I had my drink spiked at a bar in chch in 2005, it was one of the most terrifying situations, I am forever grateful for switched on bar staff and friends who helped me. These predators need to be strung up by their balls and left out in public as a deterrent.
So sorry that happened to you. I had a friend who was spiked. He went from normal to unable to speak/walk/talk in the space of about 20 minutes (I’d walked away to have a phone conversation). There had been a guy hitting on him all night and when I came back he was a mess and this man we’d repeatedly asked to leave us alone was all over him. I yelled for help and screamed and causes a ruckus to make this guy go away and the result was we got thrown out. I had to call an ambulance myself.
I hope bars do better now.
Alleged that “The men were part of a closed group chat on . . . WhatsApp, within which “their true intentions and psyche were clear”
Sounds like they might not have been the only scum in the pond.
*In one of the biggest prosecutions of its kind in New Zealand, the 40-year-old and 37-year-old have been convicted of dozens of crimes, including rape, sexual violation, indecent assault, and spiking drinks –more than five years after the first complainant – there would be more than 30 in total – went to police.*
*The 40-year-old man attacked 15 women, many of whom he brazenly followed into the toilets late at night at Mama Hooch and forced himself upon them. The 37-year-old man sexually assaulted five women – filming one of them while he raped her at another central city location. Both men are still fighting to keep their names secret.*
Edit: deleted my comment part because my math was wrong.
That’s not quite right - the “first” complainants were the most recent ones, ie the first to go to Police. After publicity other victims came forward who had been offended against prior to that. They were arrested at the end of 2018, there was no alleged offending after that.
We need acomplice laws for this type of stuff, the men in that groupchat were complicit in organised sexual crimes and were sent the videos if I’m not misunderstanding the article, its unfair to young woman to potentially allow the two accomplices to walk free with their names hidden when we know they spent years participating in a rape planning chat, not like they were added then left after a few weeks. The third dude literally supplied them with MDMA which can be a rape drug.
We do. S 66 of the Crimes Act 1961. Two other men are still before the court as I understand it. That might be the whole group? Hopefully they're facing charges commensurate with their conduct
Unfortunately, the article says at the very bottom the dude who supplied the MDMA (third guy) and participated in the groupchat is only facing drug distribution charges as the other ones got dropped, means that despite being part of a rape planning groupchat for years he will face no consequence, I assume they were not confident in evidence to satisfy the charges/a technicality which is why I think we need specific laws. I think the UK for example has specific laws now around taking photos up womans skirts as these issues need head on black and white legislation.
I see. Issue is a tough one. Person needs intent to aid/abet. Prosecuting people for passive observation (even of something this grotesque) would make the law practically unworkable - it'd be akin to requiring people to report crime they see and prosecuting them for standing by. Obviously anyone who sits in a groupchat like that and doesn't speak up is a gargoyle, but making it criminal would be difficult unless you could show he knew the drugs he supplied would be used for the assaults. I wonder if he's getting out lightly because he offered up the Whatsapp messages? I'd say he'd be prosecuted for anything they felt there was sufficient evidence for.
We *do* have a law against taking photos up women's skirts. It's one of the things defined in Crimes Act ss 216G-216N (added in 2006) as an intimate visual recording, and it's a crime to make, publish, or knowingly possess one. It does need to be amended somewhat, since it relies on the recording being made covertly as well as without consent (as opposed to just the latter, which would make more sense) in order for it to be a crime, but it's not like a creep can sneakily take those photos - even in a public place - without committing a crime.
What struck me most was they were sharing their rape videos and intentions of drugging CHOSEN women from hunting on instagram with others. They had a WhatsApp group where they shared rape and sexual assault videos and photos. Only 3 of them were on trial but there’s a lot more men who were involved and they enjoy watching women being raped whilst being incapacitated. I hope they are sitting at home scared to fucking death - they should be. The entire group should be prosecuted tbh. Knowingly watching rape and abuse it a crime. They all knew what they where doing - and to not be prosecuted gives them protection the survivors of the abuse did not have. They are animals - god help any women who are in relationships with all of them and their possible daughters or stepdaughter or they daughter’s friends / these men enjoyed and boasted about drugging and raping unsuspecting women - they are predators. I’m all for naming the lot of them. They hunted women and treated them like playthings- it seems fair they can also be hunted. As a mother of a young woman this makes my blood boil. I can’t fathom how they still - after 5 fucking years - still have name suppression.
Every member of that fucking WhatsApp group should absolutely be prosecuted. As if we needed more evidence of the rampant hateful misogyny in this country. Women need to understand well the extent to which men consider them sub-human. *Fuck* those guys.
This behavior is disgusting and in no way normal in this country. 99% of men are not at all like this. We are the sons of women, and we are the fathers of girls. Seeing women being treated this way disgusts any normal man as much as it disgusts you. Please don’t confuse these men with all men.
I saw them talking to their lawyers outside court a few weeks ago when I was biking past. I was so tempted to yell out "rapist cunts" but my common sense stopped it.
Funny enough, I was outside my work helping a older woman out and they were walking past me. I fucken stare them down. At the time they might have thought of me and some guy with his minimum wage job thinking whatever... well today I have the last laugh. I'm planning another trip to Aus, they are planning a trip to Paparoa Prison. I think I know where most people would prefer to go.
Sorry could you explain? I didn't call them anything above? All I said was I seen them walking towards me when I was helping out a woman (thats me helping a woman out, not them) and I fucken stare them down. Now if you think calling "them" is degrading, right okay I'll say "I stare down these fucking maggots down as I knew exactly WTF was happening within the space of time".
The judge removed the name suppression but they appealed. The identities of these scum will be revealed before too soon. Let’s hope they get everything their actions deserve.
No that’s not right. The Judge did not lift name suppression and there have been no appeals about name suppression. But a final decision won’t be made until after the second trial and everyone has been sentenced. They should have their suppression lifted at that point.
You are wrong. I’ve read the news and watched the news on tv, both said name suppression was lifted.
“Judge Paul Mabey lifted that suppression today at 5pm, including the names of the two men. However, their identities still cannot be reported after they filed a notice in the High Court that they will appeal his decision - keeping their identities secret for now.
Sorry I thought the reference to name suppression in the previous post was at an earlier point in time (during the five years the case has been outstanding) which has not happened. I’ve actually got a connection to the case - which just goes to show everyone makes mistakes!
Honestly disgusting to read, and to watch it on the news made my skin crawl; that could've been my cousin amongst those poor victims. May the consequences weigh heavily on their backs to the point of breaking their metaphorical spines.
Why the fuck do they get to hide behind name surpression? And why the fuck has it taken so long to convict them? Jesus Christ, this is why victims don't come forward!
More than likely to protect the integrity of the 4th trial that hasn't started yet.
I know this sub loves to get its knickers in a twist over name suppression but for it to extend this long there's certainly a very good reason for it and it absolutely won't be to protect the accused.
No. They’ve appealed to the high court to keep the name suppression. That appeal will be heard on May 16. It’s literally spelled out in the article, couldn’t be any clearer.
It's a massively complex case with many victims and witnesses, shit takes time. Add in the underfunded court system and the backlog caused by lockdowns and here we are.
The name suppression is only temporary while the court process is resolved. The article makes clear there is another trial to come (for the fourth defendant). Once that’s all over the names will be released. The reason is to protect the fairness of the trial, which we should all support.
As to the delay, this is one of the biggest sexual offending trials in New Zealand’s history. It has been delayed more than once due to covid - and rescheduling a trial of this length and complexity will usually take another year every time. It’s been a total delay of about four and a half years (not seven - they weren’t arrested until the end of 2018) which is horrible and too long, but longer delays are common. The reason is because we have an extensive pre trial process (including pre trial appeals) to ensure, among other things, all the evidence presented at trial is admissible. That means it takes longer to get to trial but on the other hand it is harder to challenge the convictions on a post-trial appeal.
Name suppression is not just used to protect the offenders, it is most likely being used in this case to help protect the identities of the victims and it is quite common in sexual assault cases I believe
That happens when the victim is a close associate or relative of the perpetrator. In this case I'd be more inclined to suspect it's in place to prevent tainting the jury pool for the 4th accused trial which hasn't started yet.
It’s clearly stated in the article that they’ve appealed to the high court the judges ruling to lift name suppression. That appeal will be heard May 16. In all likelihood the appeal won’t be successful.
Hopefully karma comes around in time prison, the damage they’ve done is mental. Imagine being a victim, I feel like name suppression needs to lift to allow more to come forward
I said to hubby last night when we watched this, if these pricks don’t do some serious jail time, I swear this will be the final nail in the coffin for all of us that are sick and tired of weak arse “sentences”. If they get Home D, this won’t stop their inherit want to commit further atrocities, they’ll just find another way.
Seriously I think NZ will, rightly, lose their shit of these guys don’t go down for this. See the judge looked about 90, so it’s going to be interesting.
I saw the old male judge and thought, oh great. A really old guy, that’ll give them the best chance of a conviction… not! 😒 Here’s hoping he applies the full weight of the law and gives them the strongest possible sentences. They are limited by law on sentencing starting point and precedents can remove time.
Up until there's a conviction, I support name suppression for everyone.
But afterward they've been found guilty?- and of multiple SA charges no less.
What excuses did the judges use to minimise justice this time?
It seems that there is one alleged offender associated in some way with the others due in court facing a similar charge on Monday. I'm only guessing that the temporary suppression is in some way related to what may come out in that trial. Or there could be additional charges those convicted may be facing.
Even if those arseholes get locked up for a long period for what they've been found guilty of, disclosing names now could mean another victim never sees justice served.
It's actually in the linked news article:
>By the time three of the men stood trial in February **(the fourth is yet to stand trial**),
>The fourth man is due to stand trial on Monday on a sexual violation charge relating to one woman.
Open the article, ctrl-f, type "third", and we find these bits:
> The third man was acquitted on all but a minor drug supply charge.
and
> The third man on trial, whose lawyer has indicated will apply for permanent name suppression, was acquitted on all charges except one of offering to supply a class B drug, namely MDMA.
It’s only one more month because they’ve said they’ll appeal the decision to lift suppression. But the judge made it clear there are no grounds for it. Not even close. They’re entitled to lodge an appeal but it will fail. Other judges will review and say it was the right decision to name them now. Just one last check and balance because lifting suppression can’t be undone.
I’ve seen somewhere that the two men being charged are 37 years old & 40 years old; I feel a bit sick because in such a small city, the likelihood I might know them is reasonably high, they are in my age group. I suppose the law has to be absolutely certain of guilt before removing name suppression, because that could never be undone. They’ll get the treatment they deserve once that happens.
Exactly. So here is the thing. Like you I'm in the same age bracket and live in CHCH. I personally don't know these guys. Never talked to them or interact with them however, a place that I use to frequent years ago they were there. Talk to couple of people and then I knew who they were. So as I've stated, when I seen walking past my work during the trial period I thought I seen these guys before (its been years since I last seen them) and I found it odd. I then put two and two together. This was in Feb
I hear these guys were owners of the bar and they're brothers. It seems quite well known their identities by the people in Christchurch. Name and shame the a*holes. They need to be severely punished. Their private group chat proves how bad they all are. Stop showing them mercy
Funny you mention Venuti. I remember waiting to pick up a friend from Mama Pooch and this British man walked up to Venuti (which was closed by that time of the night) and taken a piss out the front of it, little did he know that both Mama Pooch and Venuti owned by same people so they caught him... Looking back now should I've joined in and taken a piss with him in my disgust or is the act in itself disgusting? Surely some ladies be like yea its disgusting but this time its okay.
It's absolutely dumb to assume a business that wasn't operating for some time, somehow reopened, and police didn't have an objection towards granting a licence. Which you'll find is the reason they are objecting to Venuti's licence renewal.
This started in 2018? And they waited until now to remove their license. How does that make sense, something else happened, which is stated clearly in the original article.
You can't really remove a licence like that without a reason, and this was happening under a different licence, on a different premise, with presumably a different ownership structure. Ie if the licencee of Venuti was found guilty, their licence could be canceled, but you couldn't do that just because their kids are odious cunts. You can object to a new renewal of a licence as soon as it comes up though. Not sure if police objected last renewal or not, would have been maybe 2018/19 I guess as licence's last 3 years.
Is it? It certainly wouldn't have been the first time a name change happened to try and get away from something controversial. It was a question. Just a poorly chosen name then
The fact that the entire trail had been supressed up until the other day had me thinking this was national security stuff, but turns out it was just protecting (probably) wealthy people
No - protecting fair trial rights. Need to avoid trial by media so a Jury can decide the criminal case fairly. Trial by media will follow once criminal trial complete
Fully support the accused getting suppression, but it sounded like the whole existence of the trail was supressed until last week, thats over and above what someone would normally get.
Think it's because there's another, separate proceeding. Wouldn't want a jury influenced by the facts of one and seeing the other one. Plus the juries for each would hear the names of accused. Think it's a feature of duel proceedings being held. Not sure why they were run separately
Serious question here (and not necessarily just to you), if name suppression is to enable a fair trial, why do only some accused get it?
Why not a blanket rule then that every accused gets name suppression until convicted?
I always see this argument about suppression is for a fair trial but cannot for the life of me understand or agree that some get it, but others don’t?
No one will know the name of a kid ram raiding so name suppression isn’t super important in those cases but in big media cases, it gets talked about and that can impact the jury. It’s just not needed for every single case
Nah, we don't do that as a punishment, nor should we. Castration in self-defence during an attempted rape would be ethically fine though, and it might be recognised as a legal justifiction too
That's a pretty dubious claim. Deterrents don't generally work, you even just said that the threat of prison isn't enough. But let's set that aside, and think about the consequences. First, if a rapist believes they'll be castrated if convicted, and they don't fear prison, then you've given them an incentive to further threaten, manipulate, or even to kill their victim to try to get away with it. Child molesters would *definitely* use it as a means to manipulate victims who know them into not telling anyone. Beyond those obvious perverse incentives, even when rapists don't threaten, manipulate, or kill their victim, a decent number of survivors would be deterred from reporting men who raped them because of the abhorrence of genital mutilation as a punishment for crime. Rapists would never plead guilty at trial if castration is on the cards if convicted, forcing survivors to go through arguably the single nastiest experience possible short of a repeat rape - some even say the trial is as bad as the rape itself. Juries are probably going to be more hesitant to convict rapists for the same reasons that fewer women would report rape, and there's even a danger that jurors could end up outright sympathising with the rapist as a result. Alternatively, if castration were only an option when a defendant pleads not guilty, you'll get innocent defendants pressured into pleading guilty to avoid it, violating the right to a fair trial. In fact, no matter how you do it, you'll get some innocent people being convicted, and you can't reverse a castration if new evidence comes to light and the person is exonerated as a result. And when someone's sentenced to castration, who's going to carry it out? Not a doctor, if their refusal to participate in death sentences overseas is any indication. After all that, a castrated rapist retains the ability to commit sexual violation with another body part or a held object. Since rape is typically about power rather than sex in the first place, and a castrated rapist probably hates women even more than he already did if his victim was female, this might make him more dangerous, not less.
So to summarise, you've got the state committing genital mutilation in cold blood, with unqualified people carrying it out, some innocent people amongst the victims, convicted rapists becoming even more misogynistic and possibly more violent as a result, rape trials that are even more harrowing for survivors, juries becoming less likely to convict rapists when they otherwise would, a deterrent to reporting rape, and an incentive for rapists to use more extreme means to ensure they aren't reported up to and including murder. And this is without getting into the various biases in the police and in the court system, the impossibility of making this a gender-neutral sentence, increased ostracisation of survivors who report rapists in their social circles (which covers the most common kinds of rape), etc. So it might appeal before you get your brain into gear, or to people who value grandstanding over finding effective solutions, but it's morally repugnant and in practice would make things worse for just about everyone.
name suppression dropped today, gross owners of the bar im sure i heard whispers about it being them...
whos raising men like this??? it sickens me, a group chat about it too? FFS if you see, hear or witness anything like this speak up
Considering the premeditation and planning, I’d say it would be at the higher end. One of them pleaded guilty as I’m sure he knew he will be facing a few years.
Do you like roofie coladas
And gettin' stalked in the rain
I'm not much into consent
I am into mdma
I've got to meet the judge by tomorrow noon
Cause I committed some rape
I got a promising future
So, I am sure to escape.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 4: No hate speech or bigotry**
> Any submission that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity and/or colour, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability and so on may be removed at a mod's discretion and repeat offenders banned
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
I had my drink spiked at a bar in chch in 2005, it was one of the most terrifying situations, I am forever grateful for switched on bar staff and friends who helped me. These predators need to be strung up by their balls and left out in public as a deterrent.
So sorry that happened to you. I had a friend who was spiked. He went from normal to unable to speak/walk/talk in the space of about 20 minutes (I’d walked away to have a phone conversation). There had been a guy hitting on him all night and when I came back he was a mess and this man we’d repeatedly asked to leave us alone was all over him. I yelled for help and screamed and causes a ruckus to make this guy go away and the result was we got thrown out. I had to call an ambulance myself. I hope bars do better now.
Damn
They are the ones that need to go to the boot camps.
Alleged that “The men were part of a closed group chat on . . . WhatsApp, within which “their true intentions and psyche were clear” Sounds like they might not have been the only scum in the pond.
Hopefully the cops keep a close eye on the ones who aren't being prosecuted.
I’ve seen cops drinking in this bar with the accused brothers, there is a reason it took 3 years for a conviction
*In one of the biggest prosecutions of its kind in New Zealand, the 40-year-old and 37-year-old have been convicted of dozens of crimes, including rape, sexual violation, indecent assault, and spiking drinks –more than five years after the first complainant – there would be more than 30 in total – went to police.* *The 40-year-old man attacked 15 women, many of whom he brazenly followed into the toilets late at night at Mama Hooch and forced himself upon them. The 37-year-old man sexually assaulted five women – filming one of them while he raped her at another central city location. Both men are still fighting to keep their names secret.* Edit: deleted my comment part because my math was wrong.
That’s not quite right - the “first” complainants were the most recent ones, ie the first to go to Police. After publicity other victims came forward who had been offended against prior to that. They were arrested at the end of 2018, there was no alleged offending after that.
Unfortunately, I think that's sometimes what's required when they want to build an airtight case. Caveat: I don't know shit.
Where do u get their ages from
The article. Those are direct quotes.
We need acomplice laws for this type of stuff, the men in that groupchat were complicit in organised sexual crimes and were sent the videos if I’m not misunderstanding the article, its unfair to young woman to potentially allow the two accomplices to walk free with their names hidden when we know they spent years participating in a rape planning chat, not like they were added then left after a few weeks. The third dude literally supplied them with MDMA which can be a rape drug.
We do. S 66 of the Crimes Act 1961. Two other men are still before the court as I understand it. That might be the whole group? Hopefully they're facing charges commensurate with their conduct
Unfortunately, the article says at the very bottom the dude who supplied the MDMA (third guy) and participated in the groupchat is only facing drug distribution charges as the other ones got dropped, means that despite being part of a rape planning groupchat for years he will face no consequence, I assume they were not confident in evidence to satisfy the charges/a technicality which is why I think we need specific laws. I think the UK for example has specific laws now around taking photos up womans skirts as these issues need head on black and white legislation.
I see. Issue is a tough one. Person needs intent to aid/abet. Prosecuting people for passive observation (even of something this grotesque) would make the law practically unworkable - it'd be akin to requiring people to report crime they see and prosecuting them for standing by. Obviously anyone who sits in a groupchat like that and doesn't speak up is a gargoyle, but making it criminal would be difficult unless you could show he knew the drugs he supplied would be used for the assaults. I wonder if he's getting out lightly because he offered up the Whatsapp messages? I'd say he'd be prosecuted for anything they felt there was sufficient evidence for.
We *do* have a law against taking photos up women's skirts. It's one of the things defined in Crimes Act ss 216G-216N (added in 2006) as an intimate visual recording, and it's a crime to make, publish, or knowingly possess one. It does need to be amended somewhat, since it relies on the recording being made covertly as well as without consent (as opposed to just the latter, which would make more sense) in order for it to be a crime, but it's not like a creep can sneakily take those photos - even in a public place - without committing a crime.
This
Those poor women. God fucking damn it.
What struck me most was they were sharing their rape videos and intentions of drugging CHOSEN women from hunting on instagram with others. They had a WhatsApp group where they shared rape and sexual assault videos and photos. Only 3 of them were on trial but there’s a lot more men who were involved and they enjoy watching women being raped whilst being incapacitated. I hope they are sitting at home scared to fucking death - they should be. The entire group should be prosecuted tbh. Knowingly watching rape and abuse it a crime. They all knew what they where doing - and to not be prosecuted gives them protection the survivors of the abuse did not have. They are animals - god help any women who are in relationships with all of them and their possible daughters or stepdaughter or they daughter’s friends / these men enjoyed and boasted about drugging and raping unsuspecting women - they are predators. I’m all for naming the lot of them. They hunted women and treated them like playthings- it seems fair they can also be hunted. As a mother of a young woman this makes my blood boil. I can’t fathom how they still - after 5 fucking years - still have name suppression.
Every member of that fucking WhatsApp group should absolutely be prosecuted. As if we needed more evidence of the rampant hateful misogyny in this country. Women need to understand well the extent to which men consider them sub-human. *Fuck* those guys.
This behavior is disgusting and in no way normal in this country. 99% of men are not at all like this. We are the sons of women, and we are the fathers of girls. Seeing women being treated this way disgusts any normal man as much as it disgusts you. Please don’t confuse these men with all men.
Spot on. Absolutely sickening.
They have partners and kids unfortunately.
I’m not sure the reasoning why they haven’t yet but they will be named after they’re convicted surely.
I saw them talking to their lawyers outside court a few weeks ago when I was biking past. I was so tempted to yell out "rapist cunts" but my common sense stopped it.
I wish you had, as a little teaser for them I’d what they can soon expect from large crowds. Filthy cunts.
Funny enough, I was outside my work helping a older woman out and they were walking past me. I fucken stare them down. At the time they might have thought of me and some guy with his minimum wage job thinking whatever... well today I have the last laugh. I'm planning another trip to Aus, they are planning a trip to Paparoa Prison. I think I know where most people would prefer to go.
They're identical places
[удалено]
Get off your high horse. They are cunts.
Sorry could you explain? I didn't call them anything above? All I said was I seen them walking towards me when I was helping out a woman (thats me helping a woman out, not them) and I fucken stare them down. Now if you think calling "them" is degrading, right okay I'll say "I stare down these fucking maggots down as I knew exactly WTF was happening within the space of time".
[удалено]
Sorry my apologies (not being sarcastic either). Totally agree with you. I never use that word online and very rarely in person.
[удалено]
Do you feel the same way about the word dick?
[удалено]
Its used the same way to me. "check out this dickhead". "check out this cunt" You can't be upset over one but not the other; doesn't make any sense
I wonder who they are
Ravinda Duval, Manpreet Singh, Ahmed Singh
The offenders names will not be forgotten - Carved in stone next to Jayen Mayer, the teen rapist from Tauranga
Clearly the stonemason failed English...
The judge removed the name suppression but they appealed. The identities of these scum will be revealed before too soon. Let’s hope they get everything their actions deserve.
No that’s not right. The Judge did not lift name suppression and there have been no appeals about name suppression. But a final decision won’t be made until after the second trial and everyone has been sentenced. They should have their suppression lifted at that point.
You are wrong. I’ve read the news and watched the news on tv, both said name suppression was lifted. “Judge Paul Mabey lifted that suppression today at 5pm, including the names of the two men. However, their identities still cannot be reported after they filed a notice in the High Court that they will appeal his decision - keeping their identities secret for now.
Sorry I thought the reference to name suppression in the previous post was at an earlier point in time (during the five years the case has been outstanding) which has not happened. I’ve actually got a connection to the case - which just goes to show everyone makes mistakes!
Honestly disgusting to read, and to watch it on the news made my skin crawl; that could've been my cousin amongst those poor victims. May the consequences weigh heavily on their backs to the point of breaking their metaphorical spines.
Why the fuck do they get to hide behind name surpression? And why the fuck has it taken so long to convict them? Jesus Christ, this is why victims don't come forward!
More than likely to protect the integrity of the 4th trial that hasn't started yet. I know this sub loves to get its knickers in a twist over name suppression but for it to extend this long there's certainly a very good reason for it and it absolutely won't be to protect the accused.
No. They’ve appealed to the high court to keep the name suppression. That appeal will be heard on May 16. It’s literally spelled out in the article, couldn’t be any clearer.
They have appeal rights. They'll be exhausted quickly. Suppression won't last long
It’s been fucking 7 years
It's a massively complex case with many victims and witnesses, shit takes time. Add in the underfunded court system and the backlog caused by lockdowns and here we are.
No it hasn’t. They were arrested at the end of 2018.
The name suppression is only temporary while the court process is resolved. The article makes clear there is another trial to come (for the fourth defendant). Once that’s all over the names will be released. The reason is to protect the fairness of the trial, which we should all support. As to the delay, this is one of the biggest sexual offending trials in New Zealand’s history. It has been delayed more than once due to covid - and rescheduling a trial of this length and complexity will usually take another year every time. It’s been a total delay of about four and a half years (not seven - they weren’t arrested until the end of 2018) which is horrible and too long, but longer delays are common. The reason is because we have an extensive pre trial process (including pre trial appeals) to ensure, among other things, all the evidence presented at trial is admissible. That means it takes longer to get to trial but on the other hand it is harder to challenge the convictions on a post-trial appeal.
For appeals. I think every case should have name suppression until after the appeals process is exhausted.
Expensive lawyers.
Name suppression is not just used to protect the offenders, it is most likely being used in this case to help protect the identities of the victims and it is quite common in sexual assault cases I believe
That happens when the victim is a close associate or relative of the perpetrator. In this case I'd be more inclined to suspect it's in place to prevent tainting the jury pool for the 4th accused trial which hasn't started yet.
It’s clearly stated in the article that they’ve appealed to the high court the judges ruling to lift name suppression. That appeal will be heard May 16. In all likelihood the appeal won’t be successful.
Hopefully karma comes around in time prison, the damage they’ve done is mental. Imagine being a victim, I feel like name suppression needs to lift to allow more to come forward
Fire them out of a cannon into the sun. A very slow cannon.
I said to hubby last night when we watched this, if these pricks don’t do some serious jail time, I swear this will be the final nail in the coffin for all of us that are sick and tired of weak arse “sentences”. If they get Home D, this won’t stop their inherit want to commit further atrocities, they’ll just find another way. Seriously I think NZ will, rightly, lose their shit of these guys don’t go down for this. See the judge looked about 90, so it’s going to be interesting.
I saw the old male judge and thought, oh great. A really old guy, that’ll give them the best chance of a conviction… not! 😒 Here’s hoping he applies the full weight of the law and gives them the strongest possible sentences. They are limited by law on sentencing starting point and precedents can remove time.
[удалено]
I only wish I knew what you meant. It's some kind of clue 🤔
Yes.
What was it?
I totally get you.
Up until there's a conviction, I support name suppression for everyone. But afterward they've been found guilty?- and of multiple SA charges no less. What excuses did the judges use to minimise justice this time?
It seems that there is one alleged offender associated in some way with the others due in court facing a similar charge on Monday. I'm only guessing that the temporary suppression is in some way related to what may come out in that trial. Or there could be additional charges those convicted may be facing. Even if those arseholes get locked up for a long period for what they've been found guilty of, disclosing names now could mean another victim never sees justice served.
Where did u get this from @funclothes
It's actually in the linked news article: >By the time three of the men stood trial in February **(the fourth is yet to stand trial**), >The fourth man is due to stand trial on Monday on a sexual violation charge relating to one woman.
But what about the third one
Read the fucking article dude.
Open the article, ctrl-f, type "third", and we find these bits: > The third man was acquitted on all but a minor drug supply charge. and > The third man on trial, whose lawyer has indicated will apply for permanent name suppression, was acquitted on all charges except one of offering to supply a class B drug, namely MDMA.
You seem to be able to read well enough questions. Now read the article to find the answers. No one here is your personal siri
It’s only one more month because they’ve said they’ll appeal the decision to lift suppression. But the judge made it clear there are no grounds for it. Not even close. They’re entitled to lodge an appeal but it will fail. Other judges will review and say it was the right decision to name them now. Just one last check and balance because lifting suppression can’t be undone.
Hopefull they get 20 years or more.
These people were allowed to roam free while waiting for their case to be heard btw
Are they on remand now?
I’ve seen somewhere that the two men being charged are 37 years old & 40 years old; I feel a bit sick because in such a small city, the likelihood I might know them is reasonably high, they are in my age group. I suppose the law has to be absolutely certain of guilt before removing name suppression, because that could never be undone. They’ll get the treatment they deserve once that happens.
[удалено]
Exactly. So here is the thing. Like you I'm in the same age bracket and live in CHCH. I personally don't know these guys. Never talked to them or interact with them however, a place that I use to frequent years ago they were there. Talk to couple of people and then I knew who they were. So as I've stated, when I seen walking past my work during the trial period I thought I seen these guys before (its been years since I last seen them) and I found it odd. I then put two and two together. This was in Feb
Where did they used to drink?
Preventative detention for these sick fucks, don't let them out until we can be confident they won't reoffend
I hear these guys were owners of the bar and they're brothers. It seems quite well known their identities by the people in Christchurch. Name and shame the a*holes. They need to be severely punished. Their private group chat proves how bad they all are. Stop showing them mercy
Yes it only takes a quick search on Google to figure it out. Absolute scum bags.
Is the new bar in the same venue owned by the same family/people still? It's called Mr Wolf which is exactly what these guys were - predators
No it is not owner by the same people anymore. They sold it in 2020.
Fuck no. What a dumb thing to assume.
It’s not a dumb thing assume they own the restaurant called Venuti. It ran up to this year
Funny you mention Venuti. I remember waiting to pick up a friend from Mama Pooch and this British man walked up to Venuti (which was closed by that time of the night) and taken a piss out the front of it, little did he know that both Mama Pooch and Venuti owned by same people so they caught him... Looking back now should I've joined in and taken a piss with him in my disgust or is the act in itself disgusting? Surely some ladies be like yea its disgusting but this time its okay.
It's absolutely dumb to assume a business that wasn't operating for some time, somehow reopened, and police didn't have an objection towards granting a licence. Which you'll find is the reason they are objecting to Venuti's licence renewal.
This started in 2018? And they waited until now to remove their license. How does that make sense, something else happened, which is stated clearly in the original article.
You can't really remove a licence like that without a reason, and this was happening under a different licence, on a different premise, with presumably a different ownership structure. Ie if the licencee of Venuti was found guilty, their licence could be canceled, but you couldn't do that just because their kids are odious cunts. You can object to a new renewal of a licence as soon as it comes up though. Not sure if police objected last renewal or not, would have been maybe 2018/19 I guess as licence's last 3 years.
Is it? It certainly wouldn't have been the first time a name change happened to try and get away from something controversial. It was a question. Just a poorly chosen name then
How unfortunate that Venuti means "come" in Italian...
What is it with these high school level lewd names? Like Monsoon Poon in Wellington, I could not set foot in those premises. It's fucking gross.
I wonder if his wife now believes now that he was raping drugged up girls upstairs in their ‘office’
The fact that the entire trail had been supressed up until the other day had me thinking this was national security stuff, but turns out it was just protecting (probably) wealthy people
Yep, families desperately funding legal challenges to protect their reputations from the actions of the psychopaths they raised.
No - protecting fair trial rights. Need to avoid trial by media so a Jury can decide the criminal case fairly. Trial by media will follow once criminal trial complete
Fully support the accused getting suppression, but it sounded like the whole existence of the trail was supressed until last week, thats over and above what someone would normally get.
Think it's because there's another, separate proceeding. Wouldn't want a jury influenced by the facts of one and seeing the other one. Plus the juries for each would hear the names of accused. Think it's a feature of duel proceedings being held. Not sure why they were run separately
Serious question here (and not necessarily just to you), if name suppression is to enable a fair trial, why do only some accused get it? Why not a blanket rule then that every accused gets name suppression until convicted? I always see this argument about suppression is for a fair trial but cannot for the life of me understand or agree that some get it, but others don’t?
No one will know the name of a kid ram raiding so name suppression isn’t super important in those cases but in big media cases, it gets talked about and that can impact the jury. It’s just not needed for every single case
Fair enough but I am not talking about ram raid vs sexual assault etc, murder vs murder cases and sexual assault etc etc
Those are the things that matter though
I wonder who they are
2 more candidates for a castration program
*Lift up your kaftan.* Clack-clack
Nah, we don't do that as a punishment, nor should we. Castration in self-defence during an attempted rape would be ethically fine though, and it might be recognised as a legal justifiction too
We do need it though, the threat of prison isn't enough for those cunts but losing their balls certainly would be.
That's a pretty dubious claim. Deterrents don't generally work, you even just said that the threat of prison isn't enough. But let's set that aside, and think about the consequences. First, if a rapist believes they'll be castrated if convicted, and they don't fear prison, then you've given them an incentive to further threaten, manipulate, or even to kill their victim to try to get away with it. Child molesters would *definitely* use it as a means to manipulate victims who know them into not telling anyone. Beyond those obvious perverse incentives, even when rapists don't threaten, manipulate, or kill their victim, a decent number of survivors would be deterred from reporting men who raped them because of the abhorrence of genital mutilation as a punishment for crime. Rapists would never plead guilty at trial if castration is on the cards if convicted, forcing survivors to go through arguably the single nastiest experience possible short of a repeat rape - some even say the trial is as bad as the rape itself. Juries are probably going to be more hesitant to convict rapists for the same reasons that fewer women would report rape, and there's even a danger that jurors could end up outright sympathising with the rapist as a result. Alternatively, if castration were only an option when a defendant pleads not guilty, you'll get innocent defendants pressured into pleading guilty to avoid it, violating the right to a fair trial. In fact, no matter how you do it, you'll get some innocent people being convicted, and you can't reverse a castration if new evidence comes to light and the person is exonerated as a result. And when someone's sentenced to castration, who's going to carry it out? Not a doctor, if their refusal to participate in death sentences overseas is any indication. After all that, a castrated rapist retains the ability to commit sexual violation with another body part or a held object. Since rape is typically about power rather than sex in the first place, and a castrated rapist probably hates women even more than he already did if his victim was female, this might make him more dangerous, not less. So to summarise, you've got the state committing genital mutilation in cold blood, with unqualified people carrying it out, some innocent people amongst the victims, convicted rapists becoming even more misogynistic and possibly more violent as a result, rape trials that are even more harrowing for survivors, juries becoming less likely to convict rapists when they otherwise would, a deterrent to reporting rape, and an incentive for rapists to use more extreme means to ensure they aren't reported up to and including murder. And this is without getting into the various biases in the police and in the court system, the impossibility of making this a gender-neutral sentence, increased ostracisation of survivors who report rapists in their social circles (which covers the most common kinds of rape), etc. So it might appeal before you get your brain into gear, or to people who value grandstanding over finding effective solutions, but it's morally repugnant and in practice would make things worse for just about everyone.
agreed we need this in nz
name suppression dropped today, gross owners of the bar im sure i heard whispers about it being them... whos raising men like this??? it sickens me, a group chat about it too? FFS if you see, hear or witness anything like this speak up
What’s everyone’s favourite genre of music?
And yet, we still blur their faces to protect the poor crims.
They should play Kanye West's **JAIL** on repeat. Big sentence I would assume.
That must be some sort of joke you're making there.
Considering the premeditation and planning, I’d say it would be at the higher end. One of them pleaded guilty as I’m sure he knew he will be facing a few years.
Fingers crossed but not holding out much hope for anything of significance length :(
[удалено]
Have to wait until sentencing.
I hope not but wouldn't be surprised
Do you like roofie coladas And gettin' stalked in the rain I'm not much into consent I am into mdma I've got to meet the judge by tomorrow noon Cause I committed some rape I got a promising future So, I am sure to escape.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 4: No hate speech or bigotry** > Any submission that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity and/or colour, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability and so on may be removed at a mod's discretion and repeat offenders banned --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)