Not Guilty (Jack Nicholas murder case)

[Pussy]

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

[Mully]

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]

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]

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]

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

[ManDownUnder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Mully]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

[young1]

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?