Comments on: High Court hearing on Electoral Commission and EPMU

By: Murray

Murray — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:37:38 +0000

Where the hell are the Stalin cuddlers on this issue????

Speak up you leftist sycophants.

By: Grant Michael McKenna

Grant Michael McKenna — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:32:46 +0000

My thinking is that the definition of a political party- something surprisingly absent from law- will be clarified. We will also perhaps learn more about administrative review.

By: PaulL

PaulL — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:24:44 +0000

Grant, but are those precedents going to be of any use after the election, when the law is repealed? That is, are they findings that clarify broader law than just the EFA?

By: Grant Michael McKenna

Grant Michael McKenna — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:07:55 +0000

Why was the Shawn Tan situation not referred to, I wonder. As an aside- the term “reasonable” is used with two different meanings here. DPF correctly points out that the Court letting the decision stand may mean that the decision is one for which valid reasons can be adduced, even if the court disagrees with the law. Did National argue that it was “an unreasonable decision” in this sense, or do they mean that it is one with which they disagree?
It seems to me that the Electoral Commission’s decision was reasonable- but that it will be overturned by the Supreme Court seems to me probable, as being based on an error.
This will be a case creating significant precedents.

By: Adolf Fiinkensein

Adolf Fiinkensein — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:21:07 +0000

Are you saying that while Tony from Taneatua and Lynn from Tawa can see that the EPMU is welded lock solid at the hip to Labour, the courts will find that it isn’t?

By: Murray

Murray — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:00:05 +0000

And Little has announced screw the findings, we’re running an advertising campaign anyway!

So screw you pesants!

Helen will change the law again to make legal later – if we all stupid enough to put her in a position to do it of course.

By: MikeE

MikeE — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:57:26 +0000

Will the Shawn Tan situation be referred to?

[DPF: No it wasn't]

By: Mike Collins

Mike Collins — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:54:52 +0000

Any idea on when a decision will be reached and published?

[DPF: The Judge indicated he was aware of the importance of a timely decision. I would expect a decision early next week at the latest]

By: virtualmark

virtualmark — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:54:05 +0000

DPF, who was representing National?

[DPF: Peter Kiely and Daniel Erickson from Kiely Thompson Caisley, assisted by Junior Law Clerks 1 and 2 ]