even though he has a disability that compels him to take light fixtures, head office wouldn't agree to diversion despite it being requested twice already and on this occasion referred by Judge John Strettell. Police were reported as having earlier said that diversion was not going to be offered because of the seriousness of the case, and the public interest in it.
Somebody is not reading this case properly, this case isn't serious but for the reason that police haven't acted decisively in recognising Arie's condition. Even the building's owners were 'astonished and extremely concerned that someone had been prosecuted for the burglary.' If that's correct even the victims of the crime are concerned that Arie is being prosecuted. I might need reminding of something, but I thought burglars stole for profit, to benefit themselves with someone elses money or goods - but it only seems that Arie wanted to rescue the light fittings for the symbolism of meaning to him, and we might never know how the impact of the earthquakes affected that. Arie isn't a burglar, he has no convictions. He's somebody who will keenly help out others with part of him still child-like. Judge John Strettell recognised at least that, and probably, more from his lawyer's point of view, that its unlikely able to be proved that Arlie had the necessary ingredient, mens rea, a guilty mind.
Let him go, don't make a disabled young man unable to resist rescuing lights, saving them or whatever, a serious case of public interest, we have enough of those that clearly fit the criteria
Some more news on this. Christchurch police area Commander no less, Derek Eramus, has said tonight that police had followed correct procedures in opposing diversion for Arie. He pointed out that one of the fundamental requirements of the diversion process is that 'the offender needs to be able to make an informed admission of guilt.'
ReplyDeleteI think the District Superintendent has a point there. Not only might Arie need to be able to make an informed 'admission of guilt,' much earlier he needed to have formed the guilty mind intention of theft. If the Superindendent is recognising Arie's difficulty in making an informed admission of guilt, he should equally realised that difficulty extends to Arie's original intention in rescuing light fittings.
Unfortunately, Mr Eramus seems unaware, that Police National Headquarters properly earlier today said 'they wouldn't comment while the case was before the courts.' Maybe they're not in communication and Mr Eramus doesn't realise that discussing alleged aspects of offending, and state of mind of an alleged offender, is sub judice when it is before the Court.
You don't need a light switch to know that.
Having know more than a few burglars in my time from the days of
ReplyDeleteWilloughby to Kerr and more recently Van Wakeren I know an essential
element of the charge of burglary is intent.Without that element their
can be no conviction.As you say the mens rea (guilty mind) of this man
is dubious at best and I predict if he pleads not guilty their will
not, nor cannot be a guilty conviction
Glad to hear that you knew what you were doing breaking into them safes, after the money.
ReplyDeleteArie was saving things, stopping bad stuff from happening, saving on his life so that he could read a book or look sideways at a lamp and marvel at its press-down switch and think about what he could do with more light bulbs.