Arie Smith - the case lights up.

Apparently there were no complainants in this case, odd as that may sound. Perhaps looting doesn't require complainants in the normal sense. Before I go on, much is made of the burglar's tools Arie was alleged to have in his possession. In reality a burglary tool could be a simple as a screw driver, or pair of wire cutters, whatever the tools happened to be certainly wasn't enough to stop the Court asking the Police to exercise diversion. There seems an abundance of misguided information abroad such as that Arie wouldn't plead guilty or 'fess up,' in fact he did originally plead guilty and later asked for that plea to be vacated.

The couple whose unused building Arie entered were not informed until recently of the alleged burglary, and if what we saw on television last night is correct, had no concern for the return or custody of the particular light bulbs that Arie was impulsed to have. The man even pointing out that his concern was that it was unsafe to go inside the building. So it's a given that the victims of the crime don't consider themselves to be victims at all, and the police must have had a similar opinion because they hadn't bothered contacting them for months - and probably never would have.

After Police National Headquarters declined further comment last week about the case because it was still before the Court, the Chief Inspector of Christchurch began to comment at length about the case, most recently apparently declaring a criminal investigation into staff at TVNZ who reported on the case. That could prove very interesting because the case has been commented on at some considerable length by both sides until the police HQ apparently shut up shop on doing so, shortly after which the area Commander of Christchurch began.

Interesting to note that before the arrest of the ex partner of Carmen Thomas for her murder the police gave details of her body being dismembered, information which really didn't need to go into the public forum before a Judge made a decision on the matter, and can only therefore be assumed to have been entered for the prejudice effect of the public against the now accused man. I suppose it really is a question of how much the public need to know before the case goes to Court. A plea for information is understandable but when a case begins to get built publicly against an individual in the public arena someone has stepped over the line.

Of course all of this pre-empts was will happen on line where trials and misinformation by internet users will abound, including some might argue by bloggers such as myself. On that point as much as the opportunity is there, and while I'm unaware of any association of bloggers or an identified protocol or ethics committee, I personally recognise the need for accuracy in what claims are made. However, on message boards there is no or little restraint. Though it can be said that lack of restraint extends to both media and police pr machines. Is it Justice, I don't think so.

On the issue of blogs it would be timely for an association and standards to be set, much like the traditional print media because my belief is that an appreciation is growing that 'talking' in cyberspace is not different to publishing on paper. But really, why have the big guys the media companies who have hundreds of years of history in publishing in some cases, not leading the protocol standard - the answer can only be that they don't want to be lagging on the new wave of information. If that's a sufficient reason, then the test remains is it prejudicial, sub-judice even contempt of court in such cases, and if it is why are the Governments, Courts or Government agencies apparently so slow reacting.

In effect Arie has been tried in the media, by the police on one hand, and by an interested media on the other - something which has led to a standoff. What should either of these groups do when faced with the question of wresting trials away from the Courts before they are even tried. Only one thing in my opinion, go to the Courts for injunctions and directions as necessary. This is a fairly exhaustive subject which I'll leave for now, but first some comment on Arie.

Hard to build a picture of somebody from news snippets and a photo, so I guess having stuck my neck out a little on the subject of Arie I can admit, although I didn't expect would be the case, I was going to have to cop it on the chin and acknowledge so if I was wrong. It never hurts to be wrong, well not deliberately, but it's critical, if not always easy - to admit when you are.

But Arie came across just as I and I guess thousands of others has been pressure on him to admit, if he knows, how he got that severe bruise and damage to his eye, but he was quite honest in his description for my money - but more importantly, almost naively not wishing to use the injury in anyway for sympathy or anything else. Though we didn't get to hear him scream, his descriptions of how he freaked out were more vivid and simple in impact that any scream one might hear. His talk about best friends, and seeing his eyes light up when going to apologise to the couple and when talking about his hopes of being an electrician one day, and how important courses were told more about him than he could ever hide.

Now that I know TV1 are under investigation, maybe I shouldn't have written those poems.