National wins Selwyn court case
May 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pm by David FarrarI’ve just received a copy of the ruling in Payne vs National over the Selwyn selection and Mr Payne has lost the case, plus the Judge has lifted the injunction so the selection can now proceed even if Payne appeals.
The judgement is comprehensive and in brief it finds the rules do comply with the Electoral Act are are democratic.
There is also some interesting material on why Payne was found by the Board to be unsuitable. I will blog the pdf later today. About to chair a meeting from 3 pm to 5 pm so probably this evening.
The five candidates, pluss all the local members, will be very pleased that a selection meeting can now be held. I’m not sure when it will be, but suspect as soon as legally possible taking into account notice requirements.
Related posts:
- National reopens Selwyn nominations
- Selwyn selection delayed due to injunction
- Selwyn Electoral Petition outcome at 2 pm
- Payne ordered to pay costs to National
May 1st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Excellent news. What a waste of both the party’s and the candidates’ time.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
So lets see why all this happened.
The original slection was corrupted by the original chosen candidate – David Carter
The party gets hauled into court because its second go is undemocratic.
Lets hope payne has some generous benefactors to allow him to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court since this Judge is possible not as unbiased as may seem.
meanwhile Carter hides somwhere on the party list as the only preselected candidate to lose before the elction has even started.
A two time loser if there ever was one
[DPF: And 20 demerits for defaming the Judge. I prefer not to exposed to contempt of court thank you]
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Ouch! Highly defamatory!
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Sonic … lets just get it right old son, National was “hauled into court” (your words) by a candidate who welshed on his earlier written undertaking at the time of the 2003 election to support the duly elected candidate and then didn’t have the nouse to understand why the Board took the view that a man whose written pledge was worthless was not a fit and proper person to go forward to pre-selection.
Now we know your Party doesn’t have a problem with liars standing as candidates (hells bells, to do otherwise would bar the entire Labour caucus) but some of us have higher standards.
BTW … will be interested to see if Payne was done for costs.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Ghostie
Looking at it another way, the original candidate withdrew or was stood down because he was resented by local party members.
On the second go, the party was subject to an injunction, which was lifted as soon as the matter could be examined by a judge. In other words, the process complied with party rules, which in turn complied with the Electoral Act. It was not found by the courts, (who, unlike you, have seen the evidence) to be undemocratic.
You may not like it when the Nats win a court case, but that is no excuse for a personal attack on the judge. Given your track record of ill-informed abuse, I shouldn’t have expected anything else.
Now, where is D4J to explain how it is all a conspiracy….
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
At least when National Party people may have broken the law they get to plead their case before a Judge. When Liarsparty people break the law it is “may have committed an offence but is not in the public interest to charge them”.
Two sets of rules? Course not, lets move on.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Why did Carter step down if he was totally blameless ?
has carter corrupted the original selection ?
Didnt stop him from weaseling onto the party list.
So dont go saying MPs or candidates are all pure, its just he got caught this time
Why has the judge rushed this case through . Has he ever been a member of the national party?
And others may see a blackballing by party bosses as democratic, and the judge has played politics to agree others dont see it that way.
If the candidate didnt comply with the selection criteria why did his name go forward to the next stage where he was blackballed in smoke a filled room by shadowy party bosses.
Surely national has a rigourous list to sort the criminals and the insane along with others who have stood against the party before… wait there is a large number of current selected candidates who have been in parliament for a different party so thats no bar to the next stage
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 5:38 pm
GWW said “Surely national has a rigourous list to sort the criminals and the insane along with others who have stood against the party before”
They do GWW – unlike Labour where criminality is a distinct advantage in the selection process!
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“Why has the judge rushed this case through . Has he ever been a member of the national party?”
I’m no lawyer Ghosty but I reckon you are getting close to contempt of court there. I hope you are one of the “rich prick” lefties like all your glorious leaders so you can afford a good defence. Lets face it the labour party can’t afford to pay for your defence. Still foot soldiers are expendable after all.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Shit ghostie, you sound like you were there in the room – tell us more!
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Ignore Ghost – he is a parasite and a thread-jacker. Do not give parasites oxygen.
On the plus side the selection process can move forward without some ego driven legend in his own lunch time wanker.
I was thinking the other night is it feasible that National will have to appoint up to 70 candidates for the election given their very strong polling. I suppose national are in the fortunate position of actually being able to select quality candidates rather than the Labour party who seem doomed to being only able to select people with a union background. ((Being Gay is also helpful)
On reflection – Payne with attributes such as ego driven, arrogant, nasty, generally hated – wouldn’t he be better suited to the Labour Party. Was he in fact a Labour Party stooge placed to disrupt the National machine just rolling on?
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 7:42 pm
GWW3 said (referring to the Judge and let us for the sake of the arguement put aside the question whether our resident Labour apologist might just be in contempt of court) “Has he ever been a member of the national party” …
answer, possibly yes and so what. Good men and true have the ability to put aside their private personal beliefs and administer justice based on the facts put before them.
But then Ghostie, youn wouldn’t know much about that would you?
Best sport around watching you and yours endeavouring to swim against an ever faster flowing ebb tide.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
And yet you don’t delete it
[DPF: To quote the Electoral Commission, I wish to use it as an educational example for others
]
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“On reflection – Payne with attributes such as ego driven, arrogant, nasty, generally hated – wouldn’t he be better suited to the Labour Party. Was he in fact a Labour Party stooge placed to disrupt the National machine just rolling on?”
Still anyone who criticised Connell cant be all bad!
Vote: