Nope to dope or toot toot?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Nope to dope or toot toot?

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2597322 3-Nov-2020 23:00

networkn:

Even if the police decide it's worth bringing charges, the courts can still drop it at that point. Two points of consideration.

@networkn if you don't have any actual expertise or knowledge on serious matters, can you please stop asserting things that you have no reasonable basis to be certain of being correct as facts? Your tendency to do this on legal matters is irresponsible and unnecessary. This especially when your assertions is intended to buttress your viewpoint on politically controversial matters.

There's an enormous body of case law that says the courts will not usurp the role of the prosecutor in choosing to prosecute an offence unless (generally speaking) the prosecution is in bad faith, relies on evidence that should not be admissible in court, and/or abuses the courts' processes in such a way that the continuation of the prosecution will shock the conscience of reasonable observers. I can tell you now as someone who knows far more than you do about criminal prosecution and judges' thinking on criminal law (i.e. having substantial actual experience on these matters) that no court will throw out a prosecution for possession of dope just because it looks trivial in the eyes of the judge.

Your next step will almost certainly be "But the courts can choose not to convict!". Nope. A discharge without conviction can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the consequences of conviction (not merely the fact of a conviction itself) is altogether out of proportion with the seriousness of the offending. Again, there's an enormous body of case law that says a conviction is of itself a natural consequence of being guilty of a crime. So if you are talking about some Jo/Joe Average in a poor suburb with no great dreams or career prospects, let alone the ability to afford legal representation, their chances of a discharge is low.

So for the avoidance of doubt: the courts can't "... drop it at that point".

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2597429 4-Nov-2020 09:56

tdgeek:

1. What cost? We dont pay the Police on a piecemeal basis. They get paid if they arrest Bin Laden or eat Macca's all night when nothing doing.

2. If the Police prosecute and the court throw it out, thats called checks and balances.

3. IIRC the Police dont post arrests on Facebook, if you get off its get off or diversion, no record

4. Police and the courts are what we have, I aint seen many MP's patrolling the streets, its our justice system, the Police police the community, the courts enforce the Rule of Law. If you want to dispense with the Police and the Courts, Im off to Cuba to get relief.

1. No but we could be using those Police resources for something else, or have less Police resources costing less money. NORML state: "Police spent 598,000 hours enforcing the War on Drugs in 2006, at a estimated cost of over $100 million"

2. You've already had a great reply from someone far more knowledgeable on this - and it's still a waste of court and police time/resource.

3. Not as a general course of action, but it wasn't Facebook I was necessarily worried about. In any case, they happily post wanted people on Facebook all the time (not you'd likely see that for simple possession). An arrest becomes part of a record, think vetting checks as well.

4. No one said anything about dispensing with the Police - the opposite in fact. I'd like to make their job easier by taking away any opportunity for confusion or doubt or making a bad decision (in fact I'd like to make thier jobs even easier by removing a whole thing to worry about).

MikeAqua

8033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3823

#2597451 4-Nov-2020 10:12

antonknee:

3. Not as a general course of action, but it wasn't Facebook I was necessarily worried about. In any case, they happily post wanted people on Facebook all the time (not you'd likely see that for simple possession). An arrest becomes part of a record, think vetting checks as well.

I routinely do a police check for people I intend to a employ. They never disclose arrests, just convictions that aren't covered by clean slate.

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15477

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2597465 4-Nov-2020 10:22

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0119/6.0/whole.html#LMS167567

6 Section 7 amended (Possession and use of controlled drugs)
After section 7(4), insert:
(5)
To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that there is a discretion to prosecute for an offence against this section, and a prosecution should not be brought unless it is required in the public interest.
(6)
When considering whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, in addition to any other relevant matters, consideration should be given to whether a health-centred or therapeutic approach would be more beneficial.

In this amendment, who is allowed to exercise the discretion referenced in this legislation?

@dejadeadnz

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2597536 4-Nov-2020 11:46

MikeAqua:

I routinely do a police check for people I intend to a employ. They never disclose arrests, just convictions that aren't covered by clean slate.

MOJ Record or Police vetting? The MOJ criminal history will only show non-CSA convictions, a Police vetting can include information on all contact with Police including arrests. Depends on what's asked for.

NZ Police:

This includes:

Charges that did not result in a conviction including those that were acquitted, discharged without conviction, diverted, or withdrawn
Any interaction I have had with New Zealand Police considered relevant to the role being vetted, including investigations that did not result in prosecution

Additionally, arrests will appear on visa checks for travel overseas, eg to Australia.

MurrayM

2502 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 742

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2597544 4-Nov-2020 12:01

antonknee:

the damage is often already done by arresting someone (think other country's via requirements, your employer finding out, a family member etc)

Isn't it actual convictions that are taken into account for visa/job applications? Not arrests?

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3823

#2597585 4-Nov-2020 12:52

antonknee:

MikeAqua:

I routinely do a police check for people I intend to a employ. They never disclose arrests, just convictions that aren't covered by clean slate.

MOJ Record or Police vetting? The MOJ criminal history will only show non-CSA convictions, a Police vetting can include information on all contact with Police including arrests. Depends on what's asked for.

Additionally, arrests will appear on visa checks for travel overseas, eg to Australia.

Good point. They are in fact MOJ reports.

Interesting point about visa-checks. I've been arrested a few times (never convicted though 😎) and I've never had any issue getting into any country.

Mike

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2597712 4-Nov-2020 15:50

MurrayM:

antonknee:

the damage is often already done by arresting someone (think other country's via requirements, your employer finding out, a family member etc)

Isn't it actual convictions that are taken into account for visa/job applications? Not arrests?

Varies by country and what they care about, and how keyed up they are. Australian immigration for example seem to simply get arrest data (based on anecdotes from people I know) so they already know, but aren't necessarily concerned with it - particularly if you've honestly answered the question about having any arrests.

The USA for some visas (but not ESTA) certainly asks for the full Police record of all arrests etc (from personal experience).

Edited to add I think there are some jobs that require full Police vetting, not just a conviction history. Working with children comes to mind, but I'm not 100% sure on it.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2597768 4-Nov-2020 18:41

MikeAqua:

Interesting point about visa-checks. I've been arrested a few times (never convicted though 😎) and I've never had any issue getting into any country.

I was arrested once - and not convicted. But not acquitted - the case was thrown out by the DC judge who gave the bent detective who arrested me a severe dressing down, strongly advised to drop all charges, and that was that - apart from having to pay my lawyer an exorbitant fee. It is not a pleasant experience, and rather tainted my trust in police to "do the right thing" and "exercise discretion".

My brother in law was also a bent cop, he (illegally) checked the police records for me to confirm there was no record on the system. At that time, I don't think there was any other way I could find out by legitimate means.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16324

Lifetime subscriber

#2597775 4-Nov-2020 18:53

You guys have interesting lives. I have never been arrested for anything.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2597778 4-Nov-2020 19:07

Rikkitic:

You guys have interesting lives. I have never been arrested for anything.

Best part of my arrest was being biffed into a holding cell at the CIB/detective headquarters in South Auckland for a few hours, shared with a very big and very ugly guy who was wearing an even bigger pair of oversize jeans held up with a safety pin. After I went in he removed the safety pin from his jeans and started picking his teeth with it. At first I wanted to talk, you know - just light "porridge" banter between convicts. "What you in here for mate?"... "No I didn't do it either"... Decided that wasn't smart, so spent a couple of hours staring blankly at the wall. Beat the hell out being jostled by two detectives who wanted me to push back, the head sized holes in the plaster walls convinced me that shutting up and putting up with it was the only option.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Handle9

11930 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9689

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2597792 4-Nov-2020 19:51

I have a friend who started his career in the South Auckland district in the late 1990s. Apparently the holes in the walls were enhanced fairly regularly if prisoners gave a bit of lip or the arresting constable didn't like them.

There's good cops and sh1t cops, just like every other group in society.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2597861 4-Nov-2020 21:15

networkn:

In this amendment, who is allowed to exercise the discretion referenced in this legislation?

@dejadeadnz

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Can't stop laughing.

@networkn - stop digging. Doing some kind of silly scatter gun random citation of legislations won't improve your argument. You're struggling because you were talking rubbish -- facts are facts. The discretion rests with the prosecution. Sure - it choosing to exercise the discretion to prosecute a possession alone charge for dope may be open to challenge by the defendant for being not in the public interest depending on the facts of the case. But there are two practical constraints: (1) someone has to go to the High Court to seek a judicial review on an unlawful exercise of a discretion. That's not something that Joe/Jo Bloggs arrested for dope possession can typically afford; (2) judicial review is a very specialised field of law and those lawyers are expensive.

More importantly, it doesn't actually back up your nonsense that the courts can stop whatever prosecution it wants to because it doesn't agree with it or it doesn't view it as being compatible with the public interest. Because judicial review is properly the domain of the High Court, it will be a long bow (that's putting it mildly) for a District Court Judge -- where possession alone cases will be heard -- to assert that the prosecution is of itself an abuse of process just because he or she disagrees with the prosecution's exercise of the discretion. At the HC, remedies under judicial review are granted only if the decision maker in exercising his or her discretion took into account irrelevant matters, was apparently or actually biased, and/or reached a decision entirely beyond reason. The traditional remedy of a successful judicial review is also not the court substituting its own views for that of the decision-maker. Typically the decision-maker is ordered to re-consider his or her decision in light of the parameters of the court's judgment. All the matters I have discussed would be known to a C-grade 2nd year law student.

Here's a tip: leave legal arguments for lawyers. Also, next time if you're going to quote legislation, try quoting the Act after a Bill has received assent. A Bill isn't of itself law -- the correct legislation is s 7(5) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

networkn

Networkn
32876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15477

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2597884 4-Nov-2020 22:02

Wow. Just wow. That was totally uncalled for.

This is a technology forum where every day, people every bit as qualified and experienced in thier respective fields, and I'd wager every bit as intelligent as you, come here, and freely share their knowledge, correct others (sometimes silly or downright mind boggling) mistakes, or misunderstandings, assist in the obtaining of information to help others, without resorting to being insulting, saracastic, rude, condescending, argumentitve, mean spirited, or downright nasty as the majority of your posts seem to be.

Why can't you just interact with others in a polite and respectful way? (or Christ, even a neutral way).

I asked a genuine question seeking clarification to an amendment discussed on the radio, where the person interviewed was asked if these amendments were as close to defacto decriminilization and was answered in the affirmative. What I heard from the interview (Which I've admitted I couldn't fully catch) indicated such. I am pretty sure I heard either the interviewer or interviewee saying this had passed in 2019, which I took to mean was now law, but seems not? There were 100 different ways you could have responded to that post, without being a prat about it. If people in a forum discussing legal matters or how they interpret them, in their own time, who may not be qualified lawyers, enrages you so much, perhaps you should examine why and how you can cope with it better. If every qualified person here replied to every question here with the tone you typically use, this would be a very poor place to spend time.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2597893 4-Nov-2020 22:49

networkn:

I asked a genuine question seeking clarification to an amendment discussed on the radio, where the person interviewed was asked if these amendments were as close to defacto decriminilization and was answered in the affirmative. What I heard from the interview (Which I've admitted I couldn't fully catch) indicated such. I am pretty sure I heard either the interviewer or interviewee saying this had passed in 2019, which I took to mean was now law, but seems not? There were 100 different ways you could have responded to that post, without being a prat about it. If people in a forum discussing legal matters or how they interpret them, in their own time, who may not be qualified lawyers, enrages you so much, perhaps you should examine why and how you can cope with it better. If every qualified person here replied to every question here with the tone you typically use, this would be a very poor place to spend time.

You seem to really enjoy deflecting from the real issues. That Bill you cited has become law. The point is that citing a Bill as though it is a passed legislation isn't the conventional approach. But that is an admittedly technical issue.

My fundamental point is that you asserted as fact a point that was simply untrue (i.e. the courts or a judge can just stop a prosecution as and when they please when they judge it not in public interest) and then just went around random digging for a piece of legislation to back up an assertion that was (1) untrue and (2) you had no basis of believing to be true at the time you made the assertion. "Discussions" or expressions of POV are not per se meaningful nor helpful. Anyone can rattle off on potentially anything. Taken to the extreme, as matters of law and politics frequently are on here when it comes to wild assertions, they become downright dangerous. People such as yourself like to resort to the courtesy card like it's a catch-all defence for everything. You want to talk about courtesy? I find it extremely discourteous and frankly offensive (in fact close to immoral) that people would assert strong positions of fact in these types of emotionally charged debates without having a basis for them. At best the legislation cited gives an aggrieved defendant charged with a pure possession offence an opportunity to attack the continuation of the prosecution. It by no means back up, let along justify, your original assertion.

It was necessary for your falsity to be strongly and definitively corrected because it was misleading and polluting the thread. The reasonable thing to do after that is to simply face facts and stop digging.

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25