Not Guilty (Jack Nicholas murder case) [Archive]

Pussy

29th May 2008, 08:23

Mully

29th May 2008, 08:25

A lack of faith in the Police investigation??

Not taking the Court system seriously??

Maybe it's just good lawyers who can introduce reasonable doubt. Refer point One.

YellowDog

29th May 2008, 08:37

Quite disturbing. It would seem that if they can fit anyone up for anything, they will do so regardless of being guilty or innocent. Apparently it saves a lot of time so they can focus on real Police work such as speeding tickets.

I am sure this is not the case and Mr David Bain is just a grumpy winger.

Hitcher

29th May 2008, 09:19

Perhaps the accused was innocent? Just because the Police take a prosecution doesn't mean that the Court procedings are a formality. That's why we have a justice system. Maybe it works?

Pussy

29th May 2008, 09:21

I'm not for a moment suggesting the partys in these three cases were/are guilty, I am, however, wondering what is happening?

ManDownUnder

29th May 2008, 09:31

Perhaps the accused was innocent? Just because the Police take a prosecution doesn't mean that the Court procedings are a formality. That's why we have a justice system. Maybe it works?

Bloody hell Hitch - you can keep that to yourself....

ManDownUnder

29th May 2008, 09:43

I'm not for a moment suggesting the partys in these three cases were/are guilty, I am, however, wondering what is happening?

OK - you'll need to spell that out a bit more - if that's a serious statement then I'm missing something. Are you suggesting something has changed, or that you don't understand the system?

Pwalo

29th May 2008, 09:45

It's simple. The crown has to prove to a jury that the defendant is quilty. To do this they need to be able to prove motive, and corroberating evidence to support their case.

You are assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Toaster

29th May 2008, 09:56

Perhaps the accused was innocent? Just because the Police take a prosecution doesn't mean that the Court proceedings are a formality. That's why we have a justice system. Maybe it works?

Agreed. Further to that, in some cases the level of evidence needed to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt" simply is not there and there are a number of rules of admissability/test cases/techniques of defence etc that can hamstring a prosecution of an otherwise guilty person/s.

Domestic violence is a good example, although I am glad to hear that the law have been improved in this area relating to use of the partner's statement - finally.

PrincessBandit

29th May 2008, 10:10

What pressure will there be on the police to "get their man/woman" for the next biggie they take to court?

Mully

29th May 2008, 11:28

What pressure will there be on the police to "get their man/woman" for the next biggie they take to court?

They better get their man/woman.

Those Men/Women are the scourge of society.

Swoop

29th May 2008, 11:44

What pressure will there be on the police to "get their man/woman" for the next biggie they take to court?
There isn't any pressure and this is part of the problem.
The police place the charges and then hand the case to the crown prosecutors to follow up in court. The police don't really care (if the truth be told) if cases are won or lost.
If, however, the cost of any lost cases came out of the police budget, then they might put more thought/resources into the prosecution.

Edit: From The Harold:
Mr Aberahama said police were disappointed by the verdict, but accepted the court's decision.

"This has been a lengthy and difficult inquiry and my staff have worked tirelessly to bring someone before the courts, but we must accept the jury's decision as due judicial process," Mr Aberahama said.
"someone"...

YellowDog

29th May 2008, 12:09

IMO - If the Police do their job properly and only present proven guilty arrestees to the courts; an acquital would be a rarity. In other countries they have a Crime Prosecution Service which will decide which cases have significant evidence to go to court. It saves a lot of time and money.

spudchucka

29th May 2008, 12:31

young1

29th May 2008, 12:33

is the problem in New Zealand that we are no longer being tried by a jury of our Peers? Who can afford to go on a jury these days other than the unemployed and elderly?

Crasherfromwayback

29th May 2008, 12:34

In my opinion having twelve people off the street sit on the jury is wrong.

It should at least be 12 people that know the intricacies of law.

Hitcher

29th May 2008, 12:44

In my opinion having twelve people off the street sit on the jury is wrong.

It should at least be 12 people that know the intricacies of law.

The jury system is founded on people being tried by a panel of their peers. It is up to the judge to ensure that juries are familiar with legal intricacies relevant to the case being tried. Juries are now allowed to ask questions, as they did on three occasions during their deliberations on the Nicholas case, to clarify any legal points they are unsure of.

Crasherfromwayback

29th May 2008, 12:48

Yeah I'm aware of that, but I still feel it's wrong. Juries are to a certain extent selected, and I feel often there are people on them that are too easily swayed and bullied into submission.

Hitcher

29th May 2008, 12:53

More worrying is that the population from which jurors is selected is highly skewed in favour of people with time on their hands i.e. beneficiaries. Most people with "real jobs" just aren't able to take several weeks away from their primary income source to sit on a jury, and are generally successful in getting exempted if they are summonsed.

Crasherfromwayback

29th May 2008, 13:00

Correct, I've twice 'excused' myself.

roogazza

29th May 2008, 13:25

Sort of like the Crown Prosecution service and a depositions hearing?

Maybe that's where it's going wrong Spud ? Gaz.

Coldrider

29th May 2008, 13:38

Why should there be pressure on the Police.

They are to decide if a law has been broken, and to gather information (both for and against) to present to the court. The court does everything from there. The police act as agents to the Queen & Government, the courts are impartial (to a political point).

Swoop

29th May 2008, 16:01

Juries are now allowed to ask questions, as they did on three occasions during their deliberations on the Nicholas case, to clarify any legal points they are unsure of.
Just to clarify this point. A jury may ask a question to the judge - via the foreman. They cannot ask general questions in court.
This is normally limited to the reading of relevant passages of the court transcript of the case.

peasea

29th May 2008, 16:42

Murray Foreman found not guilty of Jack Nicholas's murder. This will be the third high profile murder prosecution with this result in a week.
I'm VERY curious as to what's happening in the system nowadays

We have a four tier justice system
1) The cops make an arrest then stand in their own tool box
2) Smarmy lawyers suck up the cash and head for the bank
3) The judges play with their dicks under the bench while dozing
4) The crims take to their scrapers and it's back to tier one

BUT!!! Heaven help you if you run off with someone's CASH!

peasea

29th May 2008, 16:45

Coldrider

29th May 2008, 16:50

Sorry???
Which country are you in?
Sorry?, which affairs of the court should the police be involved with.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2004/oaths-review/part_d2.htm

peasea

29th May 2008, 17:18

Sorry?, which affairs of the court should the police be involved with.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2004/oaths-review/part_d2.htm

You read waaayyy too much and need to get out more.

'Justice'? It's under 'j' but nobody's likely to find it in NZ.

Coldrider

29th May 2008, 17:22

You read waaayyy too much and need to get out more.

'Justice'? It's under 'j' but nobody's likely to find it in NZ.
It is just the behaviour of police & media have shifted the expectations of the public on what police are meant to do, and Helen Clarke is not the President of NZ yet.

peasea

29th May 2008, 17:25

It is just the behaviour of police & media have shifted the expectations of the public on what police are meant to do, and Helen Clarke is not the President of NZ yet.

Or, more accurately, the misbehaviour of police and media.

As for Helen; see you at the polls.

P38

29th May 2008, 17:30

Beyond reasonable doubt is a tough ask to prove.

The prosecution must prove this to secure a conviction.

Murry Foreman walked because reasonable doubt was established by the defence.

To summerise.
Prosecution case
No witness/es to the crime,
No forensic evidence,
Could not place the Defendant at the scene
Relied too much on an obviously dodgy third party witness who is being supported financially by the police.

DefenceEasily Discredited the dodgy witness.
Presented another senario that was equally palusible given the evidence that was avalible. the police did not follow up on this.
Created enough doubt, there by defeating the prosecutions chances of securing a conviction.

Police
Really need to lift their game or more and more poeple will be able to defeat them in a court of law as recent and past cases have highlighted.

oldrider

29th May 2008, 17:31

Having witnessed a trial by jury in which my son was involved, the last thing I ever want is to be judged by a jury of my peers! Fuck that!

Well not in New Zealand, well Christchurch anyway. Fucken wankers. :mellow:

Unimpressed. :shutup: John.