You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 17814422? ago 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111811812/auckland-lawyers-shane-tait-and-jonathan-hudson-to-represent-christchurch-terror-suspect

https://archive.fo/5mQbz

What the fuck? Seems weird.

"I confirm I have accepted instructions to act for [the accused]. I will be representing [the accused] with Jonathan Hudson barrister," he said.

Are they forcing the lawyers on him somehow to minimize the time he can speak for himself?

0
0

[–] 17817725? ago 

It's not unusual for a court to appoint a lawyer to an accused if the judge is afraid the person is not able to fully and capably represent themselves. In these cases it is the roll of the lawyer to act as Second Chair to the accused.

0
0

[–] 17820222? ago 

I am aware of the possibility in general, but can you provide any relevant NZ law or precedent on the issue? Where I live person's will regarding representation is almost absolute. There is pretty limited set of rules where a lawyer can be forced onto the defendant by the court, and even then that lawyer has to shut up and let the defendant represent himself if he is able to(not mentally or physically impaired). So when I see two lawyers assigned for some reason, even if from the same law firm, it looks really weird to me, but maybe NZ law allows for this…

0
0

[–] 17817790? ago 

Any chance the faggot lawyer has the right to talk over or for Brenton? This is a kangaroo court after all.

0
0

[–] 17814434? ago 

Are they pulling a Kaczynski on him? If he wants to represent himself they should have to let him

0
0

[–] 17818902? ago 

what did Kaczynski do?