« What’s wrong with trial by media? | Main | House of Lords supports dumping criminal libel »
Sure enough…
By Steven | October 22, 2009
The Solicitor-General has applied for Vince Siemer to be held in contempt of court for breaching the court order that he remove from his website his article about a suppressed HC judgment. (This time, he has sensibly just gone for a three-month jail term, seeking to avoid the Bill of Rights right-to-jury issues that continue to plague his earlier contempt application). The hearing is today, though no-one seems to be reporting it.
No-one, that is, except indefatigable campaigner Penny Bright, who says she’s proudly distributing exactly the same suppressed material as Vince and is miffed because she hasn’t been charged with contempt too. It’s a question of equality before the law, she says.
Topics: Contempt of Court, Suppression orders | 54 Comments »
54 Responses to “Sure enough…”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I always thought it was interesting that the S-G never made any fuss about the comments about judges on Vince’s site. Perhaps this is a signal from the S-G that Crown Law don’t see ‘scandalising the court’ as a form of contempt that has survived BoRA rights to freedom of expression.
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
The Nick Smith contempt case seems to have established that scandalising survives the Bill of Rights (though for my part, I don’t think it should). I figure that the S-G simply didn’t want to call attention to Vince’s site.
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 am
Aren’t you ignoring the elephant in the room regarding Vince Siemer’s blog?
Surely the claim that Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson failed to disclose in full the nature of his relationship with Alan Galbraith QC, during the the appeal of a High Court decision is worthy of comment. I note the NBR has been running with this for the last few weeks, and ‘ponygate’ is dated August 5th.
As David Lange would say, your silence on this matter is deafening.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
The Wilson case is a matter of alleged bias, not media law. I claim no expertise in that.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:12 am
I always enjoy reading Vince’s website, it really brightens up my day.
The judge files are great. Potter and Duffy JJ in particular are very entertaining.
My favourite interesting coincedence is that judges which have ruled against Auckland businessman Vince Siemer or in favour of New Zealand’s most litigious man Michael Stiassny tend to get worse reviews!
April 6th, 2020 at 8:42 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Infos here: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
May 20th, 2020 at 5:58 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
June 4th, 2020 at 7:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 60727 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
July 11th, 2020 at 12:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
July 16th, 2020 at 2:14 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
September 3rd, 2020 at 8:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
October 2nd, 2020 at 7:50 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
October 6th, 2020 at 12:41 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
October 14th, 2020 at 11:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 14573 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
October 16th, 2020 at 11:49 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
October 19th, 2020 at 4:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
November 5th, 2020 at 1:38 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
November 10th, 2020 at 1:03 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
December 8th, 2020 at 1:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
December 11th, 2020 at 9:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
December 20th, 2020 at 12:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
December 24th, 2020 at 1:21 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
December 31st, 2020 at 6:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
January 5th, 2021 at 8:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
January 8th, 2021 at 2:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
January 24th, 2021 at 9:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 46772 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
March 9th, 2021 at 3:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 93007 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
March 16th, 2021 at 6:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
April 1st, 2021 at 7:49 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
April 1st, 2021 at 5:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
April 9th, 2021 at 3:49 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
May 10th, 2021 at 11:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 21315 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
May 20th, 2021 at 3:13 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 72725 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
May 22nd, 2021 at 9:56 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
May 30th, 2021 at 11:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
June 15th, 2021 at 3:49 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 1:12 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 5:42 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
July 31st, 2021 at 4:33 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
August 17th, 2021 at 11:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
December 11th, 2021 at 7:17 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
January 6th, 2022 at 2:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
February 6th, 2022 at 1:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
March 18th, 2022 at 3:28 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
March 30th, 2022 at 1:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
April 6th, 2022 at 1:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
April 19th, 2022 at 3:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 88991 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
April 26th, 2022 at 3:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
May 22nd, 2022 at 12:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
June 18th, 2022 at 8:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
July 8th, 2022 at 11:27 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
July 14th, 2022 at 9:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
July 19th, 2022 at 11:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]
July 19th, 2022 at 11:56 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=301 […]