Legal Opinion Cinder Ella Kane Welsh

8/12/2019 Legal Opinion Cinder Ella Kane Welsh

1/4

TO: Elisha Watson

FROM: Kane Welsh

RE: Dim Diesel

Issues:

I s the Act in force?

The Nitwits Act 2010 came into force on 1 January 2011, as stated in

section 1(1). The events occurred on 29 December 2013. Therefore

jurisdiction is established.

I s Dim Diesel a person?

There is no evidence on the face of the statute to suggest that Dim Diesel is

not a person.

Did Dim Di esel discharge a fi rearm or throw a stone or other missil e?

The word missile has multiple definitions which will undoubtedlycause

dispute between the prosecution and the defence.

The prosecution is likely to define the word missile as anyphysical

object which can be thrown. This definition of missile encompasses the

petrol, a physical object, which was thrown by Dim Diesel. The defence in

response is likely to define missile along the lines of a weaponwhich is

self propelled or directed by a remote control. The defencesdefinition of


2/4

missile therefore does NOT include the petrol which was thrown by Dim

Diesel.

The prosecution will argue that the reason their definition of

missile should be considered as correct is that, in terms of the effect on

the community, any person would then be able to go around throwing

objects with the intent to injure, annoy or frighten any person and would

not be liable under section 4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010 so long as the

aforementioned person was throwing neither a stone nor a self propelled OR

remote controlled weapon as the defence would put it. The prosecution

would also argue that their definition is the more appropriate definition as in

section 4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010 it states a stone or other missile. The

argument would then turn to the fact that the purpose parliament worded this

subsection in such a way was to give stone as an example of what should

and should not be considered as an other missile, namely other objects,

similar to stones, which are able to be held and projected by hand.

The defence would then argue that their definition of missile is the

more appropriate in terms of the effect on the community as the

prosecutions definition encompasses such a wide range of objects when

talking about what a missile is. This broad definition would allow ridiculous

charges to be filed amongst the community when someone throws a piece of

paper at someone else, or when someone is playing sport and is then hit by a

ball thrown by someone else. By using the defences definition of missile

we are only regarding self propellingOR remote controlled" weapons,

which would protect the country from the danger of actual weapons. The

defence would also argue that their view on the definition of missile is

more appropriate due to the context in which missile is found. Section

4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010 states anyone who discharges a firearm or


3/4

throws a stone or other missile is liable. By stating discharges a firearm,

it is a clear indication that parliaments purpose behind including a reference

to a firearm is to give an example of what a missile is, and in this case,

other missile would refer to any other weapon similar to a firearm.

The judge would examine the two opposing arguments on the

definition of missile and would presumably reach the conclusion to adopt

the prosecutions definition in order to expand what might be classified as a

missile to any physical object which can be held and thrown in the palm

of your hand, not just a self propelled OR remote controlled weapon,

weapons which we in New Zealand are lacking in numbers, in order to

allow the Act to be realistically applied.

Did Dim Diesel throw the petrol on the embers so as to injure, annoy or

frighten Ella Daze?

The wording of section 4(1), so as to, implies intent and purpose to

injure, annoy or frighten. As Dim Diesel was not trying to injure, annoy

or frighten Ella Daze, the answer is no.

Is Ella Daze a person?

There is no evidence on the face of the statute to suggest that Ella Daze is

not a person.


4/4

Would Dim Diesel be li able under Section 4(1) of the Ni twits Act 2010?

Regardless of which definition of the word missile a judge chooses to

accept as appropriate, in the case of Dim Diesel it is clear that it was not his

intent to injure, annoy or frighten Ella Daze, therefore a judge would rule

that Dim Diesel is not liable for conviction under Section 4(1) of the Nitwits

Act 2010 in relation to the charge that the defendant threw a missile,

namely petrol, that resulted in injury.

Documents

Legal Opinion Cinder Ella Kane Welsh