23 December 2005

Rogers video

The High Court has prevented the showing of the videotaped confession and required it be returned to the Court: Rogers v TVNZ (Auckland HC, 22 December 2005, Venning & Winkelmann JJ) For more background info, listen to Steven Price's comment: Nine to Noon: Steven Price The excluded confession apparently isn't as clear-cut as it seems. See also: NZ Herald: Screening of murder confession banned

1 comment:

Gooner said...

Gee, many, many considerations here. At the end of the day though TVNZ surely has a greater right to show the tape than Rogers has in not having it shown. Indeed, there is stuff on it which could back him up somewhat. Strange stuff.

Course Outline

Lord Justice Lawton in Maxwell v Department of Trade and Industry [1974] 2 All ER 122 said:

"From time to time ... lawyers and judges have tried to define what constitutes fairness. Like defining an elephant, it is not easy to do, although fairness in practice has the elephantine quality of being easy to recognise. As a result of these efforts a word in common usage has acquired the trappings of legalism: 'acting fairly' has become 'acting in accordance with the rules of natural justice', and on occasion has been dressed up with Latin tags. This phrase in my opinion serves no useful purpose and in recent years it has encouraged lawyers to try to put those who hold inquiries into legal straitjackets.... For the purposes of my judgment I intend to ask myself this simple question: did the [decision-maker] act fairly towards the plaintiff?"

This course examines the elephantine concept of fairness in the law, along with other contemporary legal issues.

Course Archive

Search Course

  © Blogger template 'Photoblog' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP