Wrong decision imo II

Youve got to be fucking kidding me.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10632636




They admitted breaking into the area and wilfully damaging the spybase. Who gives a fuck if he thought it was lawful.

wow.

pc gone mad imo

mind you the court was convened in wally wood

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3466305/Waihopai-activists-found-not-guilty

could you now be starting some threads where the courts got it right

for balance you know

try this

Gay worker wins $15k for sexual harassment

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10632590

but there's a catch

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10632711

BD I'll comment on any case that youd like me to but i cant say that your posts are at all balanced

So their defence was they thought they weren't doing something illegal ...how does that work exactly???

Oh no, I wasn't driving drunk. I believed the limit was higher.

criminal intent - lack of - exposed something we already knew was there (for shame) - the jury bought it

I'm not sure if NZ has a similar thing, but in the US this might fall under the necessity defense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity

harvey was being sarky I'm sure you know that begorrah

here's what Krebs said:

Law Society criminal law sub-committee convenor Jonathan Krebs told Radio New Zealand he had never heard of a defence referring to a greater good before.

The "claim of right" defence used by the trio was enshrined in statute law, but usually used in property cases.

An example of its regular use would be as a defence when stolen property was unwittingly purchased, with the purchaser believing the seller owned and had a claim of right to the property, Mr Krebs said.

"[The Waihopai defendants] claimed that they honestly believed that they had the right to do so because they needed to, for certain honestly-held beliefs."

That's what those guys were saying. That they were doing it to stop other stuff like the US wars in Iraq and Afganistan etc. Not quite sure how some straightforward vandalism like they did was going to achieve that.

laughable that they claim it prevented deaths in Iraq

must have been the butterfly effect

great day for the peace movement...

May they rest in peace

Some funny comments in the Herald. I like the suggestion that people go out and vandalise catholic churches to prevent child molestation.

Or schools for that matter

There's a central paradox here

The Government has decided that the Waihopai base is NOT a threat to NZ, and is a legitimate and moral activity

However, the jury has accepted the defence of the accused that they were acting morally because the base is immoral and harmful.

Now, does that mean that the jury has acted in a treasonable or seditious manner? It's not free speech - people are free to say they think the Government's policies are wrong, but they are NOT free to ACT in a manner that prevents the implementation of those policies.

While that may seem ridiculous at first, if you actually analyse the key principles here, it's entirely correct.

There's a difference here

Our government recognises child abuse as illegal and wrong
Our government recognises the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as legitimate.

Not quite... They've accepted the defense that the accused honestly believed it was causing harm, or would cause harm

If I honestly believe a dragon is going to devour the world unless I kill you, I'd probably get off for reasons of insanity, but I'd still be confined to a mental institution.

Surely that exact same principle here must be applied? An honest, but mistaken belief is remedied through mental rehabilitation, rather than prison, but it's not simply ignored.

It's pretty simple:
1. The jury accepts the suspects BELIEVED it was causing harm, but jury also thinks that belief is mistaken = mental rehabilitation required to cure mental illness
2. The jury accepts the suspects BELIEVED it was causing harm, and jury agrees with that belief = treason or sedition (Im not sure which)

It can only be 1. or 2.

I thought of one analogy you might use Yak:

I am walking down the street when I see what appears to be an armed robbery (but is actually say a tv shoot or something), and I get in there and end up killing one of the fighters - charged with manslaughter etc but get off because of an honest belief

I would say, however, that in this case there is an element of deception that is not present in the Waihopai incident (it was clear, at least in broad terms, what the base did)

it is a human right to protest

I'm not disputing the right of the SUSPECTS to protest
I'm disputing the right of the jury to oppose governmental policy by deliberate action

juries aren't there to do the govts bidding - at least not currently

you have NZ confused with communist russia

It's not up to the jury to decide that though? They don't get to decide mental deficiency on a whim They are there to look at the facts of the case and rule as they're directed to... They decided that the men honestly believed it was causing harm, and that's the only relevant point of law. It doesn't matter if it's true or not for the purpose of this case...

They are there to follow the laws enacted by government. In this case they don't seem to have done that. In fact they have ignored the law and just acquitted him on compassion/ ideology.

I dont think they got the right idea of what they were instructed to decide on though. This might have been a OJ Simpson moment.

Hard to see what happened but it may have been a case of group think or a complete misunderstanding. Or perhaps they were just a bunch of hippies... which is what you get when people with better things to do can get out of jury service.

Oh look at that. They did make a mistake.

That bolded statement is a bit confusing to me? Obviously it HADN'T been made clear to them that it was unlawful, otherwise they would've found the men guilty?

edit: Oh wait - I read it wrong. Krebs is saying it would be impossible for the men to get away with it again because it's now clear to THEM that it's unlawful. So that doesn't speak at all as to whether the jury made a mistake? They believed that the men made an honest mistake - which couldn't be claimed a second time, that's all.

.

So in my dragon case, who decides to send me to a mental facility?
If I honestly believed a dragon etc... and that was the only relevant point of law... I'm not just walking out the door

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10632804&pnum=2



I still cant see this as being the right decision. They tried the defence that they were breaking the law to prevent harm to others. then fall back to they didn't think they were breaking the law at all?

Really think this is a retarded outcome. Seems like the crown are seeking to retry it too.

So now people who can convince others that they are stupid enough can claim to think they are dong the right thing. In this case they must have believed that the govt they were fighting against has a law that means they can damage its property without repercussions.

meh

Sounds like Alan Shore was defending them imo.

hmmm you have to wonder what the judge's direction was though, which he would have addressed to the empanelled 12 after the summing up and before their deliberation

here is a report from scoop

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1003/S00206.htm



and this from the solicitor general

Quite an intriguing decision really and the judge was quite clear in his directions to the jury (and seemingly quite correct in law).
What amazes me is that the jury believed that these guys honestly thought they were doing nothing illegal, not in the slightest and that they were fully operating within the necessity and defence of others defences. I would have believed they were trying to operate within those but not fully confident that they were in the right. But I wasn't at the trial.

the crimes act definition of intentional damage includes "and without claim of right" as an element of the charge, all elements to be proved beyond reasonable doubt - therefore the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did NOT have a claim of right to damage the property

whether or not they held such a claim of right (or genuine belief) was a question of fact for the jury

what I'm intrigued to know is how the accused could be so sure that the transmissions were directly harming human life? after all, the content of these transmissions was top secret ... therefore what evidence could be produced in court?

the foreign policies of those countries we give the information collected to - not share with... give to

we don't give, they collect and process, which we can't - there's a difference

further to your point above jh, the claim by one defendant that they had helped to save lives in Iraq should have been pounced on by the prosecution (if it did not so do)

how can they prove this? against what evidence? is it not equally likely that they caused harm to life by hampering an operation, say, to thwart imminent insurgent strikes that targeted innocent civilians?

why can't we? Why do our allies decide what data we've given them to process we actually get to see

Its a fairly major operation to sort all of that digital information. We simply don't have the man power or budget to do it. Nor do we have a clue what to actually look for.

Part of being an ally is to work together. We benefit from information collected in many different ways from many different parts of the world and part of that is we help them do so. Civilians in Iraq have more to fear from insurgents and low tech mistakes by american soldiers than from the information the so called spy base collects.

and you know they have nothing to fear from intel gathered from the base here because?

Your dragon example is different, because it's not reasonable to think that you COULD have genuinely believed a dragon existed or whatever UNLESS you were crazy, so right from the get go that would've been your defense - NGRI. In this particular case, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that this trio did think what they were doing was legal. It's an established legal principle, and the jury agreed unanimously that the crown didn't prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt... I really don't see what the fuss is about here. bob, you're being a bit of a backseat driver imo. You only think it's a "retarded" decision because you don't believe their story, but frankly the jury were in a better position to judge the story and the relevant points of law than you are

Where did i say that?

Have MORE to fear from other things. But actually I would go to say that they have nothing significant to fear. 99.9999% of civilians dont use sat phones or other communications that our spy base would intercept. Its not exactly spying on activity occurring on the other side of the world.

You are right in the fact that no one knows what particular information is collected but you do know what type (satellite communication)and where it is located (south pacific/ SE asia).

when that oval ball tournament thingy next year comes to town we may have reason to thank our little bit of intel gathering base at why hope I and our allies' intel sharing bizzo

pechora: resting on the system is perfect is a pretty lazy argument line and I dont think you actually know what you are talking about. It is not an established legal principle when applied to this situation. In fact I can only think that the prosecutor thought it so absurd s/he didnt know how to argue against it.

And no i dont think it was retarded just because I dont believe them. The outcome is that they did something that by any test was against even the fundamental elements of law - entering and damaging someone else's property. Never mind the fact they broke into a secure area with signs up everywhere saying it is an offence to even be on the site. They than had a prayer group meeting before they cut open the dome.... I presume they can read english and reason that the fences were there to achieve a purpose rather than look pretty. (that said it wasnt very well defended).

For example do you think it is reasonable that anyone believed what they did was legal?

I believe the jury ignored the law and just decided to let them go or completely misunderstood the law.

Do you believe that juries/voters always make the *right* decision or it is just *right* that we use that system to try and do our best to administer justice? I mean why have 12 people? If 12 people would *always* make the right decision then one would. We have 12 because people make mistakes. 12 people make less mistakes than 1 but they still make mistakes.

Finally if this case is a perfect decision based on the law then it needs to be changed. People dont get to honestly believe that raping a baby will cure them of aids and not be punished and if they believe that then there no reason why they wouldn't believe it was legal to do so.

ignorance of the law is no defence anyway qauite apart from any other argument

yes except their argument was not that they though it might be legal or even should be legal but that they were completely sure that it WAS legal. then applied to the crown having to prove that this wasn't the case beyond reasonable doubt.

a) I'm not claiming that the system is perfect. The burden of proof is on you, not me? I'm simply saying that 12 people, under the guidance of the judge, who are party to all of the evidence, unanimously reached the decision that these people are innocent. You're claiming it's a "retarded decision" - so the onus is on you to offer a cogent argument for that, so far, all you've really offered is undue cynicism.

b) They did something that was against fundamental elements of law yadda yadda EXCEPT in cases where they have claim of right, which is exactly what they're claiming here? So what's your point again?



How on earth would I know? I didn't hear all the evidence. But on the face of it - sure, I can see how it might be reasonably convincing to think that these people thought that there would be harm caused by what they damaged and that they were seeking to prevent this harm. We only have to get past reasonable doubt remember.



No I accept that mistakes do happen - I just reject your assertion that one necessarily happened here. You don't like the result, I get that, but you haven't really offered any argument why the ruling is wrong, beyond speculation and skepticism.

Whether the law should be changed is an entirely different argument - I'd probably support you on refining it though.

i have wondered if the prosecutors may have been ordered not to put up too much of a fight because they may have had to produce (at the very least) examples of the sorts of information the spy base collects which would then be made public through the courts?

idk just a thought

ps. lol at most of you

I just don't get which point exactly you have a problem with bob...

Claim of right IS a well-established defense, and if these people truly did believe that they were preventing some harm, then they're perfectly entitled to use it. The jury believed them, so they were acquitted under that defense. What's your problem then? If your problem is that the defense was available to them, then you're not speaking about the decision at all - rather the state of the law, which is fine. If your problem is that the jury believed them, then you're being a bit harsh by judging the jury with a crapload less evidence than they had.

the onus must surely be on the defendants to produce evidence that the base causes harm and that they actually did prevent harm and not cause it and not some wishy washy belief structure that it does and that they did

well as it turned out they did prove that, without having to produce such evidence

thus it would have worked in favour of the prosecutors to have done so

there may yet be an appeal by the prosecution. the door has been left open by the judge's reserved judgement. don't bet against it.

oh, im not at all, that is the way of the courts

ps. im sick and grumpy, please excuse ad hominem remarks =)

Aww how nice - hope you feel better soon prolapse.

No, you dont seem to grasp what they were defending themselves with. They tried to say they were preventing harm the judge said they couldnt use that defence. They then claimed they honestly, hand on heart thought that the law meant it was perfectly legal for them to damage the spy base dome.

If that's the case, then okay, I have misunderstood But I've re-read all the quotes in this thread and I think you're misunderstanding tbh.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense, and according to your quote (from stuff) the judge directed the jury (paraphrase): If you believe that the accused believed what they were doing was legal, you must find them not guilty. Now why would he direct that, if there wasn't some principle he was resting on beyond sheer ignorance?

My understanding is that they were using 'claim of right' as their legal defense - ie, they thought what they were doing was legal *because* of their beliefs about the harm that was being caused, or had the potential to be caused or whatever. Feel free to correct me if I've gone astray somewhere though I'm just trying to understand what exactly you have a problem with, you still haven't articulated that.

This is your quote. So apparently they were using "claim of right" just like I've said?

God knows why you dont understand what i have a problem with. I have a problem with the defence they tried, jury making a poor decision (or just deciding they dont want to convict which i think is outside their job) and that the law needs to be adjusted to specifically rule out decisions such as this.

As for the jury being party to all the evidence - there was no actual evidence presented. Basically the defendants said "we think this" then they changed their mind and said "actually ignore that even though it contradicts what we are about to say - we thought that it was legal (not moral) to do so". So the jury had to decide if what they actually thought. Basically the jury decided that the group were so retarded that they actually thought it was legal to do as they did. Plainly this was a retarded decision based on a) no one in their right mind would think that anyway b) all the signs up saying it is an offence to be on this site c) they tried a defence that they were preventing harm to others allowed them to break the law (which would suggest to some degree that they knew it was against the law). So on this level i think the defendants are full of shit and shouldnt have been left off.

Even if they did think that it was completely legal for them to do so they dont seem to have offered any evidence that they tried to find out (which would indicate that they hoped rather than thought) which would seem to suggest that the idea of ignorance is not a defence would come in.

No not just as youve said please put aside what you think and re-read.

You misunderstood claim of right - it has nothing to do with preventing harm for others (as you said). Claim of right is used most often for people who receive stolen goods - in that they honestly believed that the goods they bought were not stolen. This means they have to have no reason to suspect that they were stolen. Something that would cause suspicion might be buying from the back of a car, cheaper than normal but cash only, identification marks removed etc. Now im saying that they must have suspected that damaging property after breaking through security and going past signs that say it is an offence to be where they are, might be against the law. If that is the case then they dont have claim of right.

It does not matter that they were trying to prevent harm, in fact saying that they thought what they were doing is legal BECAUSE they were allowed to break the law to prevent harm specifically indicates they knew that they were breaking the law in damaging the property.

Could you expand on your problem with the jury for making a poor decision? It really doesn't make any sense, and stop being so damn inflammatory I'm trying to have a civil discussion and you of all people know how downhill it can go if you keep making it personal! Now - the judge, according to your quote, specifically instructed the jury to rule not guilty if they don't believe that the crown has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants knew what they were doing was illegal (or at least weren't sure that it was legal). So what did they do wrong? Clearly, the jury believed (all 12 of them - unanimously) that the defendants DID believe they had legal claim of right (or at least believed it to a magnitude that surpasses reasonable doubt) - so they made the correct ruling right? Your argument about the state of the law I agree with tentatively, but that has nothing to do with THIS decision.




Have a source for this? If this was unsuccessful, then what was the content of their actual defense? Because ignorance about the law isn't a defense right? So then what was their actual case, if the claim of right based on harm was unsuccessful?

Okay - I understand your complaint a bit better now. But it seems like there's something going on here that you're leaving out to me. It just doesn't make sense that a judge would specifically instruct the jury according to a claim of right defense, if they're resting on sheer ignorance alone? I mean it's completely different to the stolen goods argument. In that case, the person knows that accepting stolen goods is wrong, but just didn't know that the goods were stolen. It's not ignorance of the law, it's ignorance of the circumstances involved in the situation. There has to be something else going on here...

I want to know the obvious - even before all the claim of right stuff.

They admitted it. How can the jury even be deciding on that point after that?

I know there is a great legal explanation but it is sort of unintuitive and silly to have a person stand up and admit to a crime only to have 12 others basically saying 'sorry, no you didn't'.

ok to make it simple I disagree with the outcome of this case. Based on what I have seen the defendants gave evidence that contradicts their claim. So the jury made the wrong decision on that. If they did make the right decision then the law is broken. Either way i disagree that there is any valid defence to what they did.

As I said earlier I believe the jury probably acquitted them on compassion / ideology rather than law. Which is also a wrong decision.

Well they admitted to an action/behaviour. Whether that is illegal or not is what the court case was about.
Ultimately it was decided their admitted actions weren't illegal..

And maybe they are claiming that they thought they could break the law to prevent harm and then claimed that they honestly believed that they could do that. Never mind that they didn't seem to do anything to actually find out about the law - they just hoped. To reiterate - their defence seemed to start with they had a moral right not a legal right. The jury seemed to believe that they thought it was a legal right. I dont believe for a second they had any intention of following any law. It was a protest action.

What possible basis do you have for this wild speculation though? As I said - they were specifically instructed by the judge, that if they didn't feel the crown had proven its case (that the defendants knew it was illegal, or at best 'hoped' it was legal) - then they have to find them not guilty. So maybe the crown case was just ineffective? What is it that makes you think there was something else at play, let alone compassion/ideology? It just seems a weird conclusion to jump to, to me. I don't see that the jury have done anything wrong, they ruled as they'd been instructed. And if the defense wasn't applicable here, the judge should've said so. Judges tend to be pretty smart people, so it makes me think there's got to be something that their defense rested on that you're leaving out, beyond just belief that it was legal. We all know that ignorance isn't a defense, so if that was the entire basis, why would the judge instruct the jury like that? Doesn't make sense right?

Well if THAT is true, then isn't that a perfect counter to your accusation of contradiction?

Why weren't the charged with trespassing then? They were there, and admitted it. End of story surely??

The other charges like vandalism etc I can understand but not a really simple one like the above.

But trespassing would've been subject to the same legal objection as the vandalism?
And it's not like trespassing is even significant enough to really bother with.

Yes it is a counter (fall back) but it still fails everything else ie they hoped it was legal or they were ignorant of the law not that they actually had reason to believe it was the case. Everyone knows it is legal to buy something as long as there isnt reason to believe it is stolen. Not many people are somehow misinformed about the specific law of damaging something to save other (non existent) people from harm.

also, you need to have been trespassed!

they WERE charged with unlawfully on a property/burglary - the offence which I think RobW is referring to

ahh but that's the distinction

if they said they didn't know it was wrong to vandalise property anywhere, ever - they would be convicted - that's "ignorance of law" - which is no excuse

claim of right involves an honestly held but mistaken or ignorant belief based on a separate law OTHER than the one under which the person is charged - which is the case here

by way of example, if you saw a baby on the back-seat of a car parked in the burning sun with all the windows down, and you smashed a window to save the baby - you would have a claim of right defence to wilful damage - even if the baby turned out to be a very life-like doll ... you had a genuine and reasonably-held belief that another living being was in imminent peril

Could you expand please on how that would relate to the current discussion?

edit: To clarify, bob seems to be claiming that their "claim of right" defense rests on the fact that they were simply ignorant of the law, and that they honestly held a belief that what they were doing was legal. I've been saying there must be something else to it, because otherwise it would just be pure ignorance which wouldn't stand... So it *would* be resting on their belief that they were preventing harm, right? Or something else?

JH - is claim of right specific to the wilful damage charge or is it found more broadly in law?

I still don't understand here.

Are you saying there is a qualitative difference between (1) believing killing you avoids dragon destruction, and (2) destroying Waihopai will save lives?

Because that then leads to my assertion before: if the jury is willing toa ct on on (2) then they are committing treason

What I mean is this Yak

Earlier you said the issue at heart is whether the JURY believes the DEFENDANTS BELIEVED.

Now, if I'm insane, then I believe in the dragon as much as these defendants believed in pacifism.

If the jury is now judging the reasonableness of the belief themselves, rather than the holding of the belief, they are usurping the power of the crown/state.

their argument was: they honestly believed they had a legal justification based on SOME piece of law, somewhere, that in these circumstances, entitled them to enter the spy base and destroy property to save lives in imminent danger

not: that it was lawful per se to unlawfully enter a property and intentionally damage equipment (which would simply be an "ignorance of the law" argument)

quite broadly amongst property and dishonesty offences (only) - not crimes against the person (such as assault)

and this is the crux of the matter, or Matter (if you like)

how could they be certain that their action would save lives, in imminent danger, and not endanger them?

remember ye this

they weren't concerned about saving lives per se, but rather, innocent lives, i.e non combatants

well that's my problem with it too!

I don't think there was enough (or any) real evidence

woolly thinking - the jury bought it - this is why people elect trial by jury

You blokes seem pretty intelligent, on a related topic, can anyone explain to me how the Mayor of Carterton, Gary McPhee, can confess in the newspaper to committing a nasty violent drunken home invasion and assault (Wairarapa Times-Age 25 May 2005, "EXCLUSIVE - McPhee - Why I Did What I Did" and not be charged by the police.
The occupants made formal written complaints, so did several witnesses.
The police in the Wairarapa are corrupt from the top down:
I complained about the actions of one local officer and the response was that it was alright because that officer "was acting on the instructions of his superior. Oh, that makes it all right then?
When lawyer Ken Daniels wrote to complain about the lack of action by the police to this indisputable evidence of a prima facie case regarding the serious crime of home invasion, a local police sergeant wrote back and said "I assume you are referring to Mayor Gary's unique method of dealing with a noise complaint." - Neither McPhee or his accomplice in the crime, another Council officer, were the Council noise control officer, it was just a drunken, violent attack.
The article can be accessed at this link and further information at this one.

PM does not rule out amending greater good law

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10633589

go go John... another headline that says nothing.... you fucking trooper

Right, this backs up what I was saying then

bob: Does this change your view on the outcome then? You have said thus far that the jury made the wrong decision because of a) the contradiction in their defense strategy, and b) the fact that it's completely unreasonable to suggest that people could think that vandalising the spy-base (even with the existence of signs) was legal. But both of those reasons weren't really anything to do with it - their 'claim of right' defense was more intricate than sheer ignorance of the general legality of vandalism.

No yak it does not. I have already said why (other than what you quoted me) I think this outcome is retarded.

Addressing your three points then:

a) How can you really offer evidence that they "tried to find out" whether it was legal? It'd just be their word anyway? Their claim is that they genuinely believed their actions were legal based on some specific legal principle, they don't HAVE to offer evidence to prove this (ie, their innocence) - this is a fairly fundamental tenet of our legal system? It's the Crown's job to prove that they didn't hold that genuine belief, beyond reasonable doubt. And there clearly wasn't enough evidence against them to prove this case... Right?

b) This is just pure speculation for which you don't appear to have any reasoning whatsoever, except where we assume your other premises are true and are searching for some way to explain it. Either way, it's not really something we can discuss

c) This is just the same as the first point. And again, you're speculating about their defense with regards to the moral/legal issue, unless you have some source for that? Their defense was that they honestly believed their actions were legal (and not because of sheer ignorance).

I still don't see where your problem is, beyond your sheer speculation that they are just guys trying to get away with a crime that they knew was illegal and are now just banking on a legal loophole. Sure, that's possible, but there's nothing at all that you've offered that leads one logically to that conclusion...

youre invoking logic in their defence?

Their defense is perfectly legitimate though? If they honestly believed that they were acting legally because of a specific legal principle, then they SHOULD be acquitted under the claim of right defense, as justhanging just clarified earlier. So then all that matters is whether the crown can prove a case beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't have that belief. According to the jury, the crown didn't prove that case. So who exactly made the mistake here, besides the defendants? It's obviously possible that guilty men were wrongly acquitted, but that's what you get in a system where we vastly prefer false-negatives over false-positives - thus the heavy burden of proof necessary to get a criminal conviction.

huh? your criticism of the decision simply seems to be that it flies in the face of common sense, bob. that simply doesn't cut it

maybe i'm misreading your posts, maybe you aren't explaining yourself very well -- either way, i don't tihnk you've really engaged the points that Yak is making.

Really, I think you're just grumpy because people who are 'probably' (still contentious btw) full of shit got set free. But we both know why it has to be that way: why we have to let people like that go sometimes. Happy to be corrected if you have some more logic though that hasn't been discussed heh.

You are asking me to provide evidence that someone didnt think a certain way when they committed a crime? Well all I can offer you is it seems highly improbable, they didnt present any evidence that they had reason to think that and even if they did they shouldnt be able to hide behind it. What seems more likely (and you are free to disagree im not really trying to convince you only to state my opinion) is that they did a protest action and hoped to get away with it through stretching some laws.

The extension of what Yak is saying is that in any case a defendant could claim that s/he thought they were right to do so. The crown would then have to prove they didn't AND it wouldn't be up to the defendant to actually say why they thought that. Juries would ignore everything else and you'd get some very inconsistent outcomes.

I also disagree that claim of right is an established principle used these kinds of cases - I've already said why I think it shouldn't apply.

Just to reiterate I know how the system works and am not interested in debating along the lines of the jury MUST have got it right because what they decide IS right. If you don't think this is a poor outcome then that's fine - I cant see how to dissuade you from that but I'm willing to bet more than 90% of NZers cant see the logic/justice in it.

If im not doing a good enough job explaining it here is justhangings take.

Sorry for invoking common sense in the lounge.

Yak, please provide evidence that proves, in front of 12 selected peers, beyond reasonable doubt that I am grumpy :p

Btw - there are legal experts, biggie experts, commentators and EVEN talk back callers who are all saying the same thing - it was a stupid/flawed/incorrect decision.

my 2c. Unless you were in the trial room for the whole event, why would you even think you were qualified to comment?

Firstly, how do you know that no evidence was presented for why they believed it was legal? I must have missed that in the media reports I've read... Do you have some inside knowledge or something that hasn't been reported?

Secondly, I might agree that your account of what 'really' happened is likely - but that doesn't really matter, and you know this? It only matters what you can prove, and rightly so. So after all - all you're really saying is that you think the law should be changed, not that the wrong decision has been made with the current state of the law. You say they shouldn't be able to hide behind honestly held beliefs, but the law clearly does provide sanction for those, in its current state.



As justhanging stated though, it can't just be a general ignorance of the law. If they had stated that they thought vandalism in general was sweet, then they would've been convicted. But their defense rested on some circumstance-specific legal principle - their belief that it's okay to damage the station if they were protecting the interests of the greater good, or preventing harm etc. So I don't think we can really extend this to ANY case and cry about the 'slippery slope' effects... ?



Yeah, but the judge disagrees with you? According to the quote you provided earlier, he specifically directed the jury according to this principle, in THIS case. Shouldn't that be a pretty big hint that you might be wrong about that?



My argument isn't actually that the jury are right by definition. My argument is simply that from everything you've said, and from the reports I've read that you've quoted so far - I don't see that they have made any mistake in justice. They have ruled on the evidence that was available, and they have simply sided with the defendants in that the Crown's case wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt. That, by itself, is not a "mistake" - just because you think it resulted in an improbable victory for them. And OBVIOUSLY 90% of NZers won't see the logic/justice in it 90% of NZers are complete retarads who know nothing about the law and how it works. I really don't think that you should relish in having them on your side

I think we could say from this thread that the case possibly exposes a stupid loophole in the law - but I just don't see, from everything I've read so far, that we can say it was a flawed decision