Friday, July 6, 2012

Ewen MacDonald: Another idiot wants to rewrite the Law.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10817417

Typically after the Ewen MacDonald trial we have knee jerks from the knitting brigade. In this case someone whom I gather is a reporter takes umbrage at the right to remain silent. Interestingly, this dude has got his wires crossed as much as his knitting needles. In recent memory we've had the Law changed to remove provocation as a defence on a murder charge. That resulted from the 'Weatherston' case where Weatherston  unsuccessfully attempted to employ the defence but saw it rejected by the Jury. Slowly on that one, the Law worked properly, recognising that no provocation existed in that particular case, but the Law was changed anyway the result being that a beaten spouse, or an abused person has no defence of provocation if they somehow caused the death of their assailant during, or in proximity of some attack, of some kind, on them. Hard for me to follow that 'improvement'.

Above Stevenson makes out his case to dismantle the Law largely using emotion, a proposition that the average person is sophisticated, of sound mind and competency not to accidentally incriminate themselves at the hand of a skilled interrogator. Unfortunately Stevenson destroys his own, pleading, argument by overlooking that in the MacDonald case EM in fact was interrogated by his own choice. EM, whose brother is a senior detective, no doubt understood when read his rights that he anything he may have said could have been used against him. He in fact said that he was told by his family that he could expect a 'good grilling' and that 's what he got. The video interview lasting some where near 4 hours, conducted by a detective no doubt who had been briefed on at least some aspects by Crown Law. 'The grilling' was played to the Jury, I can't imagine any other question could have been asked about MacDonald's actions before or after the death of his brother-in-law. The inquisition was complete and MacDonald came through it in many commentators point of view strongly, as strongly as a man telling the truth in a situation where he understood his adult life depended on it and for which he knew he need not have answered a single question. So the system worked, but a busy knitter frets none the same.

I doubt any lawyer would have advised MacDonald to undertake that grilling. Though, having known the man, perhaps might have encouraged him to do the interview perhaps even sitting in with him. Stevenson makes 'his' list of how the law must be changed to prevent something which (like the Weatherson case) didn't happen. He scoffs at centuries of Law without even acquainting himself with the facts of the case he is critical of and my goodness he's not even a politician, as far as I know, trying to whip up public anxiety to erode our civil rights. It might have been worth taking a critical look at some of the points arriving from the wonder mind of Stevenson had he been able to assemble the facts of the MacDonald case into his argument. He chose to deliberately ignore them just as he should be ignored.

At a time when Watson, Teina Paora and others remain in prison, when the investigation into the Crewe murders remains incomplete, whilst the public await the report in the compensation application by David Bain, while Alan Hall's bid to have his murder conviction quashed we need less anxiety. We need to let the police do their job without pressure to do some things which might be impossible, we probably need an independent or semi-independent review authority of more complex cases considered for suitability for prosecution. On that point I've wondered more at the expression of  Ben Vanderkolk when the boot 'evidence' was destroyed in the MacDonald trial and perhaps we glimpsed for a moment a man feeling let down, perhaps even 'pushed' into a prosecution role of a case where he understood the evidence was marginal if not weak. However, that sits with other issues that need attention and a more positive attitude than the whining from Wellington.

8 comments:

  1. Watching the detectivesJuly 6, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    If this is the same David Stevenson who was a Wellington lawyer but imprisoned, then I would have thought it would have been wise for him to keep his opinion to himself.
    Either way, it is, as you say, a knee-jerk reaction from someone who has not thought through the implications of what they are saying. Few people on the stand are capable of thinking calmly and clearly about how their words can be twisted and misinterpreted to suit a particular viewpoint.
    In training offered to experts who regularly give evidence in court, this issue is one that is focussed on: how to answer questions so that your evidence is not misrepresented. If the experts, with nothing to hide, need such precautionary training support, how can it possibly be fair to require defendants who are being reviled in the press and who have everything to lose to get in to the stand and bare their chests to the deadly arrows of those who have little compunction in twisting their words to meet the ends of finding them guilty? Everyone connected with the courts knows that a case has nothing to do with finding the 'truth'; it's merely winning a battle to convince.
    Stevenson's and others suggestion of requiring defendants to go on the stand is naive, superficial and lacking any understanding. Just joining yet another witch-hunt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, he's a Wellington writer according to the piece.

    Ironical as you say that specialist witnesses are trained in how not to say things or volunteer information as we saw in the Bain trial where one witness said that if somebody had asked him he would have said his watch was 2 minutes out when timing the computer turn on time critical to David's alibi. Yet here we have the anticipation that every accused person is intelligent, versed in the law and an artist of double meaning or subverting the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As long as the use of loaded questions is allowed in Court, there needs to be the right not to take the stand. The old 'have you stopped beating your wife' question is used far too often to make innocent people look guilty.

    Macdonald was right not to take the stand, and in fact, if the journalist had done his job properly, he would know that in serious offences, the defendant very seldom takes the stand. Arthur Allan Thomas took the stand, and was asked many loaded questions.

    The prosecution should be about 'the truth' not 'winning' a game.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Stevenson... "A Wellington Writer"....as the piece is signed off.
    I'd hardly think he would say "An ex disgraced Wellington Lawyer who ripped off the vulnerable elderly and had a long ago grudge against Judges over the double dipping scenario about 1992."
    He has an expansive knowledge of the law, but then it's not an uncommon name and he might just have read a lot of books........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe I was trying to be 'nice' to him, after calling him an idiot. Sometimes it feels that you just can't be nice to folks these days even if they're are a disgraced lawyer instead of an idiot. As you might realise it's very complicated and I unreservedly apologise to all idiots and disgraced lawyers who might be called Stevenson. I feel he needs a good grilling about his current psychiatric care.

      Delete
  5. Lindsay R. KennardJuly 12, 2012 at 4:18 PM

    I read the piece and it struck me that the pillock was just a tad out of touch with reality. Whether Ewan MacDonald is guilty or not is academic now as the jury, rightfully I believe, returned a verdict of not guilty. Trying to convince some that it is the Crown/states job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not all doubt, the defendants guilt, removing the right to silence it a hefty shove in the direction of the defendant proving himself guilt. This has been the effect of the changes in the UK in the pre arrest caution and their prison's are running a revolving door policy now releasing wrongfully convicted as fast as the next batch arrive. The right to silence appears to date back to the arrival of Roman Law in England in 55 BC and has worked very well but the likes of McVicar and his ilk just want some one locked up guilty or not.
    The Crown are going to need a lot more evidence of the cast iron kind before they seek to retry Mr MacDonald maybe getting their finger severely scorched in R v Gwaze will make them more wary of attempting that line again.
    Your mention of the provocation defence and the repeal of it after it proved how well it works when a twonk uses it shows the slowness of some MPs after a couple of hours in Ballamys. The PM seems to see the importance of the right to silence

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Lindsay R. Kennard 12/7/2012 4.18pm
    ".....I read the piece and it struck me that the pillock was just a tad out of touch with reality...."

    Hi Lindsay
    I'm not sure if our pillocks are in alignment but my pillock goes something like this:

    "...Lawyer David Stevenson's sense of impending Armageddon and depression with "political, geopolitical and economic world events" led him to take $211,800 from vulnerable clients…….”
    “……He had arrived at the age of 58 in modest circumstances and "depressed at political, geopolitical and economic world events ... and a sense of impending Armageddon…….."

    Stauuf, Fairfax News, 15/03/2008

    Now my pillock is truly a pillock......your's, out of touch with reality, may just have read a lot of books on the law and be unfortunate to have a name that is not uncommon.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't know why the Herald published the article. Not only did it not note all the interviews with EM that were presented to the Jury, but also it didn't take into account that the English system exempts from criticism any defendant that has made a statement to Police in his defence. Not that I agree with the English system anyway but Stevenson was totalling misleading his piece and it makes me wonder if the editor was supporting that.

    I think the situation is that 'let he or she that accuse, prove the fabric of their allegation.' Otherwise witch hunts begin, judgement of looks, what the observer 'would have done, in the defendant's position,' why they didn't speak out,and so it goes on and on away from proof into suspicion or malice of the dim-witted.

    We should be content that the right verdict was reached in this case and that of Gwaze, rather than fretting over 'something' that the Crown were unable to prove.

    ReplyDelete