Ultimately, the British courts might yet find no liability here.
And the UK Court of Appeal has just ruled that they have (or rather David has) an arguable case. She’s sued over the publication of some paparazzi photos of her and her husband on a street pushing a baby buggy containing David, their 19-month old baby.
When free speech creates disorder or hate.NZME admits it misled listeners by buying into Trump’s ridiculous election fraud claims – but BSA somehow finds broadcasting standards not breached.It’s being heard on Thursday in the Wellington High Court. The second challenge is to this decision (which I discussed here). The key issue seems to be whether the BSA should have given TVNZ notice that they were looking at concluding that the house wasn’t a brothel. One was argued last week, against this BSA decision, a finding that a Close Up story about a suburban brothel was inaccurate and unfair because there wasn’t sufficient evidence that the place was indeed a brothel. Important fact from the Crown’s application: the Crown’s case crucially revolves around the papers’ publication of material from communications intercepted by police: material that is (a) illegal to publish, (b) inadmissible in the trial, and (c) pretty damned prejudicial.įascinating issue: to what extent will the public interest in the information be relevant?īroadcasting Standards Authority challenges: TVNZ’s lawyer Willy Akel has two challenges to BSA decisions.
It is shaping up to be the most significant contempt of court case in NZ’s history. This concerns several Fairfax newspapers’ “Terrorism Files” stories.
My guess: the first challenge (the missing A-G report) will be struck out, and the case will be allowed to proceed on the second (the question of the inconsistency of the Act with the Bill of Rights).įairfax/Pankhurst contempt: set down for five days in the week beginning 15 September before a full bench of the High Court (two judges). The Crown seeks to strike out both challenges, on the grounds that they are contravene Parliamentary privilege. Applicants John Boscawen, Garth McVicar, Rodney Hide, and Graham Stairmand now want the court to rule that the Attorney-General should have advised Parliament that the Electoral Finance Bill was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, and that the Electoral Finance Act, now that it’s passed, is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.