The person who is a grave-digger has to be treated the same as a person who is an All Black. Racheal was reluctant to discuss why her daughter, aged 16 at the time, was out in central Wellington during the early morning. Her and her mother should be proud that they could stand together over this and push it through the courts. They should be proud! This site uses Akismet to reduce spam.
Learn how your comment data is processed. Skip to content. Like this: Like Loading Posted in Law , New Zealand Tagged alcohol , auckland now , automatic name suppression , celebrity , celebrity justice , comedian , deja vu , domain post , entertainer , fame , google , graeme edgeler , high court , indecent act on a child , judge philippa cunningham , judicial review , media , musician , name suppression , philippa cunningham , preferential treatment , releated search terms , sex , sexual assault , steven price , television , the crown , unlawful sexual connection with a child.
Meet MattyBRaps. Red Zone Secrets. There's nothing to stop him doing this to other children. She told the Weekend Herald she hoped there was not a trend emerging of people escaping without convictions because of the impact it could have on their careers. The court heard yesterday that the man went to bed with his partner after returning home drunk from a Christmas work party in December After he fell asleep, his daughter got into bed with them.
According to the police summary of facts the man laid his daughter on her back, pulled down her pyjama pants and nappy and kissed her. The man's partner woke up and asked him what he was doing. He replied: "I thought it was you. Judge Cunningham said a report from a forensic psychiatrist found that the man had previous episodes of "unusual behaviour" after going to bed drunk.
The report said it was possible he was "not fully awake" when he performed the indecent act. The case was "extraordinary", the judge said, and the consequences of a conviction would outweigh the gravity of the offence. The man's partner, who also has permanent name suppression, wept as she told the court that she and her daughter had been having counselling. She said the pair ended their five-year relationship after the incident happened.
Associate Professor Bill Hodge of the Auckland University law school said he was concerned a person's position in society could get him "special treatment in the courts". Let's face it, in NZ there's probably only 3 degrees of separation, it wont be easy for him to remain anonymous. More interesting is that Mo would risk a lawsuit to have a go at someone he doesn't like by falsely accusing him..
Mo is wrong, it definitely is not devlin, If you type "martin devlin" into google you don't get any "interesting" google autocomplete suggestions. However if you type in the real name of the bloke in question He has a wife, TVNZ publicity spokeswoman Andi Brotherston the comedian in question no longer has a wife as a result of his offending.
You're a bloody idiot Mowissey. You're wrong,but were you correct you should be prosecuted. Name suppression in sexual abuse cases is to protect the child and her sister not the person in question.
A Kiwi who is talented and can make people laugh? If it's not the one mentioned, then it must be the other one I didn't falsely accuse him, Looneybins. The accused man called his client "talented" and said he "makes people laugh".
That irrefutably rules out Devlin as a possibility. Now tell us how that is "risking a lawsuit", genius. Regrettably, the third sentence in my previous reply contained a grievous error, which may have confused John "Looneybins" Cawston even more. Now tell us all why I should be prosecuted. The fact that every other poster drew the same inference that you intended would see that line of defense thrown out. That, plus your many other rants about the man over years will show malice, and of course, if you've altered any of his quotes..
However, if the man bothered to read you he would likely say what we all do.. I inferred nothing, you sad fellow. I pointed out in my preamble that it could not have been him, because the offender was described as "talented" and as someone who "makes people laugh".
The court could not choose one or the other. As I pointed out, this suppression is automatically imposed by Parliament. But I doubt that telling a friend at a pub would count as publishing. Yes, telling one person is publication in defamation.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Lawyer Steven Price blogs about media law and ethics in New Zealand. About it Buy it. Research User Tips.
0コメント