Borrows charged for injuring protestors

114 comments on “Borrows charged for injuring protestors ”

• Comments are now closed

1. One Anonymous Bloke 1

   12 July 2016 at 11:56 am

   Hard not to be cynical about the fact that the charge makes a by-election unlikely. Or is it more a case of no-one who has a public difference of opinion with Oravida Collins is above the law?
   • red-blooded 1.1

     12 July 2016 at 12:07 pm

     I’m interested: what do you think he should have been charged with?
     • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1

       12 July 2016 at 12:12 pm

       I didn’t say the charge is wrong, I said it’s hard not to be cynical about it.
       • red-blooded 1.1.1.1

         12 July 2016 at 1:19 pm

         My question wasn’t an attack; it was a genuine attempt to understand your reasoning. I think it’s bloody good that he is being charged, and I just can’t see how Burrow’s being charged makes a by-election LESS likely (which is what you said in your original comment). What way of handling this do you think would have made a by-election more likely, given that he hasn’t stood down and Key hasn’t taken action against him? What action could the police prosecutors take that wouldn’t be “hard not to be cynical about”, from your point of view?

         Sorry, Anon Bloke, but I just can’t understand your reasoning.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.1

           12 July 2016 at 1:28 pm

           If he is found guilty and fined, he’ll keep his seat. Being found guilty of a more serious charge would trigger a by-election automatically, no matter the sentence.

           Idiot Savant’s post (linked in the OP) lays out the options.

           Edit: perhaps not: according to DtB below, Borrows seat is on the line…
           • red-blooded 1.1.1.1.1.1

             12 July 2016 at 1:47 pm

             Hey, I’d like to see a by-election as much as the next person (even if that person was you, Mr B). The problem is, that there’s a difference between being “careless” and “reckless”. Burrows was definitely careless:

             “The test for careless driving is whether the motorist exercised the degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances.”

             But was he reckless? “The test for reckless driving is whether:
             -The driver fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable and competent driver;
             -The resulting situation was objectively dangerous; and
             -The driver was aware of the potential danger and continued to act despite knowledge of the possible consequences.
             This is a higher degree of culpability than careless and dangerous driving, and requires police to prove a specific state of mind.”
             http://www.drinkdrivelaw.co.nz/dangerous-driving/

             I think it’s the state of mind issue that’s the sticking point. Plus, while he did leave the scene of an accident, that law is written to compel people to ensure that help can be accessed for anyone injured, that the right person is identified for any future prosecution, that insurance issues can be worked out… etc. Burrows was being filmed, there was a police officer at hand; it’s not like he fled away into the night, never to be seen again.

             I guess I’m just saying, don’t let’s get over-excited about this. It’s perfectly right that he should be charged, but let’s keep it in proportion.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               12 July 2016 at 5:29 pm

               But was he reckless? “The test for reckless driving is whether:
               -The driver fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable and competent driver;
               -The resulting situation was objectively dangerous; and
               -The driver was aware of the potential danger and continued to act despite knowledge of the possible consequences.

               This clearly describes exactly what Borrows did. He drove into the protesters fully aware of the danger but did it anyway.

               I think it’s the state of mind issue that’s the sticking point.

               His state of mind is quite obvious in the video – he simply didn’t give a shit if he hurt anybody or not.
     • Erik Bloodaxe 1.1.2

       13 July 2016 at 7:22 am

       Assault with a blunt instrument?
     • Sebbie 1.1.3

       14 July 2016 at 3:29 pm

       “Careless” implies accidental but there’s nothing accidental about driving your car directly into people standing right in front of you. So it should be a more serious charge really.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     12 July 2016 at 12:18 pm

     I suspect that’s why it took so long to lay charges. He was obviously guilty but they had to find a way so as not to get him kicked out of parliament as he should be.

     EDIT:
     Actually, he’s been charged with causing injury which means that he faces up to 5 years in prison which means that, if he’s found guilty, that he will be kicked out of parliament and there will be a by-election.
     • mary_a 1.2.1

       12 July 2016 at 12:48 pm

       @ Draco T Bastard (1.2) … but will he be convicted? I have some doubts there. You know, the usual Nat’s old boys club in action (bribery and corruption), like the ferals they are, protecting their own toxic lot!
     • Jones 1.2.2

       12 July 2016 at 1:07 pm

       Which means he won’t be found guilty.
       • mosa 1.2.2.1

         12 July 2016 at 10:17 pm

         GUILTY!! whats that where the Nast Natz are concerned.
         Line em up and ride them down its only a anti TPPA protester.
     • red-blooded 1.2.3

       12 July 2016 at 1:30 pm

       Really? What I see when I go looking at the various reports bouncing around is that he’s been charged with careless driving causing injury or death. It’s actually a really low-level charge:

       “Under Section 38(1) of the Land Transport Act, “A person commits an offence if the person operates a vehicle on a road carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, and by that act or omission causes an injury to or the death of another person” The maximum penalty is three months imprisonment, and there is a mandatory six month disqualification from holding or obtaining a drivers licence following conviction. In the grand scheme of charges that arise from often serious injury or death, the penalty is very, very low. The reason the penalty is so low is the same reason it is one of my favourite charges to defend: it could happen to anyone, and, there is no criminal intent.” – taken from http://www.iornslegal.co.nz/#!Careless-Driving-Causing-Injury-or-Death/ca6b/55ab165d0cf25466c2a3ad6f

       He did a stupid thing and hurt someone who didn’t deserve to be hurt. Probably, this was caused by arrogance and ill-temper. Possibly, it was caused by poor judgement and sloppy driving skills. I think it’s more likely the former than the latter, but we can’t know 100%. Personally, I think the charge fits the action.
       • McFlock 1.2.3.1

         12 July 2016 at 1:37 pm

         However, what I find interesting is whether he stopped to ascertain injury and render assistance. His current charge is that injury occurred and he was merely careless, but if he injured someone and failed to stop, that is a five year maximum.
     • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.4

       12 July 2016 at 1:33 pm

       Are you sure?

       Contravention of section 8 causing injury or death
       (1) A person commits an offence if the person operates a vehicle on a road carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, and by that act or omission causes an injury to or the death of another person.
       (1A) A person commits an offence if—
       (a) the person drives a motor vehicle, or causes a motor vehicle to be driven, carelessly; and
       (b) by that act or omission, causes an injury to or the death of another person.
       (2) If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1) or subsection (1A),—
       (a) the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and
       (b) the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.
       (3) The imposition of a mandatory disqualification under this section is subject to section 81.

       LTA S.38
       • Draco T Bastard 1.2.4.1

         12 July 2016 at 2:20 pm

         No, you’re right. It’s section 7, Reckless Driving, that has the 5 year imprisonment and he’s been charged under section 8. It is, of course, Reckless Driving causing injury that he should be charged with because he did drive into the protesters on purpose.
     • Wensleydale 1.2.5

       13 July 2016 at 3:50 am

       It’ll be a cold day in Hell before Borrows goes to prison. And if, by some miracle, he did — it would be one of those day-spa prisons with a golf course out the back ordinarily occupied by rich white financiers who got caught fleecing the elderly of their life savings.
2. James 2

   12 July 2016 at 11:58 am

   I think that the protesters had no right to be blocking his way. But he had less right to do something that could (and did) cause any of them harm.

   A minute of time and the police could have easily cleared his way.

   He deserve to be charged and (looking at the evidence available) be found guilty.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

     12 July 2016 at 12:05 pm

     You have it the wrong way around: it’s Borrows and the misery factory he props up that are in the way.
     • James 2.1.1

       12 July 2016 at 12:15 pm

       yes dear. Are you incapable of a reasoned reply?
       • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1

         12 July 2016 at 12:21 pm

         What’s unreasonable about it? The protesters are performing a valuable public service, which is more than can be said for the occupants of the vehicle: Borrows (or his passenger) can cross the floor any time they want to.

         How many more families become homeless for every day they fail to do so?
         • James 2.1.1.1.1

           12 July 2016 at 12:51 pm

           “The protesters are performing a valuable public service, which is more than can be said for the occupants of the vehicle”

           According to you – which does not make it a fact. It just shows you are a little think and can only beat your chest and go left good – right bad when trying to have a discussion.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1.1

             12 July 2016 at 1:01 pm

             Oh well, if we’re going to discuss facts, what underpins your idea that the protesters have no “right” to be there? The police response to the recent anti-TPPA actions in Auckland suggests otherwise.

             Perhaps your characterisations apply closer to home than you intended.

             So much for little think.
             • dukeofurl …

               12 July 2016 at 1:22 pm

               can you see the video, the protesters were standing on footpath- its where the cars have to give way to pedestrians
             • James …

               12 July 2016 at 1:40 pm

               No – I know you have little reading skills – but I said they had no right to block his way.

               FFS – how thick are you.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 12 July 2016 at 1:49 pm

                 Since the whole point of the protest was to block his way, your opinion simply reveals which side you’re on.

                 My response – comparing the one protest with the other, and noting the Police response – is valid.

                 Charitably, I’m prepared to explain this to you.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 12 July 2016 at 2:24 pm

                 …but I said they had no right to block his way.

                 Actually, they do as they have a right to protest.
               • stigie …

                 12 July 2016 at 2:46 pm

                 Yep, totally agree, they should have been protesting from the footpath and not in front of the vehicle. What a lot of fuss with medical people etc. i believe she was up and walking ok next day.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   12 July 2016 at 3:02 pm

                   Observation isn’t your strong point: the protesters were on a footpath (yes, they were). I suggest you remove your bullshit-smeared right wing facemask and have a look at the photos.

                   Even if they’d been on a road, the police response to the TPPA protests – ie: to allow them – shows exactly how grounded in reality your lickspittle opinion is.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     12 July 2016 at 3:55 pm

                     Being on a footpath and/or being a protestor doesn’t magically endow you with the right to obstruct a vehicle entrance or other public way. That’s why the cops will come along and tell you to fuck off. Also why they’ll drag you out of the way and arrest you if you don’t. Borrows’ offence was more serious than the protestors and resulted in injury, which is presumably why he’s been charged, but both parties were committing offences.
                   • dukeofurl …

                     12 July 2016 at 4:48 pm

                     Generally these sort of things have strict liability, what ever the reasons you did the illegal maneuver, you have to wear it.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     12 July 2016 at 5:06 pm

                     @Psycho Milt: I’d like to see the argument in court. They weren’t obstructing a right of way they were expressing their disapproval of government policy.

                     Borrows and Bennett aren’t Joe Public going about their lawful business. They’re ministers of the Crown ripping the guts out of this country.

                     They have every right to expect hostility, obstruction and contempt wherever they go. Diddums.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     12 July 2016 at 9:27 pm

                     I get your point – they’re politicians so a certain leeway for political protest has to apply. It would be outrageous if the cops present had actually charged the protesters with obstructing a public way, but no similar outrage arises from Borrows being charged.
           • Sebbie 2.1.1.1.1.2

             15 July 2016 at 5:17 am

             People have been protesting things for thousands of years. That’s how we got the vote for women etc… it’s a democratic country people have the right to protest. They may not have had a legal right to block his way but he had much less right to deliberately drive straight into them especially when the police were right there to help him. It was extreme arrogance and recklessness. Also when exiting a drive way pedestrians have the right of way.
   • Sabine 2.2

     12 July 2016 at 12:31 pm

     Ahhh the excuse that if the protester would not have protested then the defended would have never driven over them.

     Protesting is legal in NZ, there are ways to deal with non violent and not co-operating protesters i.e. the police can / and often has carried these guys away to make space.
     However it is still illegal to just simply drive over people that are lying on the ground.
     Does not matter why they are lying on the ground, it is and should be considered assault at the least – attempted murder at the worst. Simple as that.

     The dear Minister and his mate had a choice to make, wait until the police clears teh way (something they are trained for) or drive over people with a vehicle that has the capacity to crush the people. Ahhh, choices, if people would just not always make those poor choices under a National led government. Its weird.
     • James 2.2.1

       12 July 2016 at 12:55 pm

       Sabine,

       You misunderstand my comment.

       “Ahhh the excuse that if the protester would not have protested then the defended would have never driven over them.”

       No – That is not what I said. To be 100% clear – I am not making that excuse, and nor do I think any rational person could (or should) try to make it.

       What he did stands alone and he should be accountable for it.

       I agree with the rest of your post (in the most part).
       • Sabine 2.2.1.1

         12 July 2016 at 1:13 pm

         as i said protesters are protesting. Usually there is always someone who said :” they have no right, it inconveniences me, and besides who cares, and if we could just all go along and be submissive and obedient little drones.

         Ghandi, the Suffragettes, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, the antiwar protesters of 2003, heck the Protestors here in NZ during the spring bock tour and the lady from the recent protests Leshia Evans all stood in the way of someone and inconvenienced them. And luckily for us they did.

         None of the freedoms we enjoy today came because we got given them, people fought for them.

         you might want to remember that.

         the minister was a stupid prick for driving over people on the floor, he showed that a. he is happy to commit murder in front of cameras = stupid prick, b. he is not fit for government as he can’t control his urges = stupid prick, and his government should have kicked out this stupid prick the moment they saw the images. As for his colleque in the car who did nothing to stop him from being a stupid prick? Should be charged as he was.

         so hold your contempt for the little inconvenient protesters they did not attempt to drive over a human being to bring home a point.
   • mpledger 2.3

     12 July 2016 at 2:25 pm

     Pedestrians have right of way on the footpath.
   • Chuck 2.4

     12 July 2016 at 3:54 pm

     Borrows was stupid to fall into the trap that was well planned for him. Block his exit, maximize the reaction from Borrows, and have it splashed over the 6 o clock news.

     The court will decide on all the available facts.
3. red-blooded 3

   12 July 2016 at 12:03 pm

   Well, this’ll be interesting to keep an eye on. Any chance of getting the original video up? The link just takes me to today’s story, with no visual.
4. save nz 4

   12 July 2016 at 12:54 pm

   With John Banks getting off, and now trying to milk the tax teat again, I think there is less and less trust in the judiciary being fair.

   Anyway if Key gets his way, the police will become a commodity anyway under TPPA and police will be on low wages and poorer conditions with cheaper obediant police being imported in.
   • Jones 4.1

     12 July 2016 at 1:21 pm

     Oh yes… the gradual privatisation of the police force.

     For most of the people there will be freemium service: some-day response times and the law to follow, while those who want to pay for the premium service can have rapid response times and some discretion over what laws should apply to them.

     We could even have gold, silver, bronze etc. service standards tailored to our individual needs. Who needs gated communities when you can afford to pay for a personalised police service…?
   • North 4.2

     12 July 2016 at 8:16 pm

     The purpose of the Judiciary is to keep the underlings in line. For the benefit of those who are not the underlings. No question about it.
5. fisiani 5

   12 July 2016 at 1:11 pm

   No Court will ever find Borrows guilty of a driving offence. Watch the video.
   • dukeofurl 5.1

     12 July 2016 at 1:26 pm

     they are standing on the footpath- look up rules about cars and footpaths
     • dukeofurl 5.1.1

       12 July 2016 at 1:31 pm

       Road rules

       Pedestrian right-of-way
       Pedestrians have the right-of-way over vehicles on footpaths. They also have priority over vehicles when vehicles are entering or exiting a driveway across a footpath.

       In this situation, a driver entering or exiting a driveway like this must give way to pedestrians on the footpath

       Likely that Borrows will go for a plea bargain for a lessor charge – and get it.
       • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.1

         12 July 2016 at 4:05 pm

         You don’t seem to understand right-of-way. Having right-of-way at an intersection means the other traffic lets me move first – it doesn’t mean I get to stop my car on the intersection and block the other traffic for as long as I feel like it.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1

           12 July 2016 at 4:27 pm

           Therefore they can drive into me and the judge will say “Good for you Sir Mr. Borrows sir, and please may I lick your spittle?”
           • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.1.1.1

             12 July 2016 at 4:35 pm

             False dichotomy – I’m not arguing Borrows had some kind of right to drive into them.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               12 July 2016 at 4:56 pm

               To be clear, I’m arguing that they had every right to get in his way, because he’s an MP, and this has nothing to do with right of way and everything to do with freedom of expression.
     • fisiani 5.1.2

       12 July 2016 at 3:15 pm

       They are jumping in front of a car and had their tootsies squashed.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.2.1

         12 July 2016 at 4:08 pm

         They were impatient and suffering from an overweening sense of moral authority and instead of waiting for the Police to clear the way, drove into a pedestrian.
         • Robert Guyton 5.1.2.1.1

           12 July 2016 at 5:41 pm

           “overweening”

           It’s the quintessential description of the born-to-rule gnat.
     • Psycho Milt 5.1.3

       12 July 2016 at 3:59 pm

       they are standing on the footpath- look up rules about cars and footpaths

       Yes, do look up the rules, for instance the Summary Offences Act 1981:

       “22 Obstructing public way

       (1) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs any public way and, having been warned by a constable to desist,—

       (a) continues with that obstruction; or

       (b) does desist from that obstruction but subsequently obstructs that public way again, or some other public way in the same vicinity, in circumstances in which it is reasonable to deem the warning to have applied to the new obstruction as well as the original one.

       (2) In this section—

       obstructs, in relation to a public way, means unreasonably impedes normal passage along that way

       public way means every road, street, path, mall, arcade, or other way over which the public has the right to pass and repass.”
       • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.3.1

         12 July 2016 at 4:03 pm

         unreasonably impedes

         They were nihilist protesters???
         • Psycho Milt 5.1.3.1.1

           12 July 2016 at 4:12 pm

           I’m pretty confident that courts wouldn’t consider “I was obstructing that guy on a public way because I was angry with him about something” to be “reasonable excuse.”
           • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.3.1.1.1

             12 July 2016 at 4:22 pm

             Ah, then you probably need to consider who is on trial here.
             • Psycho Milt …

               12 July 2016 at 4:34 pm

               Sure – the public-way-obstructors’ offence was a trivial one and they weren’t charged for it. Doesn’t alter the fact that they didn’t have some kind of right-of-way that entitled them to block the footpath, as alleged in 5.1/5.1.1.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 12 July 2016 at 4:46 pm

                 Were they on trial, and were I a lawyer, I guess I’d defend them on the basis of their freedom of expression rather than their right of way.
                 • red-blooded …

                   12 July 2016 at 4:58 pm

                   Hey, there are lots of ways to express an opinion, even on a protest. I’ve taken legal and illegal action when protesting. Just saying, “I was expressing myself” doesn’t make an action legal.

                   Good on these people for getting out there and confronting Burrows with their views. Don’t let’s pretend that the law should only apply to one side in a protest situation, though.

                   As it happens, there were no charges laid against the protesters because they were not really hurting anyone. Burrows did hurt someone and he’s been charged.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     12 July 2016 at 5:09 pm

                     I said I’d defend them on that basis, not that I’d expect to win. It’s a strong argument though, and not without precedent.
       • Draco T Bastard 5.1.3.2

         12 July 2016 at 4:22 pm

         And how does the right to protest change that?

         Because we can be assured that it does.
         • Psycho Milt 5.1.3.2.1

           12 July 2016 at 4:31 pm

           Wrongly assuming that the right to protest implies the right to commit offences is a mistake that’s seen quite a few people surprised and outraged at being arrested over the years.
           • Sabine 5.1.3.2.1.1

             12 July 2016 at 4:36 pm

             so if it is a protester who is standing / lying in front of you then it is ok to drive into them.

             if it is your wife/child/dog than it is not ok to drive into them?

             i thought it is just generally considered bad taste to drive into / onto people full stop?
             • Psycho Milt …

               12 July 2016 at 4:49 pm

               False dichotomy – not having the right to obstruct a public way doesn’t imply that other people have the right to run you over if you do.
             • red-blooded …

               12 July 2016 at 5:02 pm

               Of course it’s not OK to drive over/into them, Sabine. It’s OK for the police to move them, though. People who protest by blocking access know that they’ll probably be moved; this didn’t happen on this occasion and Burrows did what he shouldn’t. It wasn’t OK. He’s been charged. Surely this is a good thing?
       • William 5.1.3.3

         12 July 2016 at 5:30 pm

         But the protesters haven’t been charged with an offence under the Summary Offences Act, so that’s all irrelevant.

         Possibly the police examined whether that would have been a goer but observed the constable didn’t warn them to desist, he merely ushered them to the side. They were moving there when silly old Chester drove on through before the way was clear.
         • Psycho Milt 5.1.3.3.1

           12 July 2016 at 9:14 pm

           It’s not irrelevant to the implied claim in 5.1 and 5.1.1 that the protesters had the right to block the footpath – the Summary Offences Act makes it clear that they didn’t.

           And just in case that particular logic fail comes up again: no the fact that the protesters were illegally obstructing a public way doesn’t imply Borrows had a right to drive into them.
           • William 5.1.3.3.1.1

             12 July 2016 at 11:32 pm

             Read the section of the act you quoted. It doesn’t create an offence of blocking a public way, only of unreasonably blocking it. The corollary of that is that it is possible to block it in a reasonable manner, which is not an offence.
             Watch the video, the blockage lasts no more than 15 secs before they’ve moved aside. I don’t envy you arguing in a court that they created an unreasonable blockage.
             • Psycho Milt …

               13 July 2016 at 6:15 am

               The concept that you have a right to obstruct a public way if you want to is as bizarre, if not quite so scarily insane, as the Kiwiblog commenters’ view that you have a right to run people over if they’re in your way. For future reference, no it’s not “reasonable” to deliberately obstruct other people, regardless of how long you do it for or what you personally feel about the people you’re obstructing, and yes you can be arrested for it.
               • Ross …

                 13 July 2016 at 6:34 am

                 Yes, you can be arrested for it. But they weren’t in this case, which suggests police were not concerned by their conduct. But this isn’t about the protestors. It’s about the actions of two MPs who, after injuring protestors, drove off.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 13 July 2016 at 9:10 am

                 “if you want to”

                 Is that what “reasonable” means in a legal sense?
   • William 5.2

     12 July 2016 at 1:48 pm

     As dukeofurl commented above, the protesters were on the footpath. Borrows was exiting a driveway.

     The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 states:

     “4.4 Giving way when entering or exiting driveway
     A driver entering or exiting a driveway must give way to a
     road user on a footpath.”

     The interpretation section states:

     “road user means a driver, rider, passenger, or pedestrian”

     From watching the video, he did not give way.
     An injury occurred.
     Are you still confident!

     Bingo with dukeofurl, my reference was actually to your earlier comment at 1.22.
6. James 6

   12 July 2016 at 1:41 pm

   Charged with careless driving causing injury.

   Under section 38 of the Land Transport Act, the maximum penalty for careless driving causing injury is three months’ jail, or a fine of up to $4500.
   • Sabine 6.1

     12 July 2016 at 2:16 pm

     no loss of drivers lisence?
     the stupid prick gets to stay on the road and further risk injuring others?
     • McFlock 6.1.1

       12 July 2016 at 2:27 pm

       Minimum six month disqualification:

       If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (1) or subsection (1A),—
       (a) the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $4,500; and
       (b) the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 6 months or more.
       • Sabine 6.1.1.1

         12 July 2016 at 2:31 pm

         good.
7. dukeofurl 7

   12 July 2016 at 4:56 pm

   Careless driving causing injury cases have even reached the Supreme Court

   eg Peter Miles DAVIES v New Zealand Police – Courts of New Zealand SC 83 2007 , however in that case ( mattress fell off trailer which then injured a motorcyclist) the issue was reparations rather the circumstances.
   Im sure this sort of charge would be well supported by case law to the CA level over the culpability of the driver in all circumstances

   But I found this gem.

   In 2010 while Minister of Transport, Joyce admitted to two prior driving convictions, careless driving resulting in a fine in 1988, and careless driving causing injury resulting in a fine and loss of licence in 1989.- wikipedia
8. Neil 8

   12 July 2016 at 5:07 pm

   Move along nothing to see here, Burrows will only get a wet bus ticket across the wrist
   • fisiani 8.1

     12 July 2016 at 8:18 pm

     He will remain innocent, as he is at present.
     • UncookedSelachimorpha 8.1.1

       13 July 2016 at 9:03 am

       And Labour did it too.
9. Robert Guyton 9

   12 July 2016 at 5:31 pm

   Steel-bodied car .v. soft-bodied human

   Nice optics, National.
10. Robert Guyton 10

    12 July 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Accelerator .v. agitator
11. ropata 11

    12 July 2016 at 5:41 pm

    I hope they throw the book at Chester the Festerer. The arrogance of car drivers knows no limits in NZ. Can’t count the number of times I’ve nearly been run over by dickheads on driveways, dickheads on the wrong side of the road, dickheads who fail to stop on a stop sign, etc etc ad infinitum
    • Robert Guyton 11.1

      12 July 2016 at 5:47 pm

      “chesters”?
    • Psycho Milt 11.2

      12 July 2016 at 9:23 pm

      You really, really don’t want to go over to the Kiwiblog thread on this subject then, as it features a surprising number of commenters who apparently need to have it explained to them that no you’re not actually allowed to run someone over if they’re in your vehicle’s path.
      • ropata 11.2.1

        12 July 2016 at 11:33 pm

        A popular sentiment among commenters on Stuff also (ref: any article on cycling)
12. te reo putake 12

    12 July 2016 at 5:58 pm

    If I can be a tad contrarian , I can see a couple of points worth making about the debate so far.

    First up, the protesters were not pedestrians. They weren’t using the footpath for the purposes of travel. Having been on about a zillion protests and pickets (and having organised a good percentage of the same), I can assure readers that blocking driveways isn’t legal. But it is terrific fun.

    Secondly, Borrows is actually one of the better Tory MP’s. He’s an old fashioned kind of Nat and tries to behave decently. He’s also publicly anti-racist. That combination possibly explains why he has never been given senior posts by Key and Joyce.

    If the Whanganui seat was redrawn to reflect the wishes and needs of the town and district, he wouldn’t be the MP. The excellent Hamish McDouall would be instead. But the electorate is gerrymandered so that the urban majority are disenfranchised in favour of the Taranaki rump. So, a by-election would be likely to return a Nat MP, which is a boost I don’t think they deserve, So lets be careful what we wish for there.

    For all of the above, Borrows has broken the law and deserves a conviction. However, I wonder if he’ll be offered diversion, as I imagine this will be his first serious offence (other than a speeding ticket a few years ago),
    • dukeofurl 12.1

      12 July 2016 at 6:08 pm

      Police guidelines mean you cant be offered diversion for a traffic offence which carries a mandatory minimum disqualification, as this one does.

      I thought i was the only one who could see the blatant gerrymanders of central NI electorates.
      • te reo putake 12.1.1

        12 July 2016 at 6:17 pm

        Cheers, good knowledge!

        The shape of the Whanganui seat really bugs me, as it effectively separates the town from its hinterland and near neighbours. Basically, I reckon that anywhere the Whanganui Chronicle* is sold should be part of the electorate. That would include Waverley to the west, Marton to east and Taihape to the north. That would be the area that actually forms the Whanganui district economically and socially.

        *NZ’s longest surviving newspaper or so I’m told. I’ve unintentionally featured in front page photos on two occasions. Sales plummetted.
        • Anne 12.1.1.1

          12 July 2016 at 6:36 pm

          I’ve unintentionally featured in front page photos on two occasions. Sales plummetted.

          Why’s that? You surely can’t be that ugly.
          • te reo putake 12.1.1.1.1

            12 July 2016 at 8:37 pm

            Actually, both occasions were in my youth, when I fancied myself as a punk/new romantic/Sebastian from Brideshead style icon. The chiselled cheekbones are long gone, but I’ve still got a full head of hair and most of my teeth. And I still hate the Eagles.
            • Psycho Milt 12.1.1.1.1.1

              12 July 2016 at 9:20 pm

              And I still hate the Eagles.

              Fuck, yes. Glad to hear it.
            • Rosie 12.1.1.1.1.2

              12 July 2016 at 9:33 pm

              Fair enough on the Eagles and go the new romantics buzz you had going on back in the day. Back in the day, way way back, (eg, up to 19th century and possibly early 20th) “a full set of teeth” used to be a trading bonus for those using the services of professional match makers in Ireland. True Story.

              If things get any worse in our economy you may have to trade in your teeth for a new set of whiteware if your appliances crap out on you, or you need a new set of tyres or something. Best to take care of them.
              • te reo putake …

                12 July 2016 at 9:45 pm

                Good advice Rosie, I’ll give ’em a good going over in a few minutes. Sadly, I seem to recall hearing that NZ has one of the worst rates of tooth decay in kids. Something to be proud of, eh?

                You might find this bit of dental news interesting: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/pogues-frontman-shane-macgowan-reveals-7046421

                And apropos of nothing, anybody know why we scrub our teeth in cold water? We wash pretty much the rest of our bodies in hot water. Is there a good reason for turning the cold tap on?
                • Anne …

                  12 July 2016 at 10:01 pm

                  Probably to do with the toothpaste. Hot water would probably cause it to dissipate faster and be less effective. That’s an educated guess from an ex-School Dental Nurse – a long time ago.
                • Rosie …

                  12 July 2016 at 10:17 pm

                  Always good to keep up with the dental news in Shane McGowans world, thank you TRP. This bit explains the issue prior to the restoration and is a timely warning to any of us, who risk straying off the straight and narrow:

                  “Shane’s oral issues were the result of years of drug and alcohol abuse, as well as constant fighting.”

                  As for water temperature and oral hygiene, I go for tepid to warm water when cleaning me pearlers. Cold water is not good for sensitive teeth.

                  Jim Anderton once said we should have universal dental care in NZ btw, and I fully support that.

                  As for staying on topic, please see comment at 16.
                • William …

                  12 July 2016 at 10:38 pm

                  When I was a child I did once rinse my toothbrush under the hot tap. All the bristles fell out.
                  We usually wash our bodies using warm water, not hot. Most handbasins have separate hot & cold taps rather than a mixer arrangement so for those of us who use a cupped hand to get rinse water to the mouth it would be painful. Next time you remodel your bathroom talk to your designer about the latest trends in mixers 🙂
13. stigie 13

    12 July 2016 at 5:59 pm

    “They have every right to expect hostility, obstruction and contempt wherever they go. Diddums.”

    Yes and someone gets their little toes run over and then a big fuss over nothing.
    One can’t help thinking this was staged. BTW OAB Diddums !
    • Gangnam Style 13.1

      12 July 2016 at 6:13 pm

      “One can’t help thinking this was staged” Ooh look, a truther!
14. Ross 14

    12 July 2016 at 7:59 pm

    Wasn’t Paula Bennett sitting next to him? She should have had a good view of the protestors. I’m surprised (nah, not really) that she didn’t tell him to stop.

    The worst part of this is that after running over the two women he kept on driving. I mean, that’s the sort of behaviour you’d expect from Paula but not from other Tory ministers.
15. fisiani 15

    12 July 2016 at 8:15 pm

    Just saw the picture accompanying the post. No one was taken to hospital by ambulance. Very misleading. Typical.

    [Oh, do piss off. The photos are from the incident and are of the injured woman being treated by ambulance staff before being taken to A&E. I hope nobody minds if I give Fisiani a holiday for abject stupidity? No objections? Righto, a week it is. TRP]
    • ropata 15.1

      12 July 2016 at 9:28 pm

      Objection Your Honour!
      (not really) 🙂
    • stigie 15.2

      12 July 2016 at 10:17 pm

      That photo at the start is misleading and way over the top in my opinion !
      • ropata 15.2.1

        12 July 2016 at 11:37 pm

        I hope you are going to complain to Newshub and TVNZ then, because they published them first
      • Ross 15.2.2

        13 July 2016 at 6:10 am

        Yep, the photo is completely misleading because it suggests the car has stopped. 🙂
16. Rosie 16

    12 July 2016 at 9:26 pm

    In 1999 Christine Clark, the wife of a port worker in Lyttleton was intentionally run down whilst on a picket line at the port. She died that new year’s eve in hospital as a result of the brain injury sustained from the impact of the SUV. The driver was charged with manslaughter.

    When I saw the footage of Chester Burrows, several months ago, wilfully driving at the protesters, albeit at snails pace, I saw the same ugly hatred that comes from those who refuse to tolerate lawful dissent and who will go to the extreme of using a weapon, in both cases a vehicle, to shut people up because in their eyes they are a nuisance.

    While Derek Powell’s actions can’t be compared to Chester Burrows, and while one intentional act resulted in death and the other the injury of two women, the intention of abuse is the same.

    Chester Burrows needs to be fully held to account for his actions, but I doubt he will for reason’s pointed out already in the NRT link, despite the fact this behaviour is unacceptable in anyone, but especially an MP.
    He should stand down. Our PM, who, by some sick joke is STILL a white ribbon ambassador, should tell Burrows to man up and take responsibility for intentionally injuring these two women.
17. Repateet 17

    12 July 2016 at 10:42 pm

    No problem for Chester. He’ll just get to be chauffeured everywhere in a Ministerial car. He is the Minister for Wanganui Collegiate isn’t he?

    You know Wanganui Collegiate, which I saw quoted recently as the answer to the argument about schools not being closed if they’re “failing” state schools whereas “failing” private schools do close.

    Ministry of Education thought it shouldn’t be bailed out by letting it become integrated but they and Parata were over-ruled by Cabinet.

    Wanganui Collegiate’s cost us more than $9 million so far and though Chesters wearing it this time he’s done us a service by proving to wankers like David Farrar that failing private schools do not just close. His lowlife buddies like Borrows see that their interests are looked after.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8345722/Parata-overruled-on-Collegiate-integration
    • dukeofurl 17.1

      13 July 2016 at 10:04 am

      Hes been dropped from ministerial ranks for a few years now. So it will be taxis
18. Ross 18

    13 July 2016 at 6:44 am

    Burrows didn’t seem to want to stop and it’s clear the protestors were standing directly in front of his car. He says: “I was inching forward, they were taken out of the road, and I didn’t drive until the road was clear.” In fact, at no time did he stop. I do hope he doesn’t lie to the court.

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/police-investigate-whether-borrows-ran-over-protesters-foot/
19. john 19

    13 July 2016 at 8:47 am

    Lesson 1: Don’t stand in front of a moving car?
    Don’t we teach 4 year olds this?
    Lesson 2: “Protesters” have the right to protest. This does NOT give them the right to stop others from exercising their rights, in this case driving a car in a driveway.
    When no injuries (of note) are sustained, stop lying around like an acting soccer player. Just to get political attention for your protest.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1

      13 July 2016 at 9:13 am

      Yes dear.
    • dukeofurl 19.2

      13 July 2016 at 10:00 am

      So how long was the car impeded 2 min ? 20 secs?

      None of the above he just drove through without being held up for even 2 sec s

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS