Keesing vs Sutton
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 am by David FarrarThe HoS reports that the Police are investigating brochures put out on the eve of the election by Nicholas Keesing, against Labour’s Epsom candidate Kate Sutton. Sutton Several Epsom residents complained to the Chief Electoral Officer, who has referred it to the Police.
Sutton is a former President of the Auckland University Students’ Association.
Now Keesing authorised the brochures he put out, so why is this a matter for the Police? If they are defamatory is this not a civil issue?
Section 199A of the Electoral Act 1993 says:
Every person is guilty of a corrupt practice who, with the intention of influencing the vote of any elector, at any time on polling day before the close of the poll, or at any time on any of the 2 days immediately preceding polling day, publishes, distributes, broadcasts, or exhibits, or causes to be published, distributed, broadcast, or exhibited, in or in view of any public place a statement of fact that the person knows is false in a material particular.
And what is the punishment for a corrupt practice. Under s224(1) it is up to two years in jail, and/or up to $40,000 fine.
If the Police prosecute, it will be up to a court to decide if the statements of facts in the brochure are false or not. For that reason, I would ask that people take care with their comments.
UPDATE: Have corrected story. Sutton did not complain. Several residents complained to the local Returning Officer who passed them on to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Tags: defamation, Electoral Act, Kate Sutton, Nick Keesing
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
What a tangled web we weave.
There’s a new sheriff in town now. The old rules do not apply. They definite won’t if the law is suddenly changed again by the new management.
Vote:November 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
Would there be any political statement from any party that couldn’t be challenged by the other as “false in a material particular”. What brain dead legislation. So typical of the ivory tower left.
Vote:November 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Nice of the HoS to tell us it’s a vicious smear, but not to reveal details of it so we can make up our own mind.
Vote:November 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I just do not think that Nicholas Keesing would do this to settle a six year old score. There must be something far more recent which triggered this.
Wonder if Nicholas is a crony of Aaron Bhatnager. Now Aaron is rather an expert on getting at people – he had been practicing on a couple of former Auckland City Councillors for the last three years. Banksy would have had rather a problem on his hands if those Councillors had retained the balance of power on the Council after last years local body elections.
[DPF: 10 demerits and you should know better Peter.]
Vote:November 23rd, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Nicholas bloody Keesing. This is pretty much par for the course, and I suspect has a lot to do with grudges from a long time ago, when Sutton was VP then Pres of AUSA. More recent things too? Possibly.
I’m sorry that Sutton has had to put up with this shit.
Vote:November 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
He sent an email to me (and presumably every other centre-right blogger) immediately before the election with an accusation against Sutton and a copy of the flyer that was distributed – it has a lot of innuendo and no hard evidence to back up the accusation.
Vote:November 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
This chap is from a little known Gypsy sect in the Freisian part of the Netherlands. They sound like pees (deliberate) in a pod.
Keesing
Kees Keiser
Wonder who and what the next one will be?
Klod Klondyke?
Vote:November 23rd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I think you will find Nick will relish the opportunity to put all this before a judge. If Sutton is smart she will beg Mr Plod to just drop the charges. Even if she wins she will lose.
Vote:November 24th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Now Keesing authorised the brochures he put out, so why is this a matter for the Police? If they are defamatory is this not a civil issue?
What are the requirements for them being authorised? Name and address?
Vote:November 26th, 2008 at 1:52 am
For the record
Vote:1. My open letter to Epsom residents regarding Ms Sutton, and associated statements are factual and I stand by the statements made.
2. My letter, in various versions was delivered to at least 70% of the electorate over the period covering 9 days prior to polling day, ceasing on the Friday before polling day.
3. Sutton has previously resisted my attempts to have the primary matter raised resolved in a court of law, yet now has the temerity to cry foul and suggest she may initiate defamation proceedings. I urge her to pursue this course; to have this matter resolved in court is an opportunity I relish.
4. As publicised in my open letter anyone wanting more info re what was made public can visit the website http://sites.google.com/site/katesuttoninfo