Full Story

Autistic 'face of looting' denied diversion

Thu, 07 Jul 2011 12:46p.m. UPDATED 1:49

Mr Smith-Voorkamp claims he was beaten by police

An autistic man charged with looting in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake has been refused diversion despite a judge’s recommendation.

25-year-old Cornelius Arie Smith-Voorkamp was found taking light fittings from a Lincoln Road property after the February 22 quake, and had been described as “the face of looting”.

Mr Smith-Voorcamp’s lawyer, Jonathan Eaton, says his client has formally entered not guilty pleas, and they have elected for a summary trial before a judge alone.

“We look forward to presenting our arguments at the status hearing on 28 July.”

Today Mr Smith-Voorkamp pleaded not guilty to burglary charges despite having previously admitted to them, saying that his mental disability compels him to steal the light fittings.

Although a judge had recommended diversion for Mr Smith-Voorkamp, New Zealand police headquarters passed down instructions to local officers to reject the option.

Mr Eaton did not want to comment at this stage about why police are being steadfast.

Mr Smith-Voorkamp’s lawyers claim that he was beaten by police on the night of his arrest, and plan to file a complaint in regards to the assault.

3 News

Tags

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide

Name

(Won't be published)

Your comment

Comments

20 Jul 2011 06:38p.m.

Sad wrote:

Its sad people are so quick to crucify! If this hadn't happened in Christchurch it wouldn't be in the news and that's the only reason this boy is being persecuted. They were just lightbulbs!! He didn't steal families emergency food and water, he didn't loot a jewelery store when their alarm was down to steal thousands of diamonds. People are so quick to judge and look down on others when you know nothing of his illness and its implications. As for the assault by Police, that needs to investigated thoroughly and he officer charged to the full extent of the law, resisting or not, they have been trained in how to subdue and restrain without EVER needing to strike someone.

11 Jul 2011 03:23p.m.

Tane wrote:

Diversion is not an option because he needs to comprehend what he has done - if he can't then it is for the Courts to decide whether his disability is a defence, mitigation or not relevant. It is the Judges role to decide this not the Police, the Police have correctly put the matter before the Courts to decide. As far as the assault claim, by all accounts he was resisting arrest, when asked if he was resisting even his partner said "depends what you mean by resists". And as for him being the "face of looting" - that was his image portrayed by the media, NOT police.

10 Jul 2011 08:45p.m.

Stephanie Atwell wrote:

I am an ex London police officer of 20 years. I was staggered by this story-if there is no further charge other than the one reported I hope the judge roasts the police for wasting the courts time.

09 Jul 2011 10:49a.m.

Brett wrote:

To be eligible for diversion in the first place, you have to plead guilty!

08 Jul 2011 01:15p.m.

macgyver wrote:

well people that believe that this poor boy is using his illness (yes illness, it is not a disease) as an excuse, we need to get it right, there are many different types of autism, so there are many different characteristics of autism, so unless u r a qualified neurological or brain defect specialist you kind of need to take back the comments. It is a well known fact that so many unfortunate kids have been bought up without the knowledge and the understanding. So i think that people that have bad opinions of this situation, please give some understanding and aware.

07 Jul 2011 09:08p.m.

Davo wrote:

Whoops, much typo on my part there.

07 Jul 2011 06:21p.m.

Davo wrote:

@Alien - Please refrain from making claims about subjects you demonstratably know nothing about. Firstly, his claims of police brutality are valid and worthy of any further investigation. Secondly, whether his medical condition is an excuse is not subject to your own misaligned right-wing views, but the findings of specialists and psychologists who deal with people on the autism spectrum. It is a well known fact that prejudice is born out of ignorance.

07 Jul 2011 06:06p.m.

Sommer Walters wrote:

i feel that the poor guy, after obviously being assaulted by he police, should be left alone. Regardless of his crime, he has a disability and noone should be handled by police in that manner. Its disgusting and disturbing that an officer can get away with treating someone like that. He is the one that should be on trial!

07 Jul 2011 05:17p.m.

kelvyn wrote:

He is autistic, "someone" has beaten him and his crime is stealing some light bulbs. Don't you think life might have dealt him a bad hand without the added animosity and vilification expressed in some of these comments. But for the Grace of God there go you my friends.

07 Jul 2011 04:00p.m.

Alien wrote:

his medical condition is no excuse, and his caregivers should likewise be charged. no evidence has been submitted that show the police beat him up, more than likely he did something himself while stealing. perhaps paul you can be an eye witness since you seem to know that the police bashed him.