Discussion
Jimmy Recard said:
You’re right, there’s no chance of getting murdered in Britain
People die at home or abroad. It shouldn’t stop anyone from wanting to travel somewhere which is typically safe (for instance New Zealand)
I don’t really get the issue of those, I got a gap year right after graduation, travel around the world in place in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, Thailand, Malaysia etc. Never in any danger, I found my nine months trip to be more valuable than the 3-4 years in universityPeople die at home or abroad. It shouldn’t stop anyone from wanting to travel somewhere which is typically safe (for instance New Zealand)
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The question which you have kindly quoted, simply asked why it was secret, and I simply cited one possible reason. There was no need to research anything, because I wasn't looking for the guys name. Sometimes the names of criminals are kept under wraps in order to prevent civil unrest.anonymous said:
[redacted]
In a recent fraud trial where a friend gave evidence (tax fraud) one of the 3 accused was granted permanent suppression despite being found guilty. The reason being that the guilty party was currently (then) working somewhere else and for a prominent family owned business and it was deemed harmful on them if his name was released. I think that's fairTo appeal in this murder case the guilty party will need to site a reason such as bias or error. They have 30 days to file. It would seem their chances of being granted a new trial are slim to none. I suspect when this is exhausted his name suppression will be lifted.
The suppression order does not apply in the UK and his name is known. I think it fair to suppress as it can be prejudicial.
lyonspride said:
The question which you have kindly quoted, simply asked why it was secret, and I simply cited one possible reason. There was no need to research anything, because I wasn't looking for the guys name. Sometimes the names of criminals are kept under wraps in order to prevent civil unrest.
You really do sound like someone who has gathered their legal education from watching cheap television. There is much debate in developed countries about anonymity for defendants facing criminal charges, serous or minor. NZ has adopted the policy of anonymity for those facing serious charges. This has zero to do with ethnic issues. It is a policy aimed at protecting the right to a fair trial. The UK adopts a different policy in most cases involving adult defendants
Breadvan72 said:
There is much debate in developed countries about anonymity for defendants facing criminal charges, serous or minor. NZ has adopted the policy of anonymity for those facing serious charges. This has zero to do with ethnic issues. It is a policy aimed at protecting the right to a fair trial. The UK adopts a different policy in most cases involving adult defendants
Quite right to do so in this case as the guilty party is from a rather fragmented family with step-brother having given media interviews(UK media) and spilled the beans as to his bad relationship with their family due to theft of money and compulsive lying. There was also an interview from other people he knew at previous jobs who described him as weird and fixated with chasing woman.Greshamst said:
Something else I wasn’t aware of that’s being reported in the guardian, not only did he watch porn whilst she lay dead on his floor but...
“Watched eight clips of child sexual abuse”.
Why on earth was that not mentioned earlier in the case? You'd think that would immediately get a jury on the side of the prosecutors. I hope this creep dies in prison. “Watched eight clips of child sexual abuse”.
There is a short explanation here: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a29887214/... as to why the NZ courts are continuing, even after the conviction, to maintain anonymity.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff