Hunters

 journal 12th April 2014 

I'm not sure of the dates now, but eventually the police decided to drop the unlawful sexual connection with two children under the age of 12 charges. My lawyer insisted that they be foreally withdrawn in court, and by this time I had my licence back, but I was still facing the drinking and driving charges. Unfortunately I had bought tickets to see the Imperial Russian Ballet in Rotorua, and that show was a few days after the 11th October when I had been charged. It was impossible to find a driver for my car at such late notice, and who would want to drive me to Rotorua and hang about for a couple of hours while I went to the ballet anyway. I'd been working as a canteen assistant in the Eastpack Kiwifruit packhouse the previous year, earning the money  to bring Sladja, my Serbian friend out to New Zealand to meet me, because even thoughI had had $80,000 invested with New Zealand Guardian Trust Limited in 2006 when we had first met online, the Trust manager had refused to let me spend any of it on that. So I'd bought a couple of tickets to the Ballet in Auckland, and sent Sladja just a single airfare, instead of two or three tickets so her children could come with her. Originally our deal had been that she and her husband Goran and two children would come out, in 2007 and work for a while in the kiwifruit, but they had no money so couldn't afford to do it themselves. Sladja found a better job later that year, working in a tax office, but her wages were only 400 euros per month, but that is another story. Sladja didn't board the plane, not surprising because by now it was 2011, not 2007, so I had to get a refund on her ticket, and went to the ballet in Auckland alone, sitting beside her empty seat. It was so good I decided to see it again in Rotorua. Then the Imperial Russian ballet did another tour, so I bought a ticket to see that in Rotorua. One of my sister's friennds actually cried when Jenny told her I couldn't see the ballet, which is the way I felt about it too, but without the tears.

So I appeared in court with David, and the Judge asked me to take the stand and the charges were withdrawn, and that was it. Afterwards, in the courthouse lobby, David read me some of the witness statements, of how I had allegedly been lieing in the grass on my left elbow with a can of beer in my right hand and which fingers the witnesses had seen me using on which child. It was too detailed and too disgusting for me to listen to. David had had quite a lot of trouble getting full disclosure from teh police, who had not cooperated as well as they could. Then there was the matter of his bill. He had spend quite a few hours on it of course, writing to the police, going to court and so on. It was well over $3,500, but he knew my economic cirmstances were not great, and that I was on the invalid's benefit, so he reduced it to less than $2,000. Legal Aid had been granted, but legal aid refused to write it off on hardship grounds. They did agree to let me pay it off at the rate of $10 per fortnight, and at an interest rate of 8% however, so that was some relief. The Police however refused to pay my costs, and there is some ongoing discussion on this subject. MY letters to my MP were met with the reply that this was a criminal matter and they could not get involved, and my request for a meeting so that we could discuss it was refused. The reply was that I should let my property manager and my lawyer handle it, but how could they do so when I have no money to pay them? The subject of the appointing of a property manager by the courts is a complicated matter in itself, and also quite unnecessary and unjust as far as I am concerned, but it is up for review again this year, so it is again another matter.

So that was that, but there was still the matter of the drinking and driving. I had to go to court for that, and again there was a pre court appearance, or depositions hearing or whatever they call it. Again it was in the courtroom cupboard. The police asked my lawyer how I was going to plead, and he told them not guilty. They asked him what part of it I was denying, and he told them "All of it". They looked as though they couldn't believe it. Here was an evidential breath test result, and a blood test which showed I was twice the level for drinking and driving. Then he told them that I hadn't been breath tested on the road. They didn't believe him. They said the police were going to go to court and say they had stopped me in Spence Avenue, Maketu, where I lived, and that was the way the meeting ended. My lawyer had my version of the facts, which gave the time I phoned 111 from my home, the time of the first breath test taken at the police station, and the evidential blood test which put me over the limit. It seemed clear that two policemen were prepared to perjur themselves, and the police officer bringing this case was the senior sergeant at the Te Puke police station.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.^[1][A] That is, the crime does not occur when a false statement is made while under oath or subject to penalty, but instead happens in the instant when the witness falsely asserts the truth of statements about matters which influence the outcome of the proceeding—whether prior to or after making the false statement. For example, it is not considered perjury to lie about one's age except where age is a factor in influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

Perjury is considered a serious offence as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice.
Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding.

Subornation of perjury, attempting to induce another person to perjure themselves, is itself a crime.

Perjury is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is created by section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911. Section 1 of that Act reads:

(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

(2) The expression "judicial proceeding" includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.
(3) Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding.
(4) A statement made by a person lawfully sworn in England for the purposes of a judicial proceeding-

(a) in another part of His Majesty’s dominions; or

(b) in a British tribunal lawfully constituted in any place by sea or land outside His Majesty’s dominions; or

(c) in a tribunal of any foreign state,

shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as a statement made in a judicial proceeding in England.
(5) Where, for the purposes of a judicial proceeding in England, a person is lawfully sworn under the authority of an Act of Parliament-

(a) in any other part of His Majesty’s dominions; or

(b) before a British tribunal or a British officer in a foreign country, or within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England;

a statement made by such person so sworn as aforesaid (unless the Act of Parliament under which it was made otherwise specifically provides) shall be treated for the purposes of this section as having been made in the judicial proceeding in England for the purposes whereof it was made.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It had happened to me once before, after I had visited my doctor and was on the way home when I was stopped by a policeman who said I had been exceeding 100 km per hour. I laughed at him and told him I had not, but he issued me with a ticket anyway, and I paid the fine. I hadn't been speeding.
It wasnt until the following year that I learned that the police were withdrawing the charges. My lawyer appeared in court for me, but that left me with the problem of paying for his services. He had a standard fee, which was about $2,000, and considering the time he had put in, and his senoiur position within the court system, he would have been well out of pocket on this. It isn't fair, I do not think, that lawyers have to pay for their work themselves. The police refused to discuss costs, although that was an option for them. Fortunately my sister agreed to pay the approximately $2,200, but there was a delay while Guardian Trust said they did not have her specific agreement that she would pay, even though she had spoken to them directly on the phone. After that David sent me another form to sign, as he had put in an official complaint with the "Independent Police Complaints Authority", the police.
In the community I spoke to a woman, the parent of one of the children there on the day, who told me her daughter had told her that one of the children had fallen over, and that I had picked her up but that nothing had "happened". This was not true, I had not touched any of the children. It was clear that they were being closely watched by one of the girl's mothers, Savanna Rae, and she knew that I had been there for only less than a minute. My sister was upset that somebody would coach their children to lie to the police, but even now I do not know the name of the man who assaulted me. My insurance paid for the damage to my car, and I was told that the police rarely (unprecidented) prosecute their own witnesses, because it would not help their case if they did so. I know the man admitted to the police that he assaulted me (in an attempt to stop me leaving the scene). It was he who had said I had been drinking when I had not, and he did not see me do this. If he has been prosecuted, I was not a witness at his trial, and the police refuse to give me or my lawyer any information. I'm relieved however that the charges were dropped. I still need to recover all my expenses, but I am legally constrained from taking anybody to court. Guardian Trust has that right on my behalf, and will not do it.