Chester Borrows in court

Written By: - Date published: 9:51 am, May 8th, 2017 - 74 comments
Categories: accountability, law, national - Tags: ,

This is probably all he’ll be remembered for – MP Chester Borrows trial for allegedly hitting protesters with car begins

Whanganui MP Chester Borrows is set to stand trial on Monday, after allegedly injuring two protesters by driving into them.

Borrows, a former police officer and Parliament’s deputy speaker, faces one charge of careless driving causing injury to two people.

The incident occurred on March 22, 2016, when he was driving a car at an anti-TPP protest in Whanganui. …

I’ve written about this in previous posts. I hope that Barry Soper is going to be OK.

With the Eminem case on the go too its a busy time in court for National.

===

Note from earlier coverage “wide-ranging suppression orders remain in place.” No Right Turn on the suppression orders. This post is only for the discussion of facts which are already in the public domain. In particular, no names should be mentioned. If in doubt, comments will be edited.

74 comments on “Chester Borrows in court ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. dv 1
    8 May 2017 at 9:59 am

    What has happened in the Eminem case?
    It must be over?

  2. The decrypter 2
    8 May 2017 at 10:10 am

    He had Paula riding shot gun with him so I suppose she will be a witness . His police training I would imagine contain advanced driving skills you and I never could have had.

    • McFlock 2.1
      8 May 2017 at 10:32 am

      Well, even if that were true (and I suspect the level of training he had depends entirely on when he started with the service), wouldn’t that just mean he has less excuse to hit someone?

  3. Robert Guyton 3
    8 May 2017 at 10:28 am

    What excuse could Paula provide?
    None that I can see.
    What justification can Chester offer?
    None that I can see.
    This is going to be interesting.
    Small fry, but a bit of a sizzle nonetheless.

    • The decrypter 3.1
      8 May 2017 at 10:47 am

      Excuse? No no, Reasons ,Reasons. Reason 1–Chesters reason, he couldn’t see because Paula was in the way. Reason 2–Paulas reason, Chester couldn’t see because I was in the way.

      • dukeofurl 3.1.1
        8 May 2017 at 11:06 am

        The reasons Borrows has provided are suppressed- see above

        It would seem from my reading that they were given ‘after the fact’ but its a version of the old excuse
        The devil made me do it!

      • Robert Guyton 3.1.2
        8 May 2017 at 11:23 am

        Couldn’t see?
        Paula was sitting in Chester’s lap??
        Had the protester seen that , she’d have suffered lasting harm.

        • The decrypter 3.1.2.1
          8 May 2017 at 11:49 am

          My god ! Paula may have borrowed Brownlee’s flack jacket , Chester may have had a flash back to the Spring bok tour? What with her cowering on his lap and the flash back combined ,phew! he is only human.

  4. saveNZ 4
    8 May 2017 at 10:36 am

    Guilty and Guilty should be the verdict. But I’m not sure there is such a thing as justice anymore and too many political fingers in the courts.

    • Roflcopter 4.1
      8 May 2017 at 11:20 am

      Your second sentence is absolutely hilarious in the context of what you wrote in the first sentence.

      • saveNZ 4.1.1
        8 May 2017 at 3:42 pm

        We’re already seen the Northland Natz guy get off, and John “2 cheques” Banks.

        • saveNZ 4.1.1.1
          8 May 2017 at 3:46 pm

          Oh and Judith Collins is not guilty with Oravida and Scenic Hotels is now a NZ aid organisation. There was nobody to blame for Pike River, just mysteriously 28 people are dead at a workplace.

        • Roflcopter 4.1.1.2
          8 May 2017 at 3:52 pm

          They didn’t get off, they were found not guilty.

          • saveNZ 4.1.1.2.1
            8 May 2017 at 4:51 pm

            Actually John Banks was found guilty. He then mysteriously got off when some American ‘remembered’ years later some conversation to a judge. But it never went to a jury.

            • McFlock 4.1.1.2.1.1
              8 May 2017 at 7:14 pm

              And to be precise, he was “not guilty” because the americans’ testimony meant the prosecution couldn’t prove he knowingly signed a false return. Banks’ defence was that he was merely negligent to a point of incompetence that in any other field would have been criminal.

              • Andre …
                8 May 2017 at 7:28 pm

                Well, Banks’ entire defence was he committed the crime of filing a false electoral return, because he didn’t do what he should have done to make sure it was correct, but it was too late to nail him for that.

                From Andrew Geddis:
                “First of all, it means Banks did break the law when he filed his donations return. Under the Local Electoral Act (as it then stood), inadvertently filing a false return was an offence. It’s just that this particular offence had to be prosecuted within six months of the return being made – so Banks escaped liability for his actions on a technicality. A technicality, it should be noted, that has since been closed off.”

                http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/if-you-want-people-to-believe-you-are-honest-then-its-best-not-to-file-false-donation-return

        • James 4.1.1.3
          9 May 2017 at 8:51 am

          That’s because (in northland) he was found innocent – just because you don’t like his politics doesn’t make him guilty

          • Robert Guyton 4.1.1.3.1
            9 May 2017 at 8:54 am

            “so Banks escaped liability for his actions on a technicality”

            Just because you like his politics doesn’t make him innocent.

            • james 4.1.1.3.1.1
              9 May 2017 at 9:30 am

              Ahh my stalker is back.

              I didnt comment on Banks (because I dont know enough about it).

              But the northland case which SaveNZ sad “got off” – and I was pointing out he was innocent.

              A quick read on Banks shows he was acquitted.

              I respect the decision of the courts – its you that seem to have the issue (and others on here) dont.

              And Yes – I would support the courts decision on the Eninem trial and Burrows. Im guessing if they went against what you think you would find it a miscarriage of justice and some big conspiracy

              • Robert Guyton …
                9 May 2017 at 10:10 am

                Your “guesses” and “seems” aren’t worth diddly-squat, James (your grammar and spelling likewise).
                I’m feeling a little uncomfortable with your constant responding to my comments, James. It’s unhealthy to be poised at your keyboard, like a bald-necked vulture over the carcass of a gnu. Perhaps a walk in the park?

                🙂

                • james …
                  9 May 2017 at 1:12 pm

                  “I’m feeling a little uncomfortable with your constant responding to my comments, James.”

                  well – stop writing stupid replies to my comments and I wont have to point out where you are going wrong all the time. Then you wont feel uncomfortable because I will give you the attention you deserve and ignore you.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    9 May 2017 at 2:28 pm

                    There! You did it again!
                    Disconcerting.

                    • Richard McGrath …
                      9 May 2017 at 5:52 pm

                      Such is the nature of discussion groups, Robert. People will respond if you criticise them. And anyone here is free to respond to anyone else’s comment. If you don’t like it, then refrain from posting here.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      9 May 2017 at 6:13 pm

                      Thank you, kind Richard. Now I understand.

                    • greywarshark …
                      9 May 2017 at 6:40 pm

                      Robert G
                      ‘You are going wrong Robert’. The satisfied know the answers to everything and are rarely, f ever, wrong. So there you have it. And let’s face it you are too hopeful of getting some rationality out of them. You do keep prodding them to see if they will stir. No use stirring yourself. Can’t get blood out of a Flintstone.

                    • In Vino …
                      9 May 2017 at 10:13 pm

                      But James won’t understand. If language is the instrument of thought, his poor syntax explains a lot.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      10 May 2017 at 7:47 am

                      Any foray into gentle lampoonery turns to muck when the lampooned misinterpret the velveted barb.

                    • greywarshark …
                      10 May 2017 at 11:32 am

                      Robert G
                      I have a picture of a rigidly processing individual who takes comments literally or dismisses them tauntingly. And who has no sense of humour. (So they wouldn’t find funny the Pythons and French Taunting on youtube). Further they have no ability to self-reflect and be self-objective which can be deflating if carried too far, but just to the self-deprecating stage allows enjoyable jousting even a little lampooning without needing defensive rejection.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                10 May 2017 at 7:54 am

                “innocent”

                Nope: the court made no such assertion.

                It was found that the charges weren’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s what “not guilty” means.

    • tc 4.2
      8 May 2017 at 11:23 am

      Refer the special treatment blubber boy received after admitting he committed a crime. National hate either them or their helpers being caught out.

      Agree its minor but it helps to keep nationals arrogance and disdain front and centre so let the old duffer and pullya get the focus they deserve for a foolish act that caused personal harm.

  5. simonm 5
    8 May 2017 at 1:02 pm

    “I hope that Barry Soper is going to be OK.”

    That’s far too nice of you. I hope the cantankerous old prick gets shafted.

  6. dukeofurl 6
    8 May 2017 at 2:02 pm

    Slater is back in Court today. Colin Craig has claimed he was defamed by Slater
    Judge only hearing .

    Theres a long list of those now claiming defamation by the ‘journalist blogger’
    Unusually Slater has a lawyer this time but Craig is self represented

    • DoublePlusGood 6.1
      8 May 2017 at 4:09 pm

      Well, Craig has been in enough defamation cases that he probably thinks he knows it all by now.

  7. Ross 7
    8 May 2017 at 5:10 pm

    It seems like Chester has plenty in common with the NZDF. When they hit, they run.

    A responsible driver would have noticed that they had run over one or more individuals and would’ve have stopped to attend to them. But that would’ve been time-consuming and inconvenient…

    “In a statement he provided to police, which was read to the court, Borrows said he was concerned about threats made about Bennett on Facebook, and people had jumped on his car at other protests.”

    Who said chivalry was dead? The guy was protecting Paula Bennett from those rabid protestors. Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/92319670/mp-chester-borrows-stands-trial-on-careless-driving-charge

  8. Ross 8
    8 May 2017 at 5:17 pm

    Constable Stewart Bourne was at the protest to keep the peace. He said he had his back to the car when the protesters were hit.

    He filled in a crash report afterwards, which was produced by defence lawyer Nathan Bourke.

    In the report, Bourne said the car was travelling 1kmh when it was “swamped” by protesters.

    Oh so that was the problem. Burrows was looking at his spedometer rather than where he was going. And I didn’t realise that cars had a 1 kmh mark. 🙂

  9. Cinny 9
    8 May 2017 at 11:06 pm

    Watching TVNZ news… it is being reported that Chester was worried Paula might be attacked by a sex toy.

    Best excuse ever… I was worried Paula was going to be attacked by a dildo

    A protestor confirmed that a dildo with Paulas name on it was being waved around, another protestor agreed that the joyce dildo incident a few weeks prior had been the inspiration for the presence of a Paula emblazoned dildo.

  10. Robert Guyton 10
    9 May 2017 at 8:55 am

    resisting the temptation…

  11. Tarquin 11
    9 May 2017 at 11:03 am

    I see they have Phillip Rewiti Bear as a witness. Lovely bloke, threatens a female politician on twitter – not the first time he’s done this sort of thing.

    • Richard McGrath 12.1
      9 May 2017 at 5:59 pm

      However, Stuff reports that he has been found not guilty of careless driving causing injury.

      • fender 12.1.1
        9 May 2017 at 10:58 pm

        Yes it now ok to drive into people if they’re holding you up.

        Let’s hope Borrows isn’t leaving Parliament to drive a bus

        • Pete George 12.1.1.1
          10 May 2017 at 7:28 am

          Most people are sensible enough to keep clear of moving vehicles.

          • Robert Guyton 12.1.1.1.1
            10 May 2017 at 7:38 am

            Most people are sensible enough to keep inane comments to themselves.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1.1.1
              10 May 2017 at 7:51 am

              Oh, I dunno: there’s a long tradition of ineffectual hand-waving attempts to dictate “sensible” forms of protest, by people who’ve never changed anything more challenging than a nappy.

              • Robert Guyton …
                10 May 2017 at 7:59 am

                I’ve changed some truly challenging nappies in my time, but yes, OAB, the world’s “Petes” would have protest hermetically sealed and disinfected, labeled, photographed and consigned to the drawer marked, “ignore”. Noisy, visible protest is, well, untidy , donechathink?

          • Ross 12.1.1.1.2
            10 May 2017 at 7:40 am

            So you never cross the road, Pete?

            Personally, if someone was standing in front of my car, I wouldn’t put my foot down. How about you?

            What’s bemusing is that Borrows, a former police officer, felt threatened by a few middle aged women waving placards. Is that what our police force has been reduced to?

            • Richard McGrath 12.1.1.1.2.1
              14 May 2017 at 7:40 pm

              I thought the protestor was standing on the footpath, not moving, and thus obstructing the car

        • Richard McGrath 12.1.1.2
          14 May 2017 at 7:38 pm

          And don’t stand in his way if he’s driving a train…

  13. Robert Guyton 13
    10 May 2017 at 7:52 am

    If you are standing in a driveway, a Government minister can justifiably injure you with his or her car.
    Have I got that right?

      • Robert Guyton 13.1.1
        10 May 2017 at 8:18 am

        Would be unjustified in injuring you?
        And yet…

      • KJT 13.1.2
        10 May 2017 at 9:17 pm

        Apparently yes. Given the court decision.

        A person who is not a cabinet minister ran over a persons foot not long ago. Said person having put his foot in front of the car.

        However the driver, not being a cabinet minister running over a protester, was charged with assault, and convicted!

        Are we going to have open season, on attacking protesters with a motor vehicle, all year around, or only for a few months of the year, like duck shooting?

        Or can we now all run over someone obstructing us on the footpath?
        That women with the pram and a toddler on a trike, for example, that stopped me from leaving my house for several minutes last week.

        Or does the duck have to be carrying a dildo?

  14. Robert Guyton 14
    10 May 2017 at 9:25 pm

    And yet, the woman whose foot was injured by Borrow’s car, wasn’t wielding a “sex toy”.
    Borrows acted as if she was, seemingly. Perhaps in response to his passenger’s agitation.

  15. Robert Guyton 15
    10 May 2017 at 9:26 pm

    Perhaps a steamed-up windscreen obscured Burrow’s view?