Gunshop employee charged

[scumdog]

Hmm, some posts here become marginal though...

Wotchoo talkin' about Willis???

[Hitcher]

Scots Law is considerably different to the English Law on which New Zealand's system of "justice" is based. Examples are reliance of the principles of natural justice and fairness. Murder and theft are not defined as statute offences but come under common law. The Courts themselves are run more like New Zealand Coroner's Courts, where the magistrate takes a more active part in procedings, rather than the adverserial battles between prosecution and defence seen here.

[Hitcher]

Okay, I'm happy to be corrected here if wrong, but as I recall Constable X was not prosecuted, but the Wallace family took a civil case?

In addition to the criminal case, yes you're right. The Wallace family lost their civil case.

[McJim]

Well - back home it's either civil law (person a versus person b) or criminal law (Crown versus person a) and basically the loser pays all the bills unless there's a not proven verdict (which is a nasty aspect of Scots law better left unmentioned).

So will the gun shop employee have a large bill to settle when he is found not guilty?

[Hitcher]

So will the gun shop employee have a large bill to settle when he is found not guilty?

Depends. He may have to bear his legal costs and any other costs related to this prosecution. The size of these will be determined by the length and complexity of the trial.

[Karma]

Could you then counter-claim against the crown or the criminal for the costs incurred?

[Hitcher]

You could take a civil case after the criminal trial. Lots of additional cost for no guaranteed outcome though.

[spudchucka]

In addition to the criminal case, yes you're right. The Wallace family lost their civil case.

It was still a criminal charge under the crimes act. The only difference was that the information was laid privately, not by the usual prosecuting agency, (the police).

Civil cases are those that involve disputes between parties, being accused of murder is just slightly different. I'm not sure that the Wallace family took out any sort of civil case? If they did, who was it against? The constable, the police, the Govt or somebody else?

[SlashWylde]

Just rang the shop and they're going to make sure it's very very public if it ever goes to prosecution. I'll happily co-ordinate contributions to the defence fund if an alternate system isn't in place already.

Nigel

Well I just read the Herald article saying the Police are going to charge Mr Carvel. This seems highly unjust to charge a guy who was merely attempting to defend his own life. I don't know the guy from a bar of soap, and I'm currently a poor student, but I'll donate what I can MDU. Let us know where to direct funds once you get the system set up.

-SW

[Harry33]

Yip I just read the same article, what a load of bullshit. How can they charge a man for defending himself? It makes my blood boil.

[spudchucka]

What is the charge?

[SlashWylde]

Well according to the article he is expected to be charged in the next few days with unlawful possession of a weapon. Given that the incident occurred over 16 weeks ago, and it has taken this long for the Police to produce a charge against Mr Carvel, my inherent cynicism tells me the Police needed to charge him with something but that unlawful possession of a weapon was all they could come up with.

This to me suggests they couldn't find anything unlawful with Mr Carvels actions in defending himself, but that the mechanism of his defence revealed a technical breach of the law.

Frankly this reeks. As a citizen what is one supposed to do when a deranged person threatens you and others with bodily harm and possibly death? One defends oneself in whatever manner one can, because at that point all the rules of civilised society have gone out the window, and it is a simple brutish contest of man against man.

I note in the paper today a newly wed couple near Paihia were assaulted, robbed and the mans wife was raped in front of him at gunpoint. What would have happened if the poor man had managed to wrest control of the gun and shot one or both of the perpetrators? Would he be charged with something?

Why is it that in this country defending ones life and loved ones by whatever means possible now carries with is the risk of prosecution and imprisonment?

[spudchucka]

So he hasn't actually been charged at this stage?

[SlashWylde]

No, the article says he is expected to be charged. We'll obviously have to wait and see what the outcome is.

Link to article here

[Hitcher]

I'm not sure that the Wallace family took out any sort of civil case? If they did, who was it against? The constable, the police, the Govt or somebody else?

My memory is that the Wallace family took out a civil case against Constable X. But I am not 100% sure on that.