TWITTER WATCH: Jan Logie strikes back & why she’s still wrong
Jan Logie responded via Twitter to our blog on the insanity of her Party’s gerrymandering of the law to ensure conviction rates for sexual assault rise…
…seeing as Jan has taken the time to respond, it would be churlish not to reciprocate.
Let me start by stating very clearly I admire Jan and believe she is a very important voice inside Parliament. Her championing of those who have been failed by the justice system is exemplary and she has made a real difference inside politics.
I respect her and if my previous description of her performance on Q+A, “as driven as a Qanon anti-vaxxer in her self righteousness” was a tad too far, then I apologise because I was saying it half in jest and half in deadly seriousness.
While I admire Jan, she is drunk on power with these law changes and it will erode legal protections while purposefully manipulating the legal process to get guilty convictions.
Sweet Jesus Christ people, if National or ACT had set out claiming ‘not enough people are being convicted of this crime, let’s cancel legal rights, remove any defence and then get conviction rates up’ there would be mass rioting, but because the goals of this are supposedly so lofty and unassailable, we can’t dare criticise the measures???
Let’s respond line by line to Jan’s defence of this process.
I think you meant to say innocent men, right? Or do you just object to men being convicted?
I’m going to skip the passive aggressive insinuation that my criticism means I support rapists because it’s irresponsible of a Politician to stoop to such insults, but I will come back to it at the end because it kinda perfectly sums up the real problem here with Jan.
The bill enacts Law Comm recs,
Ok, this is such a frail defence. The Law Commission is appointed by the Government to give it the recommendations the Government wants. Pointing to the Law Commission to justify the genuineness of this move is ludicrous and it also ignores that the defence lawyers, prosecutors and the Law Society are all against it!
Cooking up a result you want inside the bloody Law Commission doesn’t justify anything Jan and you know it!
has had 2 clear bill of rights vets
Do you mean the letter to Minister Little from a government lawyer in Crown Law as the BORA Vetting? That’s hardly the great rubber stamp you are claiming it is because the Criminal Procedure Bill of 2011 also got a “clear BORA vet”, which was nonsense because as Dr Kennedy Graham pointed out at the time…
There are cases, there is argumentation, that if we raise it beyond 3 months we are prejudicing the inherent right to a fair trial of certain people. The Minister might wish to dispute that, but that is the position we take. We take it in full responsibility for them and in full recognition of the thrust of the bill. It is sufficiently important for us to oppose this bill on that point alone, with great sorrow, because we know the amount of work that has gone into it, we know the complexity, and we know the well-intentioned effort. We will not compromise on that point, and I hope that that is respected.”
… and the Greens rightly stood firm for fair trials back then.
Not so much now. Jan continues…
and follows overseas examples
…you know and I know there is huge criticism of you attempting to use overseas examples as proof positive this is best practise law here. Criticism is that you are comparing apples with oranges and that the examples don’t support your conclusions.
Also, there is no acknowledgement that the pre-recording aspect of this isn’t going to create an enormous traffic jam of cases, as one Defence lawyer recently explained to me…
The fact remains that experienced criminal lawyers and academics have expressed real concerns about how this will play in practice. They know that the real life practice of this will be a nightmare and will not, in fact, change the experience for the complainants at all. It will also be extremely expensive in terms of infrastructure costs for prerecording, longer trial/court time being required, more pretrial matters being required and potential ensuing appeals. Has she done a cost benefit analysis? Can we see it?
…so the claims that this desire to gerrymander the legal system to create more guilty convictions has been crafted by independent legal advice that has been Bill of Rights vetted and follows International best practise are incredibly hollow and disingenuous.
Back to Jan…
The harm to complainants in our courts is horrific. I stand with them and right to fair trial
…no one doubts that Jan is standing for the victims and this is where we come back to her opening sentence insinuating that I wish to protect rapists…
I think you meant to say innocent men, right? Or do you just object to men being convicted?
…see, she means that. She sees any criticism against her wide eyed crusade to save all the victims as part of the enemy, and that’s the exact same saviour mentality that helped build Oranga Tamariki.
National waved dead brown baby after dead brown baby in our faces screaming, ‘something must be done’ and so Oranga Tamariki watered down legal rights of parents, they streamlined the process to up lift and they removed due process.
That is what the Greens are doing here with sexual assault court rules.
Purposely manipulating the process to ensure more guilty verdicts is not a fair trial no matter how lofty the intentions.
Why bother having a trial if the Greens have already found all accused guilty?
I can’t tell the difference between a Woke Lynch mob or a Sensible Sentencing Lynch mob these days.
Meanwhile the planet is burning.
It would be great if the Greens could put as much energy in climate change as they do building kangaroo courts.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
This is a tough issue but females having their sexual history dragged through the court to somehow prove they deserve to be assaulted has to stop.
Well you can go figure out a way that does not destroy innocent men and their families by denying them a fair trial.
Sex must have consequences. The amount of single parents out there deserves a shit ton more scrutiny. Yknow Jan really needs to develop an eye for the family unit. Unify the family, care for, administer. I don’t quite know what I’m saying but there’s a whole lot more good that is being ignored with this bill.
‘This is a tough issue but females having their sexual history dragged through the court to somehow prove they deserve to be assaulted has to stop.’
Do you know that is what happens Fold Art?
My daughter was sexually assaulted about a year ago. She reported it. It went to court recently.
She was subjected to vigorous cross examination that sought to find out if she had, in any way, consented to what happened. It reduced her to tears.
After she gave evidence I comforted her. She said, ‘ it is painful but I know it has to be done to prove guilt beyond doubt. If it was not done the Jury might well not convict on the grounds that he believed he had my consent'( I am not making any of this up and I have to say I am immensely proud of her.)
She, and other women, gave their evidence and the Jury convicted. The defendant is, I understand, on remand at present awaiting sentencing.
That is a fair trial where there is a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
What Jan Logie wants is a legalised lynch mob.
In most cases, haven’t looked at recent numbers bit I most rape cases the rapist is known to the victim. They are friends, teachers, caregivers, boyfriends, cousins, uncles, fathers in a few cases. A lot of times victims don’t come forward because it’s just to dammed terrible.
Ecouraging victims to come forward is an admirable goal I just don’t see how this bill may do that.
I’ve thought about this. My mother and aunty was molested and my sister was raped. It infuriated me to no end that I couldn’t get there blessing to do something about it because victims are threatened and that is a greater concern because I believe that if you don’t give rapists an easy out of some kind, rehabilitation or segregation or a fair trial or something, if that’s not in place it may very well incentivise rapists to just kill there victims.
In any case if you want to get tough on crime Green Party style I’ve got one simple question, where’s the money and police resources to go with your clapped out theories.
It is inaccurate to present Marie Dyhrberg’s comment as stating that the Law Society is against it. Ms Dyhrberg is president of the Auckland District Law Society. This is separate from the NZ Law Society, whose submission can be found here: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/submissions-and-advice/document/52SCJU_EVI_93010_JU68991/new-zealand-law-society
“Purposely manipulating the process to ensure more guilty verdicts is not a fair trial no matter how lofty the intentions.”
We have been here before, remember when these same Feminists and Fundamentalist Christians got into bed with each other and pushed the Satanic Child Abuse hoax in the 80s and 90s? All that BS about “suppressed memories” needing to be dug up from the “victim’s” subconscious by an ardent “expert”?
Centerpoint commune and allegations of child sexual abuse —- initial police response 2 cops and no charges ….
Rototorua pack raping police ,,,, numerous complaints and no charges until a hero broke through and stopped our new police commisioner being Clint Rickards ,,, Clint Rickards not guilty of anything by our courts .
Roastbusters ,,,, numerous complaints ,, no then slow police investigation ,,,, no convictions yet.
Malcom rewa ,,, named in his first rape ,,, no investigation for his first ,,, police informer??.
I know many sex abuse survivors ,,, none made it to court ,,, including one friends 3-4 year old child ,,, not wanting to put their child through court they accepted a ‘assault on child’ plea and conviction for the perpetrator ,,, No sex charges or record for the sex offender.
We need a better system of getting to the TRUTH, with justice to follow ,,,, And that would also work in the favor of men who suffer false accusations,,,,, most commonly in divorces or child custody arrangements,,,,,, as I also know a innocent guy with a ‘fucked up’ ex who did this evil and severely damaged his relationship with his children ,,, repaired now but never quite gotten over the missing years.
I’m sure the greens are not trying to convict innocent men ,,,,,,
But I’ll be Mike Sabined if the present antique adversarial system is suitable for the most personal of crimes ,,,, The defense revolves around liar, slut or both.
Prison just produces meaner rapists for the proportionally few ., with our justice systems traditional racial bias ,,,, who do get convicted.
so Fix the fucking system I say.,,, don’t let it be like Jude Collins did ,,, trial by rape culture is not good enough.
“I know many sex abuse survivors”
And ZERO innocent victims of rape hoaxes who have done prison time and had their lives destroyed.
“The defense revolves around liar, slut or both.”
The prosecution revolves around accusing an innocent man unable to defend himself.
Your over reacting and being a bit silly Grills ,,,, the fact I do not personally know any prison inmate victims of rape hoaxes tends to suggest it happens less often than rape or sexual abuse itself ,,, although to be fair to you, every convicted prisoner in B block claims it was “sour grapes” rather than rapes that got them incarcerated ,,,, that and liar cops out to get them.,,,, count me as a skeptic though.
Richard Ellis is a example of justice gone wrong which I do know about ,,, his example shows the dangers of being judged by a jury who were not like him and were swayed by prejudices and stereotypes ,,, a bit like white jurys and non- white defendants ,,, and conviction rates.
Wayne Mapp told you that the presumption of innocence remains for the defendant ,,,,and any guilt must be arrived at ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ , which means Evidence to a far higher standard than a mere accusation .
My post which you over reacted to, showed examples of poor police investigations more than anything.
A question for Wayne Mapp is why no Government in NZ ever allocated extra funding to allow the police to achieve the worthy objectives recommended after the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct (COI) on 4 February 2004….
…. Judging by the sorry state of affairs in 2015 ,,, https://nzfvc.org.nz/news/roast-busters-ipca-report-criticises-police-responses-report
*************************************************
And if this time-line is correct Judith Collins and the Nats cynically used ‘RoastBusters’ to push through anti-free speech laws which HAVE been used in an attempt to muzzle this site ,,, for telling the truth.
https://www.spinbin.co.nz/grotesque-hypocrisies-behind-new-zealands-anti-troll-legislation/
” the Roastbusters scandal has been consistently referenced by media as a justification for the passage of the anti-Troll legislation.
This 30 June 2015 NZ Herald article describes the legislation as “wide-reaching” and continues:
The legislation was drafted after the so-called Roast Busters case, in which teenage boys boasted on-line about sex with drunk and under-age girls.
But It Wasn’t At All.
It was drafted in April of 2013 and the Roastbusters scandal did not emerge until November 2013.”
I was actually on the Law Commission when the Law Commission made its recommendations. They do not reverse the burden of proof, neither do they presume all accused are guilty.
The principal recommendations relate to how a complainant is cross examined. Yes, the criminal bar (mostly defence lawyers) had concerns and these were reflected in the Law society’s submission. In our view there was not enough consideration of the victim in their submission.
Martyn, I think you are overblowing this issue. While I am sure there could be some modifications made to the bill, it is not as unreasonable as you seem to think.
You must have missed this bit Wayne:
“The Law Commission is appointed by the Government to give it the recommendations the Government wants. Pointing to the Law Commission to justify the genuineness of this move is ludicrous and it also ignores that the defence lawyers, prosecutors and the Law Society are all against it!”
I know perfectly well that Law Commissioners are appointed by government. After all, I was one of them. However, the Law Commission is independent in the same manner as judges. The Commissioners invariably have prior substantial careers and have their own minds.
This reference was part of trio of reference related to sexual violence. I did two of them being Homicide by Victims of Family Violence and Non Fatal Strangulation. So I also had a very close interest in this reference as well. The Commissioners and the researchers were all of a common view. We considered victims needed more protection. There were some radical proposals, such as no jury trials and revising the burden of proof. We rejected those. Instead we focussed on how victims were treated, both within the court system and with the police.
If the bill passes my decades long voting support for the Greens will cease forthwith, just as happened with Labour the instant they signed up to the TPP. Both parties will be history to me.
You can’t “strike back” on twitter.
It’s only 150 characters or something. Can’t she manage something on a grown-up forum?
Twitter squabbles are so infantile.
She didn’t even present a valid argument – Straw Man Jan!
Absolutely disgusting.
She didn’t even present a valid argument. Straw Man Jan!
The criticism from the legal profession on this is as much as it gets without people protesting in the streets. It’s kind of remarkable.
Jan stands for “right to a fair trial”. It’s kind of remarkable.
‘However, the Law Commission is independent in the same manner as judges. ‘
Yeah right( Jeez Wayne!)
Does anyone remember Judge Judith Potter?
‘the criminal conviction of twelve-year-old Emelysifa Jessop for aggravated robbery. In 1998, Potter convicted and sentenced the girl to 4 years. When this conviction was overturned on grounds the judge had convicted Miss Jessop despite her not entering a plea, Potter presided over the retrial and sentenced the girl to 4 years and eight months.’
‘Her previous roles include director of the Electricity Corporation, a director of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company, chairwoman of the Broadcasting Standards Authority and a member of the Securities Commission.’
Or Justice David Morris”If every man throughout history had stopped the first time a woman said ‘no’, the world would be a lot less exciting place.”
“nigger in the woodpile”
The man who successfully prosecuted knowing the police had rigged evidence. The watch on the dead body of Urban Hoglin- according to the jailhouse snitch Tamihere’s son was wearing it for about two years before its discovery in the grave.
The bullets in the Crewe murders.
Is it the independent attitude of the New Zealand Judiciary that already has a serious imbalance of Maori and Pacific Islanders in our prisons?
Bugger the Law Commission and all who sail on it.