PDA

View Full Version : Chris Kahui-a legal question



fish
11-10-2010, 09:16 PM
Evidence from the coroners enquiry has shown that
- An angry, frustrated Chris Kahui was alone in a room with his twin sons minutes before they began exhibiting signs of the injuries that would lead to their deaths, police have told an inquest.

The long-awaited coronial inquiry into the 2006 deaths of three-month-olds Chris and Cru Kahui began in Auckland District Court yesterday with police describing their unsuccessful murder case against the twins' father.

Mr Kahui, with his new partner and her family, sat emotionless in the public gallery as Detective Sergeant Chris Barry gave evidence. He said Mr Kahui was charged because:

He was the principal caregiver, with mother Macsyna King absent, and was angry that he was doing all the caring for the boys.

He was alone in the babies' bedroom for about 10 minutes before Cru was discovered turning blue and not breathing.

After Cru was found not breathing, Mr Kahui did not call an ambulance and did not call one the next morning when the babies were discovered to be critically ill.

He suggested that his 13-month-old son Shane could have caused the injuries.

Days later he said to family members that he should "hand himself in".

Chris Kahui was found not guilty of the twins' murder in a trial in 2008.

Chris Kahui had the twins in his care when they became critically ill from severe head injuries ,He was responsible for their care and failed to seek medical care . This is a hallmark of non-accidental injury .
If he gets away with their murder what does this say about our justice system ?
He is probably receiving a lot of state aid to do this .
Pity we cant put the same expensive and clever resources into establishing a better justice system-a jury system cannot find the truth when a conspiracy of silence enables the guilty to avoid giving evidence .
Fortunately the coroners system is far more likely to establish the truth .


Now the question-if the coroner establishes that the twins were in kahui s care at the time they were injured and showed the signs of that injury and he failed to seek medical care can kahui be prosecuted for failing to provide the necessities of life or a similar charge ?

craic
12-10-2010, 09:21 AM
No, it has been stated over and over again that he cannot be prosecuted again on this offence It is a principal of our justice system - The British System - that an accused may remain silent, as did Bain in his last trial, and nothing can be read into that by the jury. The Prosecution have to provide the evidence and prove the case. You will not get that changed 'till hell freezes over.

fish
12-10-2010, 07:01 PM
Craic my question asks if he can be prosecuted not for what he did but what he didnt do-there are plenty of examples of such prosecutions being successful-e.g -

A Motueka mother has admitted intentionally hurting her baby son, which led to the boy sustaining severe permanent brain damage.

Cassandra Albert, 21, pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to provide the necessities of life for her four-month-old son when she appeared in the Nelson District Court yesterday.

Albert also pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of causing grievous bodily harm to the baby with reckless disregard for his safety. A previous charge of wounding with intent was dropped.

The court previously heard Albert's son suffered serious non-accidental injuries including a fractured skull and brain damage over Labour Weekend last year.

Help was not sought for the baby for more than eight hours even though the baby was suffering seizures and sweating so badly his clothes needed changing at least three times during the day to keep him comfortable.

fish
12-10-2010, 09:12 PM
Section 26 of the Bill of Rights Act is as follows:

Retroactive offences and double jeopardy

1. No one shall be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred.
2. No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again.

So is failing to provide the necessities of life ie not taking a twin to a doctor when he doesnt feed for 24 hours or so and stops breathing and turns blue a different offence to smashing babies skulls . It seems it is a separate offence with Cassandra Albert so why not with Chris Kahui ? .

minimoke
13-10-2010, 07:49 AM
Section 26 of the Bill of Rights Act is as follows:

Retroactive offences and double jeopardy

1. No one shall be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred.
2. No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again.

So is failing to provide the necessities of life ie not taking a twin to a doctor when he doesnt feed for 24 hours or so and stops breathing and turns blue a different offence to smashing babies skulls . It seems it is a separate offence with Cassandra Albert so why not with Chris Kahui ? .
Fish
The Bill of Rights has been overtaken by George Gwaze. Remember he's the guy charged with murder of his niece and he got off due to some very dodgy hearsay evidence on AIDS and anal injuries. The Crown won the right to re-try him: so he's will go down on that one eventually.

As for Chris Kahui he won't get done for again for murder. There was nothing dodgy about his trial - except for an inept police investigation and a shonky prosecution. Another jury verdict delivered in double quick time - less than a minute!.

During the Coronial inquiry he hasn't been warned about his right not to give evidence if it might incriminate him on other offences. But any prosecution on other offences would need to be weighed against public interest tests. I reckon the police will say they have done their best on bringing him to account for the deaths - and the jury decided otherwise.

If you were wanting to place money on future prosecutions I'd be looking at Macsyna (with a name like that you just know she is going to get into trouble) and the pond scum who call themselves family. I don't fancy your chances.

fish
13-10-2010, 04:15 PM
thx for that perspective mm .
Smashing the skulls of his twins is far too a heinous crime for C kahui too get away with completely . I see your logic and understand why he wont be charged again with murder .
With macsyna he should be charged with failing too provide the necessities of life-dont you think this is possible .?

belgarion
13-10-2010, 04:26 PM
I'm confused with the treatment (and defense) of Chris Kahui.

Is he mentally sub par? I mean an IQ sub 80?

Does NZ have any precidence in the prosectuion/defense of such individuals? (Thinking of Stienbeck's "Of mice and men")

minimoke
13-10-2010, 04:57 PM
Is he mentally sub par? )
You have to ask?

belgarion
14-10-2010, 06:27 AM
You have to ask?

I know he's dim. The question was a legal one.

dartMonkey
14-10-2010, 09:32 AM
You have to be sub 70 IQ in New Zealand I think to avoid prosecution.

minimoke
14-10-2010, 09:47 AM
You have to be sub 70 IQ in New Zealand I think to avoid prosecution.
Haven't heard that one. There is a defense available to thick people and thats one of "natural imbecility" (as well as disease of the mind). Essentially a person has to have the mental capacity to know what it is they are doing and what they are doing is wrong.

Lets face it, white collar crime aside, loads of crims aren't too bright. Chris and Maksyna were clearly dozing when reject brains were being doled out. But some time in jail would only see them spending time with some of their intellectual peers. Much the same could probably be achieved if they were locked up in the local Pound but that is probably being a little unkind to canines.

dartMonkey
14-10-2010, 12:46 PM
The relevant legislation is here
http://interim.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0115/latest/DLM223818.html
particularly section 14.
I forget who the body of health assessors are when considering capacity but according to their criteria it needs to be 70 or below to be too stupid to be tried.

craic
14-10-2010, 03:55 PM
From memory its two doctors, one of whom should be a psychiatrist but lawyers avoid this provision like the plague because a Judge can sign a committal order and their client goes into care between two big policemen. As a PO, I often asked for this assessment in a Court Report and it was usually granted. Most often the individual is found fit to plead.