Trial for the suspected NZ gunman could be held behind closed doors

The judge who presides over the case of the accused Christchurch gunman may invoke a rarely used order and hold the trial behind locked doors to protect “the security or defence of New Zealand”.
The trial may also be held outside of Canterbury and potentially without any Muslim jurors, but a criminal justice expert says a carefully selected jury will ensure a fair trial, the New Zealand Herald reported.
Concerns were raised earlier this week when the Herald revealed accused mosque gunman Brenton Tarrant will represent himself in court, potentially turning his trial into a platform for his extreme beliefs — detailed in his manifesto.
However, the High Court judge who will preside over what will be an unprecedented trial will have a range of laws at their disposal to maintain order — one of which could be holding the trial behind locked doors, with even members of the press banned from attending.
New Zealand’s criminal justice system is generally open to the public, but under the Criminal Procedure Act, any New Zealand judge has the power to clear their court.
This most often occurs when a complainant gives evidence in cases of a sexual nature.
However, the judge has the ability to exclude people when it is necessary to avoid undue disruption to the proceedings.
Other reasons to close the court include a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial, endangering the safety of any person, prejudicing the maintenance of the law — including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences — and when a suppression order is not sufficient to avoid that risk.
A judge can also clear the court if they believe it will avoid prejudicing the security or defence of New Zealand. This is also the only type of order that forces members of the media to leave a court.

Trrial for the suspected NZ gunman could be held behind closed doors

Is it just me or is this starting to sound a little suspicious or have a hidden agenda.

What details do the powers that be want hidden.

"to protect the security or defence of New Zealand”.

sounds like the usual ^&%#%^ excuse.

Everything that occurs would still be detailed in the court record. So it's not like they could hide anything.

If it denies this psycho a platform to spout his hate, I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing.

I'm pretty sure in my state, South Australia, all court hearings are closed doors and always have been. A reporter can be in the court taking notes and drawings can be made but no camera's or audio recordings allowed. Not sure what the usual proceedings are in New Zealand.

a reply to: harold223

but as stated they can also clear the media if to

"to protect the security or defence of New Zealand”.

The old national security *&^$#

Here's your NAT SEC part.

Ties to Radical Islam.

a reply to: acrux

On one side, I think it's god, so this maniac can't garner any more attention or gain any more fame. The trial could possibly help to normalize or humanize him, or in a strange way inspire more attacke.

On the other side, the people would like definitive answers and explanations for his actions. (if there are any)

I think I'm OK with this.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

How about if the shooters defense is exploring the mosque?

Like where does the Zakat go? Zakat is the donations of the congregation. If some of the donations go back to say, ISIS. As the old saying goes, one man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter,

The mosque where the Muslim fired a gun at the attackers, was that a legal gun? If not, where there other illegal guns at the mosque. France found guns in mosques.

www.usatoday.com...


www.aljazeera.com...

What’s the reputation of the mosques? The Obama admistration has done drone strikes some of the mosque’s past members, any male between 18-65 under Obama were deemed enemy combatants. Could the shooter say he was following Obama,s lead? If the mosque was known for radicalization, was New Zelander authorities watching the mosque, and if not why? If New Zealand did investigate, are there any taped records of radicalization? Would NZ government in fear of being called islomaphobic allow a mosque to be radicalized? How about of the mosque was funding a group the West calls a terrorist group? Could the shooter move the argument that the state is funding terrorism, so they can have defense contract kick backs and an excuse to reduce civil liberties?


www.crikey.com.au...

In the end he walked in and shot people, many many people, but an open trail with evidence and an adience, could shake the government to its core.

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: Xcalibur254


The mosque where the Muslim fired a gun at the attackers, was that a legal gun?

Where do you guys get this nonsense from?

No one fired back at the shooter! The Muslim bloke your talking about picked up a disgarded rifle (which was unloaded), then threw it like a spear at the shooters windscreen.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Fame or not, this guy did some serious research. Court may be scared that legally the gunman can attempt to defend his way enough to set a precedent.

a reply to: acrux

This is a negative move as I see it because all it does is foster suspicions that the govt does not want certain information to come out or to see how the shooter will have all their human, lawful and legal rights stripped away in the process of putting him away for the rest of his natural, if he even exists at all.

Will it be the same bloke or will the defendant be an actor?

Justice is not only supposed to be done but its supposed to be seen to be done.

Will this bloke get the benefit of the doubt?
Will this bloke have the right to silence?
Will the prosecution be required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt??

You and I cannot even get this for a simple parking fine in a local magistrates court (in Australia that is) so how the hell is this bloke going to get a fair trial if the public is not permitted to either sit in the court, listen and have it reported by the media accurately and in an unbiased way?

Will the judge impose strict due process of law throughout the trial without fear or favour, affectation or ill will?

Will this bloke be presumed to be innocent?

Will this bloke get proper due process thought the trial?

IMO 99% of people who have doubts about this event being a genuine event .... and yes I do agree and acknowledge that real live people did die ..... will only increase their doubt and suspicion that while people died, this bloke have have been mind controlled and subconsciously told to do what he did by the Sate and not even remember what he did, as some people who have recovered from their mind control has said.

To those who would scream from the roof tops that this bloke does not deserve:

the benefit of the presumption of innocence
a fair trial
due process of law
a trial conducted without fear or favour, affectation or ill will
Proof beyond reasonable doubt;

To you i say you are a fool to the extreme and should one day I hear your cries of an unfair trial for your self or one of your loved ones, I will abandon you to your fate because you be getting the just rewards of your extreme short slightness and unwillingness to consider the possibility that official narratives can be conspiracies pushed by the State and that the media has become the prosecutor for the Govt who have become the judge.

When the people at the top hear people say things like" this bloke does not deserve a fair trial or this bloke has forfeited their right to life, must make the powers that should not be at the top of society split their sides laughing AT the sheeple who said it.

a reply to: acrux

The guy is obviously a right good few tins short of a six-pack.

Get the dangerous mad bastard committed indefinitely to some hole in the ground psychiatric facility as study it profusely is my thinking on the matter.

Oh aye, and make all his guards, doctors, and nurses, Muslims just for kicks.

Is this a normal thing in New Zealand?