Latest news with #Finlayson
Winnipeg Free Press
4 days ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Public safety demands jail sentence, judge decides in fatal 2021 drunk driving crash
Quinton Courchene was found not guilty of being behind the wheel in a drunk driving crash that killed his uncle, but he hasn't escaped a jail sentence. Courchene, 48, stood trial last year accused of switching seats with his passenger and victim, 65-year-old Bradley Courchene, before emergency responders arrived at the Pine Falls-area crash scene on Nov. 8, 2021. Provincial court Judge Rob Finlayson ruled while there was no conclusive evidence Courchene was driving at the time of the crash, security video left no doubt he was behind the wheel a short time earlier when the two men left the Papertown Inn bar. Finlayson acquitted Courchene of impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death and convicted him of the lesser offences of impaired driving and dangerous driving. On Wednesday, Finlayson sentenced Courchene to 16 months in jail, rejecting a defence recommendation he be allowed to serve a conditional sentence in the community. 'Both individuals who were in the vehicle in question were severely intoxicated,' Finlayson said. 'Neither one of them should have been behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. The risk that was taken because of the intoxication of both individuals resulted in the horrible death.' Finlayson said Courchene poses an ongoing risk to the community and pointed to a criminal record that includes a prior conviction in 2009 for impaired driving, as well as flight from police and assaulting a police officer. 'A real jail sentence is the only sentence that is consistent with public safety and (denouncing) the accused's actions,' Finlayson said. Outside court, Bradley Courchene's daughters Crissy Courchene and Linsay Courchene remained adamant Quinton was driving at the time of the crash. Crissy Courchene said the family had cut all ties with Quinton Courchene in 2009 following an 'incident' and concerns about his lifestyle. Crissy alleged Quinton was exploiting her father prior to his death. 'My dad was a good, kind man; he didn't turn anybody away,' she said. 'Naively, he opened his door to dangerous people. We kept telling him Quint is not safe, he shouldn't be around here.' Defence lawyer Zach Kinahan argued at trial earlier this year that Quinton and Bradley had swapped positions in the vehicle a short time after leaving the Papertown Inn bar and that no witnesses could place Quinton in the driver's seat around the time the vehicle went off the road. Security video shows both men drinking at the bar that evening and Quinton walking out, getting into the driver's seat of Bradley's 2017 Jeep Patriot and driving away at a high rate of speed. Due to the location of the security camera, the video did not capture Bradley Courchene entering the vehicle, nor was he visible as the vehicle left the parking lot, Finlayson said in his December 2024 ruling. A motorist testified she was driving on Highway 11 a short time later when Courchene's vehicle came up behind her at high speed and veered into the oncoming lane in an attempt to pass her. Courchene's vehicle returned to position behind the woman's car and then tried to pass her on the shoulder when the vehicle slid into the ditch and struck an embankment. 'In the absence of any evidence to the contrary… I believe that the court can infer that Mr. Quinton Courchene was still operating the vehicle when the incident with the (motorist's) vehicle occurred,' Finlayson said. A short time later, Courchene's vehicle was in a ditch just metres away on the other side of the highway, the driver's side of the vehicle flat against the ground. Emergency responders arrived to find Bradley Courchene in the driver's seat area, with his legs wedged under the console. Quinton Courchene was in the back seat. 'So my question is: if Quinton Courchene was driving the vehicle at the time of the fatal incident, how did Mr. Bradley Courchene locate himself in the driver's seat and then get himself lodged into the seat in such a way that his legs were underneath the centre console?' Finlayson said. When the vehicle landed on its side, both occupants would have come to rest on the driver's side, especially if they weren't wearing seatbelts, Finlayson said. If Bradley Courchene was in the passenger seat, Quinton should have remained in the driver's seat following the rollover, because there was nowhere else to go. 'And if he wasn't, the only logical explanation… is that Quinton Courchene wasn't in the driver's seat to begin with.' Finlayson said he could not rely on evidence Quinton Courchene had replied 'yes' when a police officer asked if he was driving, given his state of intoxication and degree of comprehension. A pathologist testified Bradley Courchene died as a result of a broken neck in combination with acute alcohol intoxication. At the time of his death, he had a blood-alcohol level of .386, more than four times the legal limit for driving. Finlayson ruled that evidence of Quinton Courchene's blood-alcohol level was inadmissible, finding that police did not demand a breath or blood sample from him until 90 minutes after the rollover. 'Due to the inexcusable error of the RCMP, the Crown was not able to prove the actual blood-alcohol level of Quinton Courchene,' Finlayson said Wednesday. But the testimony of police and emergency responders at the scene and other witnesses, who said Courchene was slurring, stumbling and had a strong smell of alcohol, was sufficient to establish he was 'grossly intoxicated,' Finlayson said in his earlier ruling. Court records show Courchene has prior convictions for theft and weapon offences and is set to stand trial next year on sex assault charges. Dean PritchardCourts reporter Dean Pritchard is courts reporter for the Free Press. He has covered the justice system since 1999, working for the Brandon Sun and Winnipeg Sun before joining the Free Press in 2019. Read more about Dean. Every piece of reporting Dean produces is reviewed by an editing team before it is posted online or published in print — part of the Free Press's tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates. Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Newsroom
6 days ago
- Politics
- Newsroom
Former Attorney-General criticises Marine and Coastal Areas Act changes
This story first appeared on RNZ and is republished with permission A former Attorney-General and National MP has lashed out at the government over its decision to push on with controversial legislation that would make it harder for Māori to get customary marine title. Chris Finlayson is calling the move foolish and 'extremely harmful' to race relations. But Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says it will see the law returned to its 'original intention' and strike a better balance for the rights of all New Zealanders. The changes to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act would toughen the test for judging whether customary rights should be given. Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and 'exclusive' use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. A 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and the government put a pause on any amendments to the law. On Tuesday, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said after the discussing the ruling, Cabinet felt it still did not achieve the 'balance' the government wanted and the test to win customary rights was still too low. His comment were echoed by Luxon who, speaking from Papua New Guinea, said the change would get the legislation back to its 'original intention'. 'We obviously have looked at the Supreme Court decision pretty closely [and] think it's quite broad and able to be interpreted in quite a broad way,' he said. 'We think the best way to do [that] is actually to get legislation to put it back to its original intent, which struck the right balance.' Chris Finlayson disputes that, and told RNZ the Supreme Court had already expressed 'very well' what Parliament's intention back in 2010 was. 'These amendments do not restore the original intention of Parliament. They undermine them. Let there be no doubt about that at all,' he said. Finlayson was Attorney-General at the time the legislation was enacted in law in 2011, which replaced the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act. 'What they are doing by these foolish amendments is destroying the settlement that the National Party and the Māori Party reached in 2010.' Finlayson said there was no justification for the move, which he said was 'extremely harmful' to race relations in New Zealand. 'Tangata whenua have a few wins in court, and it's ripped away from them by the government, which changes goal posts 15 years later. 'I am very, very saddened by what they have done, and I think it's a very bad day for race relations in New Zealand. 'I just can't believe that they're as foolish as they appear to be,' he said. Labour Party Māori Crown-Relations spokesperson Peeni Henare said the changes would restrict the ability of Māori to test their rights in court. 'In 2011, the National Party made much of their commitment to Māori 'having their day in court' and this proposed change takes that away again.' Henare said the law, as it stands today, does not give Māori ownership rights like control over public access. 'This action by the government does nothing to strengthen the Māori-Crown relationship, despite them saying they value iwi Māori. 'The government needs to be straight up and admit they don't care about Māori. Their actions don't match their words,' he said. The amendments prompted fierce backlash from iwi last year, including Ngāpuhi who walked out of an Iwi Chairs Forum meeting with the Prime Minister in protest of the legislation. It also drew the ire of Northland iwi Ngāti Wai, who said at the time they would not accept the Crown 'exercising an authority we do not believe they possess'.
Scoop
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
On National's Bid To Steal Future Elections
Other countries are expanding the ability of their citizens to vote. In Britain (from which New Zealand has long taken its constitutional cues) the franchise is being extended to 16-year-olds. In this country, we're headed in the opposite direction. The Luxon government is taking steps to make it significantly more difficult for people to cast a vote, and prisoners will lose their right to vote altogether. No valid reasons are being given for these changes. Formerly, we were world leaders in the ease of voting. People could register and vote on Election Day. But once the new legislation is passed, voters will need to have enrolled some 13 days prior to Election Day. At the 2023 election, 110,000 people registered and voted on Election Day. This was a 46% increase of same-day turnout at the prior election. During the two weeks before election day, 454,000 people registered to vote. Given those numbers, the changes being made by the coalition government will inevitably have a significant impact on the election result. No doubt, same day registration has put added pressure on the Electoral Commission to process the votes accurately, and on time. Any human error is one too many. Yet as the Auditor General's report on the 2023 election noted, 'The relatively small number of errors did not affect the overall outcome.' In the one electorate where a journalist had queried the calculations, the Auditor-General further noted, the subsequent Electoral Commission revision 'did not change the candidate or party vote outcomes.' So, at the last election, despite the sharply increased influx of votes close to election day, only minor errors occurred and these had no impact on any of the results. Yet rather than fund the Commission to be better able to process this welcome late rush of ballots, the Luxon government is choosing instead to stop latecomers from being able to vote at all. It is hard to see this as anything other than a bid by the coalition parties to skew the 2026 election results to their own benefit. When more hurdles are put in front of voters, the young and Māori stand to be disproportionately affected. No doubt it is a sheer co-incidence that those groups are statistically more likely to vote for the centre-left and/or for Te Pāti Māori. Voting in prison In addition, a National-led government will once again deny all prisoners the right to vote. Under successive Labour governments, prisoners could vote if they were serving sentences of less than three years. In 2010, the Key government abolished that right, after ignoring a critical report by the-then Attorney General Chris Finlayson on the steps being proposed. Finlayson indicated that a blanket ban on prisoner voting would be inconsistent with section 12 of our Bill of Rights legislation. In fact, [Finlayson] argued, the supposed objective of the Bill – to deter serious offending – was 'not rationally linked' to the Bill's own provisions to impose a blanket ban on prisoner voting. Reason being, serious offenders are already banned from voting by the existing law. As for everyone else : ' It is questionable that every person sentenced to any period of punishment is a serious offender. People who are not serious offenders will be disenfranchised…' The blanket ban, Finlayson concluded, cannot be justified. Having pointed out the irrationality of denying all prisoners the vote, Finlayson then went further, to show how unjust even the existing provisions could play out in practice: The avowed purpose of the Bill is to deter serious offending. Yet as Finlayson pointed out, under its provisions someone sentenced to home detention would still be able to vote, but someone sentenced to jail for the very same offence would be disenfranchised. Moreover, a serious violent offender sentenced to two and half years in jail would not lose their right to vote if their sentence fell – purely by chance – into the period between elections. Yet by the same token, someone sentenced to a week in jail for not paying their parking fines would lose their right to vote, if they were unlucky enough to be sentenced at the wrong point in the electoral cycle. 'Justice, to state the obvious, should not be reduced to such games of chance.' This shabby episode is about to be played out again. This time around, a critical report by the current Attorney-General, Judith Collins is also being ignored. Similar violations of human rights will recur. To be clear: for people in jail, the sentence they are serving is the punishment for their offence. Tacking on punitive extras like losing their right to vote is petty and vengeful, and will do nothing to aid the re-integration of prisoners back into society on their release. In other respects, the Bill being proposed by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith repeats some of the same anomalies identified 15 years ago by Chris Finlayson. People on home detention will still be able to vote but those in jail will not, even if they have committed the same offence. Thankfully, those on remand will still be allowed to vote. Not many people in prison do vote. Only 84 prisoners nationwide voted in the 2023 general election, out of circa 5,000 who were eligible to vote, and 41% of those voters identified as Maori. (Part of the overall low turnout can be attributed to the cumbersome process of enrolling and casting a special vote.) Although it is a very small cohort, the high proportion of Māori among the bloc of imprisoned voters merits further research into the rehabilitative role - for some offenders at least - of cultural identity and voter participation. To repeat: the changes being proposed look highly dubious. Instead of expanding the franchise and encouraging more people to vote, steps are being taken to limit participation, and by measures likely to penalise the current government's political opponents. Footnote One: Should 16-year-olds get the vote? Of course. They will inherit the effects of government actions and inactions, especially on climate change. There is a myth about young people not being interested in politics. In reality, the deeper problem is that politicians routinely fail to engage with the problems – climate change, high rents, too few jobs etc – that matter to them. As a percentage of those aged 18-24 eligible to vote, just over two thirds do so. Yet that participation rate has been improving, arguably as a result of last minute, Election Day registration. That conclusion is backed up by this chart – which shows that 74% of enrolled 18 to 24-year-olds voted in 2023. That turnout was higher than for every age band of enrolled voters between 30 and 45. Meaning : young people turned up on polling day, enrolled, and voted right then and there. National now wants to stop them from being able to do so. Surely, we should be trying to make it easier for the young to get enrolled, and vote. Instead, those in power are doing the reverse. As for the obvious fairness issues involved in allowing 16-year-olds to doubt, having civics lessons while 16 to 18-year-olds are still in school could be a significant help in fostering the habit of voting. Yet on those statistics cited above, the problem of non-voting by enrolled voters only really begins to kick in between 25-29, and gets worse thereafter until advanced middle age. This suggests that 20-somethings learn pretty quickly that their voices are being habitually ignored by those in power, so why bother keeping up the charade? Now.. and thanks entirely to this government, any initially disinterested/disillusioned voters who have second thoughts and engage with party politics only at the very last minute will no longer be able to enrol on Election Day. Smoking is a habit The tax break for Big Tobacco (now being extended from one to three years by New Zealand First Minister Casey Costello) is being estimated to cost about $300 million. Initially, NZF had promised that this tax break would be for only a one year trial, and be subject to research as to whether more people were actually switching from harmful nicotine to the monopoly line of heated tobacco products being sold by Philip Morris. This ' trial' and related tax giveaway has now been extended until 2027 at least. Meanwhile, as Labour's Ayesha Verrall has pointed out, the public health system – which could have made far better use of that $300 million giveaway– staggers on while under-funded, under-staffed, and under-paid. When it suits, changes get fast tracked. Not this time. For Big Tobacco, exceptions and foot dragging are the rule. Rastafarians at least, are upfront about the addictive nature of their herb of choice. Here's King Still, deejaying on top of a rhythm laid down by Clancy Eccles and the Dynamites:
The National
12-07-2025
- Sport
- The National
Killie platform is great, but barriers are not just physical
Sometimes, when it comes to improving disabled access to football, there is more to it than meets the eye. And when massive steps forward are made in one area, they can sometimes be accompanied by a lack of progress, or a step backwards in others. Take the raised platform that Kilmarnock have built in the Moffat Stand for their home supporters, for instance. For Killie fans like Laurie Finlayson, it has been a transformational addition to his experience of going to Rugby Park. "Absolutely, it has,' Finlayson said. 'I mean, it's a completely different experience from before the platform was actually installed. 'If I'm being really picky, I would have preferred the platform to be a wee bit higher up, but when you look at it, you are sitting at a reasonable height. You feel you're as high as everyone else and most importantly, you are in amongst the crowd. That's one of the biggest things, because in many disabled sections up and down the country, you do feel quite segregated. 'It has definitely lived up to the expectations and I'm obviously so grateful to the club and everyone who contributed for getting it done. (Image: Laurie Finlayson) 'I think over and above the physical facilities though, there has to be a commitment from all clubs just to make it a more inclusive experience, you know? It's not just about, 'We are in the stand, so that's great.' That is fantastic, don't get me wrong, and you've got that at Killie, you're part of the crowd. 'But it's also the whole match day experience.' What Finlayson is referring to are the issues that may not be immediately apparent to those who are fortunate enough to be able to do something as simple as buying their tickets for the match online, or even pay for them on the day with their bank card. 'Buying tickets is a great example,' he said. 'Very often, you can't buy tickets online, or you can't pay with your card. 'This isn't me having a go at Killie here or any other club, but just as an example, when I bought my season ticket this summer the options were to either pay in cash or by cheque. 'That isn't exclusive to Kilmarnock in any way, but it just sort of shows that when it comes to dealing with disabled supporters, a lot of these things are kind of stuck behind the times. Read more: 'At away games, you have to phone ahead, you have to email ahead, and a lot of the time, you have to go and lift cash. It just leads to an inconsistency of service and adds another level of stress for disabled supporters.' (Image: Laurie Finlayson) Finlayson is generally positive though when it comes to the direction of travel across Scottish football when it comes to helping disabled fans have a more 'normal' experience, and he had praise for the addition of a raised platform in Hampden's North Stand, not only because of the standard of the facility, but because the national stadium now offers something that disabled fans are usually denied – choice. "One thing I would love is if you could choose where to sit,' he said. 'That is so important as well. I love to be able to sit in the new platform in the Moffat Stand, but say, for example, if you wanted to be over where the atmosphere is in the East Stand or whatever, you can't do it. 'That's why it was really a good thing for me when they built the raised platform at the back of the North Stand at Hampden. 'What they used to do was put you at the bottom of the South Stand, but in the North Stand now there's a really good, raised section where you are amongst the crowd, people can come and talk to you and catch up and whatever, just as anyone else would in the stand. And that is incredibly important. "As a disabled fan, I just wish they would shout about it a bit more. It is incredible, and for a while, I didn't know anything about it. 'What happened was we were going to the Poland game and my uncle was sitting in the North Stand, so I just asked, 'Can I sit in the North Stand so we can be in the same end?' 'At no point was I told what that area was like. I assumed it was just on a bit of concrete on the side of the stand, and I was just on the periphery, I didn't think it for a minute it would be what it was. 'But when I sat there, it's practically on halfway, the atmosphere was great. It's absolutely fantastic. 'We need to shout about these things and show when good work is being done.'
The Herald Scotland
12-07-2025
- Sport
- The Herald Scotland
Killie platform is great, but barriers are not just physical
Sometimes, when it comes to improving disabled access to football, there is more to it than meets the eye. And when massive steps forward are made in one area, they can sometimes be accompanied by a lack of progress, or a step backwards in others. Take the raised platform that Kilmarnock have built in the Moffat Stand for their home supporters, for instance. For Killie fans like Laurie Finlayson, it has been a transformational addition to his experience of going to Rugby Park. "Absolutely, it has,' Finlayson said. 'I mean, it's a completely different experience from before the platform was actually installed. 'If I'm being really picky, I would have preferred the platform to be a wee bit higher up, but when you look at it, you are sitting at a reasonable height. You feel you're as high as everyone else and most importantly, you are in amongst the crowd. That's one of the biggest things, because in many disabled sections up and down the country, you do feel quite segregated. 'It has definitely lived up to the expectations and I'm obviously so grateful to the club and everyone who contributed for getting it done. (Image: Laurie Finlayson) 'I think over and above the physical facilities though, there has to be a commitment from all clubs just to make it a more inclusive experience, you know? It's not just about, 'We are in the stand, so that's great.' That is fantastic, don't get me wrong, and you've got that at Killie, you're part of the crowd. 'But it's also the whole match day experience.' What Finlayson is referring to are the issues that may not be immediately apparent to those who are fortunate enough to be able to do something as simple as buying their tickets for the match online, or even pay for them on the day with their bank card. 'Buying tickets is a great example,' he said. 'Very often, you can't buy tickets online, or you can't pay with your card. 'This isn't me having a go at Killie here or any other club, but just as an example, when I bought my season ticket this summer the options were to either pay in cash or by cheque. 'That isn't exclusive to Kilmarnock in any way, but it just sort of shows that when it comes to dealing with disabled supporters, a lot of these things are kind of stuck behind the times. Read more: 'At away games, you have to phone ahead, you have to email ahead, and a lot of the time, you have to go and lift cash. It just leads to an inconsistency of service and adds another level of stress for disabled supporters.' (Image: Laurie Finlayson) Finlayson is generally positive though when it comes to the direction of travel across Scottish football when it comes to helping disabled fans have a more 'normal' experience, and he had praise for the addition of a raised platform in Hampden's North Stand, not only because of the standard of the facility, but because the national stadium now offers something that disabled fans are usually denied – choice. "One thing I would love is if you could choose where to sit,' he said. 'That is so important as well. I love to be able to sit in the new platform in the Moffat Stand, but say, for example, if you wanted to be over where the atmosphere is in the East Stand or whatever, you can't do it. 'That's why it was really a good thing for me when they built the raised platform at the back of the North Stand at Hampden. 'What they used to do was put you at the bottom of the South Stand, but in the North Stand now there's a really good, raised section where you are amongst the crowd, people can come and talk to you and catch up and whatever, just as anyone else would in the stand. And that is incredibly important. "As a disabled fan, I just wish they would shout about it a bit more. It is incredible, and for a while, I didn't know anything about it. 'What happened was we were going to the Poland game and my uncle was sitting in the North Stand, so I just asked, 'Can I sit in the North Stand so we can be in the same end?' 'At no point was I told what that area was like. I assumed it was just on a bit of concrete on the side of the stand, and I was just on the periphery, I didn't think it for a minute it would be what it was. 'But when I sat there, it's practically on halfway, the atmosphere was great. It's absolutely fantastic. 'We need to shout about these things and show when good work is being done.'
