Christie's Law Bail Protest

'Christie's Law' bail protest 'restores faith'

T and i headed into this today. The T was not all that keen and warned me that he was only going to watch from across the road. He agrees with what Peter Williams QC has said and it is T's opinion that the demands that Christie's Law are making are so extreme and over the top that no one will take it seriously - and they will get nothing changed.

Commenting earlier this morning, Prison Reform Society President Peter Williams QC said the bail laws are already tough, and a person's freedom should not be taken away unless they are found guilty.

He said bail is there for people facing serious crimes and sometimes mistakes are made. "If every time there is a tragedy, there is an emotional response, as was done with the provocation law, our law would be based on poor foundations. "Our heart goes out to the victim but our laws cannot be based on emotion.''

Criminal Bar Association vice president John Anderson told Radio New Zealand this morning the changes being sought were `"over the top''. "You've got to realise that a lot of people who are charged are found not guilty. It would be terrible if everyone was simply locked up on the assumption that because the police charge them they're guilty. It would be hugely unjust,'' he said.

"The bail laws in general work pretty well. By all means review them, examine them - we're not opposed to that - but to tighten them to an extreme measure as the proponents of this petition are asking for is just simply over the top.''

Yeah yeah poor criminals. They are all innocent aren't they? Even after they have been convicted - most of them still spend their lives crying about how innocent they are. Look at the case of David Tamihere who is in the paper just this morning STILL claiming to be innocent - and wanting tax payers to pay for a new trial. This - AFTER he has already been paroled for the murders that he committed.

Sooo David - you just happened to be the last person seen with the murdered couple. You then drove around in their car for two weeks after stealing it because you knew it would not be reported stolen - because they were dead. Then you kept their clothing and other items that you had stolen off them for the Police to find at your home when you were arrested  all because you are innocent. Never mind the fact that you were in the bush at the time of the murders because you were in hiding - wanted for rape. You had also already been convicted of manslaughter for hitting a stripper over the head - killing her. Despite all of this though - you are just a lovely chap who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Huh?

I would bet that the people who put their hands in the air and say "Oops i broke the law - you got me!" to the Police while they are being arrested are few and far between.  Yep - if we are to believe the criminals - they are all innocent.

You cannot take the emotions away from this issue. What you can do though, is apply the changes of Christie's Law based on the amount of evidence that the Police have in any particular case.

When you have David McNaughton releasing people like Ashkay Chand who clearly had kidnapped Christie - there was no question that he was the offender - and the likes of Paul Nieuwenhuiysen on serious drugs charges  - Paul wasn't hanging out with 20k worth of someone else's drugs - the whole guilty until proven innocent argument doesn't wash.  A judge should look at the evidence and make a bail decision based on the likelihood of a conviction. Shouldn't they?

The amazing thing about all of this? David McNaughton is the same judge that denied Kim Dotcom bail.

Where is the consistency?

Kidnapping, murder, rape, drug dealing = bail.
Copyright Infringement  = no bail.

SERIOUSLY?

I guess that goes to show what our justice system values more.

So needless to say - i left the T standing across the road by himself. We did walk back to the car together though. ;)