Susan Couch payout of $300,000

[JimO]

hopefully thats just the deposit?? should be 3 mill

[pete376403]

Gummint will take half back in tax

[saltydog]

did she settle out of court?

[avgas]

There is nothing we can pay her that will make he sleep well at night. Except his head on a stake.

[MyGSXF]

There is nothing we can pay her that will make he sleep well at night. Except his head on a stake.

x 2

Only took 11 years... Ferkin disgraceful IMO!!!! :bash:

Should string the bastard up by the nuts & let him die a slooooow & agonizing death! :kick: & even that would be too good for him! :ar15: :thud:

All the best Susan & family!! :hug:

[SS90]

Be warned those who rub their hands together, this is going to open the flood gates on future "settlements".
Its not the governments money, but ours, and we simply do not have enough to be paying people out for the crimes of people that have been failed by a system that we, ourselves are responsible for.

That money is better spent on the community, ACC should be paying for her recovery, Not the Justice department giving cash settlements to victims of crime. Life is a bitch, and sometimes you get the shitty end of the stick.

How much does the Lawyer get?
Bring out the Ambulance chasers!

[Brian d marge]

That's the next court case , because acc didn't help her ( as heard on national this morning)
As for sending , an. Violent alkie to work in a pub , with a history of similar,
Remember 300k is not very much now and it was up to 500k,
Minus fees?
Poor form national
Poor form

Stephen

[nzspokes]

Not the Justice department giving cash settlements to victims of crime. Life is a bitch, and sometimes you get the shitty end of the stick.

How much does the Lawyer get?


Justice department was a part of the cause champ. Was cheaper for them to give 300k than it hit court and the evidence go public.

My understanding is that the legal team are doing it for free.

[Maha]

Divided by the 11 years since the incident happened, it does not amount to much.
Auther Allen Thomas got $1,000,000 for some he didn't do.

[JimO]

Be warned those who rub their hands together, this is going to open the flood gates on future "settlements".
Its not the governments money, but ours, and we simply do not have enough to be paying people out for the crimes of people that have been failed by a system that we, ourselves are responsible for.

That money is better spent on the community, ACC should be paying for her recovery, Not the Justice department giving cash settlements to victims of crime. Life is a bitch, and sometimes you get the shitty end of the stick.

How much does the Lawyer get?
Bring out the Ambulance chasers!
i believe the lawyer is helping her for free, i would rather my tax money went to her than the thousands of users who milk the system, the corrections chief said it would have cost 600k to defend the case if it went to court so why not pay out the 600

[Genestho]

Be warned those who rub their hands together, this is going to open the flood gates on future "settlements".
Its not the governments money, but ours, and we simply do not have enough to be paying people out for the crimes of people that have been failed by a system that we, ourselves are responsible for.

That money is better spent on the community, ACC should be paying for her recovery, Not the Justice department giving cash settlements to victims of crime. Life is a bitch, and sometimes you get the shitty end of the stick.

How much does the Lawyer get?
Bring out the Ambulance chasers!

Awesome aye. :bleh:

Corrections conducted an internal inquiry and came up with failures regarding his release conditions. The legal team have been working for free. :)

Life's a bitch, then a precedent's set.

This is not compensation anyway, this is Corrections "seeing the family right."

[Maha]

i believe the lawyer is helping her for free, i would rather my tax money went to her than the thousands of users who milk the system, the corrections chief said it would have cost 600k to defend the case if it went to court so why not pay out the 600

Someone is paying him, and that would be the taxpayer.

[SS90]

Divided by the 11 years since the incident happened, it does not amount to much.
Auther Allen Thomas got $1,000,000 for some he didn't do.

Aurther Allen Thomas was wrongly convicted of a crime (by planted evidence), he was COMPENSATED for the time he spent locked up.

That, I am happy with (even better would be the 1M paid from the seized assets of the Police officers and detectives that planted the evidence, you know, like restorative justice.

But it has nothing in common with this case, which I feel sets a bet precedence.

Better is forcing the criminal to work in Prison and proceeds going to her, this I am 100% comfortable with.

Expecting the state to pay out?

Bad move guys, time are tough, and the harder we push the Gvt bank balance, the harder we make it for ourselves.

[Genestho]

Official Press Release via Sensible Sentencing on Behalf of Susan Couch.

"Susan Couch has accepted the payment of $300,000 from the Corrections Department to settle her claim for exemplary damages. That works out to be $27,272 for every year since the attack.

Ms Couch’s Barrister Brian Henry stresses that this is not compensation, but as the Chief Executive Officer of Corrections, Ray Smith has said, the department is “doing right by Sue and her family”.

“Compensation is only available in New Zealand via the ACC legislation...Sue is a social welfare beneficiary as ACC legislation does not provide her with adequate support” said Brian Henry.

ACC is not injury based compensation; it is salary based compensation.

Susan will continue the fight for compensation, which now moves to a campaign to change the ACC legislation so that victims, especially women, receive a fair outcome.

ACC was passed into law by the National Party; it has since been tinkered with by both National and Labour governments. It remains an unjust, overburdened administration that has totally failed Susan Couch; obviously the most eligible victim for compensation.

Susan Couch’s claim to be properly compensated continues so long as she is paid by social welfare instead of ACC; how she is being treated is grossly unfair.

In negligence terms, compensation would be between $5 and $10 million; enough to provide Susan with a debt free home and an income adequate to allow her and her family survive comfortably with her disabilities.

This litigation has not and could not achieve this, as the ACC legislation prohibits such a claim. We stress the claim for proper compensation is moving to a new phase.

This payment helps, but it is not compensation.

Had the case not been settled then the appeal for a jury would have been argued today. If the appeal was unsuccessful, Susan would have sought leave to go to the Supreme Court. The trial was set for 8 weeks commencing 8th July 2013.

The events occurred on the 8th December 2001 – 11 years this Saturday.

Media are reminded that the name of the Probation Officer is suppressed by a High Court order, which under the terms of the settlement will be made permanent.

Susan Couch:

“I want to thank all my supporters over the past 11 years, especially Garth Mc Vicar and Sensible Sentencing Trust for the huge support I have received from them over those years”.

“I also especially wish thank Winston Peters for the donation that established the Susan Couch Victims Trust, which helps all victims of violent crime”.





Background - a summary of the history of these proceedings is as follows:

a) 28 July 2005 - Proceedings filed in the High Court.

b) 8 September 2005 – proceedings transferred to Court of Appeal by consent, to be heard with the Attorney General’s application to strike out Hobson v The Attorney General CA74/05.

c) 10 November 2005 - Hearing in Court of Appeal for Attorney General’s strike out application.

d) 17 May 2006 – Court of Appeal Judgment given.

e) 1 September 2006 - Supreme Court Judgment (granting leave to appeal).

f) 17 April 2007 – Hearing in Supreme Court.

g) 13 June 2008 – Supreme Court Judgment Given.

h) 23 March 2009 – Supreme Court Hearing.

i) 24 March 2010 – Supreme Court Judgment given, declining Attorney General’s strike out application.

j) 17 June 2010 – Second Amended Statement of Claim filed.

k) June 2010 Discovery commenced by defendant.

l) 24 February 2012 – Third Amended Statement of Claim filed.

m) 28 March 2012 – High Court Hearing (regarding Judge Alone trial).

n) 28 August 2012 – High Court Judgment (regarding Judge alone trial).

o) 5 September 2012 – High Court Judgment (regarding defendant’s application for further particulars).

p) 24 September 2012 – Fourth Amended Statement of Claim filed.

q) 24 September 2012 - Notice of Appeal filed (on decision of Judge alone trial).

[Winston001]

Someone is paying him, and that would be the taxpayer.

That's an unfortunate and cynical attitude - are you sure you mean it? The guy has worked for this lady for years. Do you also disrespect volunteer sports coaches, charity street collectors, foster parents etc because they have day jobs (teacher, nurse, police etc) being paid by the taxpayer?

[Zedder]

Aurther Allen Thomas was wrongly convicted of a crime (by planted evidence), he was COMPENSATED for the time he spent locked up.

That, I am happy with (even better would be the 1M paid from the seized assets of the Police officers and detectives that planted the evidence, you know, like restorative justice.

But it has nothing in common with this case, which I feel sets a bet precedence.

Better is forcing the criminal to work in Prison and proceeds going to her, this I am 100% comfortable with.

Expecting the state to pay out?

Bad move guys, time are tough, and the harder we push the Gvt bank balance, the harder we make it for ourselves.

Bang on! Bell shouldn't be in prison though, we still pay. It's the same as the "victory" over councils and the leaky building syndrome, we pay.

[Genestho]

Ah come on man, leaky buildings are hardly the same as a bloke with over 100 convictions who decides he'd like to kill a few people, leaving one struggling to survive each day for the rest of her life while raising a family.

The fact she even had to fight this hard for so long is incredible especially with her disabilities, no-one else in this country has done it, very few would.

But it does mean others won't need to do so, she's carved a path to this point and time - so your tax shouldn't be so stretched regarding these matters in the future ;)

In a basic comparison - If you operate or own a business and you lose money because of failures that you admit to, then you make damn sure you strengthen procedures and make sure you're not hit in the pocket (or reputation) again.

This lady is sharp of mind, but she's physically disabled, she has a speech impediment.
She cannot work directly because she was left for dead. How does she support her family and her disability when the options are near zero, put yourself in her shoes, what would you do?

Nothing? Go live under a bridge? Why? Why should she?

If my tax can go towards a safer community and better procedures, I'm all for it, fark I'd donate to the cause, actually I already do.

[Zedder]

Ah come on man, leaky buildings are hardly the same as a bloke with over 100 convictions who decides he'd like to kill a few people, leaving one struggling to survive each day for the rest of her life while raising a family.

The fact she even had to fight this hard for so long is incredible especially with her disabilities, no-one else in this country has done it, very few would.

But it does mean others won't need to do so, she's carved a path to this point and time - so your tax shouldn't be so stretched regarding these matters in the future ;)

In a basic comparison - If you operate or own a business and you lose money because of failures that you admit to, then you make damn sure you strengthen procedures and make sure you're not hit in the pocket (or reputation) again.

This lady is sharp of mind, but she's physically disabled, she has a speech impediment.
She cannot work directly because she was left for dead. How does she support her family and her disability when the options are near zero, put yourself in her shoes, what would you do?

Nothing? Go live under a bridge? Why? Why should she?

If my tax can go towards a safer community and better procedures, I'm all for it, fark I'd donate to the cause, actually I already do.

The point both SS90 and I are making is that the criminals should pay. Not the tax payer or victims. Make it so lobbyist.

[Genestho]

The point both SS90 and I are making is that the criminals should pay. Not the tax payer or victims. Make it so lobbyist.

Oh no I'm an EX my days are done, but clearly still passionate!! :laugh: Comparing this though to a leaky building fired ones cylinders up.. LOL!

Already done sir, they already do pay a levy. That policy was put in place in '09. But this case was '01.

And remember part of the problem has been admitted to by corrections after internal investigations turned out information. If they were doing as they were supposed to, would he have been the threat he became? Who knows, all we have is now :)

[Zedder]

Oh no I'm an EX my days are done, but clearly still passionate!! :laugh: Comparing this though to a leaky building fired ones cylinders up.. LOL!

Already done sir, they already do pay a levy. That policy was put in place in '09. But this case was '01.

And remember part of the problem has been admitted to by corrections after internal investigations turned out information. If they were doing as they were supposed to, would he have been the threat he became? Who knows, all we have is now :)

They pay a levy? Only a levy, WTF?

[Genestho]

They pay a levy? Only a levy, WTF? There's bound to be reparations paid out as a result of court cases as well but I'd wager very little - blood out of a stone comes to mind, but I guess a levy ensures there's regular money coming into the fund.

[Zedder]

There's bound to be reparations paid out as a result of court cases as well but I'd wager very little - blood out of a stone comes to mind, but I guess a levy ensures there's regular money coming into the fund.

I feel much better now and hope all those murder victims are too.

[Genestho]

I feel much better now and hope all those murder victims are too.

Yes, I suppose it is better than families having to pay for their own counselling and extra support, travel to any legal proceedings and loss of work while this all occurs, etc.

Costly business, more so when a survivor is permanently disfigured and disabled.
Cheers. :)

[Maha]

That's an unfortunate and cynical attitude - are you sure you mean it? The guy has worked for this lady for years. Do you also disrespect volunteer sports coaches, charity street collectors, foster parents etc because they have day jobs (teacher, nurse, police etc) being paid by the taxpayer?

Probably the way you read it? (you being in the industry and all) but I can assure you, I was merely pointing out a fact.
Fact being, said lawyer was not working all those years, out of the kindness of his heart.

[Zedder]

Yes, I suppose it is better than families having to pay for their own counselling and extra support, travel to any legal proceedings and loss of work while this all occurs, etc.

Costly business, more so when a survivor is permanently disfigured and disabled.
Cheers. :)

I certainly don't mind any money going to assist the families, it all helps. However, they lose loved ones permanently while the murderers live on at the tax payers' (and that obviously includes the affected families) expense.

[Genestho]

I certainly don't mind any money going to assist the families, it all helps. However, they lose loved ones permanently while the murderers live on at the tax payers' (and that obviously includes the affected families) expense.

Well if you're referring to the death penalty, this will never happen in New Zealand, ever. Fact.

Other ways have been lobbied for as far as cost savings but, of course we wouldn't want people to get cold bits or only eat peanut butter sammidges 3x a day, whilst wearing pink uniforms digging holes and filling them in, or have sore bumbums from a naughty smacky stick (as in Singapore), so I don't know how much can change there..

Public stocks and signs would be great for lesser crime but gosh darn it, we might just hurt some feelings there, can't have that.. :mellow:

There's practical things to save on costs like pulling some of the what we see as privileges but then the Lefties get all upset and say that worse behaviour is created, or then there'll be a payout siting Human Rights violation because someone lost a TV for being naughty.

A lot has been done in a positive way, but it's mostly unseen by outsiders. And of course the negative is seized upon by media or detractors who have their own barrows to push.

[Zedder]

Well if you're referring to the death penalty, this will never happen in New Zealand, ever. Fact.

Other ways have been lobbied for as far as cost savings but, of course we wouldn't want people to get cold bits or only eat peanut butter sammidges 3x a day, whilst wearing pink uniforms digging holes and filling them in, or have sore bumbums from a naughty smacky stick (as in Singapore), so I don't know how much can change there..

Public stocks and signs would be great for lesser crime but gosh darn it, we might just hurt some feelings there, can't have that.. :mellow:

There's practical things to save on costs like pulling some of the what we see as privileges but then the Lefties get all upset and say that worse behaviour is created, or then there'll be a payout siting Human Rights violation because someone lost a TV for being naughty.

A lot has been done in a positive way, but it's mostly unseen by outsiders. And of course the negative is seized upon by media or detractors who have their own barrows to push.

I don't believe prison is the answer. There's way too much human rights rubbish when it comes to murderers and career criminals. The good old days were better with chain gangs, women doing as they were told by men, things like that......

[Swoop]

Well if you're referring to the death penalty, this will never happen in New Zealand, ever.

"Ever" is quite a long time. I certainly would not rule out the return of the death penalty here.

[SPman]

That's the next court case , because acc didn't help her ( as heard on national this morning)
As for sending , an. Violent alkie to work in a pub , with a history of similar,
Remember 300k is not very much now and it was up to 500k,
Minus fees?
Poor form national
Poor form

Stephen

But what do you expect from those who would lord it over us.....!

[tbs]

The interesting thing about this is that she was seeking punitive damages. This means the negligence by the defendant had to be abnormally severe, as unlike the American system, punitive damages are very hard to get here.

I'm a little unsure how much precedent this will set though. As I understand it, Sue settled out of court, based on the Corrections Department trying to minimize the cost of their own defense. It wasn't really a victory for her at all, as she accepted about half what it would have cost Corrections to defend, and if you consider the sum has to be spread across her now life-long disability, it doesn't amount to much. It's not like she can live off the interest.


I used to see Sue quite often where I worked, as she was friends with a worker next door. She was so messed up after the attack. It was awful to see.

I think we as tax payers and citizens have a duty to look after her. We pay to keep Bell locked up. Victims have to be looked after too. Part of that social contract we all share.

[Akzle]

it didn't get settled through court. no legal precedent has been made.

also, corrections' avoided their failings having been aired in public court.

anyone stopping to think that, win or loose, 11 years of court bullshit is making someone(s) money.?

300k is a pittance.

but really. piss and moan all you will. what's going to change?

[Genestho]

I don't believe prison is the answer. There's way too much human rights rubbish when it comes to murderers and career criminals. The good old days were better with chain gangs, women doing as they were told by men, things like that......
Yeah I know, pffft and I bet you thought it was a good thing when ladies went crazy and burnt their bras?? :laugh: Are those olden times also when men were men? :devil2: :D


"Ever" is quite a long time. I certainly would not rule out the return of the death penalty here.
Fair call, I have heard the word "Ever" on more than one occasion from more than one place, but maybe ask again in 20 years, that's if the wheels haven't fallen off everything completely by then..


The interesting thing about this is that she was seeking punitive damages. This means the negligence by the defendant had to be abnormally severe, as unlike the American system, punitive damages are very hard to get here.

I'm a little unsure how much precedent this will set though. As I understand it, Sue settled out of court, based on the Corrections Department trying to minimize the cost of their own defense. It wasn't really a victory for her at all, as she accepted about half what it would have cost Corrections to defend, and if you consider the sum has to be spread across her now life-long disability, it doesn't amount to much. It's not like she can live off the interest.


I used to see Sue quite often where I worked, as she was friends with a worker next door. She was so messed up after the attack. It was awful to see.

I think we as tax payers and citizens have a duty to look after her. We pay to keep Bell locked up. Victims have to be looked after too. Part of that social contract we all share.

There are so many reasons why someone settles out of court, I reckon if corrections thought they'd have won they wouldn't have offered to pay her out, maybe they made an offer to keep details quiet - rather than choosing to duke it out in court, who knows - it's a good place to begin compared to what was, anyway.
She hasn't finished yet, so maybe watch this space? :)

[Zedder]

[QUOTE=Genestho;1130445395]Yeah I know, pffft and I bet you thought it was a good thing when ladies went crazy and burnt their bras?? :laugh: Are those olden times also when men were men? :devil2: :D

How dare they burn their bras without men allowing it, that Greer woman was real trouble.

Love the "when men were men" bit. Cheers!

[Genestho]

[QUOTE=Genestho;1130445395]Yeah I know, pffft and I bet you thought it was a good thing when ladies went crazy and burnt their bras?? :laugh: Are those olden times also when men were men? :devil2: :D

How dare they burn their bras without men allowing it, that Greer woman was real trouble.

Love the "when men were men" bit. Cheers!

Hahaha!! Laughing loudly!!

Good stuff! :first: My tounge was firmly in cheek with giggling mirth. :laugh: Once that happens it tends to go downhill from there..hehe!
'ave a good evening!

[Winston001]

Probably the way you read it? (you being in the industry and all) but I can assure you, I was merely pointing out a fact.
Fact being, said lawyer was not working all those years, out of the kindness of his heart.

Actually he was.

"Garth McVicar of Sensible Sentencing is in awe of what Mr Henry has done.
Sue has been hindered, obstructed and blocked at every step of the way and if it was not for the goodness of Brian Henry in taking this case pro bono the Crown would have got away with blatant abuse of power.”

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/couch-case-casts-lawyers-different-light-rv-133600


Most lawyers I know do voluntary unpaid work - it goes with the job, its expected by the profession. Indeed in Britain and the USA pro bono work is an ethical requirement. Accountants and doctors too. A GP friend is just back from PNG having paid his own way to get to a mud hut village to spend a week doing medical aid - despite being told by the local police not to go because of bandits and murder in the area.

Maha you are a decent guy and I know you do good stuff for people. Is it so hard to believe that Sue Couch's lawyer also does good stuff?

[Bikemad]

I think we as tax payers and citizens have a duty to look after her. We pay to keep Bell locked up. Victims have to be looked after too. Part of that social contract we all share.
yep...........hole in one:niceone:

[Winston001]

Just a quick explanation of damages:

Damages is the legal word for money or actions to compensate a person. There are 3 types.

1. Compensatory - a sum of money to cover what the claimant has lost. You wreck my car, you pay me $10k to replace it.

2. Consequential - loss following directly from the wrong act. I use my car to sell Avon and earn $200/wk so you pay for (say) 4 weeks loss of earnings until I got another vehicle.

3. Punitive (also called Exemplary or Aggravated) Damages - this is a punishment sum. An award by the Court to beat the defendant around the head for being bad/wrong/stupid. Very hard to prove and very rare in all jurisdictions.

Numbers 1 and 2 are prohibited for personal injury by ACC law.

Which only leaves claims for punitive damages which are at the far end of legal possibilities. These cases are so rare in NZ that lawyers notice every case. Less than one a year. And with very low odds of success. Actually this RSA one is the only claim I can recall in the last 10 years.

We don't know what would have happened if Susan Couch's case had gone to trial. Personally I think she'd have lost = no damages at all. So big ups to the boss of Corrections that he decided to settle and pay her rather than fight the good fight.

Although as noted above, its actually you and I who are paying Susan...easy to say fair enough but what if 1000 Susan Couch cases turn up next week...??

[Akzle]

3. Punitive (also called Exemplary or Aggravated) Damages

*+tort.

but really. i thought damages could be had in a "compensatory" way...

[Winston001]

*+tort.

but really. i thought damages could be had in a "compensatory" way...

Yes its tort law we're talking about. To be honest its years since I read much about this so you could be right, there may be an element of compensation but her lawyer specifically said not. He's looking at ACC for that.

You also make a good point that the settlement means no legal precedent has been set. No court ruling for others to use.

[Zedder]

Yes its tort law we're talking about. To be honest its years since I read much about this so you could be right, there may be an element of compensation but her lawyer specifically said not. He's looking at ACC for that.

You also make a good point that the settlement means no legal precedent has been set. No court ruling for others to use.

It may fall under a case of First Impression for others in the future though.

[SS90]

It may fall under a case of First Impression for others in the future though.

Im incredibly turned off on the idea of compensation (by means of cash payout) from Gvt departments for victims of crime, as it will open the flood gates for future claims, meaning that if someone is a victim of a crime perpetrated by some one that is either on parole, or released from prison, it insinuates that they are not "rehabilitated", and since it is the corrections departments fault, so..... Yea..... Give me some money.

Restorative justice is my favorite term, any monetary payouts should be recovered from the perpetrator, in many cases in Europe this is done (I know one guy that had to pay €20,000 for kicking a guys ass in a bar fight)

He doesn't get into bar fights any more.

[scumdog]

Im incredibly turned off on the idea of compensation (by means of cash payout) from Gvt departments for victims of crime, as it will open the flood gates for future claims, meaning that if someone is a victim of a crime perpetrated by some one that is either on parole, or released from prison, it insinuates that they are not "rehabilitated", and since it is the corrections departments fault, so..... Yea..... Give me some money.

.

Maybe, just maybe it might result in fuckwits being in prison longer??

And doing full sentences - none of this 1/2 0r 2/3 shit.

[Zedder]

Im incredibly turned off on the idea of compensation (by means of cash payout) from Gvt departments for victims of crime, as it will open the flood gates for future claims, meaning that if someone is a victim of a crime perpetrated by some one that is either on parole, or released from prison, it insinuates that they are not "rehabilitated", and since it is the corrections departments fault, so..... Yea..... Give me some money.

Restorative justice is my favorite term, any monetary payouts should be recovered from the perpetrator, in many cases in Europe this is done (I know one guy that had to pay €20,000 for kicking a guys ass in a bar fight)

He doesn't get into bar fights any more.

Yes, I'm for restorative justice too. The thing is a lot of low lives have no money or assets to enable payment, hence my comment about the chain gangs earlier.

[SS90]

Yes, I'm for restorative justice too. The thing is a lot of low lives have no money or assets to enable payment, hence my comment about the chain gangs earlier.

Yea, no money or assets and a big bill to pay is the Devils circle for sure, what about attachments to future earnings?, if they don't have a job, community employment. There are options, but tax payers paying for crimes wrong doing?

It our fault as a society, we need to raise our kids better. Simple.

[Zedder]

Yea, no money or assets and a big bill to pay is the Devils circle for sure, what about attachments to future earnings?, if they don't have a job, community employment. There are options, but tax payers paying for crimes wrong doing?

It our fault as a society, we need to raise our kids better. Simple.

There are options for "payment" alright and it shouldn't be prison with a bit of rehabilitation because evidence clearly points to jail not being a deterrent to crime. I hate the idea of tax payers paying for the crims actions also.

It's true, good parenting is a start from what I've read and seen but unfortunately anyone can have kids.

[SS90]

There are options for "payment" alright and it shouldn't be prison with a bit of rehabilitation because evidence clearly points to jail not being a deterrent to crime. I hate the idea of tax payers paying for the crims actions also.

It's true, good parenting is a start from what I've read and seen but unfortunately anyone can have kids.

The thing that sticks in my mind, is Officer Scumdog mentioning 1\2 and 1/3 term sentences, I see this disquiet among Police officers the world over, nabbing crims, they are convicted, and permitted back into society before their punishment is met.

Frustrating for sure, I think an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, and seeing as NZ spends 180 Million pesos every year on housing these buggers, there has to be room for a budget of half that again to teach kids how to be productive in society, limit alcohol intake and so on, it seems idealistic, but (mass murderer aside) countries like Norway do a fantastic job at social engineering for a better community..... And they live 3 months in complete darkenss!

[Winston001]

Im incredibly turned off on the idea of compensation (by means of cash payout) from Gvt departments for victims of crime, as it will open the flood gates for future claims, meaning that if someone is a victim of a crime perpetrated by some one that is either on parole, or released from prison, it insinuates that they are not "rehabilitated", and since it is the corrections departments fault, so..... Yea..... Give me some money.

Restorative justice is my favorite term, any monetary payouts should be recovered from the perpetrator


You make a very good point. Add to the list the Ministry of Social Development - imagine all the abused children who can claim that CYFS should have removed them from cruel parents etc etc.

Just as a matter of background, historically the Crown (government/the state) could not be sued, this remains true in other nations. The legal theory is that government becomes impossible and the floodgates open. The Crown didn't pay rates or fire service levies either (not sure if it even does today).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

Anyway Geoffrey Palmer (I think) bless his cotton socks thought this was a bit crook with the result that our law eventually reduced Crown immunity from civil claims. Otherwise Susan Couch would have had no claim at all.

Edit: oops looks like Susan's case is the first, see Couch v Attorney-General [2008] NZSC 45.

And the immunity remains strong - bugger: here's what Stuart Walker had to say -

http://www.nzlawyermagazine.co.nz/Archives/Issue100/N3/tabid/1394/Default.aspx

[Zedder]

The thing that sticks in my mind, is Officer Scumdog mentioning 1\2 and 1/3 term sentences, I see this disquiet among Police officers the world over, nabbing crims, they are convicted, and permitted back into society before their punishment is met.

Frustrating for sure, I think an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, and seeing as NZ spends 180 Million pesos every year on housing these buggers, there has to be room for a budget of half that again to teach kids how to be productive in society, limit alcohol intake and so on, it seems idealistic, but (mass murderer aside) countries like Norway do a fantastic job at social engineering for a better community..... And they live 3 months in complete darkenss!

Yep, prevention is the best way but no Government has the real answer and they have tried many ways over the years. It does seem that prison is just the fall back plan. Any form of social engineering has its dangers though.

[SS90]

Add to the list the Ministry of Social Development - imagine all the abused children who can claim that CYFS should have removed them from cruel parents etc etc.

Yes, this is the exact scenario I fear, particularly given the level of both media interest, and rates of offending these days in New Zealand.
Liberals talk of "rights of the offenders", but how do we balance up the rights of the offenders vs the rights of the victims?

A slightly Owellian answer would be to remove certain rights of certain types of offenders (pedos, rapists, etc), resulting forfeiture of any legacies, future earning attachments and so on.

The easy answer is just to teach our kids the right way.....and "the right way" is in no way ambiguous, it is the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and this is the basic test of culpability.

I sometimes despair at what NZ is becoming, and to me the answer is right there.

[Winston001]

I don't believe ordering criminals to pay large sums in reparation/compensation works. Which is why it doesn't happen.

My experience of the working criminal is he/she never has much dosh and is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Their ability to ever earn enough money to pay say, $100,000 compensation is nil.

Furthermore the burden of an impossible debt crushes any possible rehabilitation; why would a released prisoner try to improve their life if every cent (which is the way they'd see it) goes to a past victim. They've already served a sentence and paid their debt to society.

[scumdog]

They've already served a sentence and paid their debt to society.


The last bit of that sentence (oooh, pun!) is laughable, from my experience generally the only one that honestly feels that way is the ding-a-ling who has just been released from jail...

[SS90]

I don't believe ordering criminals to pay large sums in reparation/compensation works. Which is why it doesn't happen.

My experience of the working criminal is he/she never has much dosh and is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Their ability to ever earn enough money to pay say, $100,000 compensation is nil.

Furthermore the burden of an impossible debt crushes any possible rehabilitation; why would a released prisoner try to improve their life if every cent (which is the way they'd see it) goes to a past victim. They've already served a sentence and paid their debt to society.

Yea, you make a valid point,but I feel it would take a few generations to become effective..... If w grow up knowing that if we do wrong, we will be financially punished, we (in my opinion) would be less likely to offend.
Add to this a resl drive to teach the next generation the concept of right and wrong, civil duty and so on, the deterrents just keep coming.

It would make it clear that the right way is the easy way.

[Zedder]

Yes, this is the exact scenario I fear, particularly given the level of both media interest, and rates of offending these days in New Zealand.
Liberals talk of "rights of the offenders", but how do we balance up the rights of the offenders vs the rights of the victims?

A slightly Owellian answer would be to remove certain rights of certain types of offenders (pedos, rapists, etc), resulting forfeiture of any legacies, future earning attachments and so on.

The easy answer is just to teach our kids the right way.....and "the right way" is in no way ambiguous, it is the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and this is the basic test of culpability.

I sometimes despair at what NZ is becoming, and to me the answer is right there.

I'm not religious, but the Ten Commandments looks to be a good set of rules to live by.

[Akzle]

Frustrating for sure, I think an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure,
an ounce of acapulco gold is better than a pound of hamiltonian indo.

i think until the government does something about THAT, there really is no hope.

historically the Crown (government/the state) could not be sued,

And the immunity remains strong - bugger: here's what Stuart Walker had to say -
well. DUH.
you have a problem with the government (crown) so you complain to the courts (crown) or police (crown) that... what? they make the rules so fuck you?

on the upside though, national is shoving through legislation that will allow american/australian corporations to sue our government if they're perceived to impact on their profit.

good fucking deal!

what ACTUALLY needs to happen, is the fucking cows wake up, stop sucking the teat, stop fucking mooing and actually stand up against this legal fiction "the crown" - abolish it.

everyone who goes into a crown court needs to turn that shit upside down, convene a court de jure (of law, which i repeat: is not legislation)

there's an attitude shift that needs to happen. but fuckit. four days till the end of the world eh?


I'm not religious, but the Ten Commandments looks to be a good set of rules to live by.
fuck ten, here's two:

1-do no harm
2- tell the truth

anything not covered?

better would be the seven pillars of islam, which is not only "dont be an asshole" law" but "be a good cunt" law.

[meteor]

Divided by the 11 years since the incident happened, it does not amount to much.
Auther Allen Thomas got $1,000,000 for some he didn't do.

Didn't he, are you sure? Think there's a review about to come out...

[Maha]

Didn't he, are you sure? Think there's a review about to come out...

Interesting that, about a year ago, I worked at a house where the bloke was a retired prison warden. Around the time of the crewe murders, he was in charge at Mt Eden.
I asked him about Thomas and he said that Thomas was the most conniving person he had ever been in contact with and wouldn't trust him as far as he could kick him.

[Bikemad]

Interesting that, about a year ago, I worked at a house where the bloke was a retired prison warden. Around the time of the crewe murders, he was in charge at Mt Eden.
I asked him about Thomas and he said that Thomas was the most conniving person he had ever been in contact with and wouldn't trust him as far as he could kick him.

well that is interesting.............the father of an old school friend of mine was convicted of attempted murder many years ago and did time with thomas.......he reckoned you couldn't have found a guiltier man in the prison

[Banditbandit]

Im incredibly turned off on the idea of compensation (by means of cash payout) from Gvt departments for victims of crime, as it will open the flood gates for future claims, meaning that if someone is a victim of a crime perpetrated by some one that is either on parole, or released from prison, it insinuates that they are not "rehabilitated", and since it is the corrections departments fault, so..... Yea..... Give me some money.



Couchman is not receiving compensation because she was a victim of a crime ... she gets compensation because the Corrections Department fucked up .. Bell was under their supervision and they encouraged him (an alchoholic) to get a job at the RSA serving in a bar ... (DOH!!!) .. and handling money (Double DOH !!! Bell has convictions for dishonesty and theft) Corrections encouraged him to work in an environment where he was surrounded by temptation ... so sure, Bell's a crim - but Corrections put him in the path of temptation ..


Maybe, just maybe it might result in fuckwits being in prison longer??

And doing full sentences - none of this 1/2 0r 2/3 shit.

Bell got a minimum parole period of 30 (count them 30) years ... the longest sentence ever handed out in Godzone ... that does not mean he gets out in a few years .. that means he is eligible for parole in 2031 ... and may not get out even then.

New Zealand's longest serving prisoner is Alfred Vicent, who was jailed in 1964 - and this year has again been refused parole ... http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7611135/NZs-longest-serving-prisoner-denied-parole

Vincent has been in jail for 48 years ... so don't believe everything you read in the paper and not everyone gets to do only 1/3rd or 1/2 of their sentence .. "eligible for parole" just means they can ask the parole Board to let them out - the parole board does not have to say "Yes ..."


I hate the idea of tax payers paying for the crims actions also.



As above - the taxpayer is not paying for the crim's actions - but for the Corrections department blunders.

[Zedder]

As above - the taxpayer is not paying for the crim's actions - but for the Corrections department blunders.[/QUOTE]

My statement was about tax payers wearing the cost of crims actions in a general sense and not directly related to the Couch case. Please read it in context with SS90's post(#41) about restorative justice. Cheers.

[Banditbandit]

As above - the taxpayer is not paying for the crim's actions - but for the Corrections department blunders.

My statement was about tax payers wearing the cost of crims actions in a general sense and not directly related to the Couch case. Please read it in context with SS90's post(#41) about restorative justice. Cheers.[/QUOTE]

I did wonder if that was what you meant ... but given that the thread was about the Couchman pay out I decided that you were probably referring to the particular case.

My apologies for being wrong ...

[Zedder]

My statement was about tax payers wearing the cost of crims actions in a general sense and not directly related to the Couch case. Please read it in context with SS90's post(#41) about restorative justice. Cheers.

I did wonder if that was what you meant ... but given that the thread was about the Couchman pay out I decided that you were probably referring to the particular case.

My apologies for being wrong ...[/QUOTE]

No wucken forries. Thanks for being polite.

[SS90]

Couchman is not receiving compensation because she was a victim of a crime ... she gets compensation because the Corrections Department fucked up .. Bell was under their supervision and they encouraged him (an alchoholic) to get a job at the RSA serving in a bar ... (DOH!!!) .. and handling money (Double DOH !!! Bell has convictions for dishonesty and theft) Corrections encouraged him to work in an environment where he was surrounded by temptation ... so sure, Bell's a crim - but Corrections put him in the path of temptation ..



My way of thinking is that is she gets compensation for the corrections stuffing up, (resulting in a crime being committed against her), then both statements are true ( compensation for corrections stuffing up is compensation for being victim of a crime)

I feel it is now timely to think about the next likely corse of action.... The families of the deceased claiming for what they can..... The precident is now there.

I still say if they want to blame someone, blame the parents of Bell and the socitey that somehow
Allowed him to think this was somehow OK

Oh, and for the record, Yes corrections STAFF made a monumental stuff up, not the ministry, until this happened I suspect the only officials that knew he even existed where the police and his caseworkers.

Sue his caseworker that placed him there if you have to.