Weapons of Mass Acceleration
Yes correct it is the High Court next up the line... my oversight after a couple beers. I had the word "appeal" in my head at the time.Originally Posted by boostin
Claim of right is clearly there as a definition. Just because you haven't heard of something, it does not mean it doesn't exist.
The view I gave was the same as that given by a senior lawyer/spokesman from the law society as well.
Mormon Few Stunt Crew©
the latter for me, and only some nights
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
This is not what is at issue at all. It formed part of the argument only. The issue of claim of right relates to the sections in the Crimes Act relating to burglary and intentional damage - there are specific requirements that need to be met in each case to prove guilt of each offence. They require the person to be found "without claim of right" in other words had no right to do what was done/be where they were/damage what they damaged.
I hope that clarifies the matter.
Yes
I know what you mean about the beers, I am having to read everything a couple of times. Have you got a link or reference to the view given by the lawyer/spokesman? Would be interested in reading it.
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
It was verbal. But do look up the offences of burglary and wilful damage in the Crimes and Summary Offences Acts. These offences, like all offences and crimes are defined and have specific "ingredients" to each one that must ALL be present for the prosecution to be successful.
Although they admitted damaging the spy base property (which means they were also charged with burglary (which is basically being somewhere without permission and committing a crime whilst there ... i.e. damaging the balloon cover (wiful/intentional damage))), the fact that they convinced the jury that they believed what they were doing was lawful and they had a right to do it (for the greater good, saving lives in Iraq, peace, a hatred for white plastic etc etc) meant that they had not met all criteria for either charge and hence the jury found them not guilty of anything.
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
Glen Marshall, crown prosecutor may be able to send you something on this (for a fee no doubt). He was representing Earthlings for this case.
Sadly a case for a clever defence lawyer getting into the nitty gritty and bypassing what the average armchair kiwi would consider an appropriate outcome.... they were there, they broke it, they get done for it.
Sadly it wasn't that simple. Bring on the appeal!
Forum whore
Well on that both clarke and Key are in accord. I'd boot the Free trade Agreement with China down the shithole but i don't recall simular sentiments coming from ya self. Still i might have missed a post.
Now for the real issisue
We never had the need for a tactical strike wing. The decision to scrap the strikemasters was base on cost. To replace these aircraft was simply going to be to damn expensive. There is no imminent threat to NZ security by way of invasion in the forseeable future and as such no need for a defensive aircover. Should the need arise SAM batteries could be emplyed at a fraction of the cost and be equall effective. Air strikes in the future are likely to be carried out by pilotless planes operated by 'pilots' on the air base so to suggest that we should be putting our tax dollare in a tactical strike force shows how litle you know of both costs and the future direction of air warfare.
Just look at the costs per unit. OK not a definitive site on this and its if bit old. Janes might be better but not too sure if they give costs.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae...inalJuly06.pdf
Take a look at the Highlights.
Average unit costs exceed 100 million........................yep we can afford that alright.
Try and get something right.......................just for once.
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
Yes
Thanks for that.
I have read that "Law Society criminal law sub-committee convener Jonathan Krebs said the "claim of right" was enshrined in statute law" from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...ay-be-appealed
I would be interested in finding out what statutes these are and the relevant sections etc.
I always thought the "Greater Good" defence was a term from the media, because when I saw some of the trial on the news one of the accused appeared to be stating a defence based on s48 of the Crimes Act.
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
Burglary is Section 231 of the Crimes Act 1961 and Intentional Damage is Section 269 of the same.
Greater good is no defence and the argument actually held no water and was ruled as irrelevant. The issue came down to their misguided or mistaken belief (in that defence) that what they did was justified. That one time mistaken belief mean't that the Jury felt they actually had a claim of right to do what they did despite it being unlawful.
Claim of right is also defined in the Crimes Act..... Section 2.
The problem is the Crown has to/had to prove that these men did not in fact actually believe what they did was right but merely hoped it was right. That has to be beyond reasonable doubt.
It was not a matter of ignorance of the law - that is clearly no defence and any monkey in pants know that.
The jury did not see that the crown had disproven the genuineness of their belief. They had to find them not guilty because of this finer point of the law.
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
So, after all that do you still hold to your rather pointed comment in this post?
Night rider
Yet the Strikemasters were replaced with Aermacchis. A much more economical aircraft to operate, and still able to be used for strike training.
The 'macchis were scrapped when they were still relatively new and had years of service left in them. the decision to scrap them could not have been based on cost as the costs of storing them, maitaining them to a saleable quality, and paying consultants to try and find buyers were higher than the operational costs. the only reason for disbanding the 'macchis was to please our chinese masters.
Time to ride
Yes
I will take that back. I was based mostly on the slip around the Court of Appeal which was explained quickly.
I am still confused (or uneducated) about the claim of right. Is it based on a mistake of law, that is not a mistake about the enactment which the offence is alleged? What was the law they were mistaken about ?
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
In this case it related to the fact they had a belief that they were right to do what they did despite the fact that in law they are mistaken - mistaken because their actions were undoubtedly unlawful - i.e. being there without permission and damaging property to which they had no right to damage.
It is their belief that was mistaken, not anything in the law,... heck, they were wrong. BUT claim of right does not actually require it to be a lawful belief, but merely that they believed it was okay. What is important is to understand that the Crown was unable to disprove this belief which was relied on as a defence AFTER the judge discounted the common good attempted defence as no excuse.
Their belief behind their actions effectively got them off because, in the law to be found guilty in this case; they had to be shown to have done what they did WITHOUT claim of right. They said they did have a right to do it. But this will work ONLY this time and would now unlikely stand for anyone else as the issue has now been clarified for all the public to see.
I hope that helps, sorry but it is a tricky one to explain on a key board after a few.... geez I am into the wine now.....
They didn't have a right to do what they did. But they believed they did. Because they argued that they had that belief that it was right, and that this belief was not disproven to beyond any reasonable doubt, then they won.
If this had been a civil court, then the level of proof is only on the basis of a balance of probabilities. Because it is a criminal case, the defence was able to establish enough reasonable doubt that they had their belief. It was not shown that they did not to enough of a level to convict them.
Balance of probabilities means... you probably did it.
Beyond reasonable doubt is more like saying.... I am pretty damn sure you did it.
I would bet that this case is very likely to be appealled. Believe me, case I read going from the District all the way to the Privvy Council can get incredibly mind numbing and confusing because at each stage they get overrulled but for all sorts of reasons.
Years back I was in the COA for the winebox case..... man was THAT hard to concentrate on.
Scotsman on a German
Still for all the arguments a great precedent has been set and we can go and break into peoples houses and do damage for the greater good. There is no evidence that the dishes were spying on people of any great import. In this hemisphere I severely doubt they were used for anything important. If the idiots wanted to be useful (rather than just getting their cocks sucked on TV by the TV channels) then they should go off to America and have a go at an active military establishment. New Zealand apars to have little or no law to speak of any more so I suspect we had better take the law into our own hands and tear down these hippies houses until they understand the concept of Private Property.
In space, no one can smell your fart.
Yes
It does thanks. Might have to re read in the morning.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks