Had Tony Robertson received preventive detention in 2005, Mrs Gotingco would be alive. Photo / Jason Oxenham
Had Tony Robertson received preventive detention in 2005, Mrs Gotingco would be alive. Photo / Jason Oxenham
So-called independent teeth-gnashing, hair-shirt inquiries into dysfunctional court sentencing and offender monitoring are a waste of time, money and achieve nothing.
One such inquiry is underway into how the system "failed" child-molesting rapist-murderer Tony Douglas Robertson.
It will come up with pages of carefully chosen appropriate language about how the system could have done better, and how — ever so sadly — if the system which "failed" Robertson had worked, then poor Blessie Gotingco would still be alive.
It will recommend that steps be taken and that things be done better in future.
The primary courtroom error in the Robertson case — and one which ultimately proved fatal — is that Justice Patrick Keane did not sentence Robertson to preventive detention in 2005 when he was urged to and had the chance.
Had he done so, Mrs Gotingco would be alive.
Justice Keane instead listened to social workers and trick cyclists — putting the vile interests of Robertson above those of the public.
Last week, Justice Tim Brewer, a military man, sought to balance the ledger by locking Robertson up for at least 24 years, plus indefinite preventive detention.
There is a feeling Justice Brewer might have preferred a more terminal penalty.
Not until such time as politicians, judges and lawyers put the interests of the murdered, the bashed and the burgled public ahead of the interests of criminals, will anything change for the better.
Sir Douglas Graham and his fellow Lombard directors have lost a 'completely misconceived' bid to recall a Supreme Court decision over their convictions. Photo / File
that in dismissing an application to the Supreme Court by Sir Doug Graham, Bill Jeffries and others, the Judges described the application as 'completely misconceived'.
"This is not the first time in the recent past that the word 'misconceived' has appeared in a decision of the court which is supreme not only in name but in power and authority.
"I could limit myself to the trite observation that the strongest words usually appear in the weakest arguments but I should go further.
"How likely is it that senior counsel representing two highly respected lawyers, one of whom held high Cabinet portfolios in the Justice area, would misconceive his argument? Extremely unlikely, I suggest.
Even if this Court heard misconceived argument in these circumstances, what has happened to the custom of judicial courtesy?
That courtesy has in the past had a Court describe an argument with which our Chief Justice was closely associated, not as misconceived (which it was) but as 'courageous'.
Lawyers, and particularly Judges, used to describe themselves as servants of the law. These Justices would find it difficult in the extreme to describe themselves as servants of anything or anybody.
They seem to consider themselves masters of all they survey. That is very sad."
And Eric Constantine reminds CaseLoad of the words of late British Prime Minister and Earl of Beaconsfield Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881):
"What is a crime among the multitude is only a vice among the few."
Meanwhile, Fiona, of Papatoetoe (who reminds Caseload she is not Fiona, of Onehunga) shares the view that the Lombard "tossers" were more outraged by being charged with anything than being found guilty and convicted for not telling the truth to investors.
Footnote: Having a bloke in tow does not guarantee automatic entry to the Ladies & Escorts Lounge, Fiona.
It's not the Trentham races, you know — but a fat wallet helps.
"Open your purse and say after me..." said The Scunner.
Justices Ellen France, Christine French and Helen Winkelmann (pictured) sat as a permanent court of three women for the first time this week. Photo / Sarah Ivey
As women increase their grip on lawyering — just the other day Justices Ellen France, Christine French and Helen Winkelmann
An underground male support group known as Endangered Legal Blokes On The Outer (ELBO), is grappling with the future as it might be.
"There are already signs we will become no more than kept 'house briefs'," said an ELBO spokesman, from beneath a brown paper bag.
"We see a bleak future of menial tasks, filing, taking dictation, making endless cups of tea, carrying shopping, strict child care and drafting lunch invitations for legions of riding crop-wielding Legal Amazons ... "
"Hang on," said Our Man At The Bar. "What was that bit about riding crops? Doesn't sound too bad from where I'm kneeling."
"I'd know that brown paper bag anywhere," said Madame La Scunniere.
American laws of freedom of speech allow lawyers there to comment on a far more broad range of topics than NZ lawyers can, says Tony Bouchier. Photo / File
A novel idea to emerge from the recent Criminal Bar Association (CBA) conference — where the theme was miscarriage of justice — is that lawyers should be able speak more freely and criticise judges.
CBA president and Auckland barrister Tony Bouchier is not holding his breath.
The notion will sink like a stone.
President Tony picked up on what high profile keynote speaker, Baltimore lawyer and former judge Billy Murphy, told his Kiwi counterparts about how the US criminal justice system allows a wider range of opportunities to ensure justice is not only done, but also seen to be done, and that those charged by the State get a fair trial.
"In terms of freedom of speech for example, CaseLoad, you heard Billy Murphy speak about the right of US lawyers to publicly criticise judges who they believe warrant criticism.
"In New Zealand, that is a No-No and the Law Society would come down on us, not withstanding there are cases where criticism is warranted ...
"Their freedom of speech laws also allow them to comment on a far more broad range of topics than New Zealand lawyers can.
"And while we're at it, CaseLoad, let's not forget that the life of a criminal barrister can be a lonely one.
"Over the past years, not only have we been doing our job and protecting the poor, the innocent and the vulnerable from the excesses and abuses of the state, we have also been fighting our own battles on the legal aid front.
"Lawyers are struggling to provide the high quality legal aid system which is enshrined in the law on the funding currently available.
"The government spends far too much time being influenced by the rantings of the Sensible Sentencing Trust and similar organisations and ignores the view of those who know and really matter.
"Billy made the point that the more successful criminal barristers are in the cases they undertake and the people they represent, the more vilified they are by the community, media, professional commentators, special interest groups and even politicians."
CaseLoad is delighted a long-superating and unhealthy PR employment sore in the padded hide of Crown Soliciting firm Meredith Connell appears to have been patched.
Word is that after a year or two of hardball, eleven experienced — but not all that well-loved, apparently — legal executives laid off "to save money", have been paid out significantly, due in part to the efforts of lawyer Mark Ryan, of Vulcan Chambers.
The settlements — reached behind closed doors — are or course confidential so there's no need for Meredith Connell to face the sort of embarrassment they would have suffered if all ex-staff allegations had made it to the public arena.
Just as well the firm's well-loved and long-time "public face" Crown Solicitor Simon Moore got out when he did and was made a High Court judge ...
The Minister for Justice is reviewing laws on domestic violence. Photo / Warren Buckland
Justice Minister Amy Adams' move to introduce new law to allow, in part, a defence in the face of anticipated, rather that actual, domestic violence is seen by some as an interesting move.
Apart from providing a whole swag of legally-aided new work for lawyers, how will the defence of anticipation work?
