"No Whangaparaoa Stew for you!"
Posted on 06/13/2007 2:30:45 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter
Police are hunting for at least four people, after a man was kidnapped at gunpoint and held in an Auckland home over an employment dispute.
The man is hospital with two broken ankles after falling from a balcony in a bid to escape his 11-hour ordeal, The New Zealand Herald reported today.
The injured man was reported to be one of two men allegedly kidnapped at gunpoint from their Whangaparaoa home by a group of up to eight men on Sunday night.
That evening the two alleged victims had tried to leave their jobs.
Radio New Zealand reported this morning that the two men were chefs.
One of the men escaped from the overnight ordeal and alerted police on Monday morning.
Police yesterday arrested two men in their 30s but today were still hunting at least four others in relation to the attack.
The head of North Shore CIB, Detective Senior Sergeant Kim Libby, said police believed the alleged kidnappings were related to employment matters that officers were also investigating, the newspaper reported.
A police summary of facts presented in court yesterday outlined how the victims, both of whom have interim name and occupation suppression, had handed in resignations to their manager following concerns about their low rate of pay.
Three hours later three car-loads of people, including the two accused, arrived at the men's home with a pistol.
It is alleged one of the victims was sworn at and slapped across the face numerous times while his home was searched and property removed.
The second victim was upstairs lying on his bed when the accused and associates allegedly entered his room and closed the door to prevent him escaping.
The two accused who appeared in court yesterday were jointly charged with two counts of kidnapping, aggravated burglary, injury with reckless disregard and commission of a crime with a firearm.
They were granted interim name suppression and remanded in custody after being denied bail.
what does this mean
“interim name and occupation suppression”
article refers to both victims and perps as having same
Did George Orwell write this copy?
For those of you who can’t read between the lines:
Most likely this whole bunch are foreigners to NZ and the perps are holding
the vics papers hostage and forcing them to work cheap. When the vics didn’t like it.........
My first guess would be Chinese.
"No Whangaparaoa Stew for you!"
> what does this mean
> “interim name and occupation suppression”
> article refers to both victims and perps as having same
It’s an interesting difference between our Justice system and yours. We have something in place called the “Privacy Act”, which is far-reaching and all-encompassing. Basically, the assumption is that you should have the right to privacy under most circumstances, unless you specifically waive it or unless a law says otherwise.
So, it is not uncommon for parties in legal situations (be it civil or criminal) applying to the Courts for an interim injunction preventing identification details being made public. Usually, this will last until a conviction is achieved — tho’ sometimes it lasts beyond, particularly if there are innocent third paries who might suffer harm if the private information is made public. This is typical if children are involved.
The Courts do not have to grant this injunction, and often won’t, particularly when there is a greater Public Interest to be served. But, like I say, it is not uncommon.
In this case, both the accused and the victim have asked the courts to injunct name suppression, meaning that the press cannot reveal their identities to the general public, at least for now. To do so would be a Contempt of Court. In fact, nobody privy to their identities can.
So, if the OJ Simpson criminal trial had happened in NZ, he could have applied for Name Suppression, which may well have been granted. If so, all we would have known is that a hi-profile celebrity was facing charges of Murder. And, once he was found Not Guilty, that is all we would ever have been told: his privacy rights would probably have allowed that injunction to stay in place.
Paris Hilton? Well, if she could resist the temptation of self-promotion and publicity, name suppression would have been available to her, too.
The media circuses, in other words, would not have happened. That’s different to what happens in the US, ay.
Perp walks? Here in NZ, if someone is doing a Perp Walk, the TVs usually blank out their faces, or the accompanying officer will shield the accused’s face with a jacket or something. “Innocent-and-usually-anonymous-and-entitled-to-privacy-until-proven-guilty”.
*DieHard*
> My first guess would be Chinese.
A well-educated speculation. Kidnapping has happened before in the Chinese community, it seems to be an established MO for redressing grievances there, particularly if the underworld is somehow involved.
We won’t know for certain until name suppression is lifted: if I had to speculate, that will probably happen once the perps have had opportunity to inform their immediate families of the charges they face.
Thanks quite informative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.