Cry me a river of tears

Lucy Lawless is having a cry, as are Greenpeace that the Police have got creative with their charges:

Lucy Lawless’ ability to travel to the United States could be “seriously impaired” if she is found guilty of burglary following her arrest after participating in a Greenpeace protest, a legal expert says.

The star of Xena and Spartacus was among seven protesters charged after a demonstration aboard a Shell drillship in Port Taranaki yesterday.

Police officers scaled the Noble Discoverer’s drilling tower to arrest the group, four days after the protest began, 53m up the ship’s drilling tower.

The group would appear in New Plymouth District Court on Thursday, police said.

Though unlikely, the protesters could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted, said Auckland University Faculty of Law associate professor Warren Brookbanks.

“They’re not going to get imprisonment at all, it would probably be dealt with by a fine, I would think. Or if they have a good lawyer they might be able to successfully persuade the court to convict and discharge them.”

Mr Brookbanks said Lawless’ lawyer would most likely seek a discharge without conviction which would allow her to continue to travel to the United States – where she frequently works – without any problems.

“[A conviction] could seriously impair her ability to travel to countries like the United States, where they take criminal convictions very seriously.”

Diddums, that is called consequences. If you want to be a lawbreaking activist then you takes the lumps.

 


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.

  • BJ

    She repeatedly said she understood her actions might impact her career but she was prepared for that risk. She should have thought about international travel consequences of her actions.

    • Phar Lap

      Just heard the forty three old woman in question called “Loosey” Lawless   has already got a plan” B” she is conveniently married to an American.

  • Cobolt

    What chance of getting a judge with a backbone? She was very keen to use her fame to bring the issue to the media – now there SHOULD be a price to pay.
     I hope so because then it would make every other notable think twice before using their fame to similar cause.

  • Agent BallSack

    Hopefully she gets community service – to be served at Calendar Girls. Mmm.

  • dutyfree

    At least the Police acted in this case.  I have been involved in other Greepeace actions where the Police would not act due to Wellington concerns.  This was when Labour was in power.  Fortunately Greepeace are a little predictable and so if you are a constant target or have a high expectation of being a target you can do a little planning.  I still remember the unhappy look on their faces when they were served with tresspass notices and their “activists” arrested before acheiving their objective.

  • Gazzaw

    How’s Lucy on standup comedy? She stands a good chance of getting off if the judiciary finds that se has the abilty to make people laugh.

    She should have thought about the consequences. I love her lawyer’s statement that she should be discharged without conviction because the US authorities take convictions very seriously. Shouldn’t our authorities trat convictions seriously as well?

  • Mortdemuzzie

    they’re lucky I wasn’t the Capt of the ship, I would have set sail for Alaska with them on top of the mast, and if they survived the journey I’d then put them ashore near a Chinese or Russian military facility to fend for their ecoselves without damaging the native flora or fauna, and espousing all the benefits of socialist bollocks to their comrades.

    •  Bearing in mind the captain is responsible for the safety of all on board – I think that’s stretching it a bit – however he could have done it, and drag them down and into chains once in international waters – hmmmmm.

      • ConwayCaptain

        Legally he couldnt.

        These people would be classed as stowaways and they would have sailed with no documents such as passports etc.

        You cannot divert to put them ashore as that then voids your insurance.  You have deviated from your voyage so if you have an incident on the deviation part it would not have happened if you had not deviated.

        If you deviate to do a SAR you have to inform your Company who should then advise the insurers.

        The shipowners/master would have been liable for prosecution in the US for arriving with KNOWN stowaways on board.  Before sailing deep sea you ALWAYYS do a stowaway search and note it in the log book.  Here they wolkd have sailed with KNOWN stowaways so would have been open to legal action.

      • Catweasel321

        Neil, you’re taking Mortdemuzzie at his word about Putin them
        ashore in Russia?

        And ConwayCaptain (below). 

        Legally to be a stowaway you’d have to be in hiding with
        intent to gain free passage.

        I think you’ll find Known Stowaway refers to instances when
        the master or crew is complicit in attempting to aid and abet hidden passage by
        aliens.

        Either way I’m sure rolling out a banner proclaiming your
        presence and courting media coverage doesn’t qualify as hiding, or preventing
        departure as obtaining free passage.

      •  Sorry you guys are too serious – I thought my putting Hmmmm at the end would have been enough….

      • ConwayCaptain

        CHANGE MY COMMENTS BELOW FROM STOWAWAY TO “BEING ON BOARD ILLEGALLY”

  • peterwn

    Unfortunately she might just get away with that lark. It is a balancing exercise between the seriousness of the offence and the seriousness of the effects on her livelihood (employment prospects and impediments to overseas travel). District Judges need to consider High and Appeal Court precedents when granting a discharge, so it is not solely a matter of how much ‘spine’ a District Judge has.

    There are two aggravating circumstances here:
    1. She had ample opportunity to leave the vessel before it got to an ‘arrest’ stage.
    2. She was a party (at least) to breaking the masthead light – willful damage of safety equipment. If she did not want to be a party to that – she could have left the vessel.

    IMO these two aggravating factors should be sufficient to put any ‘discharge without conviction’ right out of contention. Similarly with downgrading the charges.

     

    •  Surely the level of planning and premeditation would also be an aggravating factor. After all, they turned up with survival suits and several days worth of food. The repeated communication with news media ought to be taken into account as well.

  • Phar Lap

     As predicted Homelands security are on the job from USA ,watching the eco terrorist Lawless by name and Lawless by actions.Cry me a river will become” cry me an ocean”,as Lucy sups sorrow with the spoon of grief when she gets sent back to NZ from LA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.

    • Gazzaw

      I agree. I don’t believe that Homelands Security decisions are made purely on foreign Court rulings.

      • peterwn

        Strictly speaking an ‘arrest’ is sufficient to trigger American immigration law such that a visa becomes necessary. Not all offences are of concern to USA, only those ones involving that weird concept of ‘moral turpitude’ – “conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals”. See here for further detail:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_turpitude#U.S._government_guidance_on_determining_moral_turpitude

        Lucy has the additional problem that her actions have impinged on USA sovereignty which is probably why Homland Security is allegedly interested in the case.

        She would not be turned around at LAX. Homeland Security will know in advance she is on a flight (airlines must pass over their passenger lists a few days prior) and will simply tell the airline concerned not to board her. AFAIK they also receive passport details etc immediately a passenger checks in and can order a passenger be taken off the plane. NZ has this arrangement to detect dud visas and stop passports ‘down the dunny’ cases.
         

  • gazzmaniac

    I think she should go to the cleaners.
    If I commit a drink driving offence I will lose my license, my employer will take a dim view since I need my license to do my job, and I will most likely lose my job as a consequence – it is a condition of my employment that I don’t lose my license.  Losing my job is way out of proportion to a DD charge (some here might argue otherwise) but that is reality.

    Lucy Lawless knew the consequences before she broke into the rig, so she should at the very least be punished with a conviction.  I don’t think she should get away with no conviction just because she is famous and works in America.

  • joe bloggs

    Good to see the Police exercising some backbone for a change – just a pity she didn’t get charged with piracy or hijacking

    • Bob

      I prefer the burglary charge, should be easier to convict, and I hope she gets convicted, whining and crying about it now is to bad, she should have thought of that first…

      A charge of piracy or hijacking would be harder and she will pull the free speech defending the planet defense, similar to the loonys that attacked the satellite dome claiming they were saving everyone everywhere from something or other.

  • Catweasel321

    Have all you guys got your pitch forks and faggots ready, lets hear it everyone “Burn the Witch, burn the Witch”.

    • Hakim of phut

      Are you Rick Santorum talking about bringing Church and State closer together ?

      • Catweasel321

        If I was I’d be saying “adolebit praecantrix, adolebit praecantrix.”

    • peterwn

      Her offending is not quite that bad. Nevertheless she should have anticipated that she would have the piss taken out of her when embarking on that idiotic stunt.

  • Petal

    All it takes if her to be tarred with the “Terrorism” brush and she’s on a Very Special List.  Conviction or not.

  • Rockyr

    If there are any foreign nationals among the other six I would hope that our Immigration Dept would  consider a burglary conviction sufficient to classify them as undesirable and cancel their visas or visitation permits…….Though pigs might fly, they would have so many avenues of appeal it would take years, lawyers the winners, taxpayers losers again.

  • Anon

    I had a clash with the legal system in 1983 when I was young and stupid (some say I only aged since) and since then have been required to obtain Visas to enter both Australia and the USA (who are the strictest I have ever come across where I even get “detained temporarily” when going back and forth between the USA and Canada!)  Not something that is enjoyable getting the Visa either (and costly – but that shouldn’t worry her.

    Forgive the anon name as I don’t really need any more grief than this already gave me.

  • Kthxbai

    Forget it whale, she’s famous so she’ll get away without a conviction.

    • peterwn

      That is not a criterion – read my earlier comment. Even escaping a conviction may not take her off Uncle Sam’s ‘Homeland Security’ radar.

  • Catweasel321

    Sorry to burst all your retributive bubbles, but since she’s married to a US citizen she probably has a green card with permanent residency so legally is no longer subject to immigration checks.

    She just may be a little smarter than you all give her credit for. Thats what being a success is all about. Embrace it.

    • Guestosterone

      getting your tits out for cash, credit where credit is due

      • Catweasel321

        And most here have probably used their credit card to see them.

    • peterwn

      She would still have trouble getting into Australia.

      As far as green cards are concerned – a green card holder can be ‘removed’ for more serious crimes (her ones probably would not trigger ‘removal’). A green card also lapses if a holder is out of the USA for more than 50% of the time.

      In NZ residency can be cancelled if someone commits offences, but in general the longer the resident has been in NZ, the more grave must be the offence to trigger removal.

      • Catweasel321

        I think you’ve just reinforced my point. Thanks.

  • AnonWgtn

    Police have done well BUT will the learned Judge do anything – probably a Grean supporter.
    Wet bus ticket – must be allowed to travel to US to make more money.

  • Phar Lap

    Seems to me with the USA trying to impose their laws on MR DOTCOM,who is a NZ resident and NZ is a sovereign nation and we all have civil rights.Here we have the USA wanting the named to spend six months in jail even though he has not been found guilty of anything. With “Loosy” Lawless she is guilty by her own actions,and being married to a USA citizen ,i wonder what laws she will be tried under.If she is tried under NZ law so should  Mr Dotcom.Or am i missing something.Maybe the USA CAN TRADE LIKE FOR LIKE ,if they do “Loosey” may not be so conviction proof.

  • GPT

    The acts met the definition but I suspect the police will amend to unlawfully in a yard or similar and they will be fined and sent on their way.  Hell, diversion might even apply if first offenders.  Although the rumours of cutting through fences are troubling and perhaps making burglary the more appropriate charge.  It’s hard to be objective when it comes to hippies.

  • SalaciousTCrumb

    Maybe a charge of Crimes against Acting could be brought.

  • Vikingonmars

    Sghe will get off. A trade for Dotcom by the film industry. Watch and see.

32%