Collins is a lawyer with a mind as sharp as a tack. She would not have done this lightly and on a whim. She knows full well that unless her case is rock solid it could backfire big time and no lawyer, let alone a Minister of Justice, would ever issue proceedings unless they had total confidence they would stand the high test necessary to achieve a guilty verdict. It is a big call. Judith Collins has made it and, as I said, Mallard and Little should be very very afraid.
One wonders if they have been bright enough to put their personal fortunes into Trusts?
14 comments:
According to Whaleoil, Mallard has been spreading his 'personal fortunes' all over the Nort6h Island - at taxpayer expense.
He won't have a trust, I'm sure. Doesn't comprehend the word.
Don't worry about their personal fortunes.
Because it is political, the best she will get is a declaration that their comments were defamatory.
You cannot get damages for damage to your political capital or standing.
smttc@5:22 PM
Says who?
Evidence please.
Man she must be really shitting herself to be resorting to such a desperate stunt. No one's tried to use the courts to make their political problems go away since the last time the PM tried it. She might be gone soon.
As for her being as sharp as a tack, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Adolf - one of either Hooton or Plunket said much the same thing to Larry Williams on `The Huddle'. Whom ever it was said - even if Collins wins she will be awarded $1 or words to that effect.
SMTTC - it seems is pretty much on the money and due to his occupation that is to be expected in this sort of matter.
Don (pdm) although you and I have never met, you obviously know what I do for a living in HB and I look forward to the occasion when we eventually do meet).
I believe Judith Collins will be seeking political retribution rather than monetary compensation. As I already said, bloody hard to prove anything other than loss of political capital or standing.
Adolf, my point is that political capital or standing does not have a judicial calculation and decision as to damages.
Separation of powers anyone?
smttc: There are precedents for damages based on "loss of reputation." I think Collins has a superb shot at this head of damages.
Cadwallader
"I think Collins has a superb shot at this head of damages."
Head of damages? Sounds like John Banks.
She's just using bullying tactics, using taxpayer dollars, to try and shut down debate. A good use of your money eh?
She must be petrified.
smttc - we played golf at Flaxmere on Daffodil Day some years ago. You arrived late and missed the first two or three holes.
Judge .... only 100% wrong. Mallard and Little have to prove what they said was correct. If they can't then the defamation is proven.
As to the quantum. Well, if the Courts determine the defamation is malicious then the sky's the limit .... and just when has Mallard been anything but malicious in his utterances.
I would have thought that if your ndp indicated some knowledge of the law then even you might have twigged to the difference between robust political comment and actual defamation. Collins is an idiot is Ok in that context. Alleging that she leaked a letter is another kettle of fish and unless they have proof of that then I suggest they are in the deep doggy do.
You know less about the laws of defamation than you do about the economy Vet, and that's quite a statement. Collins is simply trying to muzzle debate, using bully boy tactics. You can guess why. Anyway, has she even followed through on her little threat?
Judge ... point me pse to just where I am wrong re the law of defamation.
Last sentence. The papers have been served.
@ Veteran - apparently not. MSM are still reporting Collins has not served papers. Sounds like she is trying to bully a back-down out of Mallard & Little. Fat chance.
Post a Comment