Friday, September 30, 2016


Your chance to have your say ... small warning, clearly he is a litigious b*****d (along with being a poet and other things) so be careful.


paul scott said...

I feel sorry for him. There would have been socio feminazi politics at work here for sure.
I've done much worse than a wish to lie between girl's legs.
My poetry is excellent on this subject.

Oh now as I twitch and jump before sleep,
I dream I want a twitch and jerk between your legs
oh your beautiful brown legs, I mean white legs,
but wait your are not a Thai girl, and you are not even thirty,
no sorry wrong girl, hardly love you at all too much

Gerald said...

"Small warning...."

Not necessary.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I wonder if his legal advisors told him at the start that he had no show and should settle. I suspect they may well have.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I see the legal eagles who frequent Kiwiblog assert he is not 'guilty' but 'liable' as the concept of guilt applies only to matters criminal.

Noel said...

There are a number of remedies within the Act but in this case

"In any proceedings for defamation, punitive damages may be awarded against a defendant only where that defendant has acted in flagrant disregard of the rights of the plaintiff."

Paulus said...

I think he should be jailed for life.
Fancy being found guilty by a jury of being a silly man, and taking on the mantle of comment on the paparazzi of the country, who of course are, as Caesar says "all honourable men".

The Veteran said...

Adolf ... you're/they're right. Craig was not found guilty.

It was interesting to me that the matter was heard by a jury rather than by a Judge acting alone. Craig as the defendant must have asked for that (on advice) in the expectation of some divergence of opinion.

Note too it was was heard a a civil matter i.e. the civil standard 'on the balance of probabilities' applied rather than the much higher criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. However one might be forgiven for thinking that, given the quantum of the award, the jury was unanimous in it's verdict.

Gerald said...

Justice Katz instructed that the decision had to be unanimous.

The Veteran said...

Gerald ... TY for that. That would carry some weight if the matter goes to Appeal. I understand from another source that post the decision Craig has said on radio that he doesn't regret his actions one bit (paraphased). His lawyers will be tearing their hair out.

Always thought Craig was a bit of a nutter. Clearly got that wrong ... he's an idiot nutter with more money than sense.

Noel said...

" I understand from another source that post the decision Craig has said on radio that he doesn't regret his actions one bit (paraphased). His lawyers will be tearing their hair out."

I wonder if that is an indication he will not actually appeal. Always the first statement after a loosing case. The damages decided by the Jury have not been set aside so they cannot be challenged. Be hard to now make a case that it was only "honest opinion."

The Veteran said...

Noel ... good point because it certainly wouldn't go down well in the Appellant (High) Court.

Nookin said...

The next venue is the Court of Appeal -- not the High Court. I doubt that Craig's comments will ever come to the attention of that Court. Even if any of the judges read and remembered them, the comments are equally consistant with someone who is sticky by his story of either truth or honest belief. I have not seen his actual comments but what has been reported is hardly an unequivocal "up your" message to the other side.
The other problem with the thesis that his comments will not help him is that it depends on the notion that judges believe what they read in the papers.

Noel said...

I may be wrong but the appeal is to Justice Katz to set the verdict aside?
Not sure she would do that given the 10 question chain was approved by both parties.
Only thing left would be the amount of monies and again given it was a unanimous decision of the Jury....perhaps that the end of it.

Anonymous said...

I see Cameron Slater is positively salivating at his turn to screw Craig again.
His warped view is that he wants much more money than the other unsavoury character who appears to have screwed literally, and actually, a silly girl.

The Veteran said...

Nookin ... re Craig's reported comments. Was talking to a highly regarded barrister on this very point. His view is that Craig was being very silly. Whether the Judge had read the comments or not matters little ... the respondents defence team would be sure to draw the Judges attention to them during the course of the appeal.

Many commentators are of the view that the best course of action open to Craig now is to settle out of court and go back to do what he does best ... making money. Likely he will have a bit to make up.