George Gwaze has been acquitted; the Herald reports:
George Gwaze has been found not guilty of murdering his 10-year-old niece.The jury of seven men and five women considered their verdict for almost six hours on Friday and another seven hours yesterday after a four-week retrial at the High Court in Christchurch, before coming to a decision today.Gwaze had denied one count of murder and two charges of sexual violation of HIV positive Charlene at their family home in Christchurch in January 2007.The Crown alleged that Charlene, who had HIV, was sexually attacked and suffocated by her uncle.The defence claimed she had HIV which she had carried since birth, and that was what killed her.
What makes this case rare and noteworthy however, is that it the second time that a jury has acquitted Mr Gwaze. He was found not guilty by a Christchurch High Court jury in July 2009.
There the matter would normally have ended. However the Crown appealed the acquittal in the Court of Appeal on the basis that the trial judge had erred by allowing defence evidence from a South African paediatric surgeon. The Court of Appeal turned down the Crown's appeal by a two-to-one majority.
Not satisfied, the Crown then took the case to the Supreme Court, and as Stuff reported on 17 May 2010, won a prededent-setting case:
George Gwaze will face a retrial for the rape and murder of his niece in Christchurch after the Supreme Court overturned the jury's not guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.The Crown has succeeded in a last-ditch bid in the Supreme Court to have murder-accused Gwaze retried.The Supreme Court released its decision at 4pm to allow the Crown appeal and quashed Gwaze's previous acquittals.A certified direction for new trial will be issued to the registrar of the High Court at Christchurch, the decision says.It is believed to be the first time the Supreme Court has overturned a not guilty verdict on a murder charge.
Today a second High Court jury has acquitted Mr Gwaze. We have grave reservations however that he should ever have been retried. We would be especially interested in comments from some of our lawyer readers on the legal aspects of the case
9 comments:
I am not a lawyer reader but the observation I would make on this and the Bain retrial is that the Discovery laws slant the odds in favour of the Defence especially when the case relies on scientific, technical or medical evidence..The Prosecution must disclose all their evidence months beforehand to the Defence. The Defence does not have to make any disclosure to the Prosecution.The Prosecution presents its expert evidence long known by the Defence. The Defence can scour the world for fringe often dubious experts who are then able to construct testimony conflicting with that of the Prosecution. The Prosecution caught un-awares is unable to present a rebuttal as it would take time and research to effectively do so..
@Baxter when a man is caught with a knife to the hilt into his victims abdomen with cctv film to prove it no amount of world scouring will change the verdict.
law should and is not about hide and seek. its not about scoring points its about arriving at the truth. in this case the jury did the right thing. there was never contact between gwaze and charlene and nobody really knows strangley in a first world what killed charlene. nobody explained the temperature bit. what caused the high temperature if not hiv.
This case could never have been beyond reasonable doubt
Despite the verdict, it is a common occurrence that HIV positive black men in South Africa rape children and babies in the belief that the HIV virus will be taken away from them and transferred to the innocent victim. This is the savage and primitive mindset that is so rapidly destroying the African continent. This is fact but little is shown in the media. What I don't understand is how HIV positive people are able to gain residency in New Zealand, yet, if you can recall, a white South African family who are here on work permits are denied residency due to their young son being diagnosed with a terminal illness. This illness occurred whilst they were here in NZ. What the hell is going on? This is outright discrimination - I agree that racism is rife here in NZ but it is racism against those of European decent. I myself am of mixed race but this policy of "white guilt" sickens me.
@anonymous @5.03 pm i am a black man of southern african origin. i concur with your assertions there is a perceptionb that if you sleep with a virgin you leave your HIV with them and you yourself is cured.It is a savage mindset I agree.question why is this raised in Gwazes case. CHARLENE was positive and GWAZE NEGATIVE. Its a contrarian position. unless you are saying gwaze was trying to suck out the hiv to himself and leave himself infected and the girl free of hiv what you have said is the truth just thrown in there for effect.
as far as i know the gwazes did not know charlene had hiv. i am sure they suspected but were not saying.somebody in the medical fratenity dropped the ball and did not test these people.Its not the first time. I remember 5 years ago i sadvised someone in southafrica not to bother coming to australia without an hiv test first. i advised him to have his own hiv test before he goes for the official one. he refused and he emailed me from a mine near PERTH to ask me to stop scaremongering as no medicals were done on him at all.oops ball dropped again. I was stunned.
The white family sent back met a doctor on the ball who quite rightly sent the guys back according to policy.I dont see white guilt just a cock up by doctors
Guys; please don't turn this into a race debate.
people yu have so much wrong information..The amily knew about Charlene's status.she was a sick child even beore leaving Zim.
it is painful that people say things without all the information..The Gwaze family took care o that child so well and this is the thanks that they get..
@ anonymous the child was ill even while still in zim.we used to go and visit the family and find her sick some times.her body just gave in to the sickness.jus like any other person with the disease.
peoplle, have yo acts straight before you pass comments that are outrageous like this...
I am happy for the Gwaze family.now life can go on!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You propose trials where evidence is hidden until the last minute and beyond I presume baxter. Your generality avoids reality, in most if not all miscarriages of justice discovery to the defence isn't properly made by the Crown. Your talk about 'dubious experts' shows your presumption that the only 'good' experts are those summoned by the Crown.
thats what i always suspected they knew but on her immigration papers sifso said "no"to the hiv question so she was lying to you or lying under oath. if they lied about hiv to get into nz then their status in new zealand has to be reviewd in light of the information under oath where she said clearly she did not know she charlene had hiv. you really cant have it both ways.if she lied once whats to stop her from lying again what from her do you believe. its an angle that needs to be looked at. were they roting the system in allowing a kid with hiv in by whatever means. in fact your statement digs a hole for them a bit
You make a good point Nostalgia. My feeling is that the medical people made a judgment call on Charlene's injuries without considering that there was an entirely innocent possibility, namely her HIV/Aids status.
It just saddens me that the Gwazes will always have to live with the stain and suspicion of this case, despite George Gwaze being the only person in this country ever to have twice been acquitted of murder.
Post a Comment