Messages

[Christchurch mosque shooting: Terrorist launches fresh legal challenge]

Christchurch mosque shooting: Terrorist launches fresh legal challenge

NZ Herald | 14 April 2021

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/christchurch-mosque-shooting-terrorist-launches-fresh-legal-challenge/RVFVCW5ZPUMP4M2Q2AKJ2WAQ6I

The Christchurch mosque shooter has launched a legal challenge over his prison conditions due to go before a High Court judge tomorrow morning.

Brenton Tarrant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for murdering 51 people and attempting to murder 40 others at Christchurch's Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre on March 15, 2019. He was also convicted under terrorism laws.

Tarrant has sought a judicial review, which is due to be heard by Justice Geoffrey Venning in the High Court at Auckland tomorrow morning.

Court records show the hearing is in chambers, which means it will not be open to the public. Media are, however, permitted to attend. The records show Tarrant intends to represent himself.

The Herald understands that Tarrant is challenging his prison conditions and his "designation as a terrorist entity".

A special "prison within a prison" is guarding Tarrant at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

The facility known as the Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit was set up four months after the mosque shootings and holds Tarrant and two others.

"Tarrant is in his own wing and there are 18 guards rostered to monitor him," a source told the Herald last month.

"The other two are in the same wing but they are all dealt with individually, it's a costly exercise."

Corrections says the unit cost $2.77 million in the year to October 31, excluding the salaries of the six staff in its management group. That compares to Corrections spending about $1.1 billion in 2020 to guard close to 10,000 prisoners across all its facilities.

A judicial review is where a judge is asked to review legal action or a decision. The judge looks at whether the way the decision was made was in accordance with the law - but the judge won't usually decide whether the decision was the "right" decision.

Judicial reviews are always heard in the High Court and about 180 judicial reviews are heard every year.

Tarrant's life in jail without parole was the first time in New Zealand's history such a term had been imposed - meaning he "will never see the light of day again", as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern put it.

[NZ: Killer Dunedin doctor Venod Skantha's appeal over Amber-Rose Rush murder dismissed]

NZ: Killer Dunedin doctor Venod Skantha's appeal over Amber-Rose Rush murder dismissed

Melissa Nightingale | NZ Herald | 14 April 2021

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/killer-dunedin-doctor-venod-skanthas-appeal-over-amber-rose-rush-murder-dismissed/S6LQC3JAAER6QUDH7QP7EIFKFI

The Dunedin doctor imprisoned for the infamous murder of a teenage girl who had threatened him with allegations of sexual assault has had his appeal against the conviction thrown out.

A panel of Court of Appeal judges have also said they are satisfied the man committed the crime, and that he is also guilty of threatening to kill four people to silence a witness.

Amber-Rose Rush, 16: She went Black, now she wont come back

Amber-Rose Rush, 16, was found dead in a pool of blood in her bedroom in Corstorphine in southwest Dunedin in early February, 2018.

Venod Skantha, 32, was charged with her murder, and found guilty by a jury in the High Court at Dunedin in November 2019. He was also found guilty on four counts of threatening to kill.

He was later sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 19 years.

In the Court of Appeal late last year, Skantha's lawyer, Jonathan Eaton QC, argued against his conviction and sentence, saying a key witness in the case should have been treated as an accomplice to the murder.

Amber-Rose and Skantha met in 2017 through mutual friends when she was aged 15.

She told her mother he was an older man who "exclusively hung out with teenagers". {A Rockspider!"

In early January 2018, Amber-Rose alleged Skantha sexually assaulted her after a night of heavy drinking. She told a friend she thought she may have been drugged after waking up with Skantha's hand allegedly down her pants and her top and bra removed.

She also claimed he offered to pay her up to $20,000 to have sex with him. She told her friend she was no longer speaking to him.

Then, on the evening of February 2, she posted screenshots of a conversation with Skantha on Instagram, claiming he had been supplying alcohol and "touching up young girls". She then said she would be approaching police and the hospital with her claims.

At that point, Skantha had already been given a final warning for misconduct.

She and Skantha got into a heated argument over Facebook messenger, following which he put on dark clothes and had a teenage friend drive him to Amber-Rose's home in Clermiston Ave.

When he emerged from the house, he was carrying the victim's phone, licence, and a blood-soaked knife.

He told his friend to clean the car and other items, but an investigation uncovered Amber-Rose's DNA in the doctor's BMW and on his shoes.

Despite Skantha making death threats against him, the friend told police what happened and showed them where to find the evidence.

Skantha was arrested the day after Amber-Rose's body was found.

Skantha's argument was that the witness had actually been the one to kill Amber-Rose out of a misplaced sense of loyalty.

At appeal, Eaton argued the teenager should have been treated as an accomplice, and that the jury should have been warned his evidence could be unreliable for that reason.

Other appeal grounds included that some evidence brought to trial should have been inadmissible, that the judge's summing up to the jury was unbalanced and unfair, and that the judge was wrong to warn the jury not to attach significance to the key witness' demeanour when he was giving evidence, and when he gave his police interview.

The Court of Appeal was not convinced, however, saying while Eaton "mounted a wide-ranging and thorough challenge to the conduct of the trial and the summing-up", they were not persuaded there were any material errors in how the case was handled.

Errors they had identified were not serious enough to have created a real risk of the trial having a different outcome, they said in their judgment, released today.

"It is not necessary that we form our own view of Mr Skantha's guilt but we have done so; we are satisfied that the evidence proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt," the judges wrote in their decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

[Christchurch mosque shootings: Government to widen counter-terrorism law gaps]

NZ Government's New Anti-White Anti-Terrorism Laws ...

Christchurch mosque shootings: Government to widen counter-terrorism law gaps

Derek Cheng | NZ Herald | 13 April 2021

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/christchurch-mosque-shootings-government-to-widen-counter-terrorism-law-gaps/JKQHR7OGUX3WLKKIUQK7TFHAKI/

The Government wants to strengthen its powers to prevent a terrorist act and widen the definition to include inducing fear - which might capture incidents like sending a pig's head to a mosque {or being White and putting up a flyer}.

Justice Minister Kris Faafoi held a press conference this afternoon to unveil a new bill that the Government has introduced to strengthen how it can respond to threats of terrorism.

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill follows the Royal Commission into the March 15 terrorist attack, which made a series of recommendations to fill gaps in the existing law.

Justice Minister Kris Faafoi said the changes in the bill would not have prevented the March 15 attacks, but they would enable agencies to act in a more efficient and practical way - including against an individual.

Asked if the current law did not enable agencies to act against an individual planning an act of terrorism, he said that was his understanding.

That would mean the current framework would have restricted agencies from acting if they had uncovered Brenton Tarrant's March 15 plans before he enacted them - though Faafoi said he would not comment on individual cases.

The bill has already been flagged as aligning with inquiry recommendations, including:

• making amendments to clarify the definition of a "terrorist act";
• creating a new offence to criminalise planning or preparation for a terrorist act;
• creating a new offence to more clearly criminalise terrorist weapons and combat training;
• extending the eligibility for a control order to include individuals who have completed a prison sentence for a terrorism-related offence if they continue to present a real risk of engaging in terrorism-related activities.

The bill also includes proposals that Cabinet has already agreed to including:

• creating a new offence for international travel to carry out terrorist activities;
• expanding the criminal offence of financing terrorism to include broader forms of material support.

[Support for LGBTQI+ kids Brainwashing Kids: Call to stop using 'mum' and 'dad' in Victorian schools]

Support for LGBTQI+ kids Brainwashing Kids: Call to stop using 'mum' and 'dad' in Victorian schools

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/support-for-lgbtqi-kids-call-to-stop-using-mum-and-dad-in-victorian-schools/A65EEEV7QB4NICBL2BQSZH23YU

Schools and sporting groups in Victoria will be told to avoid terms like "mum", "dad", "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" as part of a push to curb the dropout and suicide rates of LGBTQI+ young people.

The North Western Melbourne Primary Health Network has set up the #SpeakingUpSpeaksVolumes campaign which will bring in unisex bathrooms, non-gendered playing teams and rainbow flags in a bid to be more inclusive.

The Herald Sun reports that the material suggests avoiding "gendered terms" such as husband and girlfriend instead of the non-gendered partner, and mum and dad rather than parent. Students are also encouraged to ask others which pronouns they use.

The network's CEO, Chris Carter, said "Blah blah blah blah blah XYZ ... et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam."

Why did NYC get all the Niggers & Frisco get all the Faggots?
NYC had first choice.

https://youtu.be/uTVFi-tzEm4