Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Habeas Domus

New Zealand tourist Warriena Wright death plunge

Recommended Posts

By the end of the date Wright was dead, having plunged 14 storeys from the balcony of Tostee’s apartment, and two years later he is on trial in Queensland’s supreme court charged with her murder.

The case centres around a 199-minute mobile recording made by Tostee which captured the fractious and ultimately fatal course of the pair’s evening together, including the moment Wright fell to her death.

It is the key piece of evidence in the supreme court trial of Tostee, 30, who was standing on the other side of a locked glass door the moment Wright fell.

And the recording is cited by the crown as demonstration of his guilt, and by the defence as vindication of his innocence.
 
The media probably don't have the full story (they never do) but on the face of it I can't see why this ever got as far as a court case.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Live case.  I do not think we should discuss until done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wherebee said:

Live case.  I do not think we should discuss until done.

'Cos of course we never discuss current court-cases here on "off-topic" now do we...?

;)

 

 XYY

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No law against it in the US but is sub judice in the UK....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

Quote

In England and Wales, Ireland,[1] New Zealand,[2][3][4] Australia, South Africa, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Canada,[5] Sri Lanka, and Israel it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading tocontempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

No such rule in the US and they often have to lock a jury up in a hotel with no TV's, newspapers or radio's whilst they sit a trial, right thru to verdict. Even their personal calls to family are monitored in case the news reporting gets mentioned.

Must cost them an absolute bloody fortune....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, geezer466 said:

No law against it in the US but is sub judice in the UK....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

No such rule in the US and they often have to lock a jury up in a hotel with no TV's, newspapers or radio's whilst they sit a trial, right thru to verdict. Even their personal calls to family are monitored in case the news reporting gets mentioned.

Must cost them an absolute bloody fortune....

Ah yes but what if someone was discussing a sub juduice case in New Zealand from the UK? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, workingpoor said:

Ah yes but what if someone was discussing a sub juduice case in New Zealand from the UK? 

 

The test would be 'is it enough to influence the outcome of a trial' and if it actually did so. Of course proving that one way or another would be extremely difficult as far as this forum (which can be read in NZ) goes.

On the other hand if a well know shock jock on UK radio were to influence a trial in NZ with a broadcast and their authorities got to hear about it I assume they may want to seek extradition. If such an agreement exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both statutory and common law contempt of court are concerned with the possibility that a juror, witness or lay judge may be influenced by material which is published about active legal proceedings. Accordingly, any of the following activities could be considered to be contempt:

  • obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;
  • filming or recording within court buildings;
  • making payments to witnesses;
  • publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;
  • reporting on the defendant's previous convictions;
  • mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;
  • reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;
  • breaching an injunction obtained against another party;
  • anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or
  • revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences.

However, it is acceptable to publish material as part of a discussion of public affairs or as a contemporary report of the day's legal proceedings.

http://www.out-law.com/page-9742

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more thinking of taste - a woman is dead and a man faces losing his future.  Less speculation would seem the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   34 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.