Christie’s law based on court incompetency

The killing of Christie Marceau was a very terrible thing, not least of all because it could have been prevented if the court system wasn't incompetent. Amongst other things, that’s one of the findings the inquest into her murder should conclude.

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Christie Marceau inquest: the trail to tragedy

Stace was the duty prosecutor on the day of Chand's bail hearing and was tasked with advocating the police position.

The opposition to bail form filed on the day of his first appearance still stood - but more information was given to her before the October 5 hearing.

That information included a map showing the proximity of Chand's house where he wanted to be bailed to, and the Marceau house.

The properties are within a kilometre of each other and Christie could see her attacker's home from her deck.

Detective Aaron Iremonger also supplied Stace with a transcript of Chand's preliminary police interview which had "full admissions" of his offending against Christie.

In the interview Chand spoke about revenge, and Iremonger felt it showed he still posed a huge risk to Christie.

Emails went back and forward from Iremonger and Pell, the original prosecutor who was not working the day of the hearing, and Stace.

The men told her that it was "imperative" Chand not get bail and they wanted her to push hard and present the new information.

When Stace arrived in court she tried to hand the new information to the judge through the registrar, but was told if she was to rely on it, she could bring it up in the hearing.

Unbelievable! A court registrar is duty bound to provide the judge with all relevant evidence when it’s presented by the Police to the court.

If this claim by duty prosecutor Rhona Stace is true it means that the registrar is in breach of their duty to assist the judge, and should be sacked.

When the hearing began, she did not present it.

She said the opposition to bail form had already covered the salient points police wanted to make, and coupled with Christie's letter, was strong enough and adequate.

When the hearing started, Stace said it was "immediately apparent" Judge McNaughton was "not interested" in hearing further information from police.

Disgraceful! If the Judge didn’t allow new evidence to be presented and appeared to be biased in favour of the killer, that would be grounds for that Judge to be dismissed.

Unfortunately it's unlikely that the courts will look at changing their procedures to ensure such an unfortunate evidential travesty of justice doesn't occur again.

"Instead, His Honour was now focused on Mr Chand's treatment and the ability of mental health services to manage him at home on strict bail conditions."

Stace defended herself at the inquest, saying she did her job on the day and it would not have been appropriate to push the judge further.

In fact, it would have been a suggestion of "incompetence".

Clearly somebody within the justice system was incompetent. Either the Judge, the registrar or the duty prosecutor through procedural bungling or disabling conflicts of interest utterly failed to protect Christie Marceau.

"It was absolutely crystal clear to the court what our concerns were," she told the inquest.

"The court... was well aware of the grounds for the opposition... it (the map and transcript) simply wasn't relevant.

I have to totally disagree there. The new evidence was relevant because it clearly showed that there was an immediate threat to Christie if Akshay Chand was released on bail. That’s why Detective Aaron Iremonger and senior prosecutor Adam Pell were adamant that the new evidence must be presented.

The fact that Sergeant Rhona Stace thinks the evidence wasn’t relevant makes it appear that it was her decision not to present it to the Judge, and not the courts decision to essentially decline it being accepted.

There’s no question in my mind that if the Judge received and properly considered that new evidence a different outcome would have been achieved… an outcome that would have likely saved Christie Marceau’s life.

That makes the claims by people with vested interests like Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust that it was a failure of our bail laws and not a failure of the duty prosecutor, the registrar or the Judge on the day, completely incorrect.

Clearly the only thing the bail laws are to blame for in New Zealand is contributing to our already overcrowded jail cells. Inconsistency from the parole board is also a concern when considering ways to reduce incarceration and increase rehabilitation rates, which is something the National led government has utterly failed to achieve.

Obviously reducing the ability of non-violent offenders to achieve bail isn’t going to bring Christie back or save any other young lives. It will however increase the already huge burden on society from an ever-increasing prison population and mean many more families are destroyed by a system solely focused on never ending cycles of punishment.

Where's McVicar?

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

The man accused of murdering Turangi service station attendant Rodney Tahu has made a shock retraction of an earlier admission that he had killed the father of two.

I would think that such a statement would be considered an admission of murder, and therefore couldn't be retracted?

The Crown alleges Hallett shot Mr Tahu twice, once in the shoulder and a second shot to the head.

"The accused looked down on Mr Tahu injured on the ground," said Mr Pilditch.

"He took aim for a third and final time with a certain knowledge that pulling the trigger would end his life - and Mr Hallett pulled the trigger."

"The Crown's case is that he is guilty of nothing short of murder."

Where's that reprehensible Garth McVicar from the (un)Sensible Sentencing Trust to declare that Hallett is guilty and should therefore be locked up forever?

Oh that's right, Menzies Hallett is a white guy and the person he killed was a Maori. I guess that fact changes everything for McVicar and his little band of right wing racists!

Just a coincidence?

Is it just a coincidence that after the Human Rights Commission decides to hold the (not so) Sensible Sentencing Trust to account, they have their funding cut?

Here's a report by Radio NZ from last Wednesday:

A lawyer for the Human Rights Commission has told a court the Sensible Sentencing Trust not only broke name suppression for a convicted paedophile, but breached his privacy by getting his private police record.

Then yesterday, National announces funding cuts for the Human Rights Commission:

Staff at another Government funded agency have an axe hovering over their heads.

Around 15 percent of jobs at the Human Rights Commission are going, thanks to a cash shortfall and a freeze on funding until 2020.

There is no question that the Sensible Sentencing Trust is politically affiliated with the right wing, and if funding decisions are being based on whom the Human Rights Commission decides to prosecute, then that amounts to economic sabotage!

We shouldn't be worrying about New Zealand turning a bit socialist with policy that gives people cheaper power prices, we should be concerned with New Zealand turning towards fascism!

The Human Rights Commission is an effective tool against the rise of fascism, and should therefore have its funding increased. This is especially the case when they're targeting organisations that promote racism, like the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Newsflash! Tame Iti gets parole

Tame Iti, the mastermind behind the infamous "terrorist" training camps throughout te Urewera, has been granted parole to return back to his base camp and continue plotting the demise of the government.

No longer content with merely painting, writing and being outspoken about indigenous rights, Tame Iti has vowed to ride a horse bareback past local authorities and might even do the Haka... The sheer audacity of the man!

Today, Stuff reported:

Jailed activist Tame Iti says he is to be released from prison.

"It's a good day. They are sending me home. I can't wait to be back with my whanau," Iti tweeted this afternoon.

Iti is clearly talking in code here, and will instead be plotting to take over New Zealand with Tikanga Māori... Oh the humanity!

In January, Iti said he had a parole hearing scheduled for today. "As it is valentines day...I wonder if the parole board will show me some love."

Of course this wasn't about love, with the level headed Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust quick to respond to the news:

"I'm shocked! That evil genius Iti has obviously blackmailed his way to freedom" said McVicar. "When I signed up with Serco, I assured them that all Maori activists would be locked up forever. Now I'm in breach of contract and we'll lose millions."

The fallout to the parole boards surprise decision has only just begun.

Citizen A with Chris Trotter and Keith Locke

Nationals revolving prison door

Today the NZ Herald reported:

Government announces 40-hours of work a week for inmates in plan to cut boredom and reoffending.

Up to 1400 inmates will be working 40 hours a week - without pay - by the end of this year as part of a plan to create more "working prisons" in New Zealand.

Prime Minister John Key announced in his first speech to Parliament for the year that the number of prisons with fulltime work programmes would be expanded as part of a drive to cut reoffending.

Will making prisoners work 40 hours a week with no pay cut recidivism rates? This is a somewhat complicated question to answer, being that no studies have been conducted in New Zealand to verify the Prime Ministers claims.

Instead we have to look to where the prison policy National has been copying at the behest of the Sensible Sentencing Trust is coming from, the United States.

A study conducted in 2004 by the Developing Justice Coalition (PDF) found:

Work programs can be administered while in prison to provide inmates with experience and skills that increase their employability upon release. There is no national program designed to provide inmates with useful opportunities to work while in prison. The types of programs that are in place, however, are not necessarily designed to reduce recidivism. Work programs are implemented for a variety of reasons, including earning revenue for the prison and occupying and pacifying inmates. Although the programs were not specifically intended to reduce recidivism, studies of some work programs report reduced recidivism rates, but qualify these findings by admitting biased data. As mentioned earlier, the selfselection process of program participants results in a group who are less likely to revert to criminal behavior with or without the program. Studies have shown substantial effects of employment programs on reducing recidivism for older men.

So only work programs where prisoners have a choice have shown any benefit in reducing recidivism rates and older men are shown to respond best. Typically effective work programs include courses on job preparedness, career development skills and help with job placement.

Other things that have been shown to actually reduce recidivism include sophisticated risk assessments, meticulous re-entry planning and post-release supervision carefully tailored to each offender’s circumstances.

Clearly John Key isn't talking about voluntary work programs or any of these other worthwhile things when he blathers on about the plan to create more “working prisons”. The Prime Minister obviously just wants to create a large group of people who will work for free.

Asked whether working prisons were a form of cheap labour, Mr Key said: "Not really. There already are work programmes which are ... sometimes controversial because they take work ... off the private sector. But the aim here is to build up that skill base.

Giving prisoners menial work for 40 hours per week with no pay has no benefit to society or the prisoner... It only benefits those who are using the free labour force.

Therefor the main effect to Nationals prison privatization and unpaid work program will be to undercut the job seeker who will often be competing for the same position as prisoners. They will of course not be able to compete, because the prisoners are being paid nothing. This is more commonly known as slavery and along with having absolutely nothing to do with reducing recidivism rates, is currently against international law.

Another point to make is that putting released prisoners into lowly paid jobs upon their release without any career path doesn’t reduce the recidivism rate either.  There’s no question however that released prisoners need employment to avoid involvement in criminal activity, but it’s only high quality jobs in terms of pay rates and/or viable career paths that have been shown to reduce recidivism.

So the main problem is the creation of enough well paid jobs, and that’s an area where National is completely failing.

Instead of learning from the United States' mistakes, National seem intent on copying the worst their system has to offer. This is the height of stupidity, being that the US had a re-incarceration rate within three years of 43% in 2004, largely because prisons are now treated as a business enterprise and not a way to rehabilitate people. Studies have also shown a recidivism rate 3% higher for convicts coming from private prisons.

Despite a decline in crime rates, there was a huge prison population increase of 705% between 1973 and 2009 during the private prison boom times making the United States the world leader for all the wrong reasons. They spend a staggering one in every 14 general fund dollars on incarceration, so that’s clearly not a system we should be emulating.

National has unfortunately been busy building many more jail cells than even the Corrections Department predicts will be require, while Garth McVicar has been busy scaremongering in order to get harsher penalties imposed. The SST receives funding from the private prison industry, or more precisely Serco, which puts into perspective McVicar's get tough on crime crusade.

National will fill those thousands of extra prison bunks by changing laws to ensure more low-risk offenders are sent to prison instead of granting them probation. That’s what the right wings attack on the Justice system and particularly legal aid was really all about... Creating more prisoners.

After all, John Key has made no secret of wanting to lower wages even more, and having a slave labour force available will do just that.

Citizen A with David Slack & Dr Wayne Hope

Garth McVicar - Asshole of the Week

Today, Stuff reported:

Crime will rise if gay couples are allowed to marry, says the head of the country's victim lobby group.

Sensible Sentencing Trust leader Garth McVicar has submitted to Parliament that changing the law to allow same-sex marriage will be yet another erosion of basic morals and values in society which have led to an escalation of child abuse, domestic violence, and an ever-increasing prison population.

"The marriage amendment bill will not benefit society at all and will ultimately have detremetal (sic) effect on crime at all levels," the submission read.

So letting gay couples marry, which in most cases will increase the couples love for each other, is going to be bad for society? WTF! It's likely that the opposite will occur, with the long overdue law change ensuring that gay people are more accepted within "normal" society.

Criminologist Dr James Oleson, from Auckland University, an expert in deviance, said he was not familiar with any research that would suggest homosexuals would be responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

For McVicar's argument to be plausible, he said, it would have to be proved that allowing homosexuals to marry degraded morality, and that this produced more crime. "But I'm not sure that's true." The more common drivers of crime were economic issues, alcohol, drugs, education and employment and family dysfunction, Oleson said.

In my opinion, the law change would strengthen communities and therefore reduce crime. It's only through a less prejudiced society that we can hope to reduce discrimination, which would also reduce the likelihood of crime occurring.

McVicar did not respond to requests for comment.

So not only is McVicar obviously a cowardly homophobe, he's also a bigot as well, with the deluded old fool often expressing racist sentiments that just goes to show he's an asshole of the first order.

Let's hope that the media gives McVicar and his Insensible Sentencing Trust even less attention during 2013.