Title: Police Comment On Teina Pora Conviction

Attribute to Assistant Commissioner (Investigations) Malcolm Burgess:

The evidence against Teina Pora for the 1992 rape and murder of Susan Burdett has been heard by two juries - the original trial in 1994 and at retrial ordered by the Court of Appeal in 2000.

Both juries were satisfied that the evidence established, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Pora was guilty. He was convicted on both occasions.

Mr Pora's advisers have recorded their concern against these convictions and indicated an intention to have that concern addressed through an appeal to the Governor General.

Police will not discuss the merits of the case through the media or re-litigate aspects of evidence already considered by two juries while this process is pending.

Police will however continue to cooperate fully with any lawful requests made for information in relation to this case. Since 2010 a large amount of information has been provided to Mr Pora and his advisers. This is in addition to the original disclosure of the Crown evidence for Mr Pora's trials.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Public Address Link:
A (Sweary) Analysis Of Urgency Abuse And
The Consititution

Keith Ng: You’re looking at the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Basically, the courts said that the Government had to pay family members who looked after people with disabilities (because not doing so was discriminatory), so the Government passed this law to say: “Yeah nah.”

The RIS isn’t just redacted for the public – it was redacted for MPs. *Parliament* voted on this, with all the relevant facts blacked out.

Sure, it’s understandable, right? If you’re passing a law that’s really dodgy, you don’t want advice from civil servants saying “uh, this is pretty illegal” to be public. But actually, that’s not really a problem here, because in the same piece of legislation, THEY SAID THEY CAN’T BE TAKEN TO COURT. More>>