« Cairns v Modi judgment | Main | New media Downstage play »
Silliest statement by an Attorney-General ever?
By Steven | March 27, 2012
On Sunday, former Police Minister Annette King told TVNZ’s Q and A that the Labour government ministers had merely been briefed on Operation 8, and at the last minute at that; that they were given assurances by Solicitor-General David Collins that the process was correct; and that they were dismayed by the way the police conducted the raids and what seemed like an about turn by Collins when he said later that the law was incoherent and much of the evidence inadmissable.
Yesterday, Attorney-General Chris Finlayson accused her of contempt of court. Her interview might prejudice “ongoing matters in the trials arising out of that operation”: sentencing, the possibility of an appeal, and the possibility of a re-trial.
I find it hard to see anything in Annette King’s interview that might cause serious risk of prejudice to any of those matters. On the other hand, the interview did begin to explore interesting and important questions about what the government knew, and when, and what was the quality of the advice that the government was receiving.
But the Attorney-General visits la-la land with his final sentence, which seems to have been widely and uncritically quoted:
It is inappropriate for anyone, but particularly for politicians, to comment publicly on matters that are before the Courts.
This is tosh. Of course we can talk about court cases. The only thing we can’t do is publish things that cause real risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. That’s a pretty narrow category of things.
This is the sort of tosh usually dished up by those who simply don’t want to talk about the issues arising out of particular cases.
Topics: General | 48 Comments »
48 Responses to “Silliest statement by an Attorney-General ever?”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 27th, 2012 at 10:24 am
I agree entirely with you. There was hardly anything in that interview that might cause serious risk of prejudice to any of those matters. The whole issue is ridiculous.
March 27th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
I saw the Q&A King interview and, like others, gasped at the police’s ‘management’ of the government of the day (a minimal briefing the night before), and Collins A-G’s apparent about face.
But Keynes’s “When the facts change I change my mind, What do you do sir?”applies, surely?
As for Finlayson A-G’s comments — what on earth did he stand to gain from them? (Clumsy political point-scoring excepted.)
June 22nd, 2020 at 4:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 58773 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
July 16th, 2020 at 11:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 32713 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
August 4th, 2020 at 1:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 71340 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 7:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
August 20th, 2020 at 10:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 67760 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 5:51 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
September 22nd, 2020 at 12:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
October 1st, 2020 at 12:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
October 6th, 2020 at 12:06 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 91073 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
October 12th, 2020 at 12:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
October 19th, 2020 at 5:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
November 10th, 2020 at 1:49 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
November 12th, 2020 at 12:42 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
November 17th, 2020 at 4:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 12:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
November 29th, 2020 at 1:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 19955 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
December 2nd, 2020 at 6:10 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
December 4th, 2020 at 10:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
December 16th, 2020 at 4:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 88768 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
December 19th, 2020 at 5:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
December 23rd, 2020 at 1:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
December 31st, 2020 at 1:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
January 2nd, 2021 at 1:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
January 7th, 2021 at 1:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
January 12th, 2021 at 3:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
January 13th, 2021 at 2:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
January 13th, 2021 at 3:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
January 19th, 2021 at 5:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
March 2nd, 2021 at 12:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
April 8th, 2021 at 3:06 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
April 12th, 2021 at 7:14 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 97185 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
May 8th, 2021 at 11:34 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
May 19th, 2021 at 8:09 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
May 20th, 2021 at 3:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
June 16th, 2021 at 8:41 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 5:47 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 6:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 2:40 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
July 4th, 2021 at 12:10 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
July 12th, 2021 at 1:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
July 15th, 2021 at 7:51 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
August 20th, 2021 at 11:18 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
October 17th, 2021 at 3:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
December 14th, 2021 at 12:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
January 5th, 2022 at 6:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]
February 9th, 2022 at 6:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=546 […]