Whale’s trial
August 25th, 2010 at 3:36 pm by David FarrarTv3 have a live blog of proceedings at Whale Oil’s trial. Well not quite live, as Judge Harvey has placed a ten minute delay on tweeting and reporting, in case evidence has to be suppressed.
Judge Harvey is probably the Judge who is the most knowledgeable on Internet issues. I’m not sure if he volunteered for the trial, or was given it as punishment 
Some extracts:
Judge Harvey describes Whale Oil’s blogs as like a shotgun blast, it hits the person and then other people he doesn’t want to hit.
Heh, not a bad analogy.
Mr Slater is sitting at the back of the courtroom; wearing his usual white long-sleeve shirt with dark blue sleeves. He is bearded, arms folded and watching the trial unfold with apparent nonchalance. He writes the occasional note on his hands but remains impassive.
Heh. I look forward to seeing the TV.
Ms Murray asks him about articles he posted about the Olympian. He says he wrote an article about celebrity name suppression and said he published some pictures to go with the article for ‘interests sake’. He says they were ‘interesting pictures’ and says people have had guesses at what they meant. He says ‘they could mean anything’. It was one image that contained four images. He says he doesn’t believe the Olympian should have name suppression because he is a ‘violent criminal’. He says he understood that no one was able to publish his name, age or occupation. He says he did not mention his occupation nor his age nor his name. He says he quoted from the NZ Herald and put up a random image – ‘you can take it anyway you want’.
The court judgement will be very interesting.
August 25th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Cameron has my full support,you are a real blog poster ,not a lolly water lover
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Although I am 100% the Whale on this, I find it bizarre that the trial has gone all day and by the looks of it thus far will continue.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
“Judge Harvey has placed a ten minute delay on tweeting and reporting, in case evidence has to be suppressed.”
Which Team Salter will of course oppose?
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Without having been there, I can’t know for certain, but this seems highly unlikely. The evidence was over before lunch. They’re focusing on legal submissions, and Whale’s lawyer has finished his turn (which was first). Over today. Decision quite quickly, I would imagine.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Over today. Decision quite quickly, I would imagine.
Perhaps even by September 14.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
“Mr Burns says he feels the debate has turned from an argument over the bill of rights to minute arguments over law. ”
Bah, legal submissions, legal argument – it’s a pity the court can’t just ask (and get) an honest explanation of the defendant’s intention.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
I like Whaleoil/Cameron and correspond with him from time to time. But I think he’s fucking up here. If he’s on a crusade to agitate for change, his reponse should be “I posted the pictures to tell people the name because I think name suppression is wrong.” Tiptoeing around with “they’re just interesting pictures” makes him look like he’s afraid of getting in trouble.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Given that WO didn’t actually give evidence, and I can’t say that surprises me, the only option that Mr Thwaites has to is address the court on the legal issues such as they are, technical point by technical point. Tedious I know, but when it’s the only arrow in the quiver you have to use it.
As DPF notes Judge Harvey is one of the smartest and most technologicaly savvy Judges on the District Court Bench. I would pick that he would have been beating down the door of the administrative judge in Auckland to have this trial allocated to him.
Personally I think that Mr Thwaites has his work cut out for him, but you can never tell.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I agree SHG, he seems to have parked the “crusade for the right to know” and is now driving the semantic squirms. I guess it’s common human nature. Blogging in private is different to fronting up in semi-public, face to face is different to seeing your reflection in your screen.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Pete George suggests:
But noble intent is no defence to anything, alas. Oh, unless you’re a radical lefty and your target is Waihopai. Then it’s a case of “go for your life”.
IMO intent ought to be a defence in many more instances rather than a point of mitgation at sentencing. But I find it offensive that the one time it’s been used successfully (and thus reduced the chances of anyone else being able to claim it) was in that particular instance, where the action taken was ultimately purely symbolic and not even effective.
Heh. I got this image of Whale doing a Palin… checking his cuffs in the witness box… “innocent”… “scumbags don’t deserve suppression”… “call him Your Honour and not ‘listen here, ferret features’” etc
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Slater seems to think he is above the law. I understand such viewpoints go hand in hand with his form of mental illness.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
It is illuminating to read some of the ‘he shoulda done this or said that’ comments here. Perhaps it’s just possible that he was doing as he was told by his lawyer!
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
“Slater seems to think he is above the law. I understand such viewpoints go hand in hand with his form of mental illness.”
As opposed to your view point which is that of an utter twat!
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I find it strange that there are people who I’m not allowed to talk about, but no one has told me who those people are. How can ignorance of the law be no excuse when the law is secret? Surely there must be a publicly available list of people who, if you talk about them, you’ll be charged? This is like the Soviet Union where you could spend years talking about (say) Trotsky, then one day you’d mention his name and find yourself on a train to Siberia without knowing why.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Did Kermadec Crunchy-Wasp give evidence?
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Rex, you raise an interesting point regarding whether colour of right would have been a defence to him in the circs – ie the nature of the crimes, alleged or proven to have been committed by those afforded name supression.
Can the legal beagles throw any light on this? I don’t know if its being pleaded.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Suppression orders are used way too freely. This is a timely case in airing the whole issue. Good luck Whale Oil.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
lots of slater lovin’ going on right here. I feel like I am the only one who really doesn’t give a toss.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
I’d love to see the slobbering blogger lose everything…but an insurance comapny has already done that to him. LOL.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Well he got the right Judge. Harvey is known to be most technology-savvy and he makes some interesting reasoning sometimes. If anyone is going to see Cam’s point, it’s him.
However, courts for some reason aren’t amused at all in anyway when it comes to not respecting their rules.
“lots of slater lovin’ going on right here”
You make it sound so dirty, puppet.
“I’d love to see the slobbering blogger lose everything…”
Yeah we know. How do you live with yourself?
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
@ MNIJ – fuck off, you arsehole.
Sorry DPF; if you feel the need to award demerits I’ll cop them sweet. MNIJ deserves whatever he gets.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Mr Burns is a disgrace to the family name and MNIJack Wacko is a big steaming pile of dog shit.
Vote:Go Whale.
August 25th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Why did one of the lawyers have a cat sitting on his head? Surely that should be considered contempt of court.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Its probably a disappointment to many of Whale’s lovers (DPF, D4J, Muzza et al) to see their hero turn his back on his original noble cause of civil disobedience and focus on technicalities as an out. I believe the crazy fat bastard originally had his sights set on a justice system that would ‘lie down’ when he wouldn’t.
Brilliantly interesting, whatever the result I’ll be glad to see the back end of WO, and not for the same reasons as his aforementioned admirers.
Vote:August 25th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
“…and not for the same reasons as his aforementioned admirers.”
Would those reasons include you being a complete and utter vagina, Bed Rater? In which case, it would actually include “the same reasons as his aforementioned admirers.”
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 12:15 am
IV2 was going to say the same thing to MNJ myself. This is very interesting litigation as I suspect it will for the first time (in the first instance at least) let us know what bogs really are. Are they indeed just like a chat at the bus stop between someone with something on his/her mind and anyone who cares to listen, or are they “publications”, I hope it is the former, otherwise I shall be much more temperate.
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 12:35 am
In fact now that I’ve thought about it some more, the implications of this case are huge. If blogs do in fact turn out to be “publications” I think I will conduct political disention the old fashioned way, notes on toilet walls. Just for safety reasons. I don’t want some court hunting me down by way of an IP address to call me into question over some view I might have expressed electronically rather than on the wall of a public convienience.
Vote:August 26th, 2010 at 8:17 am
@ MNIJ – fuck off, you assehole.
Vote: