Eli Rubashkyn’s application to have the charges thrown out was dismissed.
Police opposed the application in a hearing late yesterday afternoon before Judge Claire Ryan in the Auckland District Court.
35-year-old Rubashkyn faces two charges of assault following the #LetWomenSpeak event organised by British women’s rights campaigner Posie Parker (aka Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull) in March this year at Auckland’s Albert Park. Rubashkyn is accused of pouring tomato juice over Parker and another event organiser inside the band rotunda. Video of the act was shared widely on social media.
Rubashkyn’s lawyer James Olsen told the court the charges should be dismissed, referring to a 2016 incident in which a woman threw a sex toy at cabinet minister Steven Joyce. In that case police did not lay charges. However that argument was rejected by the judge, citing an earlier case where a person was convicted of throwing ‘brown muck’ at former National Party leader Don Brash.
‘I do not accept that protest and counter-protest should be expected to end in violence…People in this diverse and tolerant society when they go to protests should expect that they can protest peacefully,’ the judge said.
According to a legacy media report Parker has not made a witness statement, nor was there any indication she would return to New Zealand and take part in the trial. This was likely to create a ‘significant vacuum’ said Olsen, as Parker was a ‘central figure’ in the case, with the defence likely to rely on arguments based on Parker’s ‘specific points of view’ that would justify or afford Rubashkyn a legal defence.
So the lawyer’s complaint is basically, “without Posie Parker telling her side of the story, I’m unable to accordingly construct/fabricate my client’s counter version to suit our narrative.”
LOL
Why not simply tell the truth? Isn’t that what you’re (allegedly) supposed to be doing in court? Your client was an ass-hat who committed assault on camera in front of thousands of people. Take the loss, Bro 😆🤦🏼
The victim’s personal belief or “specific point of view” is an utterly TERRIBLE defence to pursue. It doesn’t absolve the accused of wrongdoing and it CANNOT be considered a mitigating factor.
“Oh gee whiz your honour, I didn’t mean to assault that guy, I just really hate gays.”
“Oh wow your honour, it’s not my fault I killed them, I’ve always disagreed with the quran…”
See why those defences don’t work? You are NOT allowed to attack or assault people, no matter what you think of their personal beliefs or opinions. Real life is NOT a University campus. This individual broke the law, plain and simple.