New Zealand Laws | Call For Crewe Murder Inquiry To Be Reopened

New Zealand Laws | Call For Crewe Murder Inquiry To Be Reopened

Arthur Allan Thomas, who was granted a royal pardon in 1979 after having spent 9 years in jail wrongly convicted of the murder of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe has backed a call from Mr and Mrs Crewe’s only daughter Rochelle for the case to be reopened.

The murders, which occurred 40 years ago, remain a black mark against the police force in New Zealand. A royal commission found that detectives on the case framed Mr Thomas by burying a shell casing from his rifle in the garden at the Crewe’s farmhouse, south of Auckland.

In her statement, Rochelle Crewe was critical the decision of the Solicitor-General at the time, Paul Neazor, QC, not to lay charges against detectives Bruce Hutton and Len Johnston. The head of the 1980 commission, Justice Robert Taylor from Australia said what they had done was "an unspeakable outrage".

Police Commissioner Harvey Broad was quoted as saying "What's coming out is that there are a lot of unanswered questions about this case, and a lot of contested questions, and people are looking for answers. Whether or not it's possible to do that [reinvestigate], I'm not sure."

Police Union chief Greg O'Connor said the case had long been a black mark against the police. "When you consider that my generation of police officers have had that thrown in our faces continuously ... maybe a properly conducted inquiry wouldn't be a bad idea."

Prime Minister John Key said it was unlikely that the Government would set up an independent investigation, but he did not rule it out.

For up to date advice on developments in New Zealand Laws and new laws of New Zealand contact http://www.newzealandlaws.co.nz

new laws | Gun Law Tightens On Air Rifles

New Laws | Air Rifles Now To Be Regulated Under The Arms Act

New Zealand guns laws became tighter than ever on October 15^th when the law was amended to extend to cover all “pre-charged pneumatic air rifles” All airguns except those used in “air soft” and “paintball sports” will henceforth be classified as especially dangerous airguns and will now be subject to the licensing requirements of the Arms Act 1983

It is widely felt that the new ruling is a good thing because some models of modern air gun are capable of causing serious injury and possibly even death. The technology behind these weapons has developed such that they are now extremely powerful and according to some sources within the New Zealand police force, air rifles had become a weapon of choice for some criminals.

Until the law change it was possible to own an air rifle without being subjected to the rigorous background checks required to hold a firearms license in New Zealand. Air Rifles have been used in two homicides in New Zealand, a spokesman for the police maintained.

The law change brings the requirements for owning an air rifle into line with rules relating to the use and storage of other guns and they too must now be safely stored and users must undergo complete safety training. The importation of air rifles will now also be able to be monitored by the police and customs.

There is an amnesty period of three months up until 14 January 2011 for owners of PCP air rifles without a license to obtain a license, dispose of the weapon or hand it in to the police.

ashleystevenson60

http://perscriptionviagracolumbusohio.cnubjuyj.com

New District Court Judge appointed

New District Court Judge appointed

Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson announced today that Napier Barrister Max Courtney has been appointed a District Court Judge with a Family Court warrant.

 

Mr Courtney was admitted to the bar in 1977, working at the time as a Solicitor with McIlroy Cochrane Wellington followed by a stint with Rainey Collins Armour & Boock in Wellington. From 1983 to 1984 he was employed as a Solicitor with Langley Twigg in Napier. In 1984 he became a partner of that firm and from 1984 to 2000 he was partner in charge of the firms litigation department. He has been a Barrister sole since 2000. 

 

Mr Courtney has held various appointments with the Hawkes Bay District Law Society and the New Zealand Law Society.  Since 2008 he has been the Deputy Convenor of the New Zealand Law Society Standards Committee (Hawkes Bay) and a Member of the Napier Family Court panel of mediators for counsel-led mediations

 

The new Judge will be sworn in at Napier on 26 November 2010, and will sit in New Plymouth.

The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010

There is a considerable amount of concern over the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act, which was whipped through Parliament with great haste in order that the Government might have "adequate statutory power to assist with the response to the Canterbury earthquake". There is no doubt whatsoever that there was a need to act quickly so that the rebuilding of Christchurch could commence quickly and smoothly, and to ensure that those seeking to help the city return to normal are not hamstrung by being tied up in red tape.

But the powers that act grants to the Government are wide in the extreme and it is not an exaggeration to say that Gerry Brownlee, the minister heading the recovery program, is cast in the role of pseudo monarch. The Government can effectively decide to ignore the law except for five acts – the Bill of Rights 1688, the Constitution Act 1986, the Electoral Act 1993, the Judicature Amendment Act 1972, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990.

Among the many acts of parliament it can override using powers bestowed on it in the new act include the Resource Management Act, the Commerce Act, the Historic Places Act and the Health and Disability Services (Safety Act) which together form the foundations of the planning regime. Edicts made using powers in the new act carry all the force of the law, no-one acting in good faith under those edicts can be held liable, and there is no right to compensation created by the act. The new law has been compared to a Henry the VIII clause and gives unbridled power to the minister.

That is not to suggest that the Government will use the new powers unwisely or without due thought. The act passed into law with the support of all parties in Parliament. There is widespread doubt about whether Mr Brownlee, the man who so favours the mining of conservation land should be trusted with architectural heritage of Christchurch. We should not lose sight of the fact that it was in large part due to the tough building code requirements and consent process that Christchurch came through the horrors of the September 4^th quake with no loss of life.

One of the first acts expected using the new powers is to absolve the council of its statutory obligation to provide home buyers with land information memoranda within 10 working days.  The council’s property files are stored at a recall facility and are in turmoil following the quake. As such, it is not going to be able to provide a full LIM for some months.

Whilst the new law will not please everyone, the government had to be seen to act quickly and decisively to enable the re building of Christchurch to commence as soon as reasonable possible. With over 4 billion dollars of claims expected and still another two months in which claims can be lodged, the full extent of the damage is as yet unknown. The powers granted under the act will be in effect until 1 April 2012.

 

The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act

The New Zealand Law Society has said it recognises that there were unprecedented circumstances which led to Parliament passing the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010.

Law Society President Jonathan Temm today said the earthquake was an exceptional and devastating event which justified emergency legislation to facilitate the recovery of the Canterbury region.

Mr Temm said it was understandable that the resulting Act made exemptions, modifications or extensions to relevant legislation. It was also noted that the new powers were seen as having a finite duration, with the Act expiring on 1 April 2012.

“We acknowledge the pressures which have been placed on Parliament to provide appropriate machinery for assisting recovery in Canterbury,” Mr Temm said. “However, the Law Society believes it has both a legal and a moral duty to place on record its concern that there are some serious issues with the Act and how the Act impacts on the rule of law.”

“We are not going to criticise the legislation from the sidelines. While we strongly point to what we see as problems in the way the legislation is drafted, we have some suggestions on how Parliament can resolve these.”

Mr Temm said the Law Society believed that the powers delegated to Ministers by section 6 of the Act were potentially at odds with maintenance of the principles of the rule of law.

“An Order in Council may make exemptions from, modify or extend the provisions of any New Zealand statute, with only five exceptions. Lawyers and commentators have already pointed out that this could include the Crimes Act, legislation on taxation and revenue, and many other statutes which have no connection to recovery work in Canterbury.

“Of course, it can be said that the powers will never be used. However, our concern is that while everyone may act with the best intentions in the interests of Canterbury and New Zealand, there is still reliance on anyone using the powers conferred by the Act to define their own boundaries and restraints. Even actions which are taken in good faith by officials could go beyond what was envisaged by Parliament when it passed the legislation.”

Mr Temm said the Law Society also pointed to the provision in the Act which made it difficult or impossible for anyone to obtain a judicial ruling on whether the powers in the Act had been used appropriately.

“The Society suggests that a workable approach would be to specify which Acts might be the subject of Orders in Council. This would limit and define the powers without necessarily preventing their use for earthquake recovery in any way. Judicial review should also be available to determine whether power has been used appropriately or otherwise.”

Mr Temm said the Law Society has written to the Attorney-General with details of its concerns and with an offer to work with Parliamentary officials or others in dealing with the concerns which are now being voiced about the legislation.