Over the weekend, a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe.

Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Shantelle McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes.

All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders.

Professor Emeritus in Sociology at University of Canterbury and Criminologist Greg Newbold joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the importance of NZ courts cracking down on violent crime, including a call to issue 'life without parole' sentences. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Over the weekend, a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe.
Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Shantelle McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes.
All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders.
Professor Emeritus in Sociology at University of Canterbury and Criminologist Greg Newbold joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the importance of NZ courts cracking down on violent crime, including a call to issue 'life without parole' sentences.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Greg Newbold: Criminologist and Author discusses Christchurch woman's murder by a repeat offenders

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/986362d3-29e5-4e53-89c1-b40701812ebe/transcript

The harm social media is causing young people is being explored in ‘Under the Influence’, a new series from the NZ Herald. 

The second episode, ‘Manosphere v Boy’, explores the network of online influencers pushing extreme, and often misogynistic, ideas about masculinity to boys and young men. 

The messaging sets unrealistic expectations around success, wealth, relationships, and dominance, often preying on insecurity and loneliness – offering simple messages and “self-improvement” tips that draw them deeper.  

Director and producer Nadia Maxwell told Kerre Woodham that one thing that isn’t paid enough attention to in this conversation is the cumulative effects.  

She says you might see a video you know has bad messaging, but young people are consuming hours' worth of content daily, and it doesn’t matter how smart you are or what your pre-existing beliefs are, all it takes is repetition. 

A key element of the manosphere playbook is the concept of what’s fair, or to be exact, what isn’t. 

Maxwell told Woodham that they’re essentially saying a certain group of people are to blame for the world being unfair, and then they sell them a solution – reclaiming tradition, power, and masculinity.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

The harm social media is causing young people is being explored in ‘Under the Influence’, a new series from the NZ Herald.&nbsp;
The second episode, ‘Manosphere v Boy’, explores the network of online influencers pushing extreme, and often misogynistic, ideas about masculinity to boys and young men.&nbsp;
The messaging sets unrealistic expectations around success, wealth, relationships, and dominance, often preying on insecurity and loneliness – offering simple messages and “self-improvement” tips that draw them deeper. &nbsp;
Director and producer Nadia Maxwell told Kerre Woodham that one thing that isn’t paid enough attention to in this conversation is the cumulative effects. &nbsp;
She says you might see a video you know has bad messaging, but young people are consuming hours' worth of content daily, and it doesn’t matter how smart you are or what your pre-existing beliefs are, all it takes is repetition.&nbsp;
A key element of the manosphere playbook is the concept of what’s fair, or to be exact, what isn’t.&nbsp;
Maxwell told Woodham that they’re essentially saying a certain group of people are to blame for the world being unfair, and then they sell them a solution – reclaiming tradition, power, and masculinity. &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Nadia Maxwell: Director and producer of 'Under the Influence' on the Manosphere and its impact on boys

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/26f6c9cf-98a3-43f1-bcde-b4740016b86f/transcript

Far North Police say they're being met with a wall of silence nearly two months on from a hit and run that killed an 18 year old dirt bike rider. Jahkani Hamilton was found dead about 10pm between Kaikohe and Moerewa on May 1st. Police say an associate of his was found seriously injured nearby – he'd also been knocked off a dirt bike. Police are being stymied by witnesses and their supporters choosing to say nothing and actively resisting the investigation. They say the silence is hugely frustrating for the police investigators and for the boy's grieving whānau, and that their investigations are being hindered.  

Doesn't this bring to mind the vile Kahui household who closed ranks over the murders of the twins who had the great misfortune to be born into that family? Rationally, intellectually, I know that people have the right to remain silent. Intellectually, they should have the right to remain silent – it's a legal foundation stone. But my heart and my gut says that when somebody, especially a child, has been murdered, lock up any and all of the people withholding information and keep them in a urine-soaked cell until such time as one of the gutless cowards coughs. You can hold two opposing thoughts at the same time. Defence lawyer Steven Lack was on Early Edition this morning. He said it might be infuriating for people who want to see justice for the victims, but the right to silence exists for a reason. 

“It's designed to curb state power from compelling people in the community to provide answers and there will be investigations where there is public outcry about that because it hampers investigations, but in large part it operates to protect citizens.” 

He's right. You can't torture people into coughing up the truth because they will tell you anything —anything you want to hear, not necessarily the truth— to stop you hurting them. And generally, countries around the world accept that torture compelling people to speak doesn't get you the truth. But I think as a country we are sick and tired of people closing ranks, staying shtum, and letting the brutal, callous murder of an innocent go unpunished. Somebody's guilty. There were only so many people within a house. I mean, we've seen it time and time again – the Kahuis are probably the most egregious example and the one seared into the public consciousness. But you know one of those unholy lot were responsible for the utterly brutal murders of these children. You know somebody drove into the 18 year old boy and killed him and seriously injured his mate. There were witnesses in this case. To actively hinder an investigation, to refuse to divulge information allows the death to go unpunished and the guilty to walk free.  

I know Blackstone's ratio says that it's better that nine guilty men go unpunished than one innocent man is jailed. I'm not entirely sure. That was a philosophy from 1760 – does it still work in the year 2026? Yes, the right to silence is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, but rights are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law, provided those limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. They're designed to protect us, that the State cannot compel us to talk. I think most of us would be quite happy to talk if we saw a crime being committed. If we knew that somebody had been murdered, even if it was a member of our family. We have seen family members do the right thing and dob in a child who has committed murder because that is wrong.  

The right to silence may well be a legal right but the right to live a life without being murdered surely trumps that? The right to be free and unimpeded and not have your life snuffed out by a violent, callous, evil human surely trumps the right to silence. Is it time to have another look at this? I mean, really. There are ways of modifying it. There are ways of still allowing people their legal rights without necessarily putting them in the cone of silence and protecting them. I'm just so sick of it. Anybody who's lived long enough will have seen it time and time and time again. I hate to think how many murderers there are walking amongst us because nobody had the courage within that family, within the household, to do the right thing and it's going to happen again. 

Far North Police say they're being met with a wall of silence nearly two months on from a hit and run that killed an 18 year old dirt bike rider. Jahkani Hamilton was found dead about 10pm between Kaikohe and Moerewa on May 1st. Police say an associate of his was found seriously injured nearby – he'd also been knocked off a dirt bike. Police are being stymied by witnesses and their supporters choosing to say nothing and actively resisting the investigation. They say the silence is hugely frustrating for the police investigators and for the boy's grieving whānau, and that their investigations are being hindered. &nbsp;
Doesn't this bring to mind the vile Kahui household who closed ranks over the murders of the twins who had the great misfortune to be born into that family? Rationally, intellectually, I know that people have the right to remain silent. Intellectually, they should have the right to remain silent – it's a legal foundation stone. But my heart and my gut says that when somebody, especially a child, has been murdered, lock up any and all of the people withholding information and keep them in a urine-soaked cell until such time as one of the gutless cowards coughs. You can hold two opposing thoughts at the same time. Defence lawyer Steven Lack was on Early Edition this morning. He said it might be infuriating for people who want to see justice for the victims, but the right to silence exists for a reason.&nbsp;
“It's designed to curb state power from compelling people in the community to provide answers and there will be investigations where there is public outcry about that because it hampers investigations, but in large part it operates to protect citizens.”&nbsp;
He's right. You can't torture people into coughing up the truth because they will tell you anything —anything you want to hear, not necessarily the truth— to stop you hurting them. And generally, countries around the world accept that torture compelling people to speak doesn't get you the truth. But I think as a country we are sick and tired of people closing ranks, staying shtum, and letting the brutal, callous murder of an innocent go unpunished. Somebody's guilty. There were only so many people within a house. I mean, we've seen it time and time again – the Kahuis are probably the most egregious example and the one seared into the public consciousness. But you know one of those unholy lot were responsible for the utterly brutal murders of these children. You know somebody drove into the 18 year old boy and killed him and seriously injured his mate. There were witnesses in this case. To actively hinder an investigation, to refuse to divulge information allows the death to go unpunished and the guilty to walk free. &nbsp;
I know Blackstone's ratio says that it's better that nine guilty men go unpunished than one innocent man is jailed. I'm not entirely sure. That was a philosophy from 1760 – does it still work in the year 2026? Yes, the right to silence is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, but rights are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law, provided those limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. They're designed to protect us, that the State cannot compel us to talk. I think most of us would be quite happy to talk if we saw a crime being committed. If we knew that somebody had been murdered, even if it was a member of our family. We have seen family members do the right thing and dob in a child who has committed murder because that is wrong. &nbsp;
The right to silence may well be a legal right but the right to live a life without being murdered surely trumps that? The right to be free and unimpeded and not have your life snuffed out by a violent, callous, evil human surely trumps the right to silence. Is it time to have another look at this? I mean, really. There are ways of modifying it. There are ways of still allowing people their legal rights without necessarily putting them in the cone of silence and protecting them. I'm just so sick of it. Anybody who's lived long enough will have seen it time and time and time again. I hate to think how many murderers there are walking amongst us because nobody had the courage within that family, within the household, to do the right thing and it's going to happen again.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Is it time to take a look at our right to silence?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/082fccb0-27cc-4241-8db7-b474000a135b/transcript

National is accusing Labour of having a “hidden bill”, worth $18 billion, in its spending plans. 

Finance Minister Nicola Willis says they promised to outline how it would fund its election commitments after the Budget, but no credible plan has been provided. 

But Labour disputes this, promising everything will become clear in the party’s fiscal plan, which will be released later this year. 

The big focus is Labour’s Future Fund, which would take ownership of some Crown stakes and shareholdings, using the dividend revenue to fund other policies. However, this would leave a $2.7 billion hole in public finances. 

NZ Herald Political Editor Thomas Coughlan told Kerre Woodham that Labour is refusing to say what will be redirected into the Fund until after the election – which they’ve rightly copped flak for. 

But he believes that after the election they might quietly try to kill it by making it a very small fund —around 10–15% of what was promised— which could help the numbers stack up. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

National is accusing Labour of having a “hidden bill”, worth $18 billion, in its spending plans.&nbsp;
Finance Minister Nicola Willis says they promised to outline how it would fund its election commitments after the Budget, but no credible plan has been provided.&nbsp;
But Labour disputes this, promising everything will become clear in the party’s fiscal plan, which will be released later this year.&nbsp;
The big focus is Labour’s Future Fund, which would take ownership of some Crown stakes and shareholdings, using the dividend revenue to fund other policies. However, this would leave a $2.7 billion hole in public finances.&nbsp;
NZ Herald Political Editor Thomas Coughlan told Kerre Woodham that Labour is refusing to say what will be redirected into the Fund until after the election – which they’ve rightly copped flak for.&nbsp;
But he believes that after the election they might quietly try to kill it by making it a very small fund —around 10–15% of what was promised— which could help the numbers stack up.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Thomas Coughlan: NZ Herald Political Editor on National accusing Labour of having a "hidden bill"

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/579f70f2-9568-4e7f-a259-b473001b4b74/transcript

Greg Newbold: Criminologist and Author discusses Christchurch woman's murder by a repeat offenders

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips