Human Rights decision is quite pointed

13 comments on “Human Rights decision is quite pointed ”

• Comments are now closed

1. patricia bremner 1

   13 March 2019 at 9:05 am

   This was a deserved verdict. No sympathy here. He has made sure no body will get compensation. Therefore he should go to gaol./jail lol lol and not pass go.
   To Mathew Blomfield my heartfelt message of “you did not deserve this” and “I’m sorry you are not getting a huge compensatory sum” from that wretched fellow.,
   • Sacha 1.1

     13 March 2019 at 9:15 am

     Bankruptcy just presses pause for a few years. Slater is still liable when it finishes. The assignee may also be able to recover some proceeds from assets held on his behalf in the meantime.
     • patricia bremner 1.1.1

       13 March 2019 at 9:27 am

       Oh Thanks Sacha. I’m pleased about that continuing liability on Slater’s part.
2. Sacha 2

   13 March 2019 at 9:10 am

   I am glad the HRRT has focused on *behaviour* as a hallmark of journalism. If you want to claim the protections and privileges of a journalist, then act like one. That applies to current media employees, not just tryhards like Slater.
   • lprent 2.1

     13 March 2019 at 9:30 am

     That appears to be an overwhelming result of all of the decisions slowly trickling through.

     The privileges granted to news medium and journalists (and indirectly to social media like this) is not unqualified. In any instance, it needs to be responsibly applied, justified and defended.
3. Andre 3

   13 March 2019 at 11:47 am

   Does the Human Rights Review Tribunal decision create a legal precedent that courts can use for guidance when someone is fighting back against similar arsewipe behaviour in the future? Or will similar issues have to go through the Human Rights Review Tribunal again with the same risk of years of delay?
   • Dukeofurl 3.1

     13 March 2019 at 1:27 pm

     Its likely only for the Human Rights Adjudicators who first handle complaints before they go to ‘The Tribunal.’
     Its difficult to say legal precedent when its so specific to Slaters and Bloomfield circumstances
   • Pete George 3.2

     13 March 2019 at 7:56 pm

     The decision says that the delay has been fixed by a law change.

     [14] The reasons for the long delay in publishing this decision are explained in Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd (Delay) [2017] NZHRRT. It was not until enactment of the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Act 2018 that s 99AA of the Human Rights Act was on 14 November 2018 inserted to allow the Governor-General to appoint one or 7 more Deputy Chairpersons of the Tribunal. As at the date of publication of this decision no such appointments had been made.

     See:

     [2] There are two reasons for the delay. First, an unprecedented increase in the Tribunal’s workload and second, the fact that the Human Rights Act 1993 does not allow the appointment of a deputy chair to assist the Chairperson to keep pace with the large inflow of new cases.

     https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2017-nzhrrt-8-wall-v-fairfax-new-zealand-ltd-delay.pdf

     Any decision like this one against Slater should aid future decisions.

     The Blomfield v Slater defamation decision also ruled that Slater had no defence as a journalist because the way he ran a sustained defamatory attack was not journalism.

     http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1902/CIV20134045218_26102018_JUDG.pdf

     It’s unlikely we will see Slater and Nottingham doing the same sort of extreme attack again any time soon due to the constraints of bankruptcy and gag orders,.

     There will be few if any others dumb enough to go down this track – but it’s possible, there’s signs that some of their associates are trying to keep stoking things.
4. Michael 4

   13 March 2019 at 8:31 pm

   I note that Slater is appealing the High Court defamation judgment to the Court of Appeal; I suspect he will also appeal the HRRT decision, in spite of his “bankruptcy” and “incapacity”. It might be worth looking at the identities of individuals in control of Slater’s business and financial interests and passing on any information to the Official Assignee.
   • Pete George 4.1

     14 March 2019 at 7:49 am

     Blomfield says he is asking for the appeal to be dismissed.

     Blomfield has separately sued Cameron Slater for defamation relating to the 2012 blog posts. The High Court ruled in Blomfield’s favour in February, but Slater is appealing the decision.

     A hearing relating to Slater’s appeal against the High Court’s ruling in the defamation case has been scheduled for March 25.

     Blomfield said he planned to ask the court to dismiss Slater’s appeal.

     https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/111227466/cameron-slater-privacy-breach-victim-doubts-hell-get-his-70000-damages
     • lprent 4.1.1

       14 March 2019 at 2:43 pm

       The last I heard (and I have no real idea of the actual veracity), Cameron Slater was claiming at the CoA that the stroke made him unable to appear before the CoA and that he was too incapacitated to instruct a lawyer.

       Now this does sound like the kind of tactic that Slater has used to avoid the courts in the past and then his subsequent actions that repudiate whatever he said.

       Like his remorseful pleas for diversion to the courts after trying to get someone to hack my server, and then his repudiation of those pleas after he got diversion.

       Or his attitudes about suppression orders for other people, until he found them convenient for himself.

       Or many of his other previous issues about being called to account for his actions.

       In this case since the stroke he appears to have been writing some coherent comments (albeit with his rather dull bigotry on full display) on Whaleoil. They certainly don’t indicate any particular inability to instruct a lawyer.

       So it sounds like another stupid tactic. As I wrote a long time back, Cameron has an idiot for a lawyer – that is because he usually wastes the courts time failing miserably when trying to self-represent.

       I suspect that his biggest problem with lawyers will be that he’d have to convince an official assignee that he has any hope of winning, and therefore the OA being willing for him to waste money on a lawyer rather than paying his creditors. Of course the company that operates Whaleoil is also a party to the case, probably on the appeal, is not in liquidation, and so they can continue to appeal.

       But in any case, I suspect that like the High Court, the CoA will simply keep requiring him to submit in accordance to their specifications, the supporting documentation and evidence that is required for his claims to be substantiated.

       That was what eventually led to the decision in the High Court that he hadn’t presented ANY substantive documentation for his claimed defenses against the Blomfield defamation claim despite being given ample time to prepare them.

       It is this insistence on verifiable truth rather than the delusional ravings of a inflated ego that the courts prefer to work with. With the CoA, medical diagnoses and the people who made them rather than unverifiable self-diagnosis.

       Just a matter of time for the courts to steadily remove his recourse to appeals and judicial reviews…
   • Formerly Ross 4.2

     14 March 2019 at 8:09 am

     The HRRT awarded Kim Dotcom $90,000 over a breach of privacy. From memory it was appealed through the courts and the decision was overturned. Indeed it was. Having said that, the facts in that case seem quite different to those here.

     https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12135596
5. A 5

   13 March 2019 at 10:32 pm

   More legal Slytherin on its way then.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS