- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, April 24, 2006

Australia: a haven for rapists?

'Allo, 'allo, 'allo - what have we here then?

Trial for former policeman on sex charges
24.04.06 1.00pm

A former police officer extradited from Australia on historic rape and sexual abuse charges was today sent for trial in the High Court.

The man, whose name is suppressed, faces allegations from two girls, then aged between 12 and 16, comprising four counts of indecent assault and one of rape, all in Rotorua in 1980.

In the High Court at Wellington today, Justice Ronald Young remanded the man for trial from June 26 with pre-trial matters to be considered before then.

Bail was today continued, but Justice Young was to make a decision on its conditions later this week.

The man had over two decades of service in the New Zealand police.
- NZPA


Not sure if it can be added to the John Dewar File or not.

I wonder why this extradiction from Oz went smoothly, whereas getting Catholic kiddy-fiddlers back to face the music is fraught with inherent unfairness and so they should be free in West Island according to Australian federal courts?

On Friday, Justice Rodney Madgwick ruled that aspects of the New Zealand judicial system and the length of time since the allegations would make it difficult for the men to receive a fair trial.

He said despite the seriousness and distressing quality of the allegations, it would be unjust for the extradition to go ahead.

"(There is) very likely to be a high degree of unfairness to the applicants," Justice Madgwick wrote in his judgment.

"Further, such trials would occur without the guarantee of a strong warning by the judge to the jury as to the very real problems in meeting such old allegations.

"In Australia the applicants would have such a guarantee; Australian courts would not permit any such trial to occur without such a warning being given."


Ahhh... so fucking what. I hope the NZ authorities appeal this slanderous ruling.

8 Comments:

At 24/4/06 4:12 pm, Blogger Russell Brown said...

Hi Tim,

Hesitant as I am to offer assistance after your ridiculous help-help-I'm-being-oppressed-by-a-shopping-mall post last week, you may find a story on this page useful:

http://historicrapeclaims.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_historicrapeclaims_archive.html

Cheers,
RB

 
At 25/4/06 3:26 am, Blogger t selwyn said...

RB:
I'm not hesitant to thank you for that link - it's very good.

But, since when has not talking about something been a great idea? If you don't think any legitimate issues were raised then I take it you just disagree with the style.

As someone born and bred in Auckland shouldn't I be pointing out when I see things change for the worse? High quantity of immigrants leads to low quality. I see much evidence that this is true. I don't like that it is being encouraged. But these are govt. decisions and it is frustrating.

I saw today that Pansy Wong has a wonderful big billboard with Chinese on it (above her office on Pitt St). I thought she was supposed to be serving constituents - if many of them can only read Chinese then we have a problem. "One nation. Many peoples" indeed. Does it say that in Chinese? Does it say "National encourages Chinese New Zealanders to understand official languages"? or does it say "National stands for Chinese rights to live as Chinese"? The fact it has Chinese on it means "I represent the interests of Chinese who can't understand English" - that population should be almost zero if our immigration policy was operating appropriately. Will there be a time when they won't have signs in Chinese anymore because they are able to communicate in English? Or will you be happy with Chinese language being a permanent fixture? That we will always have a large, (and politically important) Chinese population that cannot (and, oh yes, will not) communicate in English, let alone ever hope to learn Maori - is that Aotearoa 2020? 2050?

What are the rules in the immigration debate, Mr Brown?

Is it alright that our troops are in the Solomons protecting a corrupt PM in the back pocket of Chinese businessmen and Taiwan? Is it alright to arrest politicians who took part in demonstrations outside parliament about it? They are not the only South Pacific nation to have gone down this road. Is it alright to mention that a Chinese candidate for the Labour party in this country was (only very reluctantly) thrown off the Labour list (and only at the last minute!) because of accusations of selling public offices - to Chinese businessmen for the benefit of himself and the party? Is this not corruption? Are the political parties (and not just Labour) prepared to sell out to the corrupt practices of people who are Chinese? And others? Is this sort of thing not a bad thing? I think it is bad. I think having high levels of low quality immigration involving people who are culturally very far apart and who are unwilling to learn at least English is a bad thing. If political parties are relying on fat donations from foreigners then we have a problem. Ignor it? Pretend it has nothing to do with different cultures? - immigrants? Pretend that it doesn't matter? Thai overstayers and Mangere MPs? Not an issue? Why would you do that? Am I being "ridiculous" again for mentioning it? If I put it differently, if I say that the immigrants are vulnerable and are being abused by the unscrupulous will that make it less ridiculous for you?

For every heavy-weight issue there will be a multitude of little ones. I don't think it is wrong to mention them and to state, and it is quite obvious to all, that we have many, many immigrants in Auckland and many of them are below par, they affect us in bad ways as well as good. Their mere presence increases the economic stats and makes the shrinking class of property owners even richer by forcing up demand - and they suppress wages. All wonderfully positive if you think that economic model is worthwhile. But here I am being ridiculous again. Let's not talk about it.

Cheers,
TS

 
At 25/4/06 1:09 pm, Blogger Rob Good said...

I am not sure what teh deal is, but from my computer your font is impossible to read???????

 
At 25/4/06 1:38 pm, Blogger t selwyn said...

RG:
Which bits? Just in this post or all over the place?

 
At 26/4/06 11:18 am, Blogger Rob Good said...

All over the place. it looks like you have cut and paste or quotes text in Italics? It is just impossible to read.

 
At 26/4/06 1:36 pm, Blogger Russell Brown said...

But, since when has not talking about something been a great idea? If you don't think any legitimate issues were raised then I take it you just disagree with the style.

Fair question. You raised some valid points (on the soon-to-be-slum apartment towers being built by good old Kiwi developers, for instance), but I didn't like the sweeping racial generalisations and your determination to cast yourself as some sort of victim. I'd actually been to the same mall the day before and I wouldn't have recognised it from your OTT description. You sound like you'd prefer the New Zealand of the 1950s.

Cheers,
RB

 
At 26/4/06 5:44 pm, Blogger t selwyn said...

RG:
It seems you can't read the italicised text since I started putting it in a smaller size (for space reasons mainly). If you are using Firefox 1.5 then so are most other people and I haven't had complaints from them (...yet?) so it might not be your browser. Maybe the screen size? Maybe you need glasses? Maybe I should make all text the same size?

Heaven knows I've fucked around with the template to get it all Times without even knowing how - it's quite possible it's my fault.

 
At 26/4/06 11:54 pm, Blogger t selwyn said...

RB:
"the sweeping racial generalisations" - they were almost entirely cultural I think - and were firmly in context. Maybe you would object to positive generalisations too?

"your determination to cast yourself as some sort of victim" - Once again, that's more your take than mine. If pointing out that immigration policy is a tool of the elite/govt. and the individual punter who sees something wrong but has had no influence is relatively powerless then the bloggers against the planned immigration reforms are similarly victims if you choose to interpret their criticism that way. At any rate my point about negative changes is that it effects "us" not just me.

"I wouldn't have recognised it from your OTT description" - It was suitably OTT, it was adequately OTT, it was appropriately OTT. I didn't say they're skinning cats next to the Voodoo chicken sacrifice cubicle. Compared to some things I've said that was Burt Bacharach.

I'm noting the changes to Auckland - some of which are not so good. Why? Because some people, maybe people like you, aren't capable of making the call. A conspiracy of silence - of sorts. Maybe some of these people are concerned that one single remark that isn't 100% positive about the volume and quality of immigrants will be construed as a racist defilement of multiculturalism? That if you say we should have less than 50,000 immigrants per year and question the wisdom of importing tens of thousands of foreign students per year then you are automatically a Winston-loving grey-rinser? Maybe too timid to ask the big questions about how sustainable, economically, socially, politically and culturally is a high immigration policy in case you are branded a skinhead Le Pen, Nazi flag-drapped isolationist bigot? Maybe afraid that some Lefty will make some glib, ignorant throw-away remark like, oh I don't know: "You sound like you'd prefer the New Zealand of the 1950s."

Cheers,
TS

 

Post a Comment

<< Home