Clayton Weatherston: sentencing
[UPDATE-- 11PM Sunday:
--UPDATE ENDS]Think...
Peter Dunne's hairstylist:
Hannibal Lecter:
Dr Evil:
- but without the warm personality...
oh, and + Bon Jovi =
There has been some speculation why one of NZ's top defence lawyers, Judith Ablett-Kerr, took this case:
Judith Ablett-Kerr one sympathises with, as a human being very likely she would have felt sick at the end of each day defending this murderer.
She still gets paid right. I can only add to it: My guess is she knew he would insist on giving evidence and that in doing so he would make an indefensible case of murder even worse for himself. She also knew that his performance would be an aggravating factor at sentencing. Letting him take the stand has almost certainly added a few years to his sentence. The cost to the family of the victim of the trial however will be poorly reflected in whatever extra the judge can throw at him. The problem is Justice Potter has to make it stick - if she goes too far out there it risks being pared back on appeal.
I'm guessing he'll get the usual Life (10 years) and a minimum non-parole period of 14 or 15 years. Even though NZ has not seen quite this order of psycho-killer before, without any previous convictions for violence her Honour cannot realistically sentence him to preventive detention - even if that's what almost everyone would deem appropriate. The aggravating factors of premeditation and the viciousness and prolonged nature of the attack is enough to justify a non-parole period being imposed; but his own testimony has sealed it. That's some form of justice.
I'm not sure of the legalities of ordering that he have to be wheeled everywhere tied onto a hand cart and that he have a hockey mask thing strapped on his face, but it's worth looking into.
posted by Tim Selwyn @ 11:58 am
9 comments
9 Comments:
I completely understand why you make the comment about Ablett Kerr's reasoning, but I suggest that is probably a charge of malfeasance on her part; deliberately exposing your client so that his sentence will be the maximum is a breach of trust of the highest order.
I would not be surprised if you get a takedown notice backed with a threat of a libel action.
That said, as I watched each days; extracts on the news, all I could think of was that this vile sucker will be lucky if he doesn't fry.
Earl:
I'm not saying what the lawyer did was reckless or negligent as you make out - that was not my intent. She's a superb lawyer and she would never do that. I think that she couldn't talk him out of testifying - that goes with the narcissism complex. I'm assuming here that Ablett-Kerr could not convince him to plead guilty to murder before the trial - that would have been the smartest course to follow and would have resulted in a lighter sentence than he will get now. But that didn't happen, so she had to play the cards that her client was left holding - a very weak hand indeed.
And in that case the only way she could have probably justified to herself that what she was doing (in defending Weatherston) was OK, would have been to view the testimony process as a deserved self-inflicted blow by her client... and so be it. She just had to let him do the talking. It's the only way to view it - because the alternative is rather far-fetched: that she put him in the box because she believed that Weatherston would woo the jury and that his provocation ruse was a viable defence - and the only way for that to be raised is through his testimony. She is too good a lawyer to have suggested that.
This case has highlighted the fact that NZers are truly what the rest of the world think of them: a flock of sheep who only operate in mass hysteria and under group-think. I sincerely hope GOD is defending NZ, because I have left (got tired of such small town bigotry, which is clearly still well and truly still alive in the land of the long white crowd) Wake up NZers and read the facts without the emotive blinkers or you will miss the same disturbing signs evident, through court documents, in both the victim and perpetrator, in your own daughters and sons.
I would be very surprised if he got a non-parole period of less than 17 years.
The murder in this case easily falls within s 104(e) of the Sentencing Act 2002. 17 years non-parole is the least Clayton Weatherston should be hoping for.
104 Imposition of minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years or more
The court must make an order under section 103 imposing a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 17 years in the following circumstances, unless it is satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust to do so:
...
e) if the murder was committed with a high level of brutality, cruelty, depravity, or callousness; or ...
It was this bit that sounded dodgy, "she knew he would insist on giving evidence and that in doing so he would make an indefensible case of murder even worse for himself"
It sounds as if she deliberately allowed him to do that in order to get that outcome. Maybe I'm just too much of a hardened cynic.
Agree however, the alternative is not just far fetched, its WAY over the horizon of fetched.
THAT would be malfeasance.
Earl:'all I could think of was that this vile sucker will be lucky if he doesn't fry'.
Dude, really - Takedown notice served 7.03pm.
And : extracts? they were complete frikken episodes.
Graeme Edgeler:
Thank you for that. That's a great bit of news!
What disturbs me about this case is the presumption that Weatherston was intellectually brilliant. It begs the question about the wankers we employ in Treasury and how they all seem to come from Otago Uni which dutifully preaches the neo-lib gospel. Also the role of Otago University in allowing this relationship and Weatherston's enormous consumption of Prozac.Lecturer's were disciplined and even sacked in my days down there if they had sexual relationships with students.Prozac has been a factor in more than one violent murder of women in this country, by their partner's who had no previous convictions.
interesting in the extreme that shit hot shot lawyer comesky didn't pick the provocation defence for the asian wif the kid in the train station maybe he's not as shit hot as he thinks he is stealin medals and gettin the reward an shit
Post a Comment
<< Home