privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
how can a new zealand crim convicted of murder and rape 20 yrs ago have his conviction over turned in ENGLAND by the privy council.does england think they are better then nz law enforcement agents.or is it those in england always know more then the retards for the colonies.then the english wonder why the colonies one by one are booting all connections to england.
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
The Privy Council can do that because that's the law of New Zealand. Our law gives this appellant the right to appeal his conviction to the Privy Council. The New Zealand Chief Justice was one of the Privy Councillors hearing the case. I think a large majority of people following this case in NZ would think the Privy Council's decision was a good decision. This case should have been sorted out by the NZ courts ages ago.
There won't be many more of these cases going to the Privy Council now. They come from convictions a long time ago. I accept that in the last 5 to 10 years some of the Privy Council's decisions have resulted in guilty people being freed. Our own appellate courts would at times do that as well. I think we are fortunate to have inherited and developed our legal system from the UK's and I don't think it's a case of the English thinking they are better. I'm sure they have plenty of their own problematic convictions as well. I think we can stand easy on this one wayne.
There won't be many more of these cases going to the Privy Council now. They come from convictions a long time ago. I accept that in the last 5 to 10 years some of the Privy Council's decisions have resulted in guilty people being freed. Our own appellate courts would at times do that as well. I think we are fortunate to have inherited and developed our legal system from the UK's and I don't think it's a case of the English thinking they are better. I'm sure they have plenty of their own problematic convictions as well. I think we can stand easy on this one wayne.
Lock 'em up - Eastman, Giuliani, Senator Graham, Meadows and Trump
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
Well said ....
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
ok ill take your advise but i still dont understand why we cant sort our own ---- out without england having any imput
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
Actually it is one of the legal re-courses the old members of the Empire have Old Colonies have which the native British person does not. That they can appeal to the Privy Council or the House of Lords on points of Law only.
This is not allowed by a person who resides in the United kingdom.It is an old law which is rarely invoked but it is a sort checks and balances on the old colonies that justice will be seen to be done, as often convictions were based on feelings rather than points of law. These days of course this is rarely used this case must be one of the last ones I have ever heard of.
This is not allowed by a person who resides in the United kingdom.It is an old law which is rarely invoked but it is a sort checks and balances on the old colonies that justice will be seen to be done, as often convictions were based on feelings rather than points of law. These days of course this is rarely used this case must be one of the last ones I have ever heard of.
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
GT
New Zealand has a Supreme Court.
Why isn't that the "Final Court of Appeal"?
New Zealand has a Supreme Court.
Why isn't that the "Final Court of Appeal"?
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
time for the old colonies to throw out this english we know better then you crap.how can a bunch high wigs in england know better then the people where this horror crime was commited and 20yrs later who do they think they are
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
The hearing by the Privy Council is a hangover from the colonial era when the body served as the highest court of appeal for Britain’s imperial possessions. New Zealand now has its own Supreme Court, but since Mr Lundy’s case came before it was inaugurated, his appeal was heard in London this summer.
The judges ruled that the businessman, who has always protested his innocence, should face a retrial and he will remain in prison until the New Zealand High Court has considered whether he should be freed on bail pending a new trial. So although he won an appeal that does not mean there will be a retrial until the New Zealand High Court has considered it, if they decide there will not be a retrial he will remain in jail.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 64080.html
Initially he received a mandatory life sentence and his appeal was dismissed by the New Zealand Court of Appeals in 2002. But until 2003 New Zealand’s highest court of appeal was the British Privy Council, sitting in London. After long debate as to whether this was appropriate for an independent nation, the right of appeal to the Privy Council was abolished. The step was controversial. Some feared it would compromise the impartiality of the judicial system but nevertheless the case came before it was inaugurated and therefore had the legal right to appeal.
The judges ruled that the businessman, who has always protested his innocence, should face a retrial and he will remain in prison until the New Zealand High Court has considered whether he should be freed on bail pending a new trial. So although he won an appeal that does not mean there will be a retrial until the New Zealand High Court has considered it, if they decide there will not be a retrial he will remain in jail.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 64080.html
Initially he received a mandatory life sentence and his appeal was dismissed by the New Zealand Court of Appeals in 2002. But until 2003 New Zealand’s highest court of appeal was the British Privy Council, sitting in London. After long debate as to whether this was appropriate for an independent nation, the right of appeal to the Privy Council was abolished. The step was controversial. Some feared it would compromise the impartiality of the judicial system but nevertheless the case came before it was inaugurated and therefore had the legal right to appeal.
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
The Lundy and Pora murder cases both occurred well before 2004 when NZ established its Supreme Court and ceased permitting appeals to the Privy Council. The NZ Supreme Court then replaced the Privy Council as NZ's highest court. So Lundy and Pora still had the right to have their final appeals heard before the Privy Council should it decide to hear their appeals because their alleged offences occurred before 2004..
NZ is a country with a small population and it didn't have enough experienced appellate judges to replace the Privy Council as quickly as a larger country such as Australia did. So it was a slow process. I also suspect our Tory politicians felt safer with the Privy Council as the highest court rather than possibly a more activist NZ court.
It was impractical for the Privy Council to hear many cases from NZ so in effect the NZ Court of Appeal was the final appeal court. But there needed to be a court above the Court of Appeal that was available to hear many more civil and criminal cases. So the need for a NZ Supreme Court steadily increased and meanwhile the size of the judiciary and appellate judges was growing as the population grew.
There's no right of appeal to the Privy Council in NZ for criminal or civil matters arising since the Supreme Court was established. There will be small Commonwealth countries probably still using the Privy Council.
NZ is a country with a small population and it didn't have enough experienced appellate judges to replace the Privy Council as quickly as a larger country such as Australia did. So it was a slow process. I also suspect our Tory politicians felt safer with the Privy Council as the highest court rather than possibly a more activist NZ court.
It was impractical for the Privy Council to hear many cases from NZ so in effect the NZ Court of Appeal was the final appeal court. But there needed to be a court above the Court of Appeal that was available to hear many more civil and criminal cases. So the need for a NZ Supreme Court steadily increased and meanwhile the size of the judiciary and appellate judges was growing as the population grew.
There's no right of appeal to the Privy Council in NZ for criminal or civil matters arising since the Supreme Court was established. There will be small Commonwealth countries probably still using the Privy Council.
Lock 'em up - Eastman, Giuliani, Senator Graham, Meadows and Trump
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
Wayne you should really read posts before uttering nonsense, thr appeal would have been on points of law, therefore learned and senior Judges would have probably seen this sort of problem before and made their decision based on theri combined experiences. Not a load of High Wigs overturning anything, just clarifying a point and in this case a retrial seemed the best way out of the impasse.wayneor0 wrote:time for the old colonies to throw out this english we know better then you crap.how can a bunch high wigs in england know better then the people where this horror crime was commited and 20yrs later who do they think they are
The law Lords /privy Council would have access to all laws written since New Zealand became a country and so would have been able to judge it impassionately and legally not taking into account local differences or pressures .
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
It's probably very true wayne that many judges including British judges are as full of themselves as Australian cricketers.
I suggest next time you are in farangland that you go and watch an appellate court for a day or half day. You might find it interesting and get a better idea of what it's about.
With your thoughts on this I gather you are a strong republican? Do you strongly favour us changing our flag in the next year or two given the government wants a referendum on this?
I suggest next time you are in farangland that you go and watch an appellate court for a day or half day. You might find it interesting and get a better idea of what it's about.
With your thoughts on this I gather you are a strong republican? Do you strongly favour us changing our flag in the next year or two given the government wants a referendum on this?
Lock 'em up - Eastman, Giuliani, Senator Graham, Meadows and Trump
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
nz is changing flag now,fiji has removed the ensign from theirs.aussi wants a republic but it wont happen under the queens watch, once she passes and individual charles takes over they wont need a vote .the privy council good or bad is an out dated colonial idea that england can judge better then the colonies.what a load of ----.some wigged high brows in england making a ruling on a 20 yr old case on the other side of the world.what was and is england saying that aussi and nz cant make the right decisions in there own country.
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
You are in effect saying the NZ Supreme Court should have heard these cases rather than the Privy Council. I gather the NZ Parliament decided that wasn't to be when it created the Supreme Court. I know where you are coming from and don't have a problem with that but the courts have to follow the law.
It would be great if one of the flag choices to emerge had overwhelming popularity.
It would be great if one of the flag choices to emerge had overwhelming popularity.
Lock 'em up - Eastman, Giuliani, Senator Graham, Meadows and Trump
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
little chance of a popular flag choice, few are going to be happy no matter what, i will be in christchurch next week do u have any ideas i can put forward lol
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
do you tossers from NZ realy think the brits give a f./ck about what you think of your 1 and
only homeland .... get a grip NO brain , NO history ...
only homeland .... get a grip NO brain , NO history ...
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
Don't be like that, Wayne, I'm English and you know I'm a lovely chap. Come back across to the other side and play with Matron.wayneor0 wrote:time for the old colonies to throw out this english we know better then you crap.
This message has been submitted successfully, but it will need to be approved by a moderator before it is publicly viewable. You will be notified when your post has been approved.
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
You are right it was a "horror crime" but it was also a "horror judgement". The Privy Council didn't sentence this man the NZ court did . Today, on the basis of probability and with the assent of the majority of kiwis and the Privy council the NZ court judgement would seem to be unsafe. So you ask a very pertinent question "Can NZ make the right decisions in their own country?".wayneor0 wrote:the privy council good or bad is an out dated colonial idea that england can judge better then the colonies.what a load of ****.some wigged high brows in england making a ruling on a 20 yr old case on the other side of the world.what was and is england saying that aussi and nz cant make the right decisions in there own country.
Not too much has been said here about the man central to this debate, Teina Pora. So let me ask you a question; what do you think NZ should do to give Mr Pora 21 years of his life back?
- jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16084
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
I am not sure wayne is in a position to appreciate the subtleties of what you allude to.bignote1 wrote: Not too much has been said here about the man central to this debate, Teina Pora. So let me ask you a question; what do you think NZ should do to give Mr Pora 21 years of his life back?
There have been too many cases throughout the world which uses the British system of justice, where appellate judges have come to the conclusion that the reputation of the "system" takes precedence over the freedom of a particular individual.
Or in extreme cases, the execution of an innocent person.
I am sure KP - our own Inspector Clouseau - will verify the notion that coppers never lie in court to ensure a conviction.
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
English ones NO they do not lie to my knowledge however on other countries I am not so sure . Despite many alluding to having a corruption free Police force, even the champions of Democracy have a very corrupt police force.
- jackspratt
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 16084
- Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm
privy council in england making decisions for nz now can a c
So the Birmingham Six, and the Guildford Four + Maguire Seven were figments of popular culture then?Khun Paul wrote:English ones NO they do not lie to my knowledge however on other countries I am not so sure ......
Were you a bobby in the seventies, KP?
Note - not one of the many lying UK coppers involved were ever tried, let alone convicted, of torture, framing or perjury in the above infamous cases.