Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Article: Supreme Court says Red Devils gang case should have gone to trial

  1. #1
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Dargaville
    Posts
    448
    Blog Entries
    8

    Article: Supreme Court says Red Devils gang case should have gone to trial


  2. #2
    There are many incredible judicial opinions in the judgement but claims by the majority of the Supreme Court that the police misconduct is not systemic or conducted in bad faith provide an insight in the different standard police are held to generally. Thank God we have such psychic judges. Interesting as well that Sir Justice Terrence Arnold would likely be a convicted criminal in any other country for materially altering evidence in the Berryman Bridge collapse when a Crown lawyer. My guess is Arnold can relate to police misconduct on a very personal level and would not have agreed it occurred in this case if the evidence was not so damning.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by courtwatcher View Post
    ... the majority of the Supreme Court [ruled] that the police misconduct is not systemic or conducted in bad faith.... Interesting as well that Sir Justice Terrence Arnold would likely be a convicted criminal in any other country for materially altering evidence in the Berryman Bridge collapse when a Crown lawyer. My guess is Arnold can relate to police misconduct on a very personal level and would not have agreed it occurred in this case if the evidence was not so damning.
    Courtwatcher: You underestimate the criminal cunning of Justice Arnold (sorry Sir Terrence). His decision (with the majority) is, in effect, made to counter his known criminal acts in the Berryman Bridge case. What he, and they, are saying in the ruling is that one can act with "unacceptable and ... serious misconduct", but that is not a criminal act unless it is "systemic or conducted in bad faith".

    Sir Terrence knows the legal fraternity knows what he did in the Berryman Bridge case (that he appeared to act criminally). By this Supreme Court decision it (and he) implies he was acting in an "unacceptable and ... serious misconduct" way in that case, but obviously not in "bad faith".

    Because; if he (Sir Terrence) had been acting in "bad faith", the A-G would have charged him criminally, never recommended his appointed to be a Judge and never recommended him for a knighthood.

    Or was all that a just reward in the eyes of our A-G for Sir Terrence's criminal acts in the Berryman case when Sir Terrence was the Solicitor-General.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 13-01-2016 at 06:52 PM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    Courtwatcher: You underestimate the criminal cunning of Justice Arnold (sorry Sir Terrance). His decision (with the majority) is, in effect, made to counter his known criminal acts in the Berryman Bridge case. What he, and they, are saying in the ruling is that one can act with "unacceptable and ... serious misconduct", but that is not a criminal act unless it is "systemic or conducted in bad faith".

    Sir Arnold knows the legal fraternity knows what he did in the Berryman Bridge case (that he appeared to act criminally). By this decision it (and he) implies he was acting in an "unacceptable and ... serious misconduct" way in that case, but obviously not in "bad faith".

    Because; if he was acting in "bad faith", the A-G would have charged him criminally, never recommended his appointed to be a Judge and never recommended him for a knighthood.

    Or was all that a just reward in the eyes of our A-G for Sir Terrance's criminal acts in the Berryman case when he was the Solicitor-General.
    It is hard to disagree with your assessment of Sir Terrance's criminal character.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    Courtwatcher: You underestimate the criminal cunning of Justice Arnold (sorry Sir Terrence). His decision (with the majority) is, in effect, made to counter his known criminal acts in the Berryman Bridge case. What he, and they, are saying in the ruling is that one can act with "unacceptable and ... serious misconduct", but that is not a criminal act unless it is "systemic or conducted in bad faith".
    Q.C., could you point to the judgment that concluded that "serious misconduct" is not a criminal act unless it is "systemic or conducted in bad faith"? If the judgment isn't on the Internet, can you post a copy by any chance? Thanks!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Q.C., could you point to the judgment that concluded that "serious misconduct" is not a criminal act unless it is "systemic or conducted in bad faith"? If the judgment isn't on the Internet, can you post a copy by any chance? Thanks!
    FairHearing: Trevor John Momo Wilson v The Queen [2015] NZSC 189 (14 December 2015). See NZLII databases

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    FairHearing: Trevor John Momo Wilson v The Queen [2015] NZSC 189 (14 December 2015). See NZLII databases
    I see, the quote isn't exact, that's why I couldn't find it. But the "systemic and ongoing problem" is good, in the sense that it applies to the SC itself. Do you know why Blanchard was on the panel? The hearing was on 7 July 2015. I am pretty sure he wasn't listed as a SC judge on the Ministry of Justice website at the time.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ... Do you know why Blanchard was on the panel? The hearing was on 7 July 2015. I am pretty sure he wasn't listed as a SC judge on the Ministry of Justice website at the time.
    s. 23 of the Supreme Court Act allows the appointment of a retired SC judge to be appointed an acting SC Judge, if he is under 75 years old. Blanchard was most likely on the panel for that reason.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •