the galah Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 3 hours ago, Nowornever said: I know a Mr Z who happened to be in the court room the first day and he said in his opinion he thought even the judge thought some of the evidence was a bit flimsy the way he was talking. Sure where there is smoke there is fire but I am going out on a limb and predicting some of these guys don't even get to trial once the police show what they have in the way of evidence. They don't produce evidence at the initial hearing,still haven't given full disclosure apparently,so don't know what mr z would be on about. Judges don't pre judge evidence they have no knowledge of. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, the galah said: Judges don't pre judge evidence they have no knowledge of. but they have used the word underwhelming in the recent past Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 3 hours ago, the galah said: They don't produce evidence at the initial hearing,still haven't given full disclosure apparently,so don't know what mr z would be on about. Judges don't pre judge evidence they have no knowledge of. If you think these people are in court without any information shared to them or their counsel by police you are sadly mistaken. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Nowornever said: If you think these people are in court without any information shared to them or their counsel by police you are sadly mistaken. I know we don't live in a police state, but i have a good understanding of how the court system works. Your earlier post I commented on referred to a mr z's take on a judges comments on police evidence,on the first day(your words), nothing about information shared before or since that first hearing outside the court process. I'm not sadly mistaken as you put it. Your mr z, in time, may or may not be proven correct. But I don't think he can make any informed conclusions just yet if he is basing his opinion on what he has heard in court, given the court processes have only just started and there has not been full disclosure.. Especially if he is not too familiar with how the court system works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taku Umanga Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 23 hours ago, Nowornever said: I know a Mr Z who happened to be in the court room the first day and he said in his opinion he thought even the judge thought some of the evidence was a bit flimsy the way he was talking. Sure where there is smoke there is fire but I am going out on a limb and predicting some of these guys don't even get to trial once the police show what they have in the way of evidence. I doubt that any evidence would have even been presented on the first day so my guess is that Mr Z is wrong Edited October 28, 2018 by Taku Umanga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Taku Umanga said: I doubt that any evidence would have even been presented on the first day so my guess is that Mr Z is wrong who is mr z???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newmarket Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Forget about mr x, mr y, thing one and thing 2, What about my fav, MR. T 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Newmarket said: Forget about mr x, mr y, thing one and thing 2, What about my fav, MR. T There was a splitting image of this guy in the TAB last week. He was struggling to get his full bet on and the operator was claiming he was actually Mr B and not Mr T as he kept insisting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 41 minutes ago, Rangatira said: There was a splitting image of this guy in the TAB last week. He was struggling to get his full bet on and the operator was claiming he was actually Mr B and not Mr T as he kept insisting. brodie hehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 3 hours ago, Taku Umanga said: I doubt that any evidence would have even been presented on the first day so my guess is that Mr Z is wrong I wouldn't think that was correct. One you can't charge anyone unless you have evidence. You can arrest someone on the suspicion of an offence but you need to have evidence to charge them. So some evidence needs to be presented in court for a charge to be accepted by a Judge. Geez imagine what sort of Court System we would have if you can charge ANYONE without providing ANY evidence. Constable Plod says to the Judge - "it's OK your honour 'trust us' we know we will find some evidence soon. Trust us as we haven't failed in the past!" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowornever Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said: I wouldn't that was correct. One you can't charge anyone unless you have evidence. You can arrest someone on the suspicion of an offence but you need to have evidence to charge them. So some evidence needs to be presented in court for a charge to be accepted by a Judge. Geez imagine what sort of Court System we would have if you can charge ANYONE without providing ANY evidence. Yes hardly any of it gets presented to the public but I am guessing there will be charging documents that the Judge is privy to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 6 minutes ago, Nowornever said: Yes hardly any of it gets presented to the public but I am guessing there will be charging documents that the Judge is privy to. Which would have been available to the RIU and the defendants as well surely? If it was I don't understand how the information reached the threshold for a case to be tested but not for the RIU to get their exclusion to stick with JCA. I guess at this stage the threshold is lower to charge than it is for the JCA to convict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taku Umanga Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 5 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: I wouldn't think that was correct. One you can't charge anyone unless you have evidence. You can arrest someone on the suspicion of an offence but you need to have evidence to charge them. So some evidence needs to be presented in court for a charge to be accepted by a Judge. Geez imagine what sort of Court System we would have if you can charge ANYONE without providing ANY evidence. Constable Plod says to the Judge - "it's OK your honour 'trust us' we know we will find some evidence soon. Trust us as we haven't failed in the past!" The Police do not produce evidence at the first appearance - they lay an information which only outlines the ingredients of the charge ..... that is why most first appearances result in a remand without plea. If the accused pleads guilty on the first appearance the Police will produce a summary of facts at that time and the matter will be dealt with. Anyway, that's how it was done in the hundreds of times that I attended Court .... albeit a few years back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 As I've said before this will go on for ages and will become a circus. Going in previous examples of these types of charges the evidence will have to be compelling to get a result. Is it not the NZ Polices first go at this in NZ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Chief Stipe said: I wouldn't think that was correct. One you can't charge anyone unless you have evidence. You can arrest someone on the suspicion of an offence but you need to have evidence to charge them. So some evidence needs to be presented in court for a charge to be accepted by a Judge. Geez imagine what sort of Court System we would have if you can charge ANYONE without providing ANY evidence. Constable Plod says to the Judge - "it's OK your honour 'trust us' we know we will find some evidence soon. Trust us as we haven't failed in the past!" You don't seem to know what your talking about. Evidence or a summary of facts is often not presented early in proceedings. Go along to any court day and you will see. There are steps and procedures. Edited October 29, 2018 by the galah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 (edited) I see taku umanga has already pointed the above out. Edited October 29, 2018 by the galah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.