Today, the NZ Herald reported:
Whether the woman had "psychiatric issues" is beside the point, which is that Owen Glenn appears to have paid her to withdraw the assault complaint.
Under United States law that's the case, however under New Zealand law it's not. If an allegation of assault has been made, the Police in New Zealand are obliged to investigate that complaint. They will determine if charges are warranted depending on the evidence available, even if the victim later withdraws their statement.
Clearly there was enough evidence in the Owen Glenn assault case for charges to be laid. The only reason it didn't reach a final judgment was because the victim withdrew her complaint, which under US law is required to proceed to prosecution.
Personally I think the New Zealand system is better, because it limits the accused interfering with the victim in order to subvert the course of justice.
There's a whopping contradiction here, in that Owen Glenn claims the payout was for an alleged unfair dismissal, but then says the payment is recorded in court papers. You simply don't have 'court papers' so to speak when the case is being overseen by an employment mediator. Therefore it appears that the payment is concerned with the assault, and perhaps the emotional damage it caused.
So how much was it; $80,000 or $100,000? If Owen Glenn didn’t do anything wrong, why did he plead no contest instead of not guilty? Does he have such little faith in the US judicial system to get to the truth of the matter, or is he simply guilty of assaulting a young woman and then buying his way to freedom? How do you reconcile the likelihood that he used his considerable wealth to ensure the charges were dropped, while he also claims his pleading no contest was to avoid further court costs?
There are simply too many questions concerning this assault case to believe Owen Glenn is telling the complete truth, which makes him entirely inappropriate to lead an inquiry into domestic violence.
Implying that he was being blackmailed without a shred of evidence to that effect and that the woman was ‘mad’ is despicable! Such defamatory claims are highly inappropriate, especially when the victim has chosen to remain silent. If Owen Glenn had a shred of credibility about him, he would now remain silent on the issue as well, instead of trying to restore his standing with unsubstantiated allegations that are in effect only adding insult to injury.
Many of the New Zealand experts have quit the Glenn inquiry following several issues, most recently over claims Sir Owen assaulted a woman in Hawaii in 2002.
He told Campbell Live last night the accusations were fabricated by the American woman, his former personal assistant, to extort money.
He implied she had psychiatric issues and said she re-ignited the claim 10 days ago hoping for another payout.
Whether the woman had "psychiatric issues" is beside the point, which is that Owen Glenn appears to have paid her to withdraw the assault complaint.
"There was subsequently no case to answer. If both parties agree there is no case to answer, it's no contest," he said.
Under United States law that's the case, however under New Zealand law it's not. If an allegation of assault has been made, the Police in New Zealand are obliged to investigate that complaint. They will determine if charges are warranted depending on the evidence available, even if the victim later withdraws their statement.
Clearly there was enough evidence in the Owen Glenn assault case for charges to be laid. The only reason it didn't reach a final judgment was because the victim withdrew her complaint, which under US law is required to proceed to prosecution.
Personally I think the New Zealand system is better, because it limits the accused interfering with the victim in order to subvert the course of justice.
However, he said she then filed a lawsuit against him for unfair dismissal.
"She was a case of extortion, I said I wouldn't pay her out. But [the employment mediator] said 'look, have a small settlement, whatever I can get it down to' so I agreed to that in the end only because of the length of time and the harassment etcetera, but I only paid that strictly - and it's in the court papers - for payments of her psychiatric bills."
The settlement was $80,000 as opposed to the $300,000 she was seeking.
There's a whopping contradiction here, in that Owen Glenn claims the payout was for an alleged unfair dismissal, but then says the payment is recorded in court papers. You simply don't have 'court papers' so to speak when the case is being overseen by an employment mediator. Therefore it appears that the payment is concerned with the assault, and perhaps the emotional damage it caused.
"I don't think I have done anything wrong. I haven't broken any commandments, I am a good Catholic boy ... I have done nothing wrong, why should I hide? If there is no evidence and there was no event what do you want me to do? Go around and sue them all? No. Should I pay her another $100,000 to get it refuted? Would that make everyone happy? Nope."
So how much was it; $80,000 or $100,000? If Owen Glenn didn’t do anything wrong, why did he plead no contest instead of not guilty? Does he have such little faith in the US judicial system to get to the truth of the matter, or is he simply guilty of assaulting a young woman and then buying his way to freedom? How do you reconcile the likelihood that he used his considerable wealth to ensure the charges were dropped, while he also claims his pleading no contest was to avoid further court costs?
There are simply too many questions concerning this assault case to believe Owen Glenn is telling the complete truth, which makes him entirely inappropriate to lead an inquiry into domestic violence.
Implying that he was being blackmailed without a shred of evidence to that effect and that the woman was ‘mad’ is despicable! Such defamatory claims are highly inappropriate, especially when the victim has chosen to remain silent. If Owen Glenn had a shred of credibility about him, he would now remain silent on the issue as well, instead of trying to restore his standing with unsubstantiated allegations that are in effect only adding insult to injury.
