Man almost deported by Immigration?

Forums › Off topic › Man almost deported by Immigration?

tchart

2396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 577

ID Verified

Trusted

#280722 6-Jan-2021 13:00

Sorry couldnt think of a better title, I was a bit curious about this article (not the immigration aspect);

https://amp.tvnz.co.nz/news/story/JTJGY29udGVudCUyRnR2bnolMkZvbmVuZXdzJTJGc3RvcnklMkYyMDIxJTJGMDElMkYwNiUyRmltbWlncmF0aW9uLXRyaWJ1bmFsLWxldHMtbWFuLXN0YXktaW4tbmV3LXplYWxhbmQtYWZ0ZXItdmVuZ2VmdWw=

Not sure if someone knows more about the legalities here. The article says;

"The charge was later withdrawn and he was given a diversion. He completed a non-violence programme."

So my understanding is that diversion can come about as a way to not get a criminal record - so charges withdrawn by the Police etc and you do some sort of agreed rehabilitation. This kind of matches up with the statement above (ie enrolled in a programme).

In this case it appears to be a case of a malicious intent from the other party.

Why would you get diversion for that? Surely it would just be thrown out and end of story?

Journeyman

1205 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1236

#2631126 6-Jan-2021 13:31

My understanding is that you get diversion before the case goes to court. For it to be proven that it was malicious intent from the other party, then there would have to be a court hearing. So you choose diversion or a court hearing. With court, it may not go your way so sometimes it just seems like less fuss to go for diversion instead. Diversion means you admit wrongdoing - you don't get off scot-free, but you don't get a conviction either.

The guy probably didn't consider that this woman would then go to Immigration to say "hey, this guy assaulted me, took diversion. You need to investigate him."

I look forward to our favourite lawyer telling me that I'm wrong :)

wellygary

8810 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5287

#2631128 6-Jan-2021 13:40

"In June, Immigration New Zealand served him with a deportation liability notice because of the charge.

It determined he was not of good character and therefore liable for deportation.

The man's representative told Immigration New Zealand because he had not been found guilty, it would be an "unfair and disproportionate punishment" for him to be deported.

But Immigration New Zealand did not accept this."

Immigration NZ are beginning to sounds a bit like Border force OZ....

There has been no criminal charge but they decided to use the "good character" line....

SirHumphreyAppleby

2938 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1860

#2631171 6-Jan-2021 13:45

wellygary:

Immigration NZ are beginning to sounds a bit like Border force OZ....

There has been no criminal charge but they decided to use the "good character" line....

Good. Let's be more like Aussie and send the bad apples back.

tchart

2396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 577

ID Verified

Trusted

#2631181 6-Jan-2021 14:20

Journeyman:

My understanding is that you get diversion before the case goes to court. For it to be proven that it was malicious intent from the other party, then there would have to be a court hearing. So you choose diversion or a court hearing. With court, it may not go your way so sometimes it just seems like less fuss to go for diversion instead. Diversion means you admit wrongdoing - you don't get off scot-free, but you don't get a conviction either.

Yeah thats kind of what I figured as well. Perhaps this guy just went for diversion rather than (get dragged through) court.

As you stated the keywords here are "Diversion means you admit wrongdoing" which is perhaps what this guy did without realising the implications.

tchart

2396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 577

ID Verified

Trusted

#2631183 6-Jan-2021 14:24

Journeyman:

The guy probably didn't consider that this woman would then go to Immigration to say "hey, this guy assaulted me, took diversion. You need to investigate him."

Yes I wonder how immigration became aware of this. Given the ministries cant seem to share information effectively I suspect you could be right. Although perhaps Immigration are a bit more effective in monitoring people on visas.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#2631215 6-Jan-2021 15:00

So it would seem like he accepted diversion rather than a court case even though he was actually innocent, and presumably him (or his lawyer) felt this was the only option.

Apple TV

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

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2631337 6-Jan-2021 19:57

"The tribunal accepts the representative's submission that it would be an unfair and disproportionate punishment for the appellant to be deported "

Tells me that he did bad, but not that bad, as compared to the false allegation.