those dodgy criminal types p2

Right. Where'd we get to all that time ago?

Okay, our hero - having resolutely pleaded not guilty through countless court appearances and to the annoynace of both "impartial" judge and police - has finally made it to trial in front of a grown up judge. (Judge 1, it should be noted, has only been on the bench for about a year).

After the judge recovered from the fact he was presiding over a trial for something is small as disorderly behaviour, all the friends and suportes (but for witnesses) went in.

The prosecuting lawyer laid out the prosecution point of view, and called in the arresting plice personage as their first witness.

Whose evidence went like:

**The police were called to the 24 at the cnr of St Andrew & george St to deal with a violent incident. The defendant approached the officer in the course of his duty and was verbally aggressive.
The officer asked him a number of times to step away and let him carry out his business - which was interviewing a witness to the violent incident.
The defendant then started being aggressive toward the witness, but eventually moved away, shouting abuse at a group of people in the doorway of the 24 (24 hour dairy). He was asked to move off again and in a short space of time the officer heard loud abuse and shouting coming from around the corner & went to investigate [having forgotten, apparently, the violent incident he was supposedly dealing with]. He saw the defendant facing off against a group of people, with two women trying to intervene between the groups. The defendant was yelling racist insults, calling the members of the other group "whiteys". The officer observed that the defendant was angry at the police because they "only arrest the black men". (While you're reading this I hope you're keeping at the front of your mind the efforts the 'defendant' has so far had to go to to preserve his not guilty plea.)
Concerned for public safety, the officer said he arrested the defendant. His evidence was corroborated by another officer there, although he couldn't see what was going on with the defendant as it was hapenning around the corner.

Under cross-examination from an amazing lawyer (if you're ever unfairly accused of something in Dunedin, email me and I'll put you in touch with her) , the police said there were a lot of drunk young people on the street that night and that, five hours into his shift, he'd had a number of violent incidents to deal with. He admitted he couldn't see who was yelling what abuse from around the corner, but guessed it was the defendant by the agrressive stance he adopted towards him as a police officer.
While all this happenned in February, his case notes had not been typed up until March 22 - and then only in response to repeated requests from her for all the written evidence from the incident.
The judge, also, was quite interested in why this was so. The judge also wondered why the charge was listed in the handwritten notebokk notes as "disorderly behaviour" but typed up in March as "disorderly behaviour likely to incite violence" - a more serious charge. And why nothing appears in Officer Two's notebook at all.
The judge was also particularly annoyed that the more serious charge was only applied when the person refused to plead guilty to the lesser charge in court and said:
"I in fact hope it didn't happen the way my eyes are suggesting it did - that you increased the charges solely because the defendant pleaded not guilty".
The police LIED and said they were unaware of the circumstances surrounding the increased charge. I was there at that time - and so were they.

Then The defendant gave his evidence, which is pretty much what I wrote in part1.

It was pointed out (but couldn't be corroborated as no witness statements were taken from anybody by the police, so no witnesses could be followed up) that both groups were maori, so the insult of "whitey" would be a bit redundant and, further, the defendant has a pakeha mother.

I didn't stay in court for the defence witnesses testimonies, but the outcome was that the charge became that of a 'misdemenaour'. The defence lawyer pointed out to me that dropping charges completely would have served to bring the police into disrepute, whereas they would accept the 'misdemeanour' charge as a comment on their performance without losing face.

The legal case cost $800 - the lawyer halved her fee. This is out of the scope of most people who are charged with minor crimes they didn't commit but which stay on their record because they're forced by circumstances to plead guilty - because there are judges who like an easy life, pretty much.

It's classist, racist, and completely fucking appalling. And as for the court-appointed solicitor system - don't get me started!