The dust still settles on Simon Power's failure to further erode the rights of NZers.

Simon Power, somewhat like Garth McVicar, chooses events that create public concern or anxiety to sheet home laws and policies to further divide society and make purchase from rare events in a manner that transports our society backwards. Likewise, a manner which divides our society and creates a medieval, stifling atmosphere of fear, most often fear of nothing when it is seen in the cold light of day.

Power removed a law hundreds of years old, the defence of provocation, because of one case, so ignoring hundreds of cases where the defence of provocation helped break down the greyness of what a reasonable person might do when faced with possible death by violence. The one case of course was the Weatherston case, one which for years in the future will cause consternation for its brutality. The law change of course effectively ignored that in the Weatherston case, the original law of provocation worked effectively. Behind the attack on a suitable working efficient law allowing recognition of provocation, half a step away in fact, was probably the true reason that drove Power and his frightened allies - a common objection that properly allows the relationship between the victim of a crime and the alleged perpetrator to be examined. Understandably, there is great difficulty for the family or friends of a victim for details of the victims love life for example, or propensity toward promiscuity, violence, sexual, drug or alcohol abuse. All of which creates in the family's mind that the victim and not the perpetrator is on trial.

Of course a Jury is entitled to hear such evidence, and also hear it tested because it helps them consider the 'guilty mind' aspect that attends crime. Most readers would be totally sympathetic that a woman charged with killing her lover is able to call evidence that showed her lover had been abusive in a number of ways, or had such a propensity for violence that when she acted in some fashion to take his life - that she did fearing she was about to be killed.

Given that this objection to victims 'being tried' is somewhat in the public mind and likely to be the driver for all sorts of calls for changes to the law I think the public and the law were entitled to a more reasoned approach from Minister Power. For example the ability or logic even to speak about the need for the Courts to have all the facts and for Judges to be able to exercise their powers as to what is and isn't admissible - an everyday situation. But no Simon Power had to have a knee-jerk reaction and change the law at a time when there was still some public pressure and a lot of misunderstanding about the provocation defence.

Of course, there was an immediate step Power could have taken which both assisted evidence being able to be carefully considered by a Jury and the desire of a family not having to undergo the stress of feeling that their loved one was under scrutiny for being a victim. He could have written to the Judiciary and the Law Society and advised that such cases, relatively rare that they are, might as a rule have suppression orders attached to particular evidence that a family might find objectionable - a power I understand the Courts either already have or which could be exercised by being encompassed in current rules.

So we see the difficulties of having politicians, those such as Power with little life or Court Room experienced, as law makers. Simon Power has always had his eye on his own interests as any politician is entitled to, but as a lawmaker a politician must have the ability to put that aside and be detached. As I read in an editorial in todays Sunday Star Times, the ancient legal cliche 'hard cases make bad law.' Simon Power has made a number of bad laws, not ever showing the presence of mind to realise he has heightened public expectation in some quarters, such as McVicar before his fall out with the Minister for 'undoing good work,' that all that a bad situation takes to be 'fixed' is a new, and most often tougher law to be introduced.

This week Power came a cropper, his attempt to expunge the 'right to silence' was stopped in its tracks despite his political attractive trappings of 'saving' Court time and making the process of the law more streamlined and efficient. Even the Judiciary and lawyers spoke out against the intended changes.
Power was however able to get through some tougher sentences for those that don't report child abuse, despite a growing cynicism in his own party that longer sentences are of any value. A more realistic person than Power would know that these recent changes will have little effect, as people prepared to ignore child abuse or reporting it, are unlikely to have any idea or concern of the consequences anyway, or of law changes that make those consequences harsher.

What has been less significantly understood, something which Simon Power, of all nzers would know but chose to ignore - was that the 'right to silence' if removed was likely to lead to more abuse that contributes to miscarriages of Justice. Consider this, both Arthur Thomas and David Bain, initially forgave their right to silence and (as it will be seen know) naively co-operated with police who ultimately ensnared both men in miscarriages of Justice. I say Simon Power knows that best of all because of the number of cases he has dealt with this year alone and others in which he tries to relegate himself to Judge and Jury against the very essence of that which upon our law is based the Magna Carta, which took from politicians or heads of state the right to judge, rather bestowing that upon the peers of the individual.

'Hard cases make bad law,' so do politicians seeking political power and support of the type offered Power by McVicar and which over time might be seen as the power which brought both men down.