One aspect does worry me a bit. The cops have not said whether there were any 'Keystone Kops' type incidents invlving tasers. During the trial, the cops trumpeted the various successes with the taser but kept quiet about a 'Keystone Kops' type incident where an entirely innocent teenager was tasered by accident. When challenged the Police PR honcho said theough clenched teeth that the police did not need to tell media everything.

I could not see the door, but I hope Corrections will put a waist high hatch on all future cell doors so prisoners can be handcuffed behind their backs if need be before the door is unlocked.

Itsatrap - English law until fairly recently allowed people to obtain injunctions against media to stop publication of things of this sort. It was treated more as 'breach of confidence' rather than 'privacy' because the information was often sourced from a partner, servant, employee, etc who had an obligation of confidentiality, and the newspaper, etc knew this, but planned to publish the information to the person's detriment (thus fulfilling the three legs of the 'Coco' test set by the Chancery court in London). At that time judges had ruled there was no direct right of 'privacy' but accepted the door was starting to open. It is since Britain joined the EU and thus became party to a European human rights charter that the courts have had to take regard of conflicting privacy and freedom of expression in the charter. Generally for a 'private' person person, privacy prevails. However for a celebity who courts public attention, the attitude is that the public has a right to know about any seedier aspects of the celebity's life.

"This is a not to sub­tle under­min­ing of Nick “Quota” Smith whose time in par­lia­ment is likely to come to an ignomious end very shortly."

I assume this means that Osmose is likely to win in its defamation claim against Nick and the resulting damages will be so high as to force Nick into bankrupcy resulting in the loss of his Parliamentry seat. Bear in mind that the alleged defamation happened 5 years ago.

However I located a couple of preliminary hearings for this case which I discussed down at Farrar's Troll farm:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/01/osmose_v_smith....
and the preliminary judgments at:
http://jdo.justice.govt.nz/jdo/GetJudgment/?judgm... (19 December 2006)
http://jdo.justice.govt.nz/jdo/GetJudgment/?judgm... (3 December 2008)

What I get out of it is that Nick's statement is nothing out of the ordainary for a matter of this sort.

The issue as I see it is whether Osmose can succeed in claiming an element of ill-will in Nick's statement (ie to score a cheap political point). If not then Osmose's case against Nick would be dead in the water.

The judge in one of the preliminary hearings effectively told Osmose to drop the claim against Nick and other 'secondary' defendants.

I give Osmose a 80 - 85% chance of failure in its claim against Nick, although Osmose may well succeed against Dr Wakeling the first defendant.

Comparison between Bill Birch and Stephen Joyce. IMO Bill forgot why he was in Parliament - he had become completely 'house trained'. He went along with IRD's proposal for draconian tax penalties - so draconian that Mike Cullen had to tone them down. IMO Bill helped sow the seeds that led to the humiliating 2002 defeat, I doubt Stephen will fall in this trap.

"As far as I am con­cerned, Offend­ers have no rights except the right to be housed and fed. "
They also have a right to be treated in accordance with the law including prison regulations and rules set by Parliament. If Parliament so wishes, No 1 & 2 diets and bread and water can be re-introduced.

"That Judge should be sacked. it is their job to pro­tect soci­ety by putting crims away, "
If the sentence is too weak, the correct procedure is for the Crown Solicitor to appeal it. If the sentencing guidelines thus set by the Court of Appeal are too weak, Parliament can give the judiciary sentencing directions by passing the appropriate legislation.

It would be quite improper for executive government to interfere with sentencing other than by promoting legislation, and this includes the threat of dismissal of judges.

AFAIK, there is some law that exempts police from normal parking restrictions. Police can even cordon off street parking for police use.

Should the prospective victim of an attempted crime (or subject of a conspiracy to commit a crime) be able to seek name suppression? The Court of Appeal some years ago ruled that there was no legal provision for such name suppression if such a person is required to give evidence.

I am thinking of the attempted kidnapping case in 2002 where the offenders made an underground 'coffin' to hold the victim which was found by a council employee. The victim (who could afford it) fought tooth and nail for suppression without success.

If Clare had just let it go, it would have received very little attention. Now it is receiving unwelcome attention.

Nothing new here. Scrooge McDuck and Flintheart Glomgold (a British millionaire duck) were caught fighting in a public place over who was wealthier. The judge fined them ten oil wells each.

I think the Registrar offers cheap or free 'deed polls' for young children for when parents come to their senses.