The North Shore beach bashers... a court idea

Seeing these four guys on TV in court and reading this story today about one of their in-court demeanor..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10489523

I was thinking. Why do they regularly show people in court shirtless, making gang signs, wearing offensive clothing (some guy wore a really bad shirt some time back - can't remember).

Why don't they make their boiler suits pink, zip them up and make them wear them properly. Make it an offense to make any gestures in court or to disrespect the court.

I attended a case last year for a day and the defendant spend the whole time with his head down, playing with something (a rubber band or something). Where is the good ole judge bollocking of these people?

Their conduct and appearance on TV is encouragement for their mates/gang that, even in the last place before jail, you can be a dick.

Any ideas?.. Seeing this happen on TV almost weekly it seems weird that judges would allow them to be like this. Or are our courts getting soft too?

R

If someone is there for a serious crime locking them up for 10 days for contempt of court is a bit stupid isn't it?

If someone chooses to show themselves that way then all the better - it shows their opinions on the seriousness of the proceedings.

They're innocent when they're in court man! Why is this so hard to get through to everyone?

I dont think guilt/innocence has anything to do with it?

Court = serious business!

ha, so we put innocent people going through the judicial process in pink boiler suits? that's pretty serious business

That was the point. It's not about locking them up but that court is one place where you don't get to act like a punk. Maybe it's the showing of it on TV which is the problem. It almost looks as though they're trying to impress their gang mates who will be watching.

R

Well it doesn't seem to have any influence on sentencing. Should it?

...At the end of sentencing "and your conduct in the trial also adds three months to your non-parole period.. OWNED punk!

R

No, if you want to wear the prison boiler suits then its pink. If you wish to get someone to drop your own ones in then fine.

They are being held in custody - are you suggesting we are denying their right to freedom until theyre proven guilty? Come on.

Dunno - why do you think people on trial get a haircut/ dress up nicely? Because it influences the jury, and at a guess i would say the judge.

If someone accused of a crime came to court dressed well (amoung other things) i would be more inclined to believe she/he was going to make an effort in staying out of trouble.

Dunno - i dont think allowing the guys to defy the judge is going to look any better. The judge has limited discretion so why allow them the opportunity to defy him when it might add a couple of days for contempt for not standing up straight.

Don't quite get that bit - if you are remanded in custody then yes, the courts have specifically chosen to deny the right of freedom to those innocent of a crime (as handled through the bail laws). I have no problem with that of course - sorry, just don't see where you're leading.

You guys can't deny that you are coming at this from a "nasty little shits, let's rein them in" angle. There are plenty of contempt of court regulations and the like, I trust a judge to make use of them when he/she feels their court is being held in contempt. But just because you don't like the clothes they wear (or don't) or the way they hold themselves doesn't lead to punitive measures.
The crime is there (contempt of court), and there are jail sentences for those who breach it. What more do you want?

They are being held in custody. People who aren't wear their own clothes usually.

It's nothing to do with being proven anything - it's about respecting the court and it's authority - which they don't do. It's obvious by their conduct. The boiler suit thing is already done - I didn't start that - they should be warned: act like an ass and it'll be a pink suit next time. (Make gestures to the TV cameras and we'll make you wear bunny ears too - kidding)

The lack of respect in court is a joke. If most other people, whether innocent or guilty, are expected to pay the place due respect then so should they. Their antics further undermine respect for the justice/legal system.

R

Well i dont agree with RobW mostly - but i see no problem in making prison (or remand) boiler suits pink.

But they are basically using their court appearance to act out and earn a badge of honour (amongst their gang/mates) when they are shown on TV.

Maybe the way to handle it is to allow a mug-shot be used by media but not such footage in court.

Remember, parliament wanted to stop footage of MPs acting the goat being used on TV - but court isn't that important?

R

Well that would be a smarter way to do it but you could argue public interest.

isn't it lovely to live in a multicultural country

shame we don't all dress and behave like good old fashioned middle class white males

pink boiler suits - wtf

I wonder, if the media pick certain images to show of people in court because, oh I don't know, that somehow plays on peoples stereotypes of others... I don't know, just putting it out there

Rob - do you have a talkback radio handle or do you use your real name

Dunno - going topless isnt considered acceptable at most weddings, funerals, food places, work places etc etc.

Its hardly racist to expect people to be dressed while in court.

We don't. We're multi ethnic. Our cultures are hardly mixed at all - not like many other countries.



This wasn't about comparing them to honkies in suits or whatever - it was about respect in court. Court is the last public place you go before facing your charges. There is an element of respect due and which instead is used as gang PR instead on TV. Egging more to be the same and showing that court isn't so bad. Perhaps they should show convicted prisoners (crying) in their cells on TV as an update a few weeks later? Would that make it better?



Yes, I think they do. I think it's irresponsible also. Maybe the courts should curb what can be shown and supply plain footage. I'm sure many ex-criminals have been followed around by their terrible in-court footage. Why not do the most 'fair' thing and level the playing field to straight-on mug-shots only?

I enjoy talkback in theory BobD but only for it's comedy value. It really brings out the old biddies and people with extreme views. The only time I get to hear it is on long car trips - maybe a dozen times a year.

I kind of doubt my 'respect in court' idea would be extreme or overly punitive in most people's eyes. It's level, the same for everyone, and steps towards taking away the opportunity for the worst offenders to get their kicks and earn their strips in the gang by being dicks on TV.

R

perhaps they should just go back to artist impressions of court rooms and not this 'reality' tv thang of showing us stuff that adds nothing to a news piece

A simple and effective solution. Nice call.

R

I'm in court fairly often, Auckland DC predominantly, and in my experience it is not that common for offenders appearing in court to act like total dicks, showing gang signs and being disrespectful to the Judge or the Court. By way of example no gang paraphernalia is allowed inside the courthouse. No hats can be worn in the courtroom. No cell phones are allowed to be used inside the courtroom. Anyone who is being disruptive in the public gallery is quickly removed.

Most offenders really do make an effort to look decent when they are in Court and to behave respectively as they know that pissing off the Judge who is dealing with their matter is only going to make things more difficult for them. There are of course exceptions to the rule but this is not that common.

With all that said, the shirtless offender in the North Shore bashers case should not have been permitted to appear with no shirt on. The Judge did reprimand him for his posture and good on him.

I'm not too sure what you are getting at with this thread Rob. You are now suggesting pink boiler suits and prosecuting offenders appearing in court for being dicks in the courtroom. As I already said there are etiquette rules already in place in courthouses and the pink bolier suits are just a stupid idea.

Well they obviously don't enforce them. We regularly see people in court on TV and in the newspapers wearing offensive clothing or showing a complete flippant attitude while in the dock.

Granted these are usually the cases with significant public interest - not the majority of cases I'm sure... all the more reason to not allow people the opportunity to do their hand-signals/face pulling moment on TV.

I guess you can't stop people being who they are so maybe looking at the TV/filming end of things would be better.

In the end, what I'm getting at is this:

Normal person - goes to court - looks sheepish/ashamed etc - doesn't want friends/family/neighbours to see.

Gangstaa - goes to court - acts like a fool so he gets kudos amongst mates/gangstaas and inspires other small-minded people to think: court doesn't look that bad.

R

Yes all that public interest serves as a great motivator to a thug appearing in court to act like a thug. Short of ensuring security and that fundamental rules of courtroom etiquette are being observed I don't really see what more the Court can do to stop a gangsta acting like one when appearing. We can't exactly have a security guard leap on him each time he looks like he's gonna do a gang salute?

As you pointed out, the best way might be to rely on the media to not broadcast this sort of behaviour, but expecting the media to do the right thing (as opposed to chase ratings) when it comes to reporting anything around court proceedings/criminal offending is effectively a waste of time.

Agreed.

R

Their guilt exists at that point... what matters is the discoveyr of that guilt

If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound regardless of a witness.

their guilt doesn't exist at all if, say, they were misidentified and did not actually commit these crimes

I think that's what garethw is getting at

guilt has not been established - legally - that's what counts

interesting to read the judge's comments though as if they were already proven guilty

oooooooooooh you can't say stuff like this to vadinho jh! it just prompts him to accuse you of living in a legal bubble detached from all sense and reality

oooooooh

this is quite common in bail decisions

I can't wait for a judge to say: the weather looks to be a bit cooler in the coming weeks so I'll allow bail.

Or a defense lawyer: it was so hot your honour..

Annette King

R

you're right BG, I SHOULD know better - by now!

part of me seems to think I can till retrain his mind on this point....

we are talking about the same person who believes this businessman shouldn't even be prosecuted, no?

you are an optmist jh, i admire that.





ps great to see you in action yesterday albeit briefly, such is my extensive experience in the summary jurisdiction that i didn't even know what the list at the front of the court was for until another collegue kindly pointed out i needed to fill it in if i wanted to get my matter called

good to see you too - albeit briefly

ah the joys of the summary jurisdiction, eh...

joys indeed, seemed like every one of your clients was getting diversion - you must have the magic touch

more like the courts are overwhelmed with murder cases to deal with

glad it looked that way!

clowns.....why should people be afraid to walk at night.

Cowards too, would have loved to have seen what would happen if they took on the wrong couple!

some black belts on their way home from practice would have made a nice meal of 'em