EPMU appeal fails
August 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pm by David FarrarNational has failed in its application to judicially review the Electoral Commission’s decision to allow the EPMU to register as a third party. The decision is here – kirk-v-electoral-commission-anor-jmt-260808-jud_jtk_717.
The key clause is below:
The assessment of the effects of the membership and other rights which the Union has under the Labour Party Rules, and the making of a judgment as to whether these rights are such as to constitute involvement in the administration of the affairs of the party, are matters for the Commission. The Commission has clearly taken into account that the Union has the voting and nomination rights of a member.
The decision does not contain a detailed analysis of the rights. That is not required. There is no basis in the decision for a submission that the Commission has proceeded on a mistaken view as to the nature and extent of the rights under the Rules. This is not a case where the Commission has failed to take this relevant matter into account. It is not for the Court to substitute its view, based on its own assessment of the Rules. The question on this application for judicial review is not whether the Court would have reached the same conclusion. Rather, it is whether the Commission has reached a conclusion which is so clearly untenable as to amount to an error of law. The plaintiff has failed to meet that high hurdle, on this aspect of the case.
As Justice MacKenzie says the hurdle is high, and this does not mean the Court agrees with the Commission, just that the Commission appeared to consider all relevant issues. It is interesting that because the Electoral Commission did not give many details of the rationale for its decision, that makes it harder to argue they should be reviewed.
While I initiated the letter to the Electoral Commission, I am not the decision maker on the court cases, so don’t know if this is the end of the issue, or if National will appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Personally I am more interested now in the possible prosecution of the EMA Northern. You see reliable sources have told me that the total cost of their advertising campaign against the KiwiSaver law changes was in excess of $120,000. If this is so, then they would face prosecution for not an illegal practice, but a corrupt practice. The EMA Chief Executive could be jailed for up to three two years if found guilty. Yes, seriously.
Related posts:
- High Court hearing on Electoral Commission and EPMU
- EPMU allowed to register – again
- The decision in the EPMU case
- Electoral Finance Act in Court of Appeal today
August 28th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
New Zealand Justice System
Three years jail for speaking your opinion
One Years Home Detention for causing death by drunken driving
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Dumb law Dumb Judge Socialist Stooge
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Well, if he is jailed he will become a symbol of the evilness of this clark government. I ignore stupid laws made by stupid people too.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
But, but, but… The authors of the law only got a warning when they broke it. Surely the law of common sense will prevail and since the authors who have no excuse for not understanding it only got a warning…
Ooops, I forgot it’s not about common sense is it – it’s about a forth term at any cost. Dear Leader’s party cant be expected to follow the laws they write for everybody else now can they.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
burt When the REVOLUTION comes thats the first thing you and I are gonna change sunshine
ONE LAW FOR ALL
The battle cry of the FREEDOM FIGHTER
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
It is just amazing that the ad could be judged as coming under the Act in my view.
What this says, if allowed to proceed, is that you are restricted in the amount of money you can spend to publicly criticise a current government’s policy during election year. Milk republic indeed we are!~
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Shit Dear Leader better start building the gulags the new prisons won’t be big enough. These are truly seriously bent people we are now dealing with.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
It wont help labour. Everyonr knows they and th EPMU are joined at the hip and the more the EPMU spends on promoting labour the more people will get pissed off at both of them.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
National should make it clear that a law that restricts some people’s speech depending on their politics has no place in NZ. And that after the election there will be an amnesty for anyone prosecuted under this vile law. So people should feel free to use their freedom of speech, regardless of what the EFA says.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Good suggestion davidp.
Further to that – and I’ve asked it before – is re-painting of EPMU signage on EPMU vehicles counted as an election expense? And what if the same vehicle has to be re-painted several times?
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Considering the speed of the courts in New Zealand an appeal to the Court of Appeal would be a good option as the election would be over before a decision is made. That would stop the EPMU from advertising for Labour.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Where does the EPMU find the time to run advertising campaigns for Labour, what with the persecution of their own employees like Shawn Tan and their commitments to full time blogging at the VDS?
Vote: