Interesting Sentencing

There has been a conclusion to the case of the so-called former “national figure” who was convicted of indecent assault in a Nelson court.

A former national figure who was this morning convicted and sentenced to 15 months jail, has been released on bail.

The man’s lawyer Jonathan Eaton filed an appeal on the man’s conviction and sentence today and he was granted bail at 11.30am, one hour after he was sentenced to prison by Judge Behrens in the Nelson District Court.

Mr Eaton said it would take four or five months for an appeal to be heard and the man could be released within seven and a-half months, meaning he would have served most of his sentence before the appeal was decided.

Judge Behrens said the accused had still not acknowledged his guilt and he could not take into account his good character references when setting the sentence, and did not allow him home detention instead of jail.

Crown lawyer Mike Turner said there had been a gross breach of trust against the victim and she had been vulnerable to his offending because of her age and their relationship.

The man was found guilty by a Nelson jury in May on three charges of indecently assaulting his stepdaughter.

The Crown said that the man touched the girl’s breasts underneath her T-shirt while they were alone watching TV at a Nelson home on December 30, 2009.

This guy is so afraid of his own name he even got his lawyer to lay a complaint against me for naming him previously. I already have a conviction for naming him but once again it shows that all I have done is name pervs, rapist and kiddy-fiddlers. This man is on the streets of Nelson on bail and no one is allowed to know who he is. That is wrong.

Several idiots have emailed me laughing about it being a National politician…it isn’t. There is another party in parliament that likes to display former MPs photos on the walls of their office, but strangely this one is missing.

This case also proves why I have Rule number 12 in Whaleoil’s Rules of Politics.

 

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Mike Readman

    This time you’re wrong. He’s appealing, that means he might actually be innocent.

    • Yeah good one. I have a bridge I can sell you.

    • Oh and as it stands he IS convicted.

  • cheshirecat

    This is one of the things that makes my blood boil about being in this third world banana republic shithole. The poor cunt from Takaka who was ACQUITTED of rape has hhis name splattered all over the papers today, but this freak has his name suppressed. Surely a bit of manipulation on the part of his scumbag ambulance chasing twat of a car boot lawyer. Why in fuck’s name wasn’t his relationship with the victim suppressed throughout the trial? As soon as I can scrape enough money together to get out of the Stalingrad of the South Pacific, I’m off back to civilisation. Fuck the lot of you.

    • reid

      Surely a bit of manip­u­la­tion on the part of his scum­bag ambu­lance chas­ing twat of a car boot lawyer.

      A lawyer, to quote Richard Prebble, is a hired gun. If you needed to hire a hired gun, would you rather have a pussy or someone who used every single trick law in the book to get you off establish your innocence?

      A lawyer hired gun operates under transparent strict rigorous rules of conduct risking disbarment if they err in the slightest. And disbarment is real and is used quite often in all areas of the law, for both minor and major infractions. That’s part of the whole “civilised rule of law” deal we are lucky enough to have under the Westminster system.

      In other words, don’t criticise the lawyer for fighting tooth and nail for their client, that is not only their job, it’s their duty, under the adversarial system we operate here. In other words, if they don’t fight tooth and nail, they risk being disbarred, as well.

      There have been some comments over the last few years about moving to a more inquisitorial approach, in some circumstances. Unfortunately, Power is leaving, so that probably won’t go anywhere, since Finlayson is unlikely to do anything good in that arena if we are unfortunate enough to inherit his “wisdom” in due course, but if you want to solve that above issue, then suggest you start looking to something like that, rather than criticising the players who didn’t write the script.

      I am not a lawyer therefore you cannot level any vested interest allegation against me. I simply make a quite obvious observation vis-a-vis the state of play in the point you raise, which is much much wider and more profound, than the issues in this particular case.

      • cheshirecat

        The point you’re totally missing here is that, irrespective of the outcome of the case, the ‘former national figure’ would always have had permanent name suppression afterwards, to avoid identification of the victim.

        If his relationship to her had been suppressed throughout the case, then what grounds would he have had for permanent suppression, whether he had been found innocent or guilty?

        The recent case regarding the ‘well-known comedian’ who was charged with indecent assault is a case in point. The relationship of this man with his alleged victim was suppressed throughout, although it came to light elsewhere, as we know.

  • reid

    I thought from past performance the media was allowed to name someone upon conviction?

    IIRC they never used to give a shit about breathless reporting from the courthouse the minute the verdict was announced. What’s different here, I wonder?

    It’s not Rupert Murboch is it?

  • bunswalla

    Is it Peter Plumley-Walker?

39%