the justice system boast? Something like a 70 percent failure rate? bugger all of the crims in there don't reoffend. One has to wonder, if the guilty walk free, how many of the innocent are thrown away?

The standard for politicians and public servants needs to be far higher than that for the rest of the nation (listening aunty helen and benson pope?) otherwise we create chaos.
Raise the bar I say.

[Cookie]

Well that is pretty interesting. I thought I saw at least two of them at different times on the TV walking around free but I could be confused - it would not be the first time.

I will be very interested to find out more about the "supressed" evidence in this case. Part of living in a democracy is having an open legal system. I don't trust our current bunch of limp-wristed liberal judges to decide what the public should hear and not hear in relation to a case.

[onearmedbandit]

Just remember the judges comments, something along the lines of 'internet bulliten boards (forums) and chatrooms may have to be watched with relevance to supressed evidence'.

[Hitcher]

Amen to OAB's comments. Suppression orders are in place for good reason. Not least of which is to ensure that people get a fair trial.

[Madness]

Just remember the judges comments, something along the lines of 'internet bulliten boards (forums) and chatrooms may have to be watched with relevance to supressed evidence'.

On that basis I will keep this post very short, on the grounds that I may incriminate myself.

SCUM

[Ixion]

Amen to OAB's comments. Suppression orders are in place for good reason. Not least of which is to ensure that people get a fair trial.

Uh, which is now concluded. And quite often suppression orders are in place for a lot of other reasons, some at least of them being much less justifiable.

However , in this case the suppression order is irrelevent, since the information in the original post did not originate in the trial.

[Streetwise]

Yea i heard the same thing, How can it be the rapists being trialed for rape dont have there past brought up. I know the trials where not to far apart but if they had been found guilty that should have been told in the court room,. We do have a weird justice system dont we....

[Swoop]

Amen to OAB's comments. Suppression orders are in place for good reason. Not least of which is to ensure that people get a fair trial.

Hmmm, disagree here. On the jury case I was involved with, there was suppressed evidence. The accused had admitted to the murder three times, and this was not presented in court. We only found out later on that our decision was correct.

[Smorg]

If you cant trust cops (and priests for that matter) then who can you trust..?

No one...................... thats the way i like to keep it, all 007 like. -MI5-

Hiiiiyaaaa.

p.s COPS ARE RETARDED

[Paul in NZ]

"It is not because men's desires are strong that they act ill; it is because their consciences are weak." (John Stuart Mill)

Lets not turn this into a Police bashing thing. 99% of Police that I have met are as appalled at this as you and I are!

I have followed this case with some interest. On one hand. there is in all probability no system that is totally 'fair' to all people at all times. As soon as you have a 'system' and rules of any type, exceptions, awkward circumstances and unfair situations will arise. On the other, thank god we do live in a country where this trial could occur. I a large part of the world it would have been deemed easier and cheaper just to have the claiment quietly disappear altogether.

The expression fair trial is an interesting one though. Fair to whom? The victim or the accused? Guilt is supposed to be judged on evidence and evidence alone and frankly, given the time of the alleged offences and the nature of them, and the people involved I doubt that this trial was ever going to be fair to anyone!

What has appalled me is the moral behaviour of the men in question and the apparent lack of shame. They have disgraced the organisation of which they were members.

Forgetting the rape question (thats difficult I know) the actions of these men was utterly appalling! They were older and married for goodness sakes and took advantage of someone in a situation them must have known was wrong! Without a doubt, I do not want any of these people in a position of power or authority ever again. If they have a shred of decency they will slink off into obscurity and pray to be forgiven for their actions.

ANY media that prints their stories should be boycotted and actively targetted! Aquitted or not, they did a disgraceful thing!

Paul N

[Streetwise]

Yea i would agree with that, But if you where a (P) dealer im sure if you where back in court, old charges of the same event would be bought up in your new trial, ???

[Ixion]

No, evidence of previous convictions (whether for the same/similar offences , or not ) is normally not permitted (there are a few exceptions). Obviously, previous charges or allegations that did not result in a conviction are even more forbidden.

Previous convictions will be noted and (maybe) taken into account by the judge when sentencing.

[MisterD]

Yea i heard the same thing, How can it be the rapists being trialed for rape dont have there past brought up. I know the trials where not to far apart but if they had been found guilty that should have been told in the court room,. We do have a weird justice system dont we....

That is an interesting question, especially considering that it sounded from the TV news reports that the defence team were using the accuser's past and track record against her...doesn't seem particularly even handed that.

[Hitcher]

Uh, which is now concluded. And quite often suppression orders are in place for a lot of other reasons, some at least of them being much less justifiable.

However , in this case the suppression order is irrelevent, since the information in the original post did not originate in the trial.

There are presumably more trials coming, which is one reason the suppression orders are in place. Please don't do or say anything that may subvert orders of the Court. Suppression orders placed to protect the identities of individuals are designed for exactly that purpose and not as narrow as encompassing only Court-related matters. The Judge in this case has issued a warning in relation to suppression orders. Let it go.