“TEACUP TAPE CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE ATTORNEY GENERAL” PETERS
New Zealand First says the Attorney General cannot claim court costs from a free lance cameraman over the teacup tape court case because the case does not involve the government – just the National and Act parties.Rt. Hon Winston Peters says legal wires have been crossed by the case because it was mistakenly taken up by the government’s own legal system when it should have simply involved lawyers for John Key and John Banks.
“This case happened during an election campaign when the National Party leader met an Act party candidate to stitch up a deal for the Epsom electorate. It had nothing to do with an affair of state or anything related to the office of prime minister.
What has happened is that the National Party, acting for political purposes, is using taxpayer resources to have a fight with a private citizen.
This is abuse of power and it is also illegal.
Our advice to the cameraman is to ignore the Attorney General’s demand for court costs and to make a claim himself against John Key and John Banks, who in this matter are simply private citizens.” says Mr. Peters.
ENDS
There's just one slight problem for Peters; he's completely and utterly wrong!
Check out the decision at this link. The heading of the decision reads like this (with our emphasis added):
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV 2011-404-7392
UNDER The Declaratory Judgments Act 1908
BETWEEN BRADLEY CHRISTOPHER GEOFFREY AMBROSE Plaintiff
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Defendant
Hearing: 22 November 2011
Oh dear. We thought that Winston Peters was a lawyer, but he seems to have failed to understand this case completely. Bradley Ambrose sought a judgment against the Attorney-General under the Declatpry Judgments Act 1908. Ambrose is identified as the plaintiff, and the Attorney-General is identified as the defendant.
So Winston Peters' holiday media release is not worth the paper it's written on. The Attorney-General could hardly have been more involved in this hearing, given that he was the defendant in the matter before the High Court. Bradley Ambrose sought a judgment against the Attorney-General, and failed, and it is solely as a result of Ambrose's application for a Declaratory Judgment that the Attorney-General became involved!
As we have said previously, we don't have any problem with the Crown seeking costs against Ambrose; after all, the Solicitor-General had to mount a defence against Ambrose's attempt to circumvent the criminal justice system. The application for costs against Ambrose is anything but an "abuse of power" in our bush-lawyer opinion; it is a legitimate claim for the costs of defending vexatious legislation.
So if Winston Peters is so worried about the application for costs against Ambrose, perhaps he should chip in a cash contribution. After all; he owes his seat in Parliament to Bradley Ambrose, doesn't he.
9 comments:
A `populist' part time Lawyer like Peters will never, ever, head off `bush' lawyers like you and I Inv.
If this was a proceeding between two private individuals, what was TV Works doing there? Or is Peters being hypocritical as well as stupid?
Either of those adjectives apply Nookin; quite a few others too such as obtuse, mischievious, ill-informed...;take your pick!
Winston as a former lawyer should know a lot better than that.
His press release is at best simply mischievious and at worst disembling.
"The application for costs against Ambrose is anything but an "abuse of power" in our bush-lawyer opinion; it is a legitimate claim for the costs of defending vexatious legislation."
Several points...
1. The Judge in Ambrose's declaratory case didn't make a decision for or against Ambrose; Chief High Court Judge, Justice Helen Winkelmann simply declined to make a decision.
2. Since when is a legitimate use of legal process to determine the validity of a point of law, or an aspect of a case, "vexatious"? I submit to you that it is not in any sense "vexatious" and in fact that is precisely why we have Courts of Law.
3. An "abuse power" seems a fitting description for the government's attempt to claim costs - when politicians already dig deep into the public purse to pay for legal costs, as it suits them.
To whit; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/one-law-for-all-except-mps/
If politicians - who are our elected representatives - can now use our own taxes to act in punitive ways against those who would dare question or criticise them, then this is dangerous territory we are in.
Considering previous instances of critics of this government being abused or denigrated, it appears that National has embarked along the road toward autocratic knee-jerk responses.
Adding insult to injury, it is our money being used to attack Mr Ambrose. I, for one, do not pay my taxes to see it used against journalists.
Mr Ambrose's application for declaratory orders was unsuccessful.
It follows from a legal perspective that costs follow the event, i.e You lose then you pay a proportion of the costs of the other party.
The cost calculation is based on the schedules to the High Court rules.
I would have been disappointed if the crow did not seek costs. it was put to much expense at short notice by Mr Ambrose's application.
I am sure that if the boot had been on the other foot Mr Ambrose would have been seeking costs.
Has Winston or the Herald tried to explain what "power" the Crown is "abusing"? Like any litigant, it has a right to apply to costs.
Winston seems to suggest that somehow the Crown is likely to exert some form of influence in order to secure costs. If the application lacks merit, no doubt the Court will rule accordingly.
I wonder whether anyone in the news media asked Mr Peters how a party named by the applicant as the respondent in preceding its and against whom relief was sought could possibly be acting illegally when it applies to costs, having persuaded the court that there was no substance to the applicant's case?I imagine that the news media simply glossed over that inconvenience.
The suggestion that Ambrose applies for an order for costs against Key & Banks is puerile nonsense. Banks did not participate in the proceedings. Key did not participate and told the court that he would abide by its decision. His participation was limited to submitting a statement to the effect that he believed that the conversation was private.
I doubt that Peters will be able to produce any precedent suggesting that a losing litigant, in proceedings brought by him,should be awarded costs against non-participants.
"After all; he owes his seat in Parliament to Bradley Ambrose, doesn't he."
Nope. John Key provided that opportunity, which the immensely popular (on this blog anyway) Winston Peters, took gratefully and made hay from, as he will continue to do for the next three years.
Read all about him, here on Keeping Stock!
How about you address the actual issue Robert? Peters has claimed that the A-G "is not involved" in this case, when the Attorney-General was the defendant in the High Court case of Ambrose versus the Attorney-General. It is a very basic mistake that Peters has made in his attempt to discredit Key and Banks, and he has rightly been pinged for it.
Post a Comment