I expect I'll be receiving some criticism for my post this morning on the anti-smacking amendment, but I'll be leaving it there with the update. It ought to be clear to everyone that I was wrong. One of the strengths of blogging is the ability to react to the news as it is happening. But that's also one of its weaknesses. People form opinions on partial and incomplete information all the time - but bloggers publish theirs, and get to look like dicks as a result.
As for my harshness towards Labour, its a sign of my fear that they would fold at the last minute on this, rather than sticking by their principles. That turns out not to have been the case, and I'm glad of it. At the same time, given the number of backdowns they've made already, and their poor political position this term, its an ongoing worry. The lesson is that if we want a left-wing government that can actually stand by its principles, we have to make sure it has a coalition partner which will support it and keep it on track, rather than leaving it dependent on the likes of Winston Peters and Peter Dunne.
Never mind I/S sat least you admitted you were wrong. Interestingly though that Dunne is fronting the amendment so I hear...
ReplyDeleteSurely that's the position for *every* statute - the police should not prosecute if the trivial nature of the offence renders a prosecution not in the public interest.
ReplyDeleteDave: that's very clearly so that neither major party can claim it's "their" victory. And Peter Dunne will eat it up - it allows him to paint himself as the moderate center again.
ReplyDeleteRich: Yes, it is (I should really find out if it is codified anywhere). But saying it explicitly doesn't hurt, any more than saying explicitly that parents are justified in using force to prevent their kids from seriously harming themselves (something which is a generalised defence to assault) doesn't hurt.
I think the system of prosecution in NZ needs a bit of an overhaul. As it stands the call on whether to prosecute is, it seems, down to a fairly junior police officer.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that, although sedition remains an offence in the UK, there hasn't been a completed prosecution since 1947. The reason for this would seem to be that any attempt to prosecute would be referred up the tree and squashed by the first sensible person in the hierarchy.
Maybe NZ should have a Procurator Fiscal system as in Scotland that allows difficult prosecution decisions to be taken at an appropriate level.
BTW, isn't it justified to use force to prevent adults *or* children from harming themselves? If someone's about to leap off a bridge surely one is entitled to drag them away?
Rich: BTW, isn't it justified to use force to prevent adults *or* children from harming themselves? If someone's about to leap off a bridge surely one is entitled to drag them away?
ReplyDeleteYes - see s41 of the Crimes Act. That's what I was trying to say when I said it was a generalised defence to assault.
As for the UK system, it also gives us atrocities like the BAE debacle, for example (and possibly a similar abuse over cash for peerages). That doesn't mean its not a good idea, but there are drawbacks.
This paper was given to an international law conference last year and covers the mechanism for deciding whether to prosecute.
ReplyDeleteIt references the 1992 Prosecution Guidelines which include:
"Other factors...in determining whether the public interest demands a prosecution include:
the seriousness, or conversely triviality of the alleged offence; i.e. whether the offence really warrants the attention of the criminal law"
Incidentally, were our government as corrupt as Blair's, there would be nothing to stop them sacking the Solicitor General (by royal prerogative) and appointing a political lackey who would stay an inconvenient prosecution.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is not unreasonable is that in a case like Tame Iti's recent prosecution under the Arms Act (in which he was acquitted on appeal) a political decision should be made that the prosecution is inflammatory and thus contrary to the public interest, as perceived by the elected government.
The implication seems to be that they WILL NOT prosecute, as opposed to "should consider".
ReplyDeleteGNZ
GNZ: The implication seems to be that they WILL NOT prosecute, as opposed to "should consider".
ReplyDeleteSure - just as they consider prosecuting for many minor assaults to not be in the public interest.
OTOH, the police commissioner just said on live TV that they will prosecute anyone who uses implements - with the specific example of a jug cord. I think that's sending a pretty clear message.
I/S
ReplyDeleteThe ability to acknowledge your mistakes is a virtue that distingiushes your excellent blog from most others.
By contrast the total inability to ever admit to a mistake, or even so much as change one's opinion in the slightest (no matter the evidence or argument to the contrary) is the hallmark of every right wing blogger I have ever read.
In a rapidly changing world ( a modern cliche if there ever was)...good judgement is a question of knowing what ideas to hold onto, and which ones to discard.
Best wishes and many thanks for your excellent work.