Normally I'd shower contempt on someone speculating about cases that haven't gone to court, but what the hell - nobody's perfect.
For the lawyers out there, this is a strictly hypothetical situation:
Some geezer foolishly clips his kid round the earhole on a public street, having forgotten for a moment the kind of country he's living in now.
Local busybodies call the cops. 6 of them turn up, assess the situation, decide there's nothing worth prosecuting and give the ear-clipper a warning.
All's well that ends without your arse in a cell. But not for long - rather than counting his blessings, the ear-bashing dad promptly blabs all to journo scum. Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear. Suddenly it's in all the papes, mouthy git bloggers are pronouncing on it all over the internet and the Police are subjected to the unthinkable: embarrassment.
Foolish ear-punishing dad. Within a short time, a senior copper has "reviewed" the evidence and finds that, ah, it seems Mr Doesn't-Know-What-A-Warning-Means should have been charged after all. Just an unfortunate oversight - should have had his collar felt at the time, how could they have overlooked all this incriminating evidence?
Let me tell you folks: if you fancy continuing to reside at the same address as your kids, figure out what the filth are telling you when they give you a warning. Could save you a great deal of grief.
RNZ panel discussion about poverty
28 minutes ago