Very good John. And such very poor work by our Judiciary. Judges need to be held to account (somehow… for they really are not it would seem) as their judgements do not seem to reflect the wishes of the lawmakers, and ultimately of wider society. Like the dude I believe who was ridiculously on bail & then killed two innocents in downtown Auckland during the Women’s World Cup. Home D is a joke. Discounts akin to Pak n Save are a joke. How can these retarded judgements be fixed?
The judges lenient sentencing certainly is at odds with the highly publicised news conference where the Police Minister, Attorney General and Police Commissioner all spoke at length how appalling and damaging the charges against McSkimming were. Yet another glaring example of how our judiciary are so arrogant, out of touch and impervious to any criticism.
I suspect that political pressure was brought to bear on the judge to effectively give a get out of jail free result. Gross incompetence and moral cowardice.
BS for public consumption Noel. Not one of them has the intestinal fortitude to do what is right. There should be an appeal against his ludicrous sentence but I’m not holding my breath, I think the judge was instructed to reach the required sentence. The man is a buffoon.
And so well described, John, to easily infuriate readers.
Is it Police (as prosecutors) who failed to claim for a return of a substantial portion of McSk's salary over recent years, for doing his perverted "work" in Police time?
In a democracy, there must be (created) a way to align judges closer to the thinking and wishes of the vast majority of us, and to ensure Parliament reigns supreme....
Sentencing notes of Judges are available as of right - see Rule 8(2) District Court (Access to Court Document) Rules. I understand that there may be a gap between the language of the Rule, a request and compliance by the Court but the law is pretty clear in my view.
If you do get them, and they include any reasoning/justification for the "prior good character" discount, that aspect would be fascinating John.
As I understand it, the trial was constrained to activities during the last 4 years.
I don't know the timeline when he was booking hotel rooms (motels?) for rendezvous with Ms Z (and possibly others), using his Police credit card. IMHO that alone shows a complete lack of integrity. You can't be of good character when you steal from your employer....
Since you are entitled to them as of right it should be easy. That said it may be that your efforts to obtain them could form the basis for another story. Bon chance.
I’m a 68 year old male and I’m bitterly disappointed in both the Police and Judiciary. In my lifetime and in my opinion both have become incompetent, corrupt and increasingly out of touch with ordinary Kiwis. Politics has polluted both bodies and the moral, if not legal corruption evident in the McSkimming / Coster case is the latest example. The decision of the High Court judge in the puberty blocker case shows a credulous and wrong headed attitude, one that is more akin to opposition to the current government instead of an understanding of the actual facts.
I no longer have any faith in these institutions, their actions disgust me.
Judge Tim Black has twice granted discharges without conviction to men who entered a woman's home and performed sexual acts on themselves, caught on petcam. In the most famous instance a distinguished Wellingtonian then in his late 60s was given keys by the complainant to water plants in her home while she was away. Technically no offence was committed as he was in the house with the complainant's consent, so a discharge without conviction may have theoretically been the correct verdict. But Black was very conciliatory towards the defendant during his court appearance.
In the other case, a less distinguished man actually broke into the woman's home - but still got a discharge without conviction.
Thanks David. I suspect the "distinguished Wellingtonian" to whom you refer (who discharged WITH conviction) shares the same surname as a (deceased) American comedian.
Well that shows the perils of relying on social media - what was he convicted of if, as the SM pundits I perused noted, he was in her home with her consent, to water her plants?
Dear John, I am of course always open to entertain criticism of our judiciary. I am certain that our Judges are generally more activist than black letter judges interpreting the laws and applying them as Parliament drafted and enacted them.
McSkimming is indeed fortunate. Having represented men who have been convicted of accessing, viewing and downloading child pornography, it seems to me that McSkimming could well have been sentenced to imprisonment of between 2 and 2.5 years, even taking in to account his guilty plea. But (and I like you rely on media reports) I understand that Judge Black also took into account the significant difficulties McSkimming and the authorities would face if he was indeed imprisoned. The cost of catering for McSkimming would be great. He would likely need to be isolated within the prison (even more so than people are who are imprisoned for such crimes). As a Commissioner of Police, surely McSkimming knew the consequences that he might face.
I am bewildered then, that Judge Black did not see his "character" as more of an aggravating factor than a mitigating factor.
The Crown have not appealed, which might also be eyebrow raising. That said given the contents of the recent reports into the abuses of our system by Police hierarchy to protect McSkimming perhaps the fact that the Crown did not appeal is not at all surprising. In the words of Lord Hewart - "Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
Thanks Peter, a few thoughts of mine on your characteristically insightful comments...
I don't think the cost of imprisoning McSkimming should be a legitimate consideration. He did the crime and should do the time. And I'm not saying there that he should be exposed to physical danger in prison. The State should pay to keep him safe in prison, IMO.
Black's sentencing smells a tad "Clubby" to me. McSkimming, before his downfall, was a member of the Club (outwardly all into "progressive" two tier Policing and all that crap).
Dear John, I have made a cursory search for the sentencing notes but they are not readily available.
That said, and at risk of being lawyerly, objectionable images of the kind found on McSkimming's computer equipment are rated as to seriousness: catergory A images are the most serious, followed by category B (both of these categories involve children). Category C is the least serious involving objectionable images outside of A and B - see Snell v R [2022] NZHC 1627 Downs J at [5], [23] and [25]. A significant factor in sentencing for possession of objectionable material is deterrence. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. The Downs decision is informative.
It is important to know what category Judge Black determined the images in McSkimming's possession fell into. So far as I know he did not have images depicting children, rather depraved sexual activity presumably performed by adults (and a menagerie).
Brilliant breakdown of how sentencing discounts compound into absurdity. The way Black layered a 25% plea discount onto 15% for rehab efforts essentially rewarded McSkimming for bare minimum compliance, which any defense lawyer woudl coach their client to do anyway. I've seen this same stack-discount approach in corporate fraud cases where execs walk because they "expressed remorse" in prepared statemnets. Once trust in judicial discretion erodes to this level, dunno how you restore it without structural reform.
You appear to have made a statement that puberty blockers are simply not ok at all and that is not an informed perspective. It is a politically motivated one as you present no evidence for your position only an opinion. You ignore all the benefits they have provided to people who have benefited from them and also you ignore the many process requirements (or hoops) in NZ that needed to jumped through to get them. They are not dished out like candy by any means. They are not expected to used for long term use and there is no research indicating negative outcomes for short term use and there is plenty of de facto evidence from people taking them when they need them most that they provide reprieve from complex feelings. Your post appears ideological vs being nuanced about a complex aspect of humanity. I know you well
Cheers Katrina, This is what AI produced (I'm no medico), in response to my question "Do females who take puberty blockers but don't take "gender affirming" hormones end up taller?" The AI response makes logical sense, because females do not generally grow taller after puberty, so delaying puberty gives more time to grow. The general point I was trying to make is that puberty blockers are not without consequences ...
Yes, a person assigned female at birth who takes puberty blockers (GnRH analogues) for an extended period but does not subsequently take sex hormones may end up taller than their original predicted adult height. This outcome is a potential risk or side effect because the sex hormones that are blocked usually signal the final fusion of the bone growth plates, which stops linear growth.
Here is a breakdown of why this happens:
Hormonal Role in Growth: During a typical female puberty, the hormone estrogen causes a pubertal growth spurt and, eventually, the closure of the epiphyseal (growth) plates in the long bones.
Blocker Effect: Puberty blockers pause this process. Growth slows down during the period of suppression because the pubertal growth spurt does not occur, and bone maturation is delayed.
Prolonged Growth Period: Without the eventual presence of sex hormones (either naturally occurring after stopping blockers or introduced as gender-affirming hormones) to signal the growth plates to fuse, a person's bones can continue to grow for longer than usual, potentially resulting in a taller final adult height. This effect is similar to historical cases of castrated males (castrati) who grew very tall because they lacked the testosterone/estrogen feedback loop necessary for bone fusion.
It is important to note that stopping puberty blockers without starting gender-affirming hormones is not a standard medical protocol, as it can lead to health risks like reduced bone density if the body is left without adequate sex hormones for a prolonged period.
That is very interesting, including the last sentence. Strange that boys whose puberty gets blocked don't grow taller, too, particularly - as you say - castrati could do.
It’s a pity that the Judge didn’t show any concern/compassion for Ms Z (or the other unknown victims) when deciding to not “really” sentence McSk.
Does anyone know who funds The Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa Incorporated (PATHA)? It seems quite a few unusual entities were established during Jacinda’s “be kind” regime, and given taxpayer funding.
And, is it really acceptable that the Judge suppresses the names of 2 “Dr experts”? Is there any point in trying to make an OIA request to (at least) establish if they’re actually medical doctors? For all we know they may have PhDs in Philosophy or something else totally irrelevant to the issue….???
Very good John. And such very poor work by our Judiciary. Judges need to be held to account (somehow… for they really are not it would seem) as their judgements do not seem to reflect the wishes of the lawmakers, and ultimately of wider society. Like the dude I believe who was ridiculously on bail & then killed two innocents in downtown Auckland during the Women’s World Cup. Home D is a joke. Discounts akin to Pak n Save are a joke. How can these retarded judgements be fixed?
The judges lenient sentencing certainly is at odds with the highly publicised news conference where the Police Minister, Attorney General and Police Commissioner all spoke at length how appalling and damaging the charges against McSkimming were. Yet another glaring example of how our judiciary are so arrogant, out of touch and impervious to any criticism.
I suspect that political pressure was brought to bear on the judge to effectively give a get out of jail free result. Gross incompetence and moral cowardice.
By the Coalition Govt Jim? Surely not, after what they said about him (Mitchell et al)
BS for public consumption Noel. Not one of them has the intestinal fortitude to do what is right. There should be an appeal against his ludicrous sentence but I’m not holding my breath, I think the judge was instructed to reach the required sentence. The man is a buffoon.
Agreed.
I am appalled by this sentence.
As is any other sane parent or grandparent in New Zealand. 🇳🇿
Both examples are outrageous IMO.
And so well described, John, to easily infuriate readers.
Is it Police (as prosecutors) who failed to claim for a return of a substantial portion of McSk's salary over recent years, for doing his perverted "work" in Police time?
In a democracy, there must be (created) a way to align judges closer to the thinking and wishes of the vast majority of us, and to ensure Parliament reigns supreme....
John
Sentencing notes of Judges are available as of right - see Rule 8(2) District Court (Access to Court Document) Rules. I understand that there may be a gap between the language of the Rule, a request and compliance by the Court but the law is pretty clear in my view.
Thanks Halfling. I'm going to try and obtain the sentencing notes. I think the general public deserves to see them
If you do get them, and they include any reasoning/justification for the "prior good character" discount, that aspect would be fascinating John.
As I understand it, the trial was constrained to activities during the last 4 years.
I don't know the timeline when he was booking hotel rooms (motels?) for rendezvous with Ms Z (and possibly others), using his Police credit card. IMHO that alone shows a complete lack of integrity. You can't be of good character when you steal from your employer....
Since you are entitled to them as of right it should be easy. That said it may be that your efforts to obtain them could form the basis for another story. Bon chance.
I’m a 68 year old male and I’m bitterly disappointed in both the Police and Judiciary. In my lifetime and in my opinion both have become incompetent, corrupt and increasingly out of touch with ordinary Kiwis. Politics has polluted both bodies and the moral, if not legal corruption evident in the McSkimming / Coster case is the latest example. The decision of the High Court judge in the puberty blocker case shows a credulous and wrong headed attitude, one that is more akin to opposition to the current government instead of an understanding of the actual facts.
I no longer have any faith in these institutions, their actions disgust me.
Judge Tim Black has twice granted discharges without conviction to men who entered a woman's home and performed sexual acts on themselves, caught on petcam. In the most famous instance a distinguished Wellingtonian then in his late 60s was given keys by the complainant to water plants in her home while she was away. Technically no offence was committed as he was in the house with the complainant's consent, so a discharge without conviction may have theoretically been the correct verdict. But Black was very conciliatory towards the defendant during his court appearance.
In the other case, a less distinguished man actually broke into the woman's home - but still got a discharge without conviction.
Thanks David. I suspect the "distinguished Wellingtonian" to whom you refer (who discharged WITH conviction) shares the same surname as a (deceased) American comedian.
Well that shows the perils of relying on social media - what was he convicted of if, as the SM pundits I perused noted, he was in her home with her consent, to water her plants?
I was referring to a different type of "discharge" David :)
Ha! Monday-morning myopia caused me to miss the absence of 'was' in your reply.
This judge is an idiot.
Dear John, I am of course always open to entertain criticism of our judiciary. I am certain that our Judges are generally more activist than black letter judges interpreting the laws and applying them as Parliament drafted and enacted them.
McSkimming is indeed fortunate. Having represented men who have been convicted of accessing, viewing and downloading child pornography, it seems to me that McSkimming could well have been sentenced to imprisonment of between 2 and 2.5 years, even taking in to account his guilty plea. But (and I like you rely on media reports) I understand that Judge Black also took into account the significant difficulties McSkimming and the authorities would face if he was indeed imprisoned. The cost of catering for McSkimming would be great. He would likely need to be isolated within the prison (even more so than people are who are imprisoned for such crimes). As a Commissioner of Police, surely McSkimming knew the consequences that he might face.
I am bewildered then, that Judge Black did not see his "character" as more of an aggravating factor than a mitigating factor.
The Crown have not appealed, which might also be eyebrow raising. That said given the contents of the recent reports into the abuses of our system by Police hierarchy to protect McSkimming perhaps the fact that the Crown did not appeal is not at all surprising. In the words of Lord Hewart - "Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
Thanks Peter, a few thoughts of mine on your characteristically insightful comments...
I don't think the cost of imprisoning McSkimming should be a legitimate consideration. He did the crime and should do the time. And I'm not saying there that he should be exposed to physical danger in prison. The State should pay to keep him safe in prison, IMO.
Black's sentencing smells a tad "Clubby" to me. McSkimming, before his downfall, was a member of the Club (outwardly all into "progressive" two tier Policing and all that crap).
Dear John, I have made a cursory search for the sentencing notes but they are not readily available.
That said, and at risk of being lawyerly, objectionable images of the kind found on McSkimming's computer equipment are rated as to seriousness: catergory A images are the most serious, followed by category B (both of these categories involve children). Category C is the least serious involving objectionable images outside of A and B - see Snell v R [2022] NZHC 1627 Downs J at [5], [23] and [25]. A significant factor in sentencing for possession of objectionable material is deterrence. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. The Downs decision is informative.
It is important to know what category Judge Black determined the images in McSkimming's possession fell into. So far as I know he did not have images depicting children, rather depraved sexual activity presumably performed by adults (and a menagerie).
Brilliant breakdown of how sentencing discounts compound into absurdity. The way Black layered a 25% plea discount onto 15% for rehab efforts essentially rewarded McSkimming for bare minimum compliance, which any defense lawyer woudl coach their client to do anyway. I've seen this same stack-discount approach in corporate fraud cases where execs walk because they "expressed remorse" in prepared statemnets. Once trust in judicial discretion erodes to this level, dunno how you restore it without structural reform.
Your analysis of the debate over puberty blockers is not well informed at all.
Are you willing to let me know why I’m ill informed Richard? I’ll readily edit my Substack to correct inaccuracies
You appear to have made a statement that puberty blockers are simply not ok at all and that is not an informed perspective. It is a politically motivated one as you present no evidence for your position only an opinion. You ignore all the benefits they have provided to people who have benefited from them and also you ignore the many process requirements (or hoops) in NZ that needed to jumped through to get them. They are not dished out like candy by any means. They are not expected to used for long term use and there is no research indicating negative outcomes for short term use and there is plenty of de facto evidence from people taking them when they need them most that they provide reprieve from complex feelings. Your post appears ideological vs being nuanced about a complex aspect of humanity. I know you well
Enough to know you can do better.
These judges are appalling. I'm curious, though, about where you got the information that girls get taller after taking puberty blockers?
Cheers Katrina, This is what AI produced (I'm no medico), in response to my question "Do females who take puberty blockers but don't take "gender affirming" hormones end up taller?" The AI response makes logical sense, because females do not generally grow taller after puberty, so delaying puberty gives more time to grow. The general point I was trying to make is that puberty blockers are not without consequences ...
Yes, a person assigned female at birth who takes puberty blockers (GnRH analogues) for an extended period but does not subsequently take sex hormones may end up taller than their original predicted adult height. This outcome is a potential risk or side effect because the sex hormones that are blocked usually signal the final fusion of the bone growth plates, which stops linear growth.
Here is a breakdown of why this happens:
Hormonal Role in Growth: During a typical female puberty, the hormone estrogen causes a pubertal growth spurt and, eventually, the closure of the epiphyseal (growth) plates in the long bones.
Blocker Effect: Puberty blockers pause this process. Growth slows down during the period of suppression because the pubertal growth spurt does not occur, and bone maturation is delayed.
Prolonged Growth Period: Without the eventual presence of sex hormones (either naturally occurring after stopping blockers or introduced as gender-affirming hormones) to signal the growth plates to fuse, a person's bones can continue to grow for longer than usual, potentially resulting in a taller final adult height. This effect is similar to historical cases of castrated males (castrati) who grew very tall because they lacked the testosterone/estrogen feedback loop necessary for bone fusion.
It is important to note that stopping puberty blockers without starting gender-affirming hormones is not a standard medical protocol, as it can lead to health risks like reduced bone density if the body is left without adequate sex hormones for a prolonged period.
That is very interesting, including the last sentence. Strange that boys whose puberty gets blocked don't grow taller, too, particularly - as you say - castrati could do.
Further thoughts:
It’s a pity that the Judge didn’t show any concern/compassion for Ms Z (or the other unknown victims) when deciding to not “really” sentence McSk.
Does anyone know who funds The Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa Incorporated (PATHA)? It seems quite a few unusual entities were established during Jacinda’s “be kind” regime, and given taxpayer funding.
And, is it really acceptable that the Judge suppresses the names of 2 “Dr experts”? Is there any point in trying to make an OIA request to (at least) establish if they’re actually medical doctors? For all we know they may have PhDs in Philosophy or something else totally irrelevant to the issue….???
OIA requests don't work for Court decisions Noel - section 2(6)(b) of the Official Information Act