Another defamation suit for the PM?
April 27th, 2005 at 2:24 pm by David FarrarHelen Clark has already lost, or had to pay out, on two defamation cases and may be facing a third. The Sunday Star-Times has confirmed Helen Clark as “the apparent source of alleged defamatory statements run by the newspaper” about former Police Commissioner Peter Doone.
It would seem incredible that a Prime Minister would backstab their Commissioner of Police in such a way. Regardless of what Doone did, he should not be tried by way of leaks to the media.
Rodney is already asking questions. Will be fun once the House resumes, and Helen is back in NZ.
No tag for this post.
April 27th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
What were the previous defamation cases? (I’m not questioning your statement, I was out of the country for the first Labour term and didn’t hear about them.)
I think it would be wiser for ACT and the Nationals to steer clear of this issue (they won’t of course). The matter is serious enough to really hurt the PM, but if Rodney et al get their fingers all over it this it will just look like another right-wing attack campaign.
This is an unfortunate side-effect of calling on the PM to resign every time there’s a cold-snap in the weather. When there’s a potentially serious scandal that, if proved correct, she SHOULD resign over, the oppositions outrage merely seems tedious and overdone.
Peter Doone is more than capable of fighting this one out on his own (he’s a Harvard law grad and former Fullbright scholar) without our incompetent opposition parties muddying the water.
Vote:April 27th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
The PM may not have been the source, and given that it involved a civil servant I frankly doubt the source was her, I cannot see her getting involved on that level. Politicians tend to deal only with politicians, nothing to be gained from this for her, the risks being all on the downside.
Vote:April 27th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
You seem to have missed this paragraph:
Vote:“However, he said Helen Clark was not the source of the story but rather someone the paper approached in the verification process.”
I wonder if accusing someone of defamation is defamatory?
April 27th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Dim – the other two were a surgeon and a killer!
Dim – the issue is not whether she defamed Doone, but whether she was back stabbing the Police Commissioner through the media, rather than letting the formal investigation go through its process. Civil servants will want to know if this is what is meant by a new standard of decency.
Tim – the PM has confirmed she verified the information to the SST. The verification was not based on direct knowledge but third hand information which it seems may have been false. She should not have anonymously commented at all on such a serious issue.
Vote:April 27th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
I have got real doubts that double hersay can be verification and if that is that standard the SST operates well why should we be surprised. It is a long bow to sue the PM, the Herald story castes some doubt on the PM’s involvement. But let us see what answer she gives Parliament. I would ask “Does the PM deny that she or her office provided verification to the SST story on Peter Doone.”
Vote:April 27th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Doone firstly says it was her, then says it wasn’t, his lawyer says it was, now it seems she only confirmed already incorrect information (but she may have confirmed it publicly, which might be her downfall).
Then DPF says: “The verification was not based on direct knowledge but third hand information which it seems may have been false.”
I can see it now, blame an official; say it’s all forgotten and issue a press release. It’s always someone else’s fault aye Helen.
Vote:April 27th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Johnie -
You are a darling boob. You do realise you’re quoting the Sunday Star Times’ own counsel, and they might not be exactly disinterested in not being implicated in any allegations that they published a libel by the Prime Minister against a senior civil servant? (And after the SIS scandal that wasn’t, a reasonable person might treat the SST with a very healthy scepticism on all matters concerning its sources for politically-sensitive stories.)
Of course, if SST editor Cate Brett will give up the source of the allegedly defamatory comments under oath that’s quite another matter. But I respectfully suggest you leave the lawyering to the QC who knows what he’s talking about.
Vote:April 27th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Is this the same Helen Clark who denounced the killing of a felon in Waitara as showing the racial bias of the Taranaki Police before she was told the cop was more maori than the felon…Incidentally Pete Doone was a pretty good cop . He may have been justifiably sacked for becoming addicted to the computor and sidetracking funds thereto,but the manner in which his services were finally dispensed with never sat easy with me,pity Bob Moodie was goat-farming at the time.
Vote:April 27th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Oh will y’all just leave her alone! I mean, she has been under a lot of stress lately, and her caucus will reprimand her and censure her too maybe. That is, of course, if what she allegedly said was on the record. It might have been an OTR leak/comment, so it’s the media’s fault, or Rodney Hide. In fact, he is causing a general drop in confidence in our esteemed leader because he raises issues like this. I wouldn’t be surprised if he is also to blame for the the business survey results too. Yes, it’s that bloody Rodney Hide again! Helen’s poo doesn’t smell.
Vote:April 27th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
johnie, you are defamatory even in you repeat a defamatory comment, errr, that’s why newspapers get sued.
But folks, once again WE will be paying for this.
How’s this for a solution, pay the guy what we would otherwise be paying lawyers and dispose of it once and for all.
As taxpayers, don’t we all just being Helen’s private legal aid fund?
Vote:April 28th, 2005 at 8:34 am
The Fuhrer Helen and her fascist spiteful supporters, the chickens are coming home to roost. They know they have lost and that is why they are so nasty.
Vote:April 28th, 2005 at 8:49 am
Tonto – you might want to take a look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law
Vote:April 28th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Tonto – You (or someone else called ‘Tonto’) posted a message on this blog two weeks ago claiming re the holocaust that the figures may have been exaggerated. What right have you to accuse anyone else of being a fascist?
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 10:11 am
The ultra-right have been called fascist by me as well however not on this message board. As for statistics/figures I have reservations about them in several fields. It was immoderate of me to make a reference about Helen in that last post. Please accept my apology.
Vote: