I told the Judge I had been given illegible copies of documentary 'evidence', and a typed transcript which is alleged to be of the audio recording on a small dictaphone tape I was also given at the last hearing. On average, one in three of the lines on the transcript is of me saying "I want a telephone to speak to a lawyer without delay please (well all right then, maybe not please every time)", and one in three is "INAUDIBLE", according to the Police typist.
The tape was apparently a result of Constable Mia Wilton's habit of wearing a recording device, with which she records people without their knowledge routinely.
The charge has been laid under Section 9 of the Summary Offences Act
Police know perfectly well that I have never assaulted Alan Donoghue - Donoghue assaulted me. Police know perfectly well that Donoghue's 'evidence' just does not stack up, and they have refused to take my complaint about him assaulting me. They are well known for their creativity when fabricating evidence against me and in excusing the actions of serious violent offenders like Donoghe, who told me he spent years in prison for armed bank robbery among other things. The Disclosure Act says somewhere that any previous convictions of the complainant are to be disclosed. Section 12 and 13 of the Criminal Disclosure Act says:
Section 12: Initial disclosure
- (1) At the commencement of criminal proceedings, or as soon as practicable after that time, and in any event not later than the applicable date, the prosecutor must disclose the following information to the defendant:
- (a) a summary that is sufficient to fairly inform the defendant of the facts on which it is alleged that an offence has been committed and the facts alleged against the defendant; and
- (b) a summary of the defendant's right to apply for further information under subsection (2) before entering a plea; and
- (c) the maximum penalty, and the minimum penalty (if one is provided for), for the offence; and
- (d) a list of the defendant's previous convictions that are known to the prosecutor; and
- (e) a list of any previous offences proved to have been committed by the defendant and of a kind to which section 284(1)(g) of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 applies, that are known to the prosecutor.
(2) At any time after criminal proceedings are commenced or, in the case of a child or young person who appears in a Youth Court in relation to the commission or possible commission of an offence, at any time after that person's first appearance in the Youth Court, the prosecutor must, if requested by the defendant in writing, as soon as is reasonably practicable disclose the following information to the defendant:- (a) the names of any witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to call at the hearing or trial; and
- (b) a list of the exhibits that are proposed to be produced on behalf of the prosecution at the hearing or trial; and
- (c) a copy of all records of interviews with the defendant; and
- (d) a copy of all records of interviews of prosecution witnesses by a law enforcement officer that contain relevant information; and
- (e) a copy of job sheets and other notes of evidence completed or taken by a law enforcement officer that contain relevant information; and
- (f) a copy of any records of evidence produced by a testing device that contain relevant information; and
- (g) a copy of any diagrams and photographs made or taken by a law enforcement officer that contain relevant information and are intended to be introduced as evidence as part of the case for the prosecution; and
- (h) a video copy of any video interview with the defendant; and
- (i) a copy of relevant records concerning compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and
- (j) a copy of any statement made by, or record of an interview with, a co-defendant in any case where the defendants are to be proceeded against together for the same offence; and
- (k) a list of any information described in paragraphs (a) to (j) that the prosecutor refuses under section 15, 16, 17, or 18 to disclose to the defendant, together with—
- (i) the reason for the refusal; and
- (ii) if the defendant so requests, the grounds in support of that reason, unless the giving of those grounds would itself prejudice the interests protected by section 16, 17, or 18 and (in the case of the interests protected by section 18) there is no overriding public interest.
(3) This section does not apply to a defendant who is charged with a minor offence as defined in section 20A(12) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 or with an infringement offence as defined insection 2(1) of that Act.(4) In this section, applicable date means—- (a) the date that is 21 days after the commencement of criminal proceedings:
- (b) in the case of a child or young person who is required to appear in a Youth Court in relation to the commission or possible commission of an offence, the date on which that person first appears in that Court:
- (c) any later date that the Court or Registrar allows, on application by the prosecutor, for the purposes of disclosure under this section.
Section 13: Full disclosure
- (1) The prosecutor must disclose to the defendant the information described in subsection (2) as soon as is reasonably practicable after a defendant has—
- (a) pleaded not guilty to an offence proceeded against summarily; or
- (c) if the information has been laid indictably, made his or her first appearance in Court in relation to the offence.
(2) The information referred to in subsection (1) is—- (a) any relevant information, including, without limitation, the information (standard information) described in subsection (3); and
- (b) a list of any relevant information that the prosecutor refuses under section 15, 16, 17, or 18 to disclose to the defendant together with—
- (i) the reason for the refusal; and
- (ii) if the defendant so requests, the grounds in support of that reason, unless the giving of those grounds would itself prejudice the interests protected by section 16, 17, or 18 and (in the case of the interests protected by section 18) there is no overriding public interest.
(3) The standard information referred to in subsection (2)(a) is—- (a) a copy of any statement made by a prosecution witness; and
- (b) a copy of any brief of evidence that has been prepared in relation to a prosecution witness; and
- (c) the name and, if disclosure is authorised under section 17, the address of any person interviewed by the prosecutor who gave relevant information and whom the prosecutor does not intend to call as a witness; and—
- (i) any written account of the interview, whether signed or unsigned, and any other record of the interview; and
- (ii) any statement made to the prosecutor by the person; and
- (d) any convictions of a prosecution witness that are known to the prosecutor and that may affect the credibility of that witness; and
- (e) a list of all exhibits that the prosecutor proposes to have introduced as evidence as part of the case for the prosecution; and
- (f) a list of all relevant exhibits in the possession of the prosecutor that the prosecutor does not propose to have introduced as evidence; and
- (g) a copy of any information supplied to the prosecutor in connection with the case by any person or persons whom the prosecutor proposes to call to give evidence as an expert witness or witnesses; and
- (h) a copy of any relevant information supplied to the prosecutor by a person or persons whom the prosecutor considered calling to give evidence as an expert witness or witnesses, but elected not to do so.
(4) The obligation to disclose information to the defendant under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable is subject to any order made under section 30 or 32.(5) If information referred to in subsection (2) comes into the possession or control of the prosecutor, or is prepared in recorded form, after the prosecutor has disclosed information in accordance with subsection (1) and before the hearing or trial is completed, the prosecutor must disclose the information to the defendant as soon as is reasonably practicable.(6) The entitlement of a defendant to information under this section continues while the criminal proceedings are in progress (including any appeal against conviction) and during the period from the conviction until the expiry of the time for lodging an appeal against conviction.(7) To avoid doubt, a reference in subsection (1) to pleading not guilty includes—- (a) denying the charge under, or in accordance with, section 20A(5) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; or
- (b) requesting a hearing in accordance with section 21(6) of that Act (unless the request is accompanied by an admission of liability); or
- (c) denying the charge during any appearance before the Youth Court under Part 4 of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.__________________________________________________________________
And this is Section (8):
Meaning of relevant
- In this Act, relevant, in relation to information or an exhibit, means information or an exhibit, as the case may be, that tends to support or rebut, or has a material bearing on, the case against the defendant.Donoghue's statements are a pack of lies and so is the evidence of the Police. His criminal record is very relevant. What this matter comes down to is an issue of credibility, Donoghue's word against mine. But there is another element to it, the credibility of the Police involved in 'investigating' Donoghue's complaint.The Police leapt into action recently, jumped into their cars and attacked me without delay after Tim Reynolds rang up and said "Kate's taken my bike" - he hung up, then the call taker records how she took some trying to ring him back to confirm whether or not he wanted to make a complaint about it, and how he answered the phone and hung up on her three times. No complaint was ever made, but after I was attacked by corrupt Constables Pope and Dallinger, and after they kicked in the bedroom door of a 14 year old girl to drag me out in handcuffs, bashing my head on the door frame for good measure, Reynolds still hasn't made a complaint, but I was long ago convicted of the great crime of swearing at the police, on the basis of nothing but the word of the two constables. The witty judgement of Sir Owen Woodhouse in the Napier Supreme Court (yep) of the Kinney Appeal springs immediately to mind: if a lady swears (and frankly, anyone would have, under the circumstances), and nobody is offended, is it a crime? Police note the name of a lady who I will not name here, who was allegedly within hearing distance, but Police couldn't get her to make a statement of complaint obviously. They are just counting on the fact that appealing is not easy if you don't have a lawyer and I am very busy trying to get my head around all the different corruptly laid charges, like the matter of Michael Murphy and Aaron Brook, Wayne Friend, etc. Those names will mean something to regular readers of this site, and as soon as I get more time I can link up the kaleidoscopic manner of organising (ha ha) the information on the site, shifting it to other sites and generally organising the information in a format in line with the aim of Transparency in New Zealand, to tell the story of corruption throughout NZ and to link the allegations to the Evidence - and that's a really key part of it, the linking of the information. I'm getting there, with little more than the clothes on my back and a bicycle, I am still giving them a run for their money because it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees, and I am sick of being accused of things I didn't do.Also, Police conducted door to door enquiries to see if they could find anyone at all who might have been offended, but of course they couldn't - just like they couldn't find a single member of the general public to give evidence at the meeting to discuss the Carterton Community Centre/ Facility/Event Centre debacle. They stormed into the meeting like the Gestapo in front of horrified witnesses - 150 or so of them, and dragged me out in handcuffs in spite of everyone telling them to arrest Georgina Beyer, and witnesses were so horrified that they wrote to the Prime Minister, the Area Commander of the Police, etc - and these were people who didn't even know me, never mind my friends, and they were prepared to come to Court and give evidence too and had made sworn statements accordingly, they were credible professional people, a psychologist, a schoolteacher, good decent people, not like Donoghue and his loutish, scruffy, unemployed mates.So when I received a letter from the justice department saying they were going to take even more money out of my pathetic $249 a week for bike helmet tickets and allegedly swearing at the Police (that's the other thing, they put my address down as all sorts of things, in this case it's another address where I was not even living) anyway I was very upset about this because I had filled in several Form 57 Court documents about the fact that my mail has gone to all sorts of addresses because Police have recorded all sorts of wrong addresses, including addresses, recently, where I don't even know the occupants. My address has remained the same since I moved from 13 Brooklyn Road, nearly 2 years ago, but Police like to send my mail all over the place and harass all sorts of people by turning up at all hours, parking outside for hours, kicking in little girls' doors, etc.Julian Assange has been remanded in custody today pending the hearing of an application to extradite him to Sweden. I don't in any way compare myself to Julian Assange, despite announcing that this site shall henceforth be known as Kiwikileaks or Kiwileaks or whatever it is, but I firmly believe the strategy is the same. Police Sergeant Kevin Basher is quoted in an email from Police as having an unhealthy interest in my website, here's what it says, and note that Police have refused to provide the full message to date, it was requested on the 9th September:"Kevin Basher- To Sergeant Murray Johnston--07/09/2010 07:47:45---Something needs to be looked at regarding RAUE using her 'Blog" to make statements regarding our sta"Other evidence they have refused to provide is the CCTV footage of the brutal attacks on me by Constables Dallinger, Wilton, Peters, etc, or the CCTV footage of me happily co-operating with the strip search involving just me and that nice Constable Dana Johanson, or her evidence that I was totally co-operative with her thorough search, unlike other officers who who lied, alleging I was "unco-operative, abusive" etc.The charge being heard this afternoon carries a six month prison sentence. I don't remember being asked if I wanted a jury trial and I'm pretty sure I should have had the choice.There is considerable evidence on this site of letters of apology to me from the Police which refer to " differences of expectation between Prosecutions staff and other police" and "Procedural disputes within the Masterton Police at present" and considerable evidence of fabricated evidence and corrupt and incompetent practices and policies within the Wairarapa Police. There are a relatively considerable amount of evidence of the validity in the form of letters from lawyers, such as the ones from Ken Daniels, Michael Appleby, Frank Minehan, Nikki Pender, etc,
No comments:
Post a Comment