Jump to content
NOTICE TO BOAY'ers: Major Update Coming ×
Bit Of A Yarn

MITCHELL KERR PART TWO...


Davis

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, the galah said:

Not talking about kerr here, but don't think you can say "nearly always gets jail time" for anyone  charged with that offence.  Doesn't it depend on the scale of the offending,previous history,remorse,who the judge is,etc? Talking about Jail time seems a bit unrealistic to me. 

In general offending uner this charge is deemed that you have breached trust by the courts. That is treated as a serious matter as you have given the person money or access to it in the good faith that they will honour and look after the trust you have placed in them. Treated way more seriously than if you commit theft of an unknown person. Plenty of case law available if you reserch it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harewood said:

In general offending uner this charge is deemed that you have breached trust by the courts. That is treated as a serious matter as you have given the person money or access to it in the good faith that they will honour and look after the trust you have placed in them. Treated way more seriously than if you commit theft of an unknown person. Plenty of case law available if you reserch it. 

Do you have legal training?  The issue with your assessment is that you have no idea of the outcomes of all cases pertaining to this crime.  I would imagine like most of us your sample is biased to those that are published in the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Harewood said:

It is now known as Theft by a person in a special relationship. and definately covers what he did.

220Theft by person in special relationship

(1)

This section applies to any person who has received or is in possession of, or has control over, any property on terms or in circumstances that the person knows require the person—

(a)

to account to any other person for the property, or for any proceeds arising from the property; or

(b)

to deal with the property, or any proceeds arising from the property, in accordance with the requirements of any other person.

(2)

Every one to whom subsection (1) applies commits theft who intentionally fails to account to the other person as so required or intentionally deals with the property, or any proceeds of the property, otherwise than in accordance with those requirements.

 

Not that I'm a legal eagle by any stretch - I think the following section is the one that applies - namely falsely using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage:

240Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception

(1) Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—

(a) obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or

(b) in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or

(c) induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or

(d) causes loss to any other person.

(1A) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, without reasonable excuse, sells, transfers, or otherwise makes available any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage knowing that, by deception and without claim of right, the document or thing was, or was caused to be, delivered, executed, made, accepted, endorsed, or altered.

(2) In this section, deception means—

(a) a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and—

(i) knows that it is false in a material particular; or

(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or

(b) an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or

(c) a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Not that I'm a legal eagle by any stretch - I think the following section is the one that applies - namely falsely using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage:

240Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception

(1) Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—

(a) obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or

(b) in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or

(c) induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or

(d) causes loss to any other person.

(1A) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, without reasonable excuse, sells, transfers, or otherwise makes available any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage knowing that, by deception and without claim of right, the document or thing was, or was caused to be, delivered, executed, made, accepted, endorsed, or altered.

(2) In this section, deception means—

(a) a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and—

(i) knows that it is false in a material particular; or

(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or

(b) an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or

(c) a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any 

 There are so many different charges that he could be charged on 

 

Got know idea why you are guessing  as you said your not a legal eagle 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mehe said:

 There are so many different charges that he could be charged on 

Like what?

5 minutes ago, Mehe said:

Got know idea why you are guessing  as you said your not a legal eagle 

Mehe in case you haven't realised yet BOAY is a forum where you post opinions.  I have an alternative opinion to Harewood's.  Is that OK?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Like what?

Mehe in case you haven't realised yet BOAY is a forum where you post opinions.  I have an alternative opinion to Harewood's.  Is that OK?

Yes I know but you are telling everyone else to be  careful what they say so are you saying that its only your opinions that are aloud on here as you have told hunter  and forbury to  be careful 

Edited by Mehe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mehe said:

Yes I know but you are telling everyone else to be  careful what they say so are you saying that its only your opinions that are aloud on here as you have told hunter  and forbury to  be careful 

No you are missing the point.  Posters were starting to make accusations BEYOND what was published in the media i.e. they were directly accusing or inferring that Kerr was responsible for a number of crimes that hadn't been published.  

All I posted was a section from the Crimes Act under which I believed Kerr MAY be charged based on what was written in the Stuff article.

There is a difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

No you are missing the point.  Posters were starting to make accusations BEYOND what was published in the media i.e. they were directly accusing or inferring that Kerr was responsible for a number of crimes that hadn't been published.  

All I posted was a section from the Crimes Act under which I believed Kerr MAY be charged based on what was written in the Stuff article.

There is a difference. 

hold the phone chief hunter was talking about a race in Auckland and Mitchell did not have a horse in that race . great trainer Mitchell great fan of his training

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hunterthepunter said:

hold the phone chief hunter was talking about a race in Auckland and Mitchell did not have a horse in that race . great trainer Mitchell great fan of his training

I wasn't referring to one individual in particular Hunter.  I was just doing my host responsibility advising posters to be careful about what they posted.  Now I had to do some research on that Auckland race because I took the inference that it was related to Kerr.  I couldn't find any link.  

I think young Kerr has a lot on his plate without the harness community starting to blame him for all Harness Racing issues.  Just trying to be fair - that isn't easy!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...