Th a
law
as the w t
Dangerous Drugs Amendment Act 1960 “6. Unlawful supply or possession of dangerous drugs – The [Dangerous Drugs Act 1927] is hereby further amended by repealing section 15 and substituting the following section: ... ‘15. (2) Every person is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years who, contrary to the provisions of this Act or of any regulations made under this Act,‘(a) Produces, manufactures, distributes, or deals in or has in his possession any dangerous drug:’” When the amendment came into force on 25 October 1960 it was illegal, for the first time in New Zealand, to possess cannabis, cocaine, heroin or morphine. Importation, export, production, manufacture, sale or distribution or otherwise dealing in those drugs was first made illegal by the Dangerous Drugs Act 1927, which came into force on 1 January 1928. While that Act made it an offence to be in possession of any dangerous drug imported in contravention of the Act, proof that possession had been obtained without knowledge that it was illegally imported or had been obtained “with some other lawful justification” was a sufficient defence.
The art of judgment writing “[26] Bearing in mind the codification objective underlying s 65 [of the Evidence Act 2006], it is important to bear in mind Lord Millett’s observation in B v Auckland District Law Society that ‘[t]he question is not whether privilege has been waived but whether it has been lost’ ([2004] 1 NZLR 326 (PC), at [68]). That qualification reflects both the contextual nature of the analysis required, and the broad jurisdiction of the
Effective Practice
Law Talk …
“If he cuts it shorter it becomes boofy. It turns into an afro” – Jol Bates, lawyer for Lucan Battison whose father sought judicial review of his suspension by Hastings school St John’s College because he refused to get his hair cut. “We’re denying the charges and fighting this all the way. We believe the clients have buyer’s remorse” – Helen Wu, lawyer for New York stripper Marsi Rosen who was charged with three other women with drugging doctors, bankers, and real estate agents and using their stolen credit cards to pay for lap dances, champagne and large tips in night clubs. “Performing is part of the job. It came to me naturally. I did theatre in high school. People say I'm a Shakespearean character, flamboyant. I figured out what that means – it means a lawyer who actually has a personality. You can get a big head easily in this business. I struggle with my ego.” – Seattle, Washington lawyer John Henry Browne who defended serial killer Ted Bundy talks to the English Guardian newspaper. “These are some of the bravest and most dedicated lawyers that we have. This is a wonderful day … for all lawyers that go into difficult environments to do their jobs.” – Justin Loughry, attorney for Public Advocate’s Office attorney Lorraine Gormley who was badly beaten by her client at Ancora Psychiatric Hospital in New Jersey, after the state’s Supreme Court held she could sue the state for failing to keep her safe.
Scambuster
Nishiyo Stryker has been divorced. She’s in Japan and her ex-husband, Jon Stryker, is in Australia. The scam begins with a short email: “I want a legal representative. Can you help me in a settlement claim for a divorce case.” Lawyers who take the bait are sent an email which invites them to contact Jon through his own email “for more details about the situation”. Quite a few lawyers have been sent emails with a relatively sophisticated version of the scam which seeks assistance to collect an overdue personal loan. The initial email, from Margaret Jameson, is short and says: “I was wondering if your firm would be able to assist me on a litigation case, regarding a friend who has defaulted in paying back the money I loaned him?” Any lawyers who respond are sent a longer email which purports to include an email from the debtor, Daniel Friedrich. This has a clever little touch of referring to his ex-friend as “Meg”. “Barrister Seung Anthony Palmer Tang from China” has been emailing both lawyers and their clients to let them know that US$10 million “will be moved on your name as the legal beneficiary of my late client”. Apparently the client died in an earthquake and “Barrister Tang” provides a handy link to an article in the English Guardian newspaper about the quake. Check out details of scams reported to the Law Society at http://my.lawsociety. org.nz/in-practice/practice-management/ email-scam-information or email geoff.adlam@ lawsociety.org.nz to report a suspicious email.
Court to determine the necessity for an order for production, or for the admission of particular evidence. It also follows that I find unappealing any resort to metaphorical analysis along the lines of unbagged cats being forever free, or rung bells being incapable of being rung. To give Mr Mackenzie his due, he did not suggest them here. He accepted, quite properly, that the mere fact of disclosure of privileged material did not mean, ipso facto, that other parties had a right to production or admission of associated undisclosed material. The exercise is far more nuanced than that.”
“[11] It has not been possible to determine when the hair rule was first adopted by the School. Mr Battison has annexed to his second affidavit photographs of students at the School in the mid-1970s. The photographs show many boys with hair considerably longer than Lucan’s. A number of the students in these photographs have become successful members of society, including one who has recently been appointed a District Court Judge. If the hair rule existed in the mid-1970s it was not enforced.”
— Kós J, McGuire v Wellington Standards Committee (No 1) [2014] NZHC 1159 (28 May 2014).
— Collins J, Lucan Wesley Battison suing by his Litigation Guardian Troy Patrick Battison v Paul Melloy [2014] NZHC 1462 (27 June 2014). LawTalk 846 · 18 July 2014 ·
25