Daily Review 30/09/2016

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, September 30th, 2016 - 39 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

don-brash-lemon-and-paeroa

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

(Photo courtesy of the talented Glenn Jeffrey (C))

39 comments on “Daily Review 30/09/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • lprent 1.1
      30 September 2016 at 5:58 pm

      Yeah I think so as well.

      In my opinion the claims made by Craig against Williams were completely justified based on the evidence in the court, let alone what could be seen at the time. It was a pretty classic and obvious case of deliberate dirty politics done with innuendo, whispers, hyperbole on the facts and what appears to have been at least in part to have been outright fabrications. From the press reports this was admitted in court by Jordan Williams.

      Anyone who has been a target for the arseholes who cluster around Cameron Slater and his mates can instantly recognise the pattern. Especially the way that Williams apparently flaunted McGregor’s documents around the conservatives rather than treating them in confidence as she had asked for. It makes me wonder if Williams is trustworthy in any capacity – including as a lawyer.

      The judge can now decide what to do with the juries verdict. However if she doesn’t decide to throw it out, then hopefully it should go to appeal.

      I think that it is a unsafe verdict.

      • gsays 1.1.1
        30 September 2016 at 6:23 pm

        “The judge can now decide what to do with the juries verdict. However if she doesn’t decide to throw it out, then hopefully it should go to appeal.”

        could someone plz explain this to me, as if i am 12.
        is the verdict and sum not final?
        the judge can overturn or alter the sum.?

        must admit to being surprised by both result and sum, from a caual, voyeuristic observers point of view.

        • lprent 1.1.1.1
          30 September 2016 at 7:16 pm

          Ummm…. There is a lot of material about this in other jurisdictions and in criminal cases. Less in civil cases in NZ. However it is part of that legal code as well.

          Essentially a judge may set aside or amend jury decision or allow and appeal if they feel that jury decision is unsafe and ignored either evidence or the prevailing legal principles + a number of other grounds. You will find it embedded through a lot of the legislation as well as decisions in other law. For that matter judges themselves are subject to it in higher courts.

          Here is a reasonable discussion (ie the first NZ one I found that wasn’t too stupid) about why it used in criminal cases.

          http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZLawStuJl/2010/8.html

          Discussing the relevant section in the Crimes Act

          385(1)(a) is that its existence protects the integrity of the legal system. It provides a ground for appeal against a jury verdict in certain cases where none of the conventional grounds for doing so exist – that is, “in the absence of fresh evidence, a trial irregularity, or an error in the summing-up.”20 This reflects a recognition that the jury system is (like any system) an imperfect one, and that following all the correct procedures does not necessarily prevent injustice. As Glazebrook J remarks in Munro, “the cause of the continued acceptance of trial by jury will not be served by treating a jury’s verdict … as unchallengeable or unexaminable.”21 Of course, a delicate balance must be reached between restricting the opportunity for review on this ground to few

          And that is what happens. Few cases are subject directly to it, but quite a lot of appeal is made on it.

          • gsays 1.1.1.1.1
            30 September 2016 at 7:42 pm

            thanks lprent, for your response.

          • Sans Cle 1.1.1.1.2
            1 October 2016 at 1:35 am

            Thanks for that useful clarification. Further questions:
            why was there a jury in this (presumably civil?) case?
            Is the jury paid for by public funds or is the cost of the jury incorporated into the costs given to Williams?

            • left for dead 1.1.1.1.2.1
              1 October 2016 at 9:38 am

              Sans Cle…. think the defendant would choose, Craig would be silly enough too choose his peers.
              those cost are on us I’m afraid.

      • Anne 1.1.2
        30 September 2016 at 6:27 pm

        I am a legal illiterate, but it would seem to me there is a strong case for certain kinds of court cases to be only heard before a judge. Your average Kiwi is not equipped to handle this kind of case. One only has to recall the reaction to Dirty Politics which could best be described as… duh. Most people neither understood nor tried to understand what it was about. My assumption is: the jury ignored the “dirty political” aspect of the evidence presented and concentrated instead on Craig’s pamphlet and William’s professional occupation as a lawyer. They decided Colin Craig was the baddie… because he sent the pamphlet out and the other guy’s a lawyer so he must be telling the truth. A bit overly simplistic maybe but something along those lines.

        If the judge chooses to uphold the verdict then there is something radically wrong with this country’s judicial system.

        • Anne 1.1.2.1
          30 September 2016 at 6:50 pm

          Btw, Colin Craig did a reasonable job putting his side of the story on Checkpoint this evening. Perhaps the experience has taught him a thing or two:

          http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201818263/colin-craig-has-no-regrets-despite-losing-defamation-case

        • lprent 1.1.2.2
          30 September 2016 at 7:21 pm

          Yeah. There is a common (and persistent) misconception that defamation relies for conviction on the harm caused. However legally that isn’t the case in NZ.

          Levels of harm applies when looking at levels of reparation – not on the judgement. The validity of the allegations is effectively what the judgement should be made on. In this case, in my opinion, they appear to have been quite accurate about Jordan Williams..

          In this case I suspect that harm was what the jury incorrectly made its judgement on. That makes the decision highly unsafe

        • Chuck 1.1.2.3
          1 October 2016 at 12:50 pm

          “Your average Kiwi is not equipped to handle this kind of case. One only has to recall the reaction to Dirty Politics which could best be described as… duh. Most people neither understood nor tried to understand what it was about.”

          It did not take long! The number 1 go to reason used by the left when almost no body agrees (or votes for them)…

          Your average kiwi is basically dumb.

      • Chris 1.1.3
        30 September 2016 at 7:33 pm

        I’m no lawyer either, but to me it seems that Craig did defame Williams by calling him a liar, and that ultimately there was no defence to that because what Williams said about Craig was accepted by the jury as true.

        That said, everything else about the case, how Williams got hold of the information, how McGregor had told him he couldn’t pass it on, the fact that all of this went on in the sewers that these people conduct their lives within, should be reflected in payout.

        How ever much I’d love to see Craig having to pay out a million for being an idiot, it’d be way worse to see Williams getting paid a million for being an evil cock.

        I think Craig’s stuck with the defamation – no other defence cuts it in the circumstances. He can’t say, for example, that he honestly believed Williams was a liar because what Williams said related to things Craig knew about.

        But that doesn’t mean that the pay out shouldn’t be cut down to nominal sum to take account of Williams’ evil filth factor. He’s very evil and very filthy and what he did to McGregor means he should get nothing.

        • gsays 1.1.3.1
          30 September 2016 at 7:47 pm

          hi chris,
          the sum may be cut to minimal, but the fees being talked about by william’s lawyer were eye watering; 1/2-1 million$!

          btw i have just read an internet wag refer to ‘being cra**ed’.

        • Anne 1.1.3.2
          30 September 2016 at 8:03 pm

          A good summary Chris. I, too expected the jury to find Craig guilty of defamation. In fact he played into Williams’ hands by sending out the pamphlet – something of which I imagine he is now only too well aware. But for the jury to ignore all the evidence of foul play by Williams and his DP mates was an error of judgement with far greater consequences. It literally sends a message that its OK to lie, cheat, and indulge in dirty political strategies against your opponents and you will not be called to account.

          Punishment should have been left up to the judge to determine. I’m sure it would have been a considerably fairer outcome than the one produced by this jury. Hopefully it will start a debate about the dangers of leaving politically inspired defamation cases up to a peer jury, which [hopefully] will result in a change in the law to ensure such cases are only heard before a judge or judges.

      • Chuck 1.1.4
        2 October 2016 at 12:53 pm

        The minute Bomber Bradbury sat in the witness box, Colin Craig was screwed.

        The jury verdict was correct, best-case for Craig is the $ value will be reduced on appeal.

        Cam Slater and John Stringer will be rubbing there hands together for a nice payday.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2
      30 September 2016 at 6:40 pm

      How can calling Jordan Williams a liar defame his reputation when his career depends upon it?

      “The taxpayers’ union” is a lie, for fucks’ sake.

      At least the low-life Craig purports to believe in something.

      • ianmac 1.2.1
        30 September 2016 at 8:37 pm

        Interesting discussion on the Craig v Williams case.
        At the heart of it all is one disgruntled woman. If she wasn’t actually harassed, then the whole case is so wrong. A woman scorned is pretty dangerous but I suppose we do not really know for sure.

  2. lprent 2
    30 September 2016 at 6:00 pm

    I found the problem with the new cache system that was causing the tabs to not update.

    Let me know if anything else is wrong – apart from the search (which hopefully a wet weekend will give me more time to deal with).

  3. Anne 3
    30 September 2016 at 6:30 pm

    It is a nuisance having to sign in each time one makes a comment.

    • lprent 3.1
      30 September 2016 at 7:24 pm

      I will have a look at it.

      That is done by a cookie being sent from your system to the server. If you have something that is swallowing cookies on your system (and don’t have a login), then you have to live with it.

    • lprent 3.2
      30 September 2016 at 7:32 pm

      See comment below.

      Cookies are working fine for doing replies. Now I think about it they are also used for the replies tab as well.

      Perhaps I should open up a way to allow people to register a login again?

  4. Muttonbird 4
    30 September 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Not content with beneficiary bashing, the right wing of the country are growing bold and are now piling into tenants. The strategy is, like bene-bashing previously, to drive a wedge between sections of society. Referencing this article I’m sure Mr Taylor’s tenants were negligent – amateur tenants if you will. Equally though, Mr Taylor represents the other and necessary party in such a relationship – the amateur landlord.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/84805549/cannabis-crop-leaves-landlord-speechless

    • Olwyn 4.1
      30 September 2016 at 8:08 pm

      Yes, especially the “Are you a landlord with a rental horror story – contact us…” set slap in the middle of the article. It looks like an attempt to regain the upper hand on the housing front, without actually having to address the housing problem.

      • Muttonbird 4.1.1
        30 September 2016 at 8:28 pm

        Yes, saw that. Horrible, isn’t it? And you don’t need a licence to be a landlord in this country. Anyone asshole can do it which is at odds with the industry body explaining whenever they have the chance that their members are doing a social service for good first and foremost.

        Watch for more episodes of ‘When Tenants Go Bad’, etc.

  5. left for dead 5
    30 September 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Yes, I,m with you gsays…. something is up, and to hear Williams lawyer sweet talking the Judge on air. That is not just justice.

    RE: Nat Radio checkpoint

    Edit: sorry Lynn it’s happening to me too, re reply pro’s

  6. Muttonbird 6
    30 September 2016 at 6:48 pm

    Jo Coughlan holding up traffic while promoting better road transport. Oh, the irony!

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/wellington-mayoral-candidate-jo-coughlan-didnt-move-for-fire-truck—witnesses-2016093017

    More concerning to me though is the appropriation of NZTA sign design for her own campaign including the typeface, colour, and format of the road signs we see all day, every day when on the road, and then to top it of she’s added the SH1 shield in the bottom right corner.

    This road information and safety design is paid for by the taxpayer and is the property of the public – not some idiot who can’t see a fire truck in her rear view mirror.

    Not to worry, I’m sure Farrar will be all over this.

  7. Muttonbird 7
    30 September 2016 at 7:12 pm

    GR forced into a position with the Nats against far right think-a-mathons like what Brash and friends came up with. I don’t really blame Grant for not putting up a fight because he must be seen to appeal to the moronic middle New Zealander. For GR to try to explain the wider government strategy on Henry’s show would be too much for them.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/national-party-better-than-irrelevant-bigot-don-brash-says-grant-robertson-2016093008

    The Natz are walking a fine line on this though because the more they drive themselves closer to the centre, the more accessible the Labour led opposition becomes.

  9. lprent 9
    30 September 2016 at 7:26 pm

    Looking at the cookie / reply problem..

  10. Richard Rawshark 10
    30 September 2016 at 8:28 pm

    Been playing up for a few days LP but seems good now on IE 11 or is it 12 ? win10.

    Tony Ryall, just got the Transpower chair gifted to him by his mate Bill English today, and my shits going down radar went into alert mode, so tonight I went to Transpower’s website, first thing there is that they have been working on a methodology for line charges july 2016..

    ahh.. I don’t need to tell the standard readers that the Nats are about to screw with lines charges do i.

  11. Richard Rawshark 11
    30 September 2016 at 8:41 pm

    Mt thoughts of the day,

    It a worry, the way things are going, we have the likes of the philippines durante wanting and carrying out wholesale mass murders, killings, the possibility of Trump having control of nuclear weapons, and a mass up-swelling of hatred and increasing Nationalism around the planet.

    I did think when I was growing up we wouldn’t make it through the cold war but I see now that was just the warm up.

    I don’t like it because I want no part of it. This hatred going around. It making me hate the haters, bad stuff.

    What happened to all those old hippies who should now be at the age they remember peace love and brown rice and solve all the world problems..

  12. repateet 12
    1 October 2016 at 12:44 am

    Jordan Williams cobbers on Kiwiblog very often refer to “union scum.”

    Which in itself might suggest that Williams has performed a very decent service to society. He has taken a helluva lot of people off the “liar’ list.