Costs against Ambrose
December 28th, 2011 at 10:29 pm by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
The Government’s demand for court costs from cameraman Bradley Ambrose can only be seen as “political vindictiveness”, according to political analyst Dr Bryce Edwards.
The Attorney-General has filed a memorandum in the High Court at Auckland seeking $13,669.45 in costs from Mr Ambrose after the freelancer sought a declaration from the High Court on whether the “tea tape” conversation was private.
I disagree with Bryce on this one, and think he has overlooked a crucial factor.
First of all I would note that no one forced Mr Ambrose to file a lawsuit. He chose to do so, and presumably knew the chance of success was minimal, as a ruling would have undermined the Police investigation. Lawyers I spoke to said the chance of success was less than 1%, and he would have known this.
Otago University political analyst Dr Bryce Edwards told Newstalk ZB the almost $14,000 request is a small amount for the Government, and it was legitimate for Mr Ambrose to try to get a declaratory judgment on whether the conversation recorded between John Key and John Banks was private.
Dr Edwards felt the demand smacks of revenge.
It is standard to seek costs when someone files a lawsuit which forces you to respond, and they lose.
I suspect Bryce sees this as big nasty Government trying to screw over a struggling camera man. But there is no way Ambrose is paying for the court costs. Mediaworks, beyond doubt, bankrolled his court case and will pay the costs, if granted.
Mediaworks is a large commercial company, owned by an even larger one. I see no reasons why the taxpayer should subsidise them, through not claiming costs.
Related posts:
- Bradley Ambrose
- Legal Challenge re Election Spending
- Payne ordered to pay costs to National
- NZ Politics Daily
December 28th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Im suspect that this comment by Bryce shpws his own leanings.
The reality is that Ambrose broke the law and is having to deal with that.
Vote:Personally I don’t care if he gets fined $1 or $10K, but he must be fined if only to set the standard for the rest of the buggers.
Good on John Key on this one.
I’d send him my $10 to support it if it was needed, next time it could be you or me.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Dr Edwards ‘knows’ this in his head.
Vote:Can he give any factual basis to his claim. He hasn’t offered any so far.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
“… the almost $14,000 request is a small amount for the Government”
The Government’s money is our money, Citizens and taxpayers all. Any Government that would not collect money in such a case would be a bad steward of our interest. A point lost on Dr. Edwards, it seems.
Vote:December 28th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Fair points, DPF. Perhaps I was commenting on something well outside my field when I was on Newstalk ZB this morning.
But nonetheless, my belief that the Solicitor General’s decision to go after Ambrose for the $14k appears vindictive is based on the extradinary political context that the whole decision exists within. You have to remember that this was no ordinary courtcase but actually a heavily electorally/politically important one – it was the main political issue in the lead up to the election. And John Key was in my view incredibly hostile and aggressive towards the media and Ambrose over the issue. So to then have the Auditor-General (under the decision of the Solicitor General) decide to go after Ambrose just looks heavily political. So even if the Solicitor General did not make the decision with any political interference from the Prime Ministers Office, it appears to me to be lacking in judgment.
What’s more, John Key and the National Government have shown a rather hostile orientation towards members of the media that have been stringently critical of the government – seen in the ad hominems thrown at journalists like Jon Stevenson and Nicky Hager. In my view, this context suggests a rather unheathy attitude towards the media in which no one would be particularly surprised if it led to vindictive and chilling responses to people like Ambrose.
Vote:December 28th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
But we subsidised Mediaworks to the tune of 40 mil in deferred payments, DPF. And not a rogue cameraman in sight!
Anyway, Bryce, don’t worry, this is well outside DPF’s field too – which is actually disseminating National Party propaganda in return for a juicy polling contract.
[DPF: And that's 30 demerits for lying]
Vote:December 28th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
No harm in a bit of utu under the circumstances I’d have felt.
Now what’s happened to the police investigation?
Vote:December 28th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
And you’ve overlooked one thing, DPF: this was a meeting between the Leader of the National Party and an ACT Party candidate. No particularly great reason for the Crown Law Office to be involved; they might represent the PM, but this had nothing to do with the office of the PM: this was John Key. If John Key or the National Party have legal expenses, they may wish to seek costs, entirely properly, using standard principles as you note.
Vote:December 28th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Now Simon, are you sure you are not getting confused here?
The National Party is not the Crown, neither is the PM.
Sorry, JK.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 12:28 am
Can someone tell me why the Crown has to be involved in this? I assume the Crown Law office had some involvement. Why couldn’t Key or Banks get their own lawyers?
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 12:49 am
Can someone tell me why the Crown has to be involved in this? I assume the Crown Law office had some involvement.
Someone was seeking a court ruling that would undercut a police investigation; Crown Law and the Solicitor-General are generally interested when that happens.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 5:55 am
Bryce Edwards (243) Says
You have to remember that this was no ordinary courtcase but actually a heavily electorally/politically important one – it was the main political issue in
Totally wrong, it was in fact a very ordinary court case,what brought it to the fore was a media organization attempting to influence an election with supposition and innuendo. And as for it being the main main political isssue, please.
Ambrose was just being an old fashioned smart arse and lost, move along.
Bleating about a supposed anti media bias in the governemnt , again please,we have just endured the shoddiest election campaign in my memory with the media constantly printing half truths as facts . it was a shocker. What needs to happen is the media needs to clean up its act, the public are not interested in the opinions of 24 year old ‘journalists’ , facts are what they want.
The media are not special, they are charged to tell the truth, when political bias comes to the fore like it did during this campaign they cease to be the media but an advertising agency.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 6:17 am
I agree with the above. I’m getting sick of elections getting hijacked by ‘shock-horror’ revelations which are championed by the media and which magically result in strange election outcomes.
‘I didn’t know it was switched on.” O puleeze.
Still ran with it even though it was a non-story and gave ‘details’ of it to the likes of Winston Peters. This was the media tampering with the democratic process, rather than championing ‘robust’ media.
Fine the smart-arsed gits, I say.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 6:22 am
Completely agree with Pauleastbay.
It actually wouldn’t surprise me if Key had decided before the election campaign that if the media played silly buggers (yet again, this is the third time in a row where they only target National, funny that) that he simply wouldn’t play ball.
Further, it was a non event. No one in NZ could give a damn about what was said about Don Brash. It was extraordinary seeing the feeding frenzy going on into something no one, outside the foot stamping, listen to us PM we make the news media cared about.
So in my view, he wasn’t “hostile” to the media, he simply recognised that as this was the third time they had used dirty tricks against National that he had to draw the line, and correctly calculated that almost everyone in NZ agreed with him.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 6:43 am
Lol “Nicky Hager a journalist”. As for the rest. He took a court case and lost. Doesn’t matter who was on the other side, costs are due.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 6:44 am
If Key and Banks hadn’t been playing silly buggars and promoting this media extravaganza with the Press this situation would not have occurred.
I was told the PM”s special security personel ushered the Press out of the room and the reporter could not recover his tape deck from the table.
He subsequently uplifted it hence the Tea Tapes.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 6:59 am
Given Winston used these tapes to good effect, maybe he could pay the costs. After all, he has 158k lying around in a trust somewhere?
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 7:05 am
rakuraku. Bradley Ambrose, left his tape deck on the table turned on, which in turn sent information to his camera outside. He rushed down the road to the NZ Herald, with the tape deck information. If this Ambrose was not guilty, then he would not of gone and given the media what they wanted. He would of returned it all to Mr Key, and that would of been the end of it. He is paying the price, for his dishonesty, and should have the book thrown at him. I have no sympathy for a underhanded creep. It was a private conversation, if it wasn’t then why would all the creep journalists be wanting to get a piece of it. I am delighted that the PM is making this Ambrose responsible for his action.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 7:29 am
The Mediaworks approach is illustrated here:
Hate is a very strong word. But I hate people in major media organisations who claim to be journalists but who go on personal crusades and try and pass it off as news.
I thought journalism was about reporting what happens, and investigating things and providing coverage of what is discovered.
The tea cup and ‘dirty deals’ stories showed what journalists often do. They choose a story and they find – and create – whatever they can to promote and build their own narrative. Objectivity and balance are disregarded as they try to score their own hits.
This sort of thing happens frequently, but when it is done to try and hijack an election campaign it is a major blot on our democratic process – far worse than electorate deals and private conversations.
“Whatever happened to playing in the spirit of the game?” Our democracy is more than just a game to those outside journalism.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 7:34 am
While I dislike this Ambrose character, you make many assumptions . Do you know Ambrose’s lawyer said the chance of success were low? Ambrose is an independent contractor, I wouldn’t be so sure a struggling mediaworks will cover his costs at all.
The governments costs were silly too –$1300 in airfares? Why didn’t they find a local lawyer similarly to ambrose? The govt took no care in keeping their costs down as a normal person paying the bill would do so.
Regardless, the price of justice has become too high to pursue justice.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 7:37 am
Ambrose went to the High Court, which rejected his request to make a call on whether the conversation was private or public.
After the ruling, police searched a number of media organisations.
– stuff.co December 5
So I am getting old and can’t actually remember if Ambrose did get a decision for the money he is now asked to pay.
Vote:Stuff.co doesn’t seem clear either.
December 29th, 2011 at 7:43 am
Chief High Court Judge, Justice Helen Winkelmann, rejected Ambrose’s request saying she would not interfere with a police inquiry.
– http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6197407/14-000-demanded-from-tea-tape-cameraman
OK, so there it is then.
Vote:Perhaps Ambrose should now take a case to the Commerce Department – against a product that didn’t perform to reasonable expectation.
No decision – no payment
December 29th, 2011 at 8:06 am
PG
I thought journalism was about reporting what happens, and investigating things and providing coverage of what is discovered.
The ‘journalistas’ and the media aren’t remotely interested in reporting the news anymore (and haven’t been for some time). They are interested in shaping the news, and your perception of the world.
Vote:First they pick the stories that they want you to see, read or hear, than they amplify the facts that fit their worldview, omit-distort the facts that contradict that view and find a biased source to back it up. It is now so bad that ‘journalistas’ who want to make a name for themselves not only feel entitled to present their personal opinion as ‘the news’, but are also entitled to their own facts and instead of merely reporting the news are now making the news.
December 29th, 2011 at 8:34 am
Bryce – if I was on the receiving end of a law suit and the guy suing me lost, i would expect my lawyer to so after ‘scale’ costs at least. If he said “I am not going after costs as this would be ‘vindictive’ “, I would be off to the Law Society. As a long suffering taxpayer I expect Crown Law to seek such costs even though it may be ‘vindictive’. Bear in mind too that if Bradley had prevailed and the ‘tape’ could have been released before the election he would have hit a financial jackpot.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 8:41 am
At the very least, we should expect neutrality in the observances of political scientists – yet Dr Edwards’ leanings are patently obvious which renders his outlook invalid.
No matter that Ambrose “accidentally” left his recording gizmo on – and no matter that he sought improperly to cash in on the details of the private conversation he’d thus acquired – now that he’s discovered his actions have a cost – somehow it’s an outrage.
As always, the Left seems to live in a fault-free fairy land where whatever results from harsh reality can be blamed on convenient monsters.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 8:52 am
TV3 have added their balanced thoughts on it:
Which will all add to the costs. Ambrose must have initiated legal action knowing it couldn be costly.
Even if that is true the passing on of the recording to media was not inadvertent. He thought he could make money out of it, and could pay a high price.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 8:52 am
Bryce Edwards says:- “led to vindictive and chilling responses to people like Ambrose”
The problem here is the fact that the Attorney General Chris Finlayson is a National Party minister, so there is a perceived conflict of interest regardless of the fairness of the decision.
Would have been a better look had the Solicitor General filed the memorandum. Perhaps he didn’t want to for some reason….
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 9:06 am
“political analyst Dr Bryce Edwards”, yeah right.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 9:29 am
Pauleastbay says it well: “Ambrose was just being an old fashioned smart arse and lost, move along….. The media are not special, they are charged to tell the truth, when political bias comes to the fore like it did during this campaign they cease to be the media but an advertising agency.”
Ambrose was just a politically motivated freelance cameraman who tried it on and it backfired. And in his case, its not his first experience in falling over his own feet but now its time for him to pay the bills. Unlucky.
And media bias during this campaign was totally exposed – The Herald / TV3 in particular were merely lapdog mouthpieces for the left. And they totally deserve the ridicule that continues to be directed their way. Any credibility once attributed to these outfits (and their editorial staff) has been blown out of the water.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 9:47 am
Scott Chris – The Solicitor General did on behalf of the Attorney General. The Attorney General was merely the Crown’s figurehead in this matter and would not have even been consulted. Since the case was part of a police operational matter, the Attorney General would keep his personal nose out of it anyway.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 9:47 am
Mr Ambrose argues that he took the proceedings in order to clear his name. One has to treat that with a certain degree of scepticism. He filed an urgent application which he managed to get on for hearing on 2 days notice. As I understand it, there was only one affidavit filed in opposition – it was enough to illustrate that there was a contest on facts. That contest could never have been resolved without a judge seeing the witnesses and without cross-examination. Ambrose was clearly the primary mover in the way in which the proceedings were brought to court and in the nature of the hearing.
There was never any prospect of the court “clearing his name”. That should have been apparent to all concerned.
More recently, his lawyer announced that he had brought the application so that Ambrose could protect his ability to work as a subcontractor. The statement is somewhat equivocal. Possibly deliberately so. On one interpretation, the motive appears to be a purely commercial. Ambrose had a marketable commodity and would t paydirt if he could get his declaration. If his motives were purely commercial then there can be no justification for denying costs. He went on to the proceedings with a view to making money, lost and needs to pay the consequences. That happens to every litigant.
I think we also have to consider the fact that it was Ambrose who wanted the hearing at short notice. This lends weight to the commercial motivation – the events occurring so close to the election. It also lends weight to the suggestion that his proceedings were funded by a media organisation. If the application was successful then the tapes would have been released. That would have suited Media Works motives admirably.
In my view, the application was a “try-on”. The whole proceeding was tailored to ensure that some form of decision was reached before the election. It was geared to an early result rather than a result that would clear Ambrose’s name. The whole matter reeks of commercial expediency.
I agree with Bryce when he says that it was legitimate for Ambrose to apply for a declaration. However, the way in which it was presented suggests that an early outcome rather than a considered outcome was the overriding priority. It was also open to other parties to oppose it and, having won, seek reimbursement of part of the costs. They may well relish an order for costs but that is irrelevant.
I also acknowledge that the Prime Minister was hostile towards the media. In my view, his position was justifiable – he had been secretly taped after the news media had been cleared from the immediate area. Key took a strong and principled line here. He did not kowtow to the media and he knew that there would be a hostile reaction as a result. That reaction followed. Key drew a line in the sand. Overall, his position was met with general approbation
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 9:50 am
“The problem here is the fact that the Attorney General Chris Finlayson is a National Party minister, so there is a perceived conflict of interest regardless of the fairness of the decision.”
I agree with Peterwn’s response to this comment. But even if the response was not valid, how on earth could there be a conflict of interest?
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 9:57 am
DPF, stick to your holiday mate. You’ve dropped the ball well and truly with this defence.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:17 am
The left’s patsies in chronological order:
Last election: Hager
This election: Ambrose
Next election: ????????
Note to Mallard – next time round pick someone that actually has some brains!
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Ambrose rolled the dice here & lost end of story. Even if the recording was unintentional he lost all claims to innocence by peddling said tapes to the highest bidder. And spare me all the bullshit about “feeding his family” etc etc. Mediaworks have the chequebook out for this one.
If Bradley Ambrose is looking for sympathy it’s in the dictionary between “shit” & “syphillis”.
Let Winston pay it. I doubt he’d even be back on the public teat if it wasn’t for Ambrose & the teapot tapes.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:19 am
“The governments costs were silly too –$1300 in airfares?”
Quite…maybe the lawyers can argue among themselves about what’s a fair and reasonable expense. But then the Crown may want to recover the cost of such an argument.
I recall a few years back asking for information from Crown Law. They said they’d be happy to provide it to me provided I pay them $10,000. Who said Crown law was unreasonable?
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:20 am
“If Bradley Ambrose is looking for sympathy it’s in the dictionary between “shit” & “syphillis”.”
Haha …. Brilliant, mickrodge.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:27 am
“Let Winston pay it. I doubt he’d even be back on the public teat if it wasn’t for Ambrose & the teapot tapes.”
Don’t forget DPF’s contribution. His obsession with Winston certainly didn’t hinder NZF.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Nicky Harger a journalist? He writes fantasy fiction, doesn’t he?
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:40 am
That’s Hager, Brian, and rhymes with lager.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:43 am
nookin says:- “how on earth could there be a conflict of interest?”
Conflict of political interests not legal interests. I think that is the source of Edwards’ unease even though, as you state, Ambrose’s motivation in seeking a declaration was financially motivated and he should rightfully bear its cost.
I was merely alluding to the excerpt DPF posted from the herald story which stated that:
“The Attorney-General [insert: National Party MP Chris Findlayson] has filed a memorandum in the High Court at Auckland seeking $13,669.45 in costs from Mr Ambrose”
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:54 am
The media (circa 2011) , Mr Ambrose, Scottie Chrissie, Mr Edwards et al…..,.
HOW TO BEST DESCRIBE THEM?
In all the circumstances, they certainly bark like like poorly trained left wing attack dogs.
But please remember: When a dog urinates on a parking meter he is not being a vandal. He is just being a dog.
Hopefully Winklemann J. will clean up their “ACT”.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:57 am
You only need to see John Key’s response to Jon Stephenson’s research to know how vindictive and nasty he is. Key will make shit up if he has to. Bryce Edwards is right to question the government’s motives.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1105/S00056/state-of-it-pms-shoot-the-messenger-attack-a-smokescreen.htm
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 10:59 am
@Bryce Edwards: DPF said:
“First of all I would note that no one forced Mr Ambrose to file a lawsuit. He chose to do so, and presumably knew the chance of success was minimal, as a ruling would have undermined the Police investigation. Lawyers I spoke to said the chance of success was less than 1%, and he would have known this.”
DPF’s comments accurately reflect the circumstances of the action taken by Mr Ambrose who initiated the action without fully comprehending the outcome. The Courts have to submit to due process and cannot engage in a dispute without fully investigating the evidence in order to be fully aware of the facts prior to making a decision.
Mr Ambrose’s action was reckless, there are two parties to the dispute and in this case the Attorney General was fully within his rights to prepare a defence to the allegations made by Mr Ambrose for consideration by the Courts.
DPF also says:
“It is standard to seek costs when someone files a lawsuit which forces you to respond, and they lose.”
Mr Ambrose may find that a further order for costs may be also made at a later date as the case proceeds.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 11:04 am
ross, your overt dislike of John Key and anything to do with the National led government, is well known. After all, its repeated ad nauseum on Kiwiblog.
If the PM gave you a Rolex for Christmas, you’d bleat long and hard because it wasn’t the model with diamonds.
You’re simply a moaning, bleating, typically myopic leftard. You really need to get out more.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Who cares what Bryce Edwards thinks anyway? The media call him an expert but put up no evidence from him that this was anything more than standard procedure to seek costs. There is no evidence produced that the politicians are even involved, why would they be? I think Edwards is an idiot, he is a media darling at the moment because he is left wing and says bad things about the Govt.
Vote:Alas we have a pretty dumb media who fall for this stuff. I wonder why no one in the media asked Ambrose who is paying his bills and would he have sought costs had he won?
The media have nothingt o fear from the Govt as long as they abide by the law, when they break the law they should be dealt to like everyone else.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:10 am
@ross
Key will make shit up if he has to.
“As the Prime Minister publicly attacked Jon Stephenson, Scoop subsequently went direct to Stephenson for his response. Scoop can confirm that the attack by the Prime Minister – along with statements made by Rhys Jones, the chief of defence force – will possibly be the subject of legal action. Stephenson today confirmed he is seeking legal advice in that regard.”
And after 8 months, still no legal action……
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 11:17 am
Ambrose sought Judgement, which he lost. Edwards is a typical tax paid university jerk.
Vote:Taxpayers paid the costs of the action and have now sought recompense.
What’s wrong with that ? Why should I pay these costs ?
Ambrose says it was an accident, judgement says not. Why then did the typical smartarse sell the tapes, for which I believe he was well paid by TV3 and HOS.
I see Phiily the Goof has climbed in – would be better if he disappeared, but typically like Edwards cannot breath through their noses.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:47 am
“Ambrose says it was an accident, judgement says not.”
What judgment are you referring to, Paulus? There hasn’t been a judgment on the matter.
“Why should I pay these costs?”
You pay the Crown’s costs every day of the week….why should this case be any different? By the way, David Bain says he is most grateful for your contribution to his legal costs.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
For the last financial year, Crown Law’s expenses were forecast to be $65.9 million while its income was expected to be $65.0 million, a short fall of $900,000.
http://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/uploads/ffs10.pdf
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Peter Cresswell from Not PC blog had this to say:
Some propositions on privacy — does a ‘right to privacy’ exist?
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
@Ross
There has been a judgment. The Court declined to make the declaration. The Court did not make any finding as to the motives of Ambrose when taping. It could not and did not have to. The question was whether the conversation was private.
If TVworks was not in on the act, why was it at the hearing, replete with QC, pushing for immediate release because there was an election happening?
I think the following passage from the judgment sums it up ( It is part of the Court’s summary of Ambrose’s position)
“The criminal investigation will not be concluded before the election, and this will mean that the release of the recording will be delayed past the point that it has value in terms of public debate.”
In otherwords $$$$$$$ were available to Ambrose before the election and nothing available after the election. Even TVworks said that the existence of an election was justification for an order that would, in the ordinary course of events, be objectionable.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Totally wrong, it was in fact a very ordinary court case,what brought it to the fore was a media organization attempting to influence an election with supposition and innuendo. And as for it being the main main political isssue, please.
Ambrose was just being an old fashioned smart arse and lost, move along.
Well said PaulEastBays.
Costs generally follow the event. Ambrose and others seem to think that they are somehow exempt from the laws of the land.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
The only thing more ludicrous than attempting to pass Nicky Hager off as ‘just another journalist’ (LOL), is the general media’s attempt to pass Dr Edwards off as an unbiased, impartial commentator.
And despite Dr Edwards’ best attempts to spin things around, most people will have no trouble recalling that most of the aggression in the teapot saga came from the media’s side, as a response to John Key suppressing the contents of what was ultimately a private conversation.
In fact, such was the relentless pursuit of Key in this matter, that alongside the majority of the public, even poor Phil Goff was pleading with the media to let it go and move on.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
The line must be drawn. Last election a left wing plant went to a National Party conference and posed as a National Party member and taped the conversations of ministers. If the secretly taped conversion of Ambrose is allowed what will the media try next – use a plant or directional microphone?
There would not be an MP from any party that would be happy if any of their private conversations were made public.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Falafulu Fisi at 12:15 pm
In the whole scheme of things in the natural world there’s no ‘right to privacy’. In modern society we have established some legal rights, including a right to privacy in some circumstances.
What’s particularly stupid about this whole non issue is that it was an attempt to make a story out of bugger all. If the conversation revealed something truly of public interest (and the politicians involved would have been very stupid to have spoken of anything coming close in that situation) then the media would have been quick to release the exact contents of the conversation.
It seems like they didn’t have much of a real story so they just tried to make whatever they could out of it. It was disgraceful how TV3 used Winston Peters, neither of those parties have gone beyond attempted sensation and innuendo – presumably because they don’t have anything of substance.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
The ruling wasn’t either way. The judge negated her responsibility leaving it up to the police. Finlayson is a creep anyway but put that aside, the award went against Ambrose but also went for him… It wasn’t private nor public.. I haven’t heard the police’s ruling on it yet. I think Finlayson is a little premature. The government is being very vindictive but Farrar you have to defend Key. I like what Luc Hansen had to say:
Anyway, Bryce, don’t worry, this is well outside DPF’s field too – which is actually disseminating National Party propaganda in return for a juicy polling contract.
So true.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
“The judge negated her responsibility leaving it up to the police.”
What was her responsibility other than to do justice between the parties? How was she going to do that in proceedings brought on at 2 days notice with contested facts, no time for preparation and no cross-examination? The judgment did not favour Ambrose in anyway. The judge simply said that the issue of privacy could not be resolved in the context of the proceedings and procedure framed by Ambrose. He had a go. His motives were mercenary. He failed. Why should the Crown pay the costs?
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Typically the left are being rather loose with the truth.
What Ambrose, as a beard for TV3, wanted was a ruling immediately that the recording was public so money would be made, whether it would have had any influence on the election is moot, I suppose the media could have done the norm and innuendoised anything that was recorded, but this was all about money, ya see everybody loves capitalism.
As soon as the Judge acted correctly, all that was seen was cash flowing out to sea, and TV3 et al went ” Oh fuck”. Their lawyers knew there would be costs,the only surprise is that they are so small.
Having been a contractor myself, Ambrose has broken the number one rule, i.e he has shown partisanisim,therefore ruling out working for a large number of people in New Zealand. “Without fear or Favour” , he should have beeen able to remember that one.
Vote:December 29th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Other_Andy: You can’t be serious.. allegations made on Scoop have not panned out? I suspect a conspiracy by the Girl Scouts of America.
Vote:December 30th, 2011 at 2:46 am
Nicky Hager is a fantasist, not a journalist.
Vote:December 30th, 2011 at 6:41 am
I suspect the police investigation will go nowhere, especially after the PM’s stupid comment about police having time on their hands. This is about vindictiveness, and don’t forget that Armbrose’s lawyers have written to the PM about his allegedly defamatory comments. How dare a private individual accuse the PM of defamation! His immaturity is quite something.
Mai Chen seems to doubt much will come of the PM’s complaint:
“Appealing to the tort of invasion of privacy is going to be difficult for Mr Key and Mr Banks given the public interest in disclosure.
For the reasons given above, it is questionable whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists in this scenario or whether its publication would be considered highly offensive.
In any event, both breach of confidence and invasion of privacy are subject to a defence of legitimate public concern. The greater the intrusion, the greater the level of public concern must be.”
Vote:December 30th, 2011 at 8:07 am
Ross
The police complaint is based on the Crimes Act and not the tort of privacy. Legitimate public concern is not a defence to unlawful interception of communications that I can see.
If Ambrose thinks that he has been defamed then he can sue. I doubt he will. Even if he is able to persuade the court that his taping was accidental, he immediately took steps to cash in on his “accident”. The best he could hope for is an award of the proverbial farthing and face the consequential costs award.
Have you read the decision? Ambrose’s lawyer started off with the assertion that this was all about clearing his name but soon reverted to the real reason – money. The judgment clearly records that the value in the story (clearly meaning public interest AND money) only existed before the election.
So, in your book, it is in order to go to court the gain personal financial advantage but if you lose it is not in order for the other party to seek costs? Or does your logic only apply if the cost-seeking party is Key? Ambrose is lucky that Key decided to abide by the decision of the court and not take an active role. Otherwise Ambrose would be facing greater costs. You also overlook the fact that TVworks was an active participant in the case. It is likely to be facing a contribution as well.
Vote:December 30th, 2011 at 9:36 am
I am really puzzled why Ambrose has been claiming (even since the recording) that his livelyhood is at stake.
Why?
His clients are media organisations – they didn’t have an issue with Ambrose’s tactics (leaving a microphone at the table – pressing “record” on the video camera – passing on the “accidentally made” recordings onto HoS and TV3 etc). If anything he may have strengthened his credibility with media organisations!
His clients are presumably not the National Party or ACT – so there wouldn’t have been any income from these “clients” anyway, let alone the need to worry about future losses.
Just seems to me Ambrose wants to clear his name and to have such ‘accidental” recordings sanctioned for future situations?
Vote:December 30th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Exactly niggly.
- breaking the law
- casting journalistic ethics aside
- questionable personal integrity
- attempting to expose some kind of right wing conspiracy
From TV3′s point of view, he’s ticked all the boxes to earn himself a more prominent / permanent role within their organisation.
Vote:December 30th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Last time that photographer was in strife, he changed his name.
Vote:Maybe he should try that trick again.
January 6th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Mick Mac (547) Says:
December 28th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
“…The reality is that Ambrose broke the law and is having to deal with that.”
Really? Is that how it works now?
The police are still investigating the matter and haven’t laid charges. So we haven’t even had a Court Case or a verdict.
Or is the judicial process irrelevant when you right wingers judge and sentence someone without due process? So much for upholding the law in this country.
Vote: