I understand that it was in the Privy Councils' power to have quashed the conviction altogether and not have put the NZ Government to the expence of a new trial, does any one know why they didn't? Or is it the obvious answer? Sorry for everyone else having to research but time is not my friend at the moment
Edited by goldnkiwi at 7:47 pm, Wed 3 Nov
Quotegoldnkiwi (608 ) 7:45 pm, Wed 3 Nov #29124
No Retard Rachael, time is not your friend, either is having a brain.
PS. Don't worry about the Retard Award for this week Rachael, it's yours I'm sure, in the bag.
allow me to spell it out.
ReplyDeleteTheir Lordships answered her themselves in their report, of course.
They ordered a retrial because that was what David's QC, Michael Reed, asked for.
That was why the Lords went to such lengths to say that nothing should be inferred as to innocence or guilt, because usually a retrial is ordered where it has not been requested but there is too much evidence to throw the case out without a retrial.
Those able to read might also note the quite deliberate reference to the 'very unusual circumstances' of the case. Their Lordships were sending a clear message. Why did the Solicitor General not pick it up?
Can I suggest you do away with the moron and retard awards this week, and instead award a Myth Perpetrator Award. I realise there would be joint winners, but as it's Guy Fawkes on Friday, it's only fair we acknowledge their ability to blow up their entire credibility in one fould swoop.
ReplyDeleteTo exasperated above.
ReplyDeleteThe Solicitor General was naive, succumbing to pressure developed in his own mind, or else he would have made the decision of no re-trial and facilitated compensation. Because he didnt, he's cost the country millions and given rise to a new feature in our society - hate-sites.