Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

Too Fresh: Jan 20, 2004

Rohaq posted:

My mom lives in New Zealand (I'm in the UK), and has been trying to get a protection order on her husband due to his abusive behaviour (shouting, threatening, generating load arguments, one time grabbed her by the throat, etc.). It went to court today and she didn't get the order; I think that this was essentially because the vast majority of the submitted evidence was that of his word against hers. I think that as there was no solid evidence submitted, and because a protection order would essentially evict him from the house it was thrown out.

But one thing that I know is that my mom made recordings of this man's rantings during a heated argument, where he was obviously spoiling for a shouting match, and she was talking quietly and calmly, and I was rather surprised to find that this was never submitted to the court.

So my question is this: What is the stance of the NZ courts on evidence admissibility regarding conversations recorded with the knowledge of only one of the parties is aware that they are being recorded? I know that in the US, it varies depending on the state, but there seems to be little information lying around regarding New Zealand evidence law.

Hi,
under section 84 Domestic Violence Act 1995 (which appears to cover protection orders in this sort of case..), "In any proceedings under this Act (other than criminal proceedings), and whether by way of hearing in the first instance or by way of appeal, or otherwise, the Court may receive any evidence that it thinks fit, whether or not it is otherwise admissible in a court of law."

This means that it would come down to whether or not the judge hearing the case wanted it in or not.

I have found a couple of family court/high court cases where judges have said about similar one party consent recordings: "well, this evidence might be legal, but it isn't really relevant and it is too easily manipulable and isn't a particularly good look, so we aren't going to admit it". Of course, this is going to depend on the specific facts and context involved in the case, but the judges still weren't rejecting them automatically.

It is hard to provide you with a more specific answer given the extremely broad scope of s 84 to allow in any evidence the judge thinks relevant. It appears that there isn't an automatic exclusion.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2010 09:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 17:28

Too Fresh: Jan 20, 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_to_the_Max

I'd be more worried that you'll start using the name Lance von Superman. People will be impressed by such an amazing name. They'll want to be your friend, you'll get promotions at work, women will flock to you. Unfortunately, it is all built on a lie. Eventually, you'll realise that even if you change your name you can't change yourself and give up.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2010 22:41

Too Fresh: Jan 20, 2004

cory ad portas posted:

So this girl's crazy boyfriend threatened to shoot me, apparently he's Sur13 which I doubt. Still, he kinda kept going on about how he had "a .40 for my rear end," blah blah blah.

ROTC and poo poo seriously make me not want to have to deal with this rear end in a top hat, I don't need that kind of crap around me. Any advice?

Buy a gun.

# ¿ Apr 19, 2010 02:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie