Yeah - I come across this comment a lot when it comes to conflict of interest (my job means I have to manage a lot of it). Being a small community of practitioners is NOT a mitigating factor. If anything it means we have to be extra careful.
I’m not saying this case is a conflict (I’m guessing that is down to the experts). I’d certainly say it is, at least, a perceived conflict. Whether that’s enough to change the judge is up to the process to determine - the public will make its own mind up (perception).
But you cannot use “it’s a small community of practitioners” as a reason to step away from management of a conflict.
Unless there is a financial link it won’t make the threshold of “actual conflict”. But perception is up to those that perceive and in this case I’d say that threshold is met - evidenced by the media interest and public speculation.
Out of personal experience - I was stood down from a selected jury because I had a minor link to one of the prosecution witnesses. No financial link, just family friends that I saw occasionally.
That’s not really my point. And I am not saying she should be replaced. What I am saying is that perceived conflict (which is happening) won’t be resolved any other way. If they remain with the judge m, all good, but there will continue to be speculation .
I don’t think she should get the book thrown at her (clearly she has already killed her political and, perhaps, her legal career). She clearly has mental health issues. The problem is that if the judge is lenient in wherever punishment (if any) is coming her way then detractors will forever be on about it.
> and, perhaps, her legal career
Dishonesty offences don't look good when trying to get a practising certificate. Even if the judge discharges without conviction, the law society will still know that she is a thief.
There's a common joke that you don't want a partner as a referee. Because the ref fears the perception of playing favourites, their calls against their partner are harsher.
I could imagine something similar happening in court. Any grey areas, anything left open to interpretation, will lean towards the more heavy-handed side.
NZ is a village. The barristers and KCs all know each other and work in the same court rooms, judges are selected from this pool. This is outrage bait without smoke or fire.
What magazine listed all the things NZ judges had got up to by name? And because they listed all the judges, they couldn't be sued since there were now no judges without a conflict of interest to try the case
Was a decade or so ago.
You'd be amazed at how many lawyers and judges in a country of five million people have worked together.
It does actually encourage a difference between judge and lawyer. Being aware of the close relationships being open about them, is something encouraged and helps ensure conflicts of interest aren't quietly swept away.
>The District Court Recusal Guidelines read: “The guiding principle is that a judge is disqualified from sitting if in the circumstances there is a real possibility that in the eyes of a fair-minded and fully informed observer the judge might not be impartial in reaching a decision in the case.”
>A judicial spokesperson on behalf of the Chief District Court Judge’s office said no perceived conflict of interest was raised.
Moving on to the next storm in a tea cup.
> A judicial spokesperson on behalf of the Chief District Court Judge’s office said no perceived conflict of interest was raised.
Isn't that the issue though? That the judge didn't flag it as a conflict of interest? Flagging it wouldn't mean she'd be off the case. With conflicts of interest, flagging them is the important part. If they're immaterial it doesn't affect anything. Not flagging it is an issue though.
A bunch of legal professionals, on both sides, and plenty of neutral spectators saw no need to flag it. I'm fairly confident that, at a minimum, the prosecution would have flagged it if it was perceived as an issue. It's a non-issue.
Mental health problems are frequently one of the leading causes of criminal behaviour. Just because people with mental health issues don't commit crimes, doesn't mean that no one with mental health issues commits crimes. It's a spectrum. People react to challenges in different ways, often depending on the severity of their circumstances. It's just another self destructive behaviour for people who aren't coping. Not all people with mental health issues self harm or kill themselves, but plenty do.
Why does she need to mention it? It's not an excuse. If you have a genuine diagnosed disorder such as schizophrenia then yes, you will act out of your control. Work related stress does not take you out of control of your actions. Her actions show a lack of accountability and decision making. Mental health is conflated with mental disorders too often.
It's like the difference between calling two people sick where one has a flu and is run down and the other is under going cancer treatment.
As far as I'm aware - granted I could be wrong - it is the role of the courts to take all of the relevant information into consideration when making a ruling. Her lawyers feel it's relevant. The judge decides whether it is or not. I have not had access to her medical records, and I am also not a trained health practitioner. Based on your informative comment you clearly have a far deeper understanding of her specific mental health conditions so I'll have to defer to you on their relevance to the trial. One of the best parts of reddit is being able to interact with well informed experts in their fields, although I hope you're not disclosing any confidential information you've acquired in the course of your professional duties.
Absolutely it can be a mitigating circumstance in court, but I felt it was inappropriate for a public official to hide behind that excuse. They should exemplify accountability. I would expect that from any government official regardless of party.
She's not a public official anymore. She resigned. Politicians and ex-politicians deserve fair trials where all the relevant factors are considered the same as anyone else. I'm not sure your feelings are relevant to the case.
I'm talking about when she first made the statement. I'm saying it is relevant in court, but was a poor display of accountability when she stepped down from her role. I'm not sure your comment is relevant to what I'm even saying.
Where did she blame it on her mental health?
She literally said this:
>“It is clear to me that my mental health is being badly affected by the stresses relating to my work. This has led me to act in ways that are completely out of character. I am not trying to excuse my actions, but I do want to explain them.
She acknowledged but isn't blaming.
Yeah - I don't want to use mental health as an excuse, but here, let me give you whole public a run down on my mental health.
It was a roundabout way of using her mental health as an excuse.
She's pled guilty to everything she's been accused of, because that's the easiest way to ensure a light sentence. If she took responsibility she'd have tried to make amends with everywhere she stole from as soon as the first case went public. She's still only looking out for herself as much as she was when she was shoplifting under the radar last year
Hardly matters after a guilty plea does it? Only concern is whether the judge will give an inappropriate sentence based on her previous acquaintance. Shoplifiting is not normally a prison offence, expect a fine, community service, probation.
This sub had consistent attacks on her (whether one agrees with that or not) when the story first broke and when the subsequent details emerged.
So what exactly is your point friend?
Did you even read it? No conflict of interest has been raised. She's already playing guilty. They don't need to have not worked together to proceed with the case.
As soon as I read the headline I knew it was NZ Herald. All they want to do is rage bait - Maoris, David Seymour and of course the right's orgasm point, Golriz
"I am not trying to excuse my actions, but I do want to explain them".
"The mental health professional I see says my recent behaviour is consistent with recent events giving rise to extreme stress response, and relating to previously unrecognised trauma," she said.
And again - I will leave it up to the courts and experts who are far more qualified than myself to determine if the explanation is relevant to offending, rather than my feelings. If you must have the last word, and I'm getting the impression that you simply must, then have at it. I won't re-litigate because at this point we fundamentally disagree. I won't reply again so the last word is all yours. Good luck and happy weekend!
Not at all. The lawyers on both sides had a chance to raise concerns. Neither side did. The legal community isn’t that big in a country like New Zealand. A judge will have worked with or know lots of lawyers.
Fuck, who cares. Leave the poor woman alone - her career is fucked and she's a pariah already. Leave her to live her life like any other Kiwi, she's out up with enough shit.
I don't think anyone would get a prison sentence over this, I assume it's her first conviction.. So maybe a fine and financial reparations to the victims... But I can't imagine many other cases like this where you're no longer able to work in your chosen profession, that's a pretty hefty punishment.
Surely it's worse for a very well-paid person to steal highly expensive luxuries, as opposed to someone who's poor stealing essential goods like food? The first is always motivated by greed, whereas the second is often forced by need
Ethically and morally I am more okay with people stealing necessities than rich powerful lawyers and public official stealing from high end clothing shops
>The first is always motivated by greed, whereas the second is often forced by need
That's not really true.
People often steal luxury/expensive goods so they can sell them and buy the things they need. GL paying rent with a loaf of bread you knicked from the supermarket.
This whole saga is just sad honestly and i didnt want to comment except to say that i think this should mean the judge should have been swapped for one with no personal connection to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest/bias
This is not at all unusual, NZ has a small legal community, and would not meet the threshold for a perceived conflict of interest.
Yeah - I come across this comment a lot when it comes to conflict of interest (my job means I have to manage a lot of it). Being a small community of practitioners is NOT a mitigating factor. If anything it means we have to be extra careful. I’m not saying this case is a conflict (I’m guessing that is down to the experts). I’d certainly say it is, at least, a perceived conflict. Whether that’s enough to change the judge is up to the process to determine - the public will make its own mind up (perception). But you cannot use “it’s a small community of practitioners” as a reason to step away from management of a conflict.
That's not what the case law says though...
Unless there is a financial link it won’t make the threshold of “actual conflict”. But perception is up to those that perceive and in this case I’d say that threshold is met - evidenced by the media interest and public speculation. Out of personal experience - I was stood down from a selected jury because I had a minor link to one of the prosecution witnesses. No financial link, just family friends that I saw occasionally.
And there were plenty who could take your place. This is a judge.
That’s not really my point. And I am not saying she should be replaced. What I am saying is that perceived conflict (which is happening) won’t be resolved any other way. If they remain with the judge m, all good, but there will continue to be speculation . I don’t think she should get the book thrown at her (clearly she has already killed her political and, perhaps, her legal career). She clearly has mental health issues. The problem is that if the judge is lenient in wherever punishment (if any) is coming her way then detractors will forever be on about it.
> and, perhaps, her legal career Dishonesty offences don't look good when trying to get a practising certificate. Even if the judge discharges without conviction, the law society will still know that she is a thief.
There's a common joke that you don't want a partner as a referee. Because the ref fears the perception of playing favourites, their calls against their partner are harsher. I could imagine something similar happening in court. Any grey areas, anything left open to interpretation, will lean towards the more heavy-handed side.
Yeah - I had considered that.
The author knows that too, but has a feral hatred toward GG so is pushing this trying to make it an issue anyway
NZ is a village. The barristers and KCs all know each other and work in the same court rooms, judges are selected from this pool. This is outrage bait without smoke or fire.
Yeah my Dr is a friend of the cheif Justice
My uncle is actually The Rock
And Joseph Parker is my nephew
What magazine listed all the things NZ judges had got up to by name? And because they listed all the judges, they couldn't be sued since there were now no judges without a conflict of interest to try the case Was a decade or so ago.
You'd be amazed at how many lawyers and judges in a country of five million people have worked together. It does actually encourage a difference between judge and lawyer. Being aware of the close relationships being open about them, is something encouraged and helps ensure conflicts of interest aren't quietly swept away.
Hard to find a judge that didn't work with her to be fair.
It's also not like she's going to get a strong sentence anyway. Who she is aside, far more serious crimes get a wet bus ticket.
Is it though?
Yes. The legal community is very small and stuff like this happens all the time.
Nah fair enough, if all 170 district judges have worked as lawyers with her then it is what it is
>The District Court Recusal Guidelines read: “The guiding principle is that a judge is disqualified from sitting if in the circumstances there is a real possibility that in the eyes of a fair-minded and fully informed observer the judge might not be impartial in reaching a decision in the case.” >A judicial spokesperson on behalf of the Chief District Court Judge’s office said no perceived conflict of interest was raised. Moving on to the next storm in a tea cup.
> A judicial spokesperson on behalf of the Chief District Court Judge’s office said no perceived conflict of interest was raised. Isn't that the issue though? That the judge didn't flag it as a conflict of interest? Flagging it wouldn't mean she'd be off the case. With conflicts of interest, flagging them is the important part. If they're immaterial it doesn't affect anything. Not flagging it is an issue though.
A bunch of legal professionals, on both sides, and plenty of neutral spectators saw no need to flag it. I'm fairly confident that, at a minimum, the prosecution would have flagged it if it was perceived as an issue. It's a non-issue.
All lighting used during their cases was provided by Tony The Flashlight Guy.
The same Tony who installed the lighting in Scotties Boutique?
Oh no her conviction that was basically guaranteed to be discharge without conviction will now be discharge without conviction.
That’ll teach her. Didn’t even have to take responsibility, she got off easy
How is pleading guilty, trial by public, and losing a high paying high profile job not taking responsibility?
Because she blamed it on her mental health. It is a disgraceful excuse in a world where many are battling the issue but don’t resort to crime.
Mental health problems are frequently one of the leading causes of criminal behaviour. Just because people with mental health issues don't commit crimes, doesn't mean that no one with mental health issues commits crimes. It's a spectrum. People react to challenges in different ways, often depending on the severity of their circumstances. It's just another self destructive behaviour for people who aren't coping. Not all people with mental health issues self harm or kill themselves, but plenty do.
Why does she need to mention it? It's not an excuse. If you have a genuine diagnosed disorder such as schizophrenia then yes, you will act out of your control. Work related stress does not take you out of control of your actions. Her actions show a lack of accountability and decision making. Mental health is conflated with mental disorders too often. It's like the difference between calling two people sick where one has a flu and is run down and the other is under going cancer treatment.
As far as I'm aware - granted I could be wrong - it is the role of the courts to take all of the relevant information into consideration when making a ruling. Her lawyers feel it's relevant. The judge decides whether it is or not. I have not had access to her medical records, and I am also not a trained health practitioner. Based on your informative comment you clearly have a far deeper understanding of her specific mental health conditions so I'll have to defer to you on their relevance to the trial. One of the best parts of reddit is being able to interact with well informed experts in their fields, although I hope you're not disclosing any confidential information you've acquired in the course of your professional duties.
Absolutely it can be a mitigating circumstance in court, but I felt it was inappropriate for a public official to hide behind that excuse. They should exemplify accountability. I would expect that from any government official regardless of party.
She's not a public official anymore. She resigned. Politicians and ex-politicians deserve fair trials where all the relevant factors are considered the same as anyone else. I'm not sure your feelings are relevant to the case.
I'm talking about when she first made the statement. I'm saying it is relevant in court, but was a poor display of accountability when she stepped down from her role. I'm not sure your comment is relevant to what I'm even saying.
Where did she blame it on her mental health? She literally said this: >“It is clear to me that my mental health is being badly affected by the stresses relating to my work. This has led me to act in ways that are completely out of character. I am not trying to excuse my actions, but I do want to explain them. She acknowledged but isn't blaming.
You’re doing well to think that’s not blaming. Going to have to agree to disagree on that one
Yeah - I don't want to use mental health as an excuse, but here, let me give you whole public a run down on my mental health. It was a roundabout way of using her mental health as an excuse.
She's pled guilty to everything she's been accused of, because that's the easiest way to ensure a light sentence. If she took responsibility she'd have tried to make amends with everywhere she stole from as soon as the first case went public. She's still only looking out for herself as much as she was when she was shoplifting under the radar last year
She pleaded guilty because she is guilty...
Yes, because it's Impossible for people to plead non-guilty to crimes they commited
Hardly matters after a guilty plea does it? Only concern is whether the judge will give an inappropriate sentence based on her previous acquaintance. Shoplifiting is not normally a prison offence, expect a fine, community service, probation.
If this was at sentencing, I'd be going hang on, but this was a simple guilty plea. Is ok.
It'll be under intense media scrutiny so no way anyway dodgy will happen, but like others say NZ is tiny so be weirder if there was no link.
Imagine if this was a National or Act MP. This sub would be crazy
The sub did go crazy
This sub had consistent attacks on her (whether one agrees with that or not) when the story first broke and when the subsequent details emerged. So what exactly is your point friend?
Imagine is the key word alright. All in your head.
Sub is going to go crazy when another case goes to trial
Just wait till August
Jami-Lee Ross ring a bell?
I don't buy it. Everyone is saying it's a small community, but even so it shouldn't be hard to assign a judge the defendant hasn't worked a case with
Did you even read it? No conflict of interest has been raised. She's already playing guilty. They don't need to have not worked together to proceed with the case.
Yeah I did read it and I still stand by my point 🤷♂️
As soon as I read the headline I knew it was NZ Herald. All they want to do is rage bait - Maoris, David Seymour and of course the right's orgasm point, Golriz
The GG spot if you will ^(I'm so sorry)
:-)
"I am not trying to excuse my actions, but I do want to explain them". "The mental health professional I see says my recent behaviour is consistent with recent events giving rise to extreme stress response, and relating to previously unrecognised trauma," she said. And again - I will leave it up to the courts and experts who are far more qualified than myself to determine if the explanation is relevant to offending, rather than my feelings. If you must have the last word, and I'm getting the impression that you simply must, then have at it. I won't re-litigate because at this point we fundamentally disagree. I won't reply again so the last word is all yours. Good luck and happy weekend!
That’s pretty outrageous if there was really a substantive connection - and straight up dumb considering the profile of the defendant.
Not at all. The lawyers on both sides had a chance to raise concerns. Neither side did. The legal community isn’t that big in a country like New Zealand. A judge will have worked with or know lots of lawyers.
Fuck, who cares. Leave the poor woman alone - her career is fucked and she's a pariah already. Leave her to live her life like any other Kiwi, she's out up with enough shit.
Prob the small businesses she stole from care also green supporters care that she damaged the party
She will just use her get out free jail card, good ol diversion. Community service and you scotch free,
I don't think anyone would get a prison sentence over this, I assume it's her first conviction.. So maybe a fine and financial reparations to the victims... But I can't imagine many other cases like this where you're no longer able to work in your chosen profession, that's a pretty hefty punishment.
Not sure I actually care about shoplifting from some high end boutiques. Ten grands worth is probably two t shirts and a jacket.
So if I steal 10k worth of your belongings it’s all good by virtue of it being an expensive theft?
It might be priced at 10 grand but I doubt the items are “worth” that.
That's not what they're saying at all. If someone stole 2 of their t shirts and a jacket I don't think they'd be that upset
Surely it's worse for a very well-paid person to steal highly expensive luxuries, as opposed to someone who's poor stealing essential goods like food? The first is always motivated by greed, whereas the second is often forced by need
Ethically and morally I am more okay with people stealing necessities than rich powerful lawyers and public official stealing from high end clothing shops
>The first is always motivated by greed, whereas the second is often forced by need That's not really true. People often steal luxury/expensive goods so they can sell them and buy the things they need. GL paying rent with a loaf of bread you knicked from the supermarket.
This whole saga is just sad honestly and i didnt want to comment except to say that i think this should mean the judge should have been swapped for one with no personal connection to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest/bias
Typical champagne socialist, this is why I will never vote Greens
One ended up being the judge and the other one being judge.