Sunday, February 25, 2007
Delayed Justice
Earlier this week the difficulties faced by the High Court in coping with the number of methamphetamine trials before it caught the headlines. The Chief High Court Judge, Justice Randerson, emphasised that "Justice delayed is justice denied" for hundreds of people facing charges in relation to the class A drug. The heart of the problem is that many of the people awaiting trial are in prison on remand. They have not been found guilty of any charge but cannot be granted bail because, usually, they cannot be relied on to appear in Court or are a risk of offending on bail. Yet they may be months and months in prison on remand and then be acquitted at trial. In 2001 (the latest statistics I could find) 51.3% of defendants remanded in custody recieved a prison sentence at the end of the process. If the government insists on a class A classification for methamphetamine then it is going to have to fund the High Court properly to deal with it.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Set Tasers To Spun
The spin doctors have been at work on either side of the taser debate. The Police web-site puffs up each tale of taser deployment into stories of crises averted and reasonable response. The just released Auckland District Law Society report (as reported in the New Zealand Herald) knits its brow about a casual approach by the police to the 50 000 volt guns and a lack of compliance with guidelines.
The past is often the best guide to the future. Not so long ago the police were handed another weapon to use - pepper spray. No doubt the Courts will have the chance to comment on tasers in due course but the Court of Appeal dealt with pepper spray in a case called R v Arambasic. The Court decried the use of pepper spray in that case and another they had dealt with the previous day:
In the present case Mr Mackey [lawyer for Mr Arambasic] told the Court that he attempted to obtain instructions as to the use of pepper spray from the police. His understanding was that there were no such instructions available at police stations, but that the use of pepper spray was part of the training at Police College. If this is correct, that instructions for the use of the spray are not held at police stations, we regard this as surprising. As mentioned, in each of the two cases the use of pepper spray has not disabled the offender but has enraged him, resulting in an escalation of violence. In both cases the offender took a canister of spray and used it on police. In each case what started as minor offending has become much more serious. We do not know whether the police are monitoring the circumstances and frequency of the use of pepper spray, but this and the previous case indicate the desirability of a continuing review of these matters. This is desirable for the protection of the public as well as for the prevention of unnecessary consequential violence.
The Court did not have to make this comment. Usually judges are loathe to say anything on matters that are not necessary to decide the case in front of them. Obviously though the Court saw a worrying trend and said something in typically restrained judicial language. One hopes that the Government takes note of established historical problems with new powers for police along with contemporary spin from more closely interested parties.
The past is often the best guide to the future. Not so long ago the police were handed another weapon to use - pepper spray. No doubt the Courts will have the chance to comment on tasers in due course but the Court of Appeal dealt with pepper spray in a case called R v Arambasic. The Court decried the use of pepper spray in that case and another they had dealt with the previous day:
In the present case Mr Mackey [lawyer for Mr Arambasic] told the Court that he attempted to obtain instructions as to the use of pepper spray from the police. His understanding was that there were no such instructions available at police stations, but that the use of pepper spray was part of the training at Police College. If this is correct, that instructions for the use of the spray are not held at police stations, we regard this as surprising. As mentioned, in each of the two cases the use of pepper spray has not disabled the offender but has enraged him, resulting in an escalation of violence. In both cases the offender took a canister of spray and used it on police. In each case what started as minor offending has become much more serious. We do not know whether the police are monitoring the circumstances and frequency of the use of pepper spray, but this and the previous case indicate the desirability of a continuing review of these matters. This is desirable for the protection of the public as well as for the prevention of unnecessary consequential violence.
The Court did not have to make this comment. Usually judges are loathe to say anything on matters that are not necessary to decide the case in front of them. Obviously though the Court saw a worrying trend and said something in typically restrained judicial language. One hopes that the Government takes note of established historical problems with new powers for police along with contemporary spin from more closely interested parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
