I’ve always been about doing the right thing, never dragging someone down to pull us up. Telling the truth and following the rules. Throughout this whole process, our lawyer never fought dirty, never used inflammatory language as the Crown did and always did everything by the book.
Throughout our previous articles we were always focussing on a system that failed an innocent man, highlighting the issues within that system.
At the Court of Appeal, all our supporters were wearing small badges that simply read “Justice for Jamie” as a show of solidarity between the 60+ supporters that came. We were told prior to the appeal to remove them as it may be seen to the Judges as a form of protest. We all removed them before entering the court as we didn’t want to upset the Courtroom.
We all sat silently throughout the hearing despite errors made by the court with our documentation being lost. We patiently sat through the Crown stumbling through their
response to our points as the puzzled looking judges had to not once, but twice ask her to hurry it up as the Defence were owed a right of reply.
We stayed silent throughout all the media stories published during the ongoing trial. Stories using the same inflammatory language of the Crown prosecutor which was supposed to be prohibited in a courtroom but made it to the public. We never got a right of reply for the Court of the ‘Public Opinion’.
We stayed hopeful that the Justice System would do what is right and seek justice for the citizens of our country.
The District Court judge failed the system. The Appeal Court judges agreed to that. But they failed to correct that wrong. The Supreme Court dismissed our appeal based on the fact that Jamie never took the stand – which he is entitled to choose not to. They dismissed critical flaws and evidence never displayed to a jury. Ever.
What could he say in his defence after literally everything was deemed inadmissible or suppressed? The Crown would’ve manipulated him knowing he couldn’t speak on critical evidence to discredit their statements.
The Police failed its citizens when it withheld crucial evidence to a serious trial only to be revealed to us once the trial was completed and a verdict decided upon.
The Police and Crown failed to ensure a fair trial when a week before the trial, a Police ‘Job Sheet’ was created and only given to us 3 days prior to the trial starting. It outlined important evidence the Police and Crown were told 11 months prior, yet did not reveal. It was also deemed inadmissible and we couldn’t share it with the jury as part of our defence.
If a case like my sons can go so wrong with our current laws, I seriously fear for our men in the future should the Labour/Greens Sexual Violence Bill before parliament go ahead in its current form.
Concerns raised by top lawyers Samira Taghavi and Marie Dhyrberg QC, just to name a few, need to be heard before we make law changes for cases of Sexual Assault.
Labour and the Greens are trying to quickly push a Bill through parliament under our noses which will further restrict men from defending themselves with evidence of their innocence.
The National Party have even recently launched a campaign “demand the debate” as the Government are making changes to policies they say are being rushed through with insufficient public consultation. I don’t think even half of NZ know what this bill is about let alone how it may affect their loved ones should someone accuse them of sexual assault.
Simon Bridges has a strong support of most of the bill, however he takes serious issue with the same two points as other Lawyers have. Like him or not, as a former Crown prosecutor, he is the most qualified of our politicians on the effect of the bill, having actual longstanding knowledge and experience in running sexual prosecutions.
The Bill in its current form is dangerous to our men and most particularly Maori and Pacific Islanders. I’d encourage the Labour Maori Caucus and the Maori Party to seriously consider opposing this Bill in its current state, for the sake of our people.
I pray for all New Zealanders who will be affected by this bill. God forbid that it should continue through parliament in its current form. I know first-hand how devastating a wrongful conviction – which will be made more likely by this bill – will be for many more families in the future.
Marie Dyhrberg QC, recently wrote of the increasing occurrence of false allegations. One example was her case of a taxi driver falsely accused of sexual assault. There are different claims as to the percentages of false allegations, coming from different studies and estimates that depend upon the lens the ‘expert’ looked through. But in the end, any false allegation is one to many.
It also breaks my heart to personally know women who are too scared to come forward with their stories for fear of not being believed. The statistics of women who have genuinely faced sexual assault are also horrific. This is why it gravely concerns me further that there are some who falsely accuse – they are not only destroying the lives of innocent men but causing further doubt upon genuine victims of sexual assault.
I gratefully thank readers for their support and questions – the sorts of questions a jury should’ve been able to think about and consider before making their decision. Questions were particularly raised around the lack of Jamie’s DNA confirming that there was in fact no sex at all.
Everyone deserves true and honest justice and a system that stands for just that.
Jackie is a hardworking mother and grandmother; she is also the Managing Director of her own business. From humble beginnings, Jackie endured hardships during her childhood, spending time in Women’s Refuge and working from a young age to help support her mother and siblings. She has been married for 26 years and resides on the Hibiscus Coast with her family.