NZ. Today.
‘A former Serious Fraud Office chief prosecutor has pleaded guilty to forgery charges but was this morning discharged without conviction.
Anita Maria Killeen, 35, appeared before Judge Mary Beth Sharp in Auckland District Court, where her lawyer, Paul Davison QC, entered guilty pleas to forgery and using a forged document…..
…This was because the prosecutor, who was up until the time of her arrest practising as a barrister, had undertaken a course of fertility medication which in 1 per cent of cases caused severe psychological side effects, Judge Sharp said….’
A cosy little gathering of the like-minded and similarly-connected, wasn’t it?
UPDATE: ‘Complaint over lawyer’s treatment’
A funny handshake later and the fix went in.
Aye. :rant
“a course of fertility medication which in 1 per cent of cases caused severe psychological side effects”
Did or didn’t she suffer from those side effects at the time? Evidence?
And if she did, why was she considered fit to practise? What other decisions did she make that were questionable or criminal as a result?
The excuse raises more questions than it answers, surely.
The forgery would have been the tip of the iceberg. Don’t worry, the Law Society moves in silent and cannabilistic ways and she’ll genuinely be ostracized.
There is also the internal disciplinary structure. The fact that she was charged with offences which carry a term of 2+ years imprisonment means her practicing certificate is gone forever.
How did this prick get to NZ and who is paying his legal bills???
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/8064766/Extradition-fight-over-Christmas-Is-boat-deaths
Cad, I thought a lawyer had to be convicted of an offence which carries a term of 2+ years of imprisonment in order to lose their practicing certificate, not merely charged?
And I do worry–whatever behind the scenes machinations there may be, the fact remains that the public face of the administration of justice has been dealt another blow.
People’s perceptions are shaped by what they see, not by what goes on in private between lawyers.
And there have been plenty of bent and/or incompetent lawyers and judges who have not been at all ostracised–quite the reverse. In fact, one of them heads NZ’s Supreme Court right now:
David Round: “.. Our present Chief Justice, who sits on the Supreme Court, has already made it clear that she considers herself entitled, right now, to strike down Acts of Parliament if they offend against her understanding of ‘Treaty principles’. To do so now would be to deny the supremacy of Parliament; it would be a death-blow to democracy and equality before the law. It would be, in effect, treason; an illegal usurpation of power. Not that this seems to worry her…”
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest318.htm
She’s not even a goddamn New Zealander. Insult meet injury.
:wtf She’s not?
The US president and first lady are[were] both lawyers.
How do you tell when a lawyer’s lying? His lips are moving.
That is of course a totally sexist remark.
We do not discriminate here and assume that all men are bad.
Please say “his/her/its lips are moving” rather than “his lips”.
We must be inclusive after all.
The difference between a Lawyer and a Catfish? One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a Fish.
Informed comment from a normally placid lawyer:
http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=4878
Mike
Brilliant! Thanks for that, Mike. I have a lot of respect for Stephen Franks and if that’s his take on it, that’s good enough for me.