Originally Posted by
Alan3285
I have been trying to work out what makes this seem so unfair, and I think an analogy is, perhaps helpful (with all the dangers of analogy of course):
If someone is suspected of committing a 'serious' crime, they can be arrested.
Now, at that point in time, their freedom has been taken away, and yet they are 'innocent until proven guilty' - so how do we reconcile that?
In NZ, I believe (happy to be corrected, but it is the principle that I am thinking about), the state police have 48 hours (?) to either lay charges, or re-instate that persons right to freedom.
Allan Hubbard has been put into Stat Mgt (analogy = arrested) but no charges have been laid, and the state is holding him, without charge.
I think that the state should be required to either lay charges or release him from Stat Mgt within, say, 7 days.
The state police do not, in general, arrest someone without doing some investigation first. They investigate, build a prima-facie case (to be answered), then arrest the suspect.
The state followed that process initially with AH - they investigated from Feb 2010 (I think) until last month, then 'arrested' him, but have now failed to follow 'due process' by charging him or releasing with a reasonable timeframe.
Does that make sense?
Alan.