The Selwyn Electoral Petition
May 8th, 2009 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarLegal friends have forwarded to me the judgement of the Electoral Court – civ3089_08-payne-v-adams. To save people reading the full 42 pages (except Geddis and Knight), here are some key extracts:
This is the primary reason why National did not want a bar of Payne. Breaking a written undertaking is no small thing. In fact it normally leads to expulsion from the party, let alone precluding future candidacy.
Oh dear. Here the Justices fund Mr Payne misled the court.
No you did not misread this. Mr Payne has had 70 court hearings on other issues, and personally sued three Judges. I almost feel sorry for the three High Court Justices who made up the Electoral Court – he will probably now go after them.
The Court finds that Payne does not even have standing to bring an electoral petition. It is all over at this point, but for the sake of completeness the Justices helpfully make findings on several other issues.
This confirms that electoral petitions are about elections – not about internal party issues around candidate selections.
And here they concur with a previous court case that the National Party rules comply with the Electoral Act.
A private group such as the National Party is not required to have “natural justice”, as per public bodies. But here the Court rules that even if there was a natural justice test, the verto of Payne’s nomination did not breach the Act.
And here the Court finds that Payne lied on his nomination form, or as they put it “made untruthful and inaccurate statements”.
Usefully the Court also finds no evidence of wrongdoing by President Judy Kirk, Regional Chair Roger Bridge, and Electorate Chair John Skinner. The former two men especially have had their names dragged through the mud by Mr Payne.
And here we have the dismissal of the petition, the confirmation of Amy Adams as MP for Selwyn and a reservation over costs.
This has cost the National Party an immense amount of money – over an issue that was always doomed to failure. Sadly I suspect that no matter what damages the Court orders paid, the party will never actually see the money.
Arguably there was some minor good from the case – the rulings on electoral petitions and candidate selections under the Electoral Act are useful confirmations of the law.
Related posts:
- Selwyn Electoral Petition outcome at 2 pm
- Humour from the Selwyn Electoral Petition
- Selwyn Electoral Petition hearing starts today
- Payne ordered to pay costs to National
May 8th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
So the bottom line is Payne is a trolley case
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
DPF: “A private group such as the National Party is not required to have “natural justice”, as per public bodies.”
The emphasis is actually on the power exercised rather than whether the body is private or public (a subtle invite for Dean Knight to comment on the TV3 case)
Classically, political parties (statutorily recognised unincorporated groups) fall into the law of unincorporated associations – thus the remedies for procedural wrongs are theoretically based on the deprivation of some property right i.e. subscription fee or the like.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I suspect that the court would have bent over backwards to give Mr Payne a fair hearing. It looks like they were served up a lot of inuendo hearsay and baseless assertions during the course of the hearing. Seeing what Mr Payne has been up to I think that pursueing court awarded costs would be a wasted exercise even though they total on a rough toting up about $24,000. Mind you this figure will pale into insignificance compared to what Peter Keily actually charged the party.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
When you could have just gone online to read it?
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/payne-v-adams-ors/
[DPF: It can sometimes take a while for them to appear there]
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
What a nut bar!
If he stood for the Greens, they’d probably give him a high list placing.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Looks like a fair enough result.
I cannot understand the comment of Chris Diack however. What is he trying to say?
It looks like he is still trying to relitigate the 1993 Onehunga selection and his subsequent attempt to steal Labour party property. Perhaps he should give up, I cannot see him ever making Parliament.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Sounds like he genuinely believes the world is against him…
What’s the technical term, paranoid delusional or something?
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
CD:
Things are chaotic, so no time to comment. But in lieu:
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/dean_knight/Cassie_Knight_Scope.pdf
Vote:http://www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/dean_knight/Knight%20-%20Dunne.pdf
May 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
While Payne’s case certainly seems have been without merit, it is a serious flaw in our electoral law that the internal workings of parties cannot be the subject of a electoral position and nor are they required even to adhere to the rules of natural justice.
These aren’t the local craft circle, these are the institutions which select people to become our representatives. If that selection takes place in a safe seat, they are effectively selecting the Member of Parliament for that seat. If the party sustains any reasonable degree of popularity, in ranking its list it is effectively appointing other Members.
Yet this process need not be fair, open, meritorious, free of corruption, nepotism and ill-will and indeed (in the case of list ranking) can be the result of a intra-party vote being held, the results being ignored and destroyed, and persons instead selected on the basis of their corruptibility (as occurred with NZF in 1996) which amounts to a blatant fraud upon voters.
Parliament, ironically, our highest court. So why don’t we start appointing judges the same way? Go out and find the most craven, lickspittle bunch of would-be moral prostitutes and appoint them to the bench regardless of merit, then make their appointmant and their subsequent decisions unappealable. Because it’d be abhorrent, of course. Just as it is when it occurs in our electoral system.
Vote:May 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Rex,
Which is the greater danger – political parties being able to weed out people they clearly feel are unsuitable, or people like Mr Payne running the country..?
It’s a no-brainer as far as I’m concerned. My Payne is welcome to start his own political party or join another party – if anyone would have him.
Vote:May 9th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Mickeysavage:
Consider this a learning moment.
You don’t understand what I am trying to say because you are thick. And its not as if we have not established this before.
Breath deeply. Read my comment again… follow Dean Knight’s links. Read. Comprehend.
Then we will test you to see whether you have any talent for public law/Administrative law.
Vote:May 10th, 2009 at 7:05 am
It seems he was disbarred as a candidate anyway because of his bankruptcy which he was quite misleading about. But the Court decided to go on and give some authorative support for Justice Pankhurst’s judgment on natural justice issues and political parties. At least Payne did some public good in giving a Court a chance to make and clarify the law on some important areas regarding the law on political parties.
Vote: