Thread: Discharge Without Conviction

Hey I don't mind being responsible for shitting on those stupid enough to want to inhale. And from 25 hands too...

What you and yours don't seem quite capable of actually working out is that the world is a lot more complex than the military could actually run. And no-one actually wants them running anything. Including yourselves even if you can't work that out.

(1) If a person who is charged with an offence is found guilty or pleads guilty, the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence. (2) A discharge under this section is deemed to be an acquittal.

Definition of acquittal: Acquittal is a formal declaration in a court of law that someone who has been accused of a crime is innocent.

Seems to me to be quite straightforward.

He isnt innocent because he pleaded guilty to shooting an air rifle at someone and injuring them..........but he gets a judgement ruling that he is now innocent?

If the judge wanted to reflect all the circumstances and consider the offence at the lowest end of the scale ( ie he was provoked etc etc) then the appropriate sentence should have been a conviction and discharge without penalty.

The conviction on his record would reflect that he committed an offence, the discharge without penalty reflects the courts desire to take into account mitigating factors and treat him leniently..................

BUT, he should still be convicted.........In my opinion.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Hey I don't mind being responsible for shitting on those stupid enough to want to inhale. And from 25 hands too...

What you and yours don't seem quite capable of actually working out is that the world is a lot more complex than the military could actually run. And no-one actually wants them running anything. Including yourselves even if you can't work that out.

well it seems lawyers run NZ or are in prime positions in the system running it ,wether a lot of us like that or not .BTW-ive got a perfectly good brain Ill thank you to know ,again thats not the eclusive domain of lawyers (although obviously some think so).the world is complex-try workoing in mental health and see the resu;lts of its complexity!

Originally Posted by Allgood

(1) If a person who is charged with an offence is found guilty or pleads guilty, the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence. (2) A discharge under this section is deemed to be an acquittal.

Definition of acquittal: Acquittal is a formal declaration in a court of law that someone who has been accused of a crime is innocent.

Seems to me to be quite straightforward.

He isnt innocent because he pleaded guilty to shooting an air rifle at someone and injuring them..........but he gets a judgement ruling that he is now innocent?

If the judge wanted to reflect all the circumstances and consider the offence at the lowest end of the scale ( ie he was provoked etc etc) then the appropriate sentence should have been a conviction and discharge without penalty.

The conviction on his record would reflect that he committed an offence, the discharge without penalty reflects the courts desire to take into account mitigating factors and treat him leniently..................

BUT, he should still be convicted.........In my opinion.

The judge second guessed what NZ Immigration would do with the offender if convicted.. Arguably inappeopriate, arguably she should have assumed NZI would deal fairly and reasonably with the offender. Arguably she was arrogant in not doing so.

NZ Immigration was nevertheless saved a BIG potential headache as he would be hard to repatriate to a place where he is expected to be unsafe.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Hey I don't mind being responsible for shitting on those stupid enough to want to inhale. And from 25 hands too...

What you and yours don't seem quite capable of actually working out is that the world is a lot more complex than the military could actually run. And no-one actually wants them running anything. Including yourselves even if you can't work that out.

So Sidney, out of interest have you ever been in the military or are your views just opinions formed whilst breathing the rarified air from up on your 'high horse' ??
Allgood gives a much clearer explanation of the relevant section of the ACT fyi

Originally Posted by Cordite

The judge second guessed what NZ Immigration would do with the offender if convicted.. Arguably inappeopriate, arguably she should have assumed NZI would deal fairly and reasonably with the offender. Arguably she was arrogant in not doing so.

NZ Immigration was nevertheless saved a BIG potential headache as he would be hard to repatriate to a place where he is expected to be unsafe.

Oh but he can make NZ unsafe? But we have to worry about his safety, Theres a song about that by Alanis Morissette, Isnt that Ironic? Ha Ha

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

So Sidney, out of interest have you ever been in the military or are your views just opinions formed whilst breathing the rarified air from up on your 'high horse' ??
Allgood gives a much clearer explanation of the relevant section of the ACT fyi

Really?? That must be because I didn't give an explanation of the relevant section of the Act. I just said that second guessing the judge when you don't have a clue what you are talking about is a characteristic of the stupid. Even people who know something about what they are talking about, know that.

Here's a clue for you on the military thing... no one wants a police state - a military controlled state is worse by far than a police state. Do the math..

I have been a policeman, have not been in the military.. as if that makes a difference to that sort of basic level of analysis....

Interesting thread

So many people wanting to be judge, jury and executioner it seems...

And yet so little understanding of how the justice system actually works... I wonder how many of you guys have been inside a court during a criminal trial - as a spectator, or even as a defendant ? Would you have the same hard-line views if it was your son or brother who acted in a rash way and made some stupid mistakes ?

Sentencing guidelines reflect a county's societal values. What this thread very clearly demonstrates is that the forum contains a lot of people who are pretty far out of step with current-day NZ. That's not a bad thing... it is just an observation.

Originally Posted by ebf

Interesting thread

So many people wanting to be judge, jury and executioner it seems...

And yet so little understanding of how the justice system actually works... I wonder how many of you guys have been inside a court during a criminal trial - as a spectator, or even as a defendant ? Would you have the same hard-line views if it was your son or brother who acted in a rash way and made some stupid mistakes ?

Sentencing guidelines reflect a county's societal values. What this thread very clearly demonstrates is that the forum contains a lot of people who are pretty far out of step with current-day NZ. That's not a bad thing... it is just an observation.

The forum contains a representative sample of NZ firearms owners, as it is a firearms crime (weather or not the air rifle is classified as such) the views of firearms owners are surely much more relevant to this case than those of non firearms owners, for the simple reason that owners are fully aware of the risk to another persons life that the defendants actions posed. We are not looking at a situation where the defendant rocked up with a paintball gun and splattered a car

Originally Posted by ebf

Interesting thread

So many people wanting to be judge, jury and executioner it seems...

And yet so little understanding of how the justice system actually works... I wonder how many of you guys have been inside a court during a criminal trial - as a spectator, or even as a defendant ? Would you have the same hard-line views if it was your son or brother who acted in a rash way and made some stupid mistakes ?

Sentencing guidelines reflect a county's societal values. What this thread very clearly demonstrates is that the forum contains a lot of people who are pretty far out of step with current-day NZ. That's not a bad thing... it is just an observation.

To be out of step requires that we are all required to walk in step, so that is an invalid notion in this context, and a tad oppressive of free debate.

But yes, nothing wrong with having mercy on a young person who has done something idiotic.

Originally Posted by ebf

Interesting thread

So many people wanting to be judge, jury and executioner it seems...

And yet so little understanding of how the justice system actually works... I wonder how many of you guys have been inside a court during a criminal trial - as a spectator, or even as a defendant ? Would you have the same hard-line views if it was your son or brother who acted in a rash way and made some stupid mistakes ?

Sentencing guidelines reflect a county's societal values. What this thread very clearly demonstrates is that the forum contains a lot of people who are pretty far out of step with current-day NZ. That's not a bad thing... it is just an observation.

i was a member of a jury and it was awful. basically 4 crims had a fallout with one member and decided to use the law to dob him in
3 days in court where most of the witnesses couldn't corroborate the evidence as due to their own admission of being too stoned to remember
in the end we found the defendant guilty of one charge (out of many) and he got 40 hours p.d

I wonder how many of you guys have been inside a court during a criminal trial - as a spectator, or even as a defendant ?

Several, not as defendant. Have been jury x 1 and prosecution witness x 2.
[QUOTE][/And yet so little understanding of how the justice system actually works... QUOTE]
Or doesn't.

Would you have the same hard-line views if it was your son or brother?

Yes.

who acted in a rash way and made some stupid mistakes

Driving away, arming oneself, and shooting someone is a silly mistake now? Stabbing someone would be considered an 'oopsie' then? Where does rape lie? Is that just silliness and hijinks?

Sentencing guidelines reflect a county's societal values. What this thread very clearly demonstrates is that the forum contains a lot of people who are pretty far out of step with current-day NZ.

You'll find that it's the judges and beltway types that are out of touch, I would say MOST NZers on the same wavelength as this thread. It's not their kids getting smashed on the way home from school by ferals, held to ransom by fuckwit neighbours on day 3 of a neverending party, having their only vehicle nicked from outside the train station, stock stolen at night etc etc. Judges live in well-to-do leafy suburbs and don't catch public transport, kids at the private school.. They don't have to deal with the type of people in the dock, outside the court.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

The forum contains a representative sample of NZ firearms owners, as it is a firearms crime (weather or not the air rifle is classified as such) the views of firearms owners are surely much more relevant to this case than those of non firearms owners, for the simple reason that owners are fully aware of the risk to another persons life that the defendants actions posed. We are not looking at a situation where the defendant rocked up with a paintball gun and splattered a car

Moa Hunter, that is an interesting notion. So are you saying only firearms owners should be involved in drafting the contents of firearms law, or only motorists in the road transport act for instance ?

Originally Posted by Tommy

You'll find that it's the judges and beltway types that are out of touch, I would say MOST NZers on the same wavelength as this thread. It's not their kids getting smashed on the way home from school by ferals, held to ransom by fuckwit neighbours on day 3 of a neverending party, having their only vehicle nicked from outside the train station, stock stolen at night etc etc. Judges live in well-to-do leafy suburbs and don't catch public transport, kids at the private school.. They don't have to deal with the type of people in the dock, outside the court.

So why is it then that "MOST NZers" have not taken the opportunity given to them every couple of years to vote in a party that stands for hard-line justice standards ?

I'll say it again : a county's justice system and sentencing guidelines reflect the societal norms. This is the case in the southern states of America, it is what happens here, and it is what happens in the Scandinavian countries - 3 different examples with massively different "justice" values...

Originally Posted by Cordite

The judge second guessed what NZ Immigration would do with the offender if convicted.. Arguably inappeopriate, arguably she should have assumed NZI would deal fairly and reasonably with the offender. Arguably she was arrogant in not doing so.

The two most commonly advance grounds for s106 are employment consequences and immigration consequences. In most employment consequence cases, there would be another body that terminates the defendant's career, be it New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants, or Medical Council, or NZ Law society, etc.

The law plainly permits, if not encourages, the judge to consider the real and appreciable risk to the defendant's profession if he is convicted. You could frame this as the judge "second-guessing" the professional body. But that is how this law is suppose to work.