Archive for May, 2011« Previous Entries
The BSA’s decision on the Hung programme has been put to death by the High Court. (You might have thought this would be a judicial decision of public interest for the Courts of NZ website. Apparently not.)
My article with Claudia Geiringer about the BSA and the Bill of Rights is cited again, perhaps not so […]
Wouldn’t it be just like some smart-arse protester to sneak in at night and change the WELLYWOOD sign to something like SMELLYWORD?
Not that I’m advocating that, you understand. It would be against the law.
Some readers have wondered whether I’m exaggerating when I accuse the British press of being incapable of reporting fairly about so-called super-injunctions. Here I offer Exhibit A: today’s Guardian story about a long-awaited and fascinating report by a committee headed by the Master of the Rolls on the issue of injunctions, super-injunctions and anonymity orders. The […]
Famous victims of the justice system: Lindy Chamberlain, Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, the Guildford Four … and David Bain?
Bain and Joe Karam are lined up to speak with these others at an international conference on justice in Perth next March.
Barry Scheck from the Innocence Project will also be speaking.
Let me go on record as saying I think Jon Stephenson’s allegations about NZ involvement in abuses in Afghanistan demand a proper independent investigation. Wayne Mapp seems to have admitted many of them, but somehow the government still seems to be saying “Move along - nothing to see here”. At the same time the PM […]
This piece is in today’s DomPost, but they don’t seem to have put it up online:
I’m astonished by the reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Valerie Morse’s flag-burning conviction. “Anyone can burn our flag”, thunders the front page of the Dom Post, disapprovingly. It’ll make the police’s job harder, intones Radio NZ news. The […]
The European Court of Human Rights has unanimously rejected Formula 1 boss Max Mosley’s claim that the UK’s laws didn’t sufficiently protect his privacy because they didn’t require the press to give him advance notice before publishing invasive articles about him.
The most surprising thing about this decision is that the ECHR held that it would […]
Cameron Slater has lost his High Court appeal against his convictions for breaching a variety of name suppression orders, and against the penalties imposed (ie fines totalling $6750). Remarkably, none of the 16 king-hit arguments he boasted of has found favour with either of the judges who has considered his case.
If you want to know what’s going on with so-called “super injunctions” (that is, court orders that not only suppress particular information but also suppress the fact of their existence), I suggest you don’t read the British press. Or anything that comes out of it. The British papers are so incensed by the idea of the […]
Max Mosley has argued before the European Court of Human Rights that the right to privacy requires that people subjected to invasive intrusions by the media must be informed about them before publication to give them a chance to challenge them in the courts before the damage is done. This has the potential to throw […]« Previous Entries