Chester Borrows in court

Written By: Natwatch - Date published: - 74 comments
Categories: accountability, law, national - Tags: ,

This is probably all he’ll be remembered for – MP Chester Borrows trial for allegedly hitting protesters with car begins

Whanganui MP Chester Borrows is set to stand trial on Monday, after allegedly injuring two protesters by driving into them.

Borrows, a former police officer and Parliament’s deputy speaker, faces one charge of careless driving causing injury to two people.

The incident occurred on March 22, 2016, when he was driving a car at an anti-TPP protest in Whanganui. …

I’ve written about this in previous posts. I hope that Barry Soper is going to be OK.

With the Eminem case on the go too its a busy time in court for National.

===

Note from earlier coverage “wide-ranging suppression orders remain in place.” No Right Turn on the suppression orders. This post is only for the discussion of facts which are already in the public domain. In particular, no names should be mentioned. If in doubt, comments will be edited.

74 comments on “Chester Borrows in court”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

  2. 2

    He had Paula riding shot gun with him so I suppose she will be a witness . His police training I would imagine contain advanced driving skills you and I never could have had.

    1. 2.1

      Well, even if that were true (and I suspect the level of training he had depends entirely on when he started with the service), wouldn’t that just mean he has less excuse to hit someone?

  3. 3

    What excuse could Paula provide?
    None that I can see.
    What justification can Chester offer?
    None that I can see.
    This is going to be interesting.
    Small fry, but a bit of a sizzle nonetheless.

    1. 3.1

      Excuse? No no, Reasons ,Reasons. Reason 1–Chesters reason, he couldn’t see because Paula was in the way. Reason 2–Paulas reason, Chester couldn’t see because I was in the way.

      1. 3.1.1

        The reasons Borrows has provided are suppressed- see above

        It would seem from my reading that they were given ‘after the fact’ but its a version of the old excuse
        The devil made me do it!

        1. 3.1.2.1

          My god ! Paula may have borrowed Brownlee’s flack jacket , Chester may have had a flash back to the Spring bok tour? What with her cowering on his lap and the flash back combined ,phew! he is only human.

  4. 4

    Guilty and Guilty should be the verdict. But I’m not sure there is such a thing as justice anymore and too many political fingers in the courts.

    1. 4.1

      Your second sentence is absolutely hilarious in the context of what you wrote in the first sentence.

        1. 4.1.1.1

          Oh and Judith Collins is not guilty with Oravida and Scenic Hotels is now a NZ aid organisation. There was nobody to blame for Pike River, just mysteriously 28 people are dead at a workplace.

          1. 4.1.1.2.1

            Actually John Banks was found guilty. He then mysteriously got off when some American ‘remembered’ years later some conversation to a judge. But it never went to a jury.

            1. 4.1.1.2.1.1

              And to be precise, he was “not guilty” because the americans’ testimony meant the prosecution couldn’t prove he knowingly signed a false return. Banks’ defence was that he was merely negligent to a point of incompetence that in any other field would have been criminal.

              1. 4.1.1.2.1.1.1

                Well, Banks’ entire defence was he committed the crime of filing a false electoral return, because he didn’t do what he should have done to make sure it was correct, but it was too late to nail him for that.

                From Andrew Geddis:
                “First of all, it means Banks did break the law when he filed his donations return. Under the Local Electoral Act (as it then stood), inadvertently filing a false return was an offence. It’s just that this particular offence had to be prosecuted within six months of the return being made – so Banks escaped liability for his actions on a technicality. A technicality, it should be noted, that has since been closed off.”

                http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/if-you-want-people-to-believe-you-are-honest-then-its-best-not-to-file-false-donation-return

        3. 4.1.1.3

          That’s because (in northland) he was found innocent – just because you don’t like his politics doesn’t make him guilty

            1. 4.1.1.3.1.1

              Ahh my stalker is back.

              I didnt comment on Banks (because I dont know enough about it).

              But the northland case which SaveNZ sad “got off” – and I was pointing out he was innocent.

              A quick read on Banks shows he was acquitted.

              I respect the decision of the courts – its you that seem to have the issue (and others on here) dont.

              And Yes – I would support the courts decision on the Eninem trial and Burrows. Im guessing if they went against what you think you would find it a miscarriage of justice and some big conspiracy

              1. 4.1.1.3.1.1.1

                Your “guesses” and “seems” aren’t worth diddly-squat, James (your grammar and spelling likewise).
                I’m feeling a little uncomfortable with your constant responding to my comments, James. It’s unhealthy to be poised at your keyboard, like a bald-necked vulture over the carcass of a gnu. Perhaps a walk in the park?

                🙂

                1. 4.1.1.3.1.1.1.1

                  “I’m feeling a little uncomfortable with your constant responding to my comments, James.”

                  well – stop writing stupid replies to my comments and I wont have to point out where you are going wrong all the time. Then you wont feel uncomfortable because I will give you the attention you deserve and ignore you.

                    1. 4.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1

                      Such is the nature of discussion groups, Robert. People will respond if you criticise them. And anyone here is free to respond to anyone else’s comment. If you don’t like it, then refrain from posting here.

                    3. 4.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.3

                      Robert G
                      ‘You are going wrong Robert’. The satisfied know the answers to everything and are rarely, f ever, wrong. So there you have it. And let’s face it you are too hopeful of getting some rationality out of them. You do keep prodding them to see if they will stir. No use stirring yourself. Can’t get blood out of a Flintstone.

                    6. 4.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.6

                      Robert G
                      I have a picture of a rigidly processing individual who takes comments literally or dismisses them tauntingly. And who has no sense of humour. (So they wouldn’t find funny the Pythons and French Taunting on youtube). Further they have no ability to self-reflect and be self-objective which can be deflating if carried too far, but just to the self-deprecating stage allows enjoyable jousting even a little lampooning without needing defensive rejection.

              2. 4.1.1.3.1.1.2

                “innocent”

                Nope: the court made no such assertion.

                It was found that the charges weren’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s what “not guilty” means.

    2. 4.2

      Refer the special treatment blubber boy received after admitting he committed a crime. National hate either them or their helpers being caught out.

      Agree its minor but it helps to keep nationals arrogance and disdain front and centre so let the old duffer and pullya get the focus they deserve for a foolish act that caused personal harm.

  5. 5

    “I hope that Barry Soper is going to be OK.”

    That’s far too nice of you. I hope the cantankerous old prick gets shafted.

  6. 6

    Slater is back in Court today. Colin Craig has claimed he was defamed by Slater
    Judge only hearing .

    Theres a long list of those now claiming defamation by the ‘journalist blogger’
    Unusually Slater has a lawyer this time but Craig is self represented

    1. 6.1

      Well, Craig has been in enough defamation cases that he probably thinks he knows it all by now.

  7. 7

    It seems like Chester has plenty in common with the NZDF. When they hit, they run.

    A responsible driver would have noticed that they had run over one or more individuals and would’ve have stopped to attend to them. But that would’ve been time-consuming and inconvenient…

    “In a statement he provided to police, which was read to the court, Borrows said he was concerned about threats made about Bennett on Facebook, and people had jumped on his car at other protests.”

    Who said chivalry was dead? The guy was protecting Paula Bennett from those rabid protestors. Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/92319670/mp-chester-borrows-stands-trial-on-careless-driving-charge

  8. 8

    Constable Stewart Bourne was at the protest to keep the peace. He said he had his back to the car when the protesters were hit.

    He filled in a crash report afterwards, which was produced by defence lawyer Nathan Bourke.

    In the report, Bourne said the car was travelling 1kmh when it was “swamped” by protesters.

    Oh so that was the problem. Burrows was looking at his spedometer rather than where he was going. And I didn’t realise that cars had a 1 kmh mark. 🙂

    1. 8.1

      If the constable had his back to the car when the protesters were hit, how could he tell how fast the car was going and that the protesters “swamped” the car.

      1. 8.1.1

        1. Here is video of the incident. The constable in the video did not have his back to the incident.
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/video/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503418&gal_cid=1503418&gallery_id=158905

        2. The protestors were standing on the footpath,

        3,

        When leaving and entering driveways
        When you are entering or leaving a driveway that crosses a footpath, you must give way to people using the footpath.
        When leaving a driveway you must give way to vehicles using the road.

        https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-other-road-users/sharing-road-with-pedestrians/

        1. 8.1.1.1

          It is sad when a former police officer and another who happens to be facing the car involved gives false information. We were repeatedly told that the car was travelling at a very slow speed. However, if one considers the mass of an average vehicle being 4000 lbs, I wouldn’t want to be hit by it even at a slow speed.

        2. 8.1.1.2

          Tv1 head line
          Cop at National MP’s careless driving trial claims protester walked into ‘idling’ car.

          If you look at the video link in 8.1.1 you will see that the protestor is stationary, on the footpath when the car hit her. She did not walk into the car.
          The cop needs to look at the video and realise his recall is faulty.
          https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/cop-national-mps-careless-driving-trial-claims-protester-walked-into-idling-car

    2. 8.2

      In the video (linked in the Barry Soper post, link at top) there are two police officers. Neither have their backs turned. Why would the defense lawyer be using evidence from an officer who had his back turned?

  11. 11

    I see they have Phillip Rewiti Bear as a witness. Lovely bloke, threatens a female politician on twitter – not the first time he’s done this sort of thing.

    1. 12.1

      However, Stuff reports that he has been found not guilty of careless driving causing injury.

            1. 12.1.1.1.1.1

              Oh, I dunno: there’s a long tradition of ineffectual hand-waving attempts to dictate “sensible” forms of protest, by people who’ve never changed anything more challenging than a nappy.

              1. 12.1.1.1.1.1.1

                I’ve changed some truly challenging nappies in my time, but yes, OAB, the world’s “Petes” would have protest hermetically sealed and disinfected, labeled, photographed and consigned to the drawer marked, “ignore”. Noisy, visible protest is, well, untidy , donechathink?

          2. 12.1.1.1.2

            So you never cross the road, Pete?

            Personally, if someone was standing in front of my car, I wouldn’t put my foot down. How about you?

            What’s bemusing is that Borrows, a former police officer, felt threatened by a few middle aged women waving placards. Is that what our police force has been reduced to?

      2. 13.1.2

        Apparently yes. Given the court decision.

        A person who is not a cabinet minister ran over a persons foot not long ago. Said person having put his foot in front of the car.

        However the driver, not being a cabinet minister running over a protester, was charged with assault, and convicted!

        Are we going to have open season, on attacking protesters with a motor vehicle, all year around, or only for a few months of the year, like duck shooting?

        Or can we now all run over someone obstructing us on the footpath?
        That women with the pram and a toddler on a trike, for example, that stopped me from leaving my house for several minutes last week.

        Or does the duck have to be carrying a dildo?

  14. 14

    And yet, the woman whose foot was injured by Borrow’s car, wasn’t wielding a “sex toy”.
    Borrows acted as if she was, seemingly. Perhaps in response to his passenger’s agitation.

Comments are closed.