Police Videotape Evidence

Lawyer Marie Dyhrberg expressed concern about police conduct in a case where video taped evidence was handed over to TVNZ who has since (permanently) lost a bid to broadcast it.

That the police have an interest in broadcasting evidence would appear to be an effort to add the weight of public opinion to denigrate a defendent and is thus prejudicial and a danger to the integrity of the Law. To allow evidence to be displayed in an effort to inform the public achieves exactly the reverse by setting up a forum for discussion that assumes guilt. That the government owned broadcaster is appealing this decision is even more extraordinary. Asserting freedom of the press is one thing. Broadcasting police evidence is quite another. How will we be sure anyone is guilty if the government can just show us a video taped "confession". What is next, toture and public humiliation? Do we have a system of justice - or would the public prefer a return to the dark ages? In this age of reality TV are we so jaundiced that we must be spoonfed"official truth" or would we prefer a system that more effectively discovers truth by sticking to the rules of evidence?

Corruption, Legal Definition

Election Corruption

... Mr Clarkson had the right as the lessee of a building to display a sign on that building without including the market value of the display space as a campaign expense, as Mr Henry had said was necessary. The judges feared a "rash of electoral petitions" should the act be interpreted otherwise.

What does this mean? Untested Election law to prevent corruption says that there is a maximum level of advertising (spare us all from excessive election campaigns!) for an election candidate and Bob Clarkson took Tauranga by a slender vote majority with advertising deals such as the above.

This is unfair if it favours candidate that own prominently placed commerical property and free signwriters who want to support their candidate by painting commericals on such public property. The value of that advertising has to be assessed as a portion of the expenses of owning that land, as a value that could be otherwised realized if the owner so desired. The cost to the owner is the opportunity that such advertising creates by demonstrating that such advertising is effective, he is demonstrating that such advertising has a value, a cost upon our eyes - rather than a cost in the accounting sense. It is the exposure, not the bank account that the law addresses.

Singapore Legal Authority

A passage to death?

Social progress is achieved by development of individuals, not by a Government selecting who is to die. Eugenics has a lot in common with Execution. It is a Government deciding who has the "privilege" of life, ahead of creating conditions to "improve the general quality of life for everyone". It is the contradiction - by selecting the right people to die - a Government could "improve society". Eugenics is systematic racial selection for a similar purpose and effect. How can one separate the two? A system of justice? Well perhaps, but is that not worshiping a mental process of man, rather the the Divine that dispenses (justice). As if justice were actually a tangible commodity and there were a market for it? Singapore is exporting the death penalty. Singapore executes drug couriers who fly with via Singapore, whether they set foot in the Capital Punishment (legal) territory or not.

Singapore Airlines may reconsider marketing in drug based economies for moral reasons. Are they facilitating state sponsored entrapment? Or is this an act of war to take foreign nationals and execute them effectively as prisoners of [the] war (on drugs)?

That the Australian Government of the day does not mind is an act of selection - we do not want drug dealers as Australian citizens. People keep asking what if the man's name was Shane Warne (not the famous cricketer - but if that were his name) - the Australian voter may give a care.

Should flights be banned by the UN from drug kingdoms? That would be quite unfair to the majority of honest travellers! But, is it moral for Singapore to effectively extend its Capital punishment laws internationally with it's name on a public transport passageway (legally and effectively not Singporean soil) and so by casting a net providing routes into places a drug courier goes - knowing that couriers will be exposed to the CP laws of that country even if they are not nationals of that country and have never legally entered the country?