McCready case thrown out

Written By: - Date published: 12:17 pm, May 14th, 2015 - 25 comments
Categories: john key, law, Minister for International Embarrassment - Tags: ,

Given that Amanda Bailey asked McCready to withdraw his case, this is good news:

Updated 11.57am: A judge has rejected serial litigant Graham McCready’s attempt to privately prosecute John Key over repeatedly pulling the ponytail of Auckland waitress Amanda Bailey.

Amanda Bailey has been working with the Unite Union and is still considering her own options.

It is up to Bailey to make her own decisions about legal proceedings.

25 comments on “McCready case thrown out”

  1. Enough is Enough 1

    Typical

    No doubt the Judge would have received enormous pressure from those in power to throw this out.

    • Gosman 1.1

      Then the Opposition should be over this like a rash highlighting the potential corruption of our judicial system. They are strangely quiet for some reason. why do you think that is?

      • esoteric pineapples 1.1.1

        Perhaps they have grown jaded by the response of New Zealanders to previous scandals by this government

        • Gosman 1.1.1.1

          Except corruption of the Judicial system (One of the three arms of the State) is incredibly serious. I’d argue it is much more serious than the PM potentially breaching the law by pulling some poor waitress’s ponytail. Failure to follow this up would be a deriliction of duty for any Opposition MP.

          • Jones 1.1.1.1.1

            I am absolutely certain that if corruption exists in any one of three arms of government, then there is every possibility it exists in the others. No evidence, just saying…

    • Lanthanide 1.2

      No, more likely Cready had no standing and no evidence.

      He was alleging assault, but all he had to go on was second-hand information from media reports

      • Arthur 1.2.1

        No,no, the PM had admitted the assault.

        • Yes, but Cready has no standing to bring the complaint in private prosecution without Amanda joining the preceedings, so they are correct to throw out the case.

        • Lanthanide 1.2.1.2

          The PM admitted pulling her pony tail.

          He didn’t admit to committing assault.

          Remember, for it to be a crime, there has to be intent behind it. A court could find that he was genuinely deluded in that he thought she enjoyed it.

  2. Maui 2

    Heard earlier a Newstalk ZB talkback host exhale in relief that this had been thrown out. Accusing the PM of misconduct is heresy in his world view. Quite funny.

  3. Tiger Mountain 3

    the shambling McCready is an easy enough target for derision but the powerful need to be held to account, it is fitting that Amanda Bailey is now able to pursue her own course re the “Parnell Puller”, but it should not be forgotten that without Mr McCready starting proceedings filthy Banksie would still be an ACT MP, so keep it up independent litigators and investigators!

    • McFlock 3.1

      ISTR he still has a strike rate against MPs in the last 20 years that’s better than the NZ police (who tend to look the other way, probably quite literally when it comes to pony-tail fondling).

  4. Rudi Can't Fail 4

    Strange how another post on TS goes on about name calling and TM calls the PM a name that invokes linkage to a serial rapist. No wonder the middle class ignore the left? Disgraceful

    [r0b: please stick to one handle]

    • Craig Glen Eden 4.1

      I think you might be a little confused between Parnell puller and Parnell panther?
      Rudi Just failed Doh!

    • Um, there is a linkage, Rudi. Both men assaulted women. They’re both on the same misogynist continuum.

      However, if it comforts you, from now on we can just call Key ‘The Parnell’.

    • emergency mike 4.3

      Hmm but Rudi, is the other post you mention about name calling, or about name calling by our ‘higher standards’ PM? If TM was our PM instead of just a random guy on a blog, or had said something as stupid as like “the Parnell Puller should stop calling people names”, then you might have something to laugh about.

      But nah, so fail.

  5. Penny Bright 5

    If the Chief District Court Judge had ruled in favour of the hearing of oral evidence, then witness summonses would have been issued for those witnesses ruled critical to the proceedings, whose ‘heresay’ evidence would have then been turned into ‘admissible’ evidence.

    That’s what happened in the John Banks case.

    I know, because I was the ‘process server’ who personally served the witness subpoenas which resulted in Kim Dotcom, his former lawyer and bodyguard, and the CEO of Sky City into Court.

    In my view, the Chief District Court Judge should have followed the same process.

    I think you’ll find that this is not over ….

    Penny Bright

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

    • cricklewood 5.1

      Penny, that may be so but a genuine political case is a long way from a case of harassment or ‘male assualts female’ in such cases the victims wishes should be absolutely paramount. Dragging Amanda Bailey into a court room to give evidence against her wishes isnt that far removed from the harassment dished out by Key.
      Does either yourself or Mcready genuinely care are about the victim in this case and do you take into consideration any damage your actions may cause her?

  6. Penny Bright 6

    Graham McCready tried to contact Amanda Bailey.

    I passed on information to the Unite Union, regarding the legal process of this attempted ‘private prosecution’ – given the legal precedent that was made with Graham McCready’s private prosecution of John Banks.

    I also made the point, that on this matter, it was not Graham McCready, who was the ‘main enemy’ – as it were.

    Given that Amanda Bailey’s ‘side of the story’ was already well and truly in the public domain, having being published on Martyn Bradbury’s ‘Daily Blog’, all that would have been required would have been to turn the same information in ‘her story’ to a ‘sworn statement’?

    Good on Amanda Bailey for having the guts to go public on how she was repeatedly bullied, harassed, and assaulted by the Prime Minister John Key.

    What other customer goes into a cafe with a bevy of bodyguards who are sworn Police Officers, and whose job, as I understand it, is to protect the Prime Minister from ‘unwanted touching / harrassment / assault’ by any other person?

    The power imbalance could not be greater, in my opinion.

    What would have happened if Amanda Bailey had lashed out and hit the Prime Minister?

    Would these sworn Police Officers just have seen THAT as some sort of private social matter, and equally done nothing?

    Yeah right…..

    Penny Bright

    (Ex-waitress).

    • Chooky 6.1

      good points Penny….but Amanda does have to be on side for it to proceed….and this is a big ask of her

    • Anne 6.2

      Yes Penny. those are good points. The chances are: if Amanda Bailey had lost it and hit John Key I have no doubt she would have been arrested for assault. That she didn’t do so is a measure of the young lady and she deserves admiration not scorn. I hope she does take some sort of legal action – at the least against that awful woman, Rachel Glucina.

    • cricklewood 6.3

      I guess the issue is, that in a criminal trial, Amanda would have to take the stand as a witness for cross examination while John Key could retain his right to silence. Given his resources should he want to, he could draw out any process for a long period of time and this alone could take a serious toll on a victims ability to move on.
      I stand by my opinion that any action taken needs to be at the behest of Amanda not unilaterally taken for the ‘greater good’ by a self styled justice crusader.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts