Craig demolished by Tribunal decision

Colin Craig took a hammering from the jury decision that ruled against him in the order of $1.27 million last week.

This week has started  with fewer dollars involved but no less legal condemnation.

Suppression was lifted today on a Human Rights tribunal decision after Rachel MacGregor claimed Craig had breached a confidentiality agreement after she had made a sexual harassment complaint against him.

The Tribunal ordered Mr Craig pay MacGregor $128,780 in damages, and costs of $100,000 were also agreed on.

It looks very bad for Craig, both on this and if it will have any influence on any appeal to reduce the defamation award against him that looks decidedly shaky too.

Whale Oil has extensive coverage so go there if you want all the nitty gritty:

Mr Craig breached the confidentiality obligations ‘repeatedly and intentionally’ (para 142.6)

The breaches were ‘deliberate, systematic, egregious and repeated’ (para 112)

‘Mr Craig is wealthy, well-connected and well-advised. At all times he has been in the more powerful position than Ms MacGregor. He has used his power and wealth to conduct a calculated campaign of breaches for the sole purpose of bolstering, or attempting to bolster, his own reputation. He has disregarded his obligations under the Human Rights Act and the settlement agreement’ (para 142.4)

‘Any steps he did take were motivated by self-interest’ (para 124)

‘The breaches occurred in the most public and damaging of circumstances’ (para 125)

– source Whale Oil

There’s also a couple of posts on the Conservative Party but their chances of recovery are about as low as Craig’s costs are high. Politics has been a very expensive exercise for him, and still counting – court proceedings under way could easily double the trouble.

42 Comments

  1. Kitty Catkin

     /  3rd October 2016

    It doesn’t look good that she took the money and then complained-this seems like having a bob each way.

    But oh dear, why does the news have to spend so much time on this dreary saga ?

  2. Iceberg

     /  3rd October 2016

    Be great to hear from Ben R again about how this was all a set up. Pretty sure Maureen W had some strong comments to that effect?

    Isn’t it also great how Bradbury thought it was such a giggle supporting a sexual harasser when it suited his political ends. What. A. Tosser.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  3rd October 2016

      I don’t know why she didn’t resign.

      • Iceberg

         /  3rd October 2016

        Not quite sure why you continue with the enabling, but it’s pathetic.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  3rd October 2016

          I am not enabling-how could I be when I don’t know these people ? That’s absurd. But anyone who goes on accepting such behaviour is enabling the doer to keep on. If one stays, one is accepting it and the person will go on doing it. They are unlikely to stop, the only person who can stop them is the one to whom it’s being done, by walking out.

          • Iceberg

             /  3rd October 2016

            FFS people have a right not to be abused in the workplace. Walking out or not is completely irrelevant.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  3rd October 2016

              All right, stay and enable the harasser to keep on doing it.Your decision.Would you advise someone to stay in a violent relationship because relationships SHOULDN’T be violent ? I offered a girl the use of my sofa if she needed to escape in a hurry from her violent boyfriend, I didn’t bleat about how she had a right not to be treated violently and tell her to stay because she had this right, when it was obvious that the man didn’t think so.

              RM was a fool to send him loving texts and give him massages-that is most unprofessional. He was wrong for beginning that, but she not only let it go, she went along with it. Then it went too far. The only person who can stop that sort of thing in the first place is you. Telling someone that they are wonderful and massaging them is not the way to prevent sexual harassment.

          • Gezza

             /  3rd October 2016

            Did you read any of the links, Kitty? They might help you understand why she didn’t just walk out. Why, for example, it might have been nigh impossible to get another job once a prospective employer contacted her last one for a reference check and performance appraisal. And why she had no money.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  3rd October 2016

              Yes, I realise that, but I stand by what I said about the loving messages and massages sending the wrong and unprofessional signals.There are organisations whic deal with sexual harassment in the workplace, aren’t there ? Anyway, it didn’t happen.

              My workmate didn’t need the sofa in the end, but I know that she was very pleased to know that it was there in case of emergency.I was in that flat because I had escaped a violent relationship myself, so knew that telling someone that their partner had no right to treat them thus is waste of time unless the partner agrees-yeah, right.

            • Gezza

               /  3rd October 2016

              The wisdom of hindsight is never any use for what happened before you gained it, Kitty, only for the next time a similar situation happens. As to what and how and why she did what was was stated in court, the accounts differ, no one knows the truth, and how or why whatever happened, happened, but them. Sit down please and get on with your literature studies.

    • Ice… I said it was a set-up did I?

      • Conspiratoor

         /  3rd October 2016

        No, I said it was a setup benno. Stop stealing my lines

    • https://yournz.org/2016/09/07/whale-oil-wrong/#comment-130465 There’s the one and only comment I’ve made about this saga. No reference to it being a set-up. But by all means keep smearing Iceberg. Your righteous attitude and ‘inside’ knowledge shouldn’t need to depend on lies to feed itself. After all, your ego requires no fuel or substance at all to keep growing does it? 🙂

      • Iceberg

         /  3rd October 2016

        Keep digging fella, you’ll find more.

        You may recall I had to explain to you how these encounters always play out? Expect this will end the same way.

        • I would have thought the onus was on you to provide evidence of your accusation, but there’s never been evidence from you so why should an intelligent person expect that to start now?

          Think of the opportunity you have now to prove me wrong for the first time. All you have to do is find me saying its a set-up. Should be easy right? You’ve never had to explain anything to me though and you’ve never won an encounter with me. It’s alright to believe that though because your righteousness and zeal will never need facts to fuel itself Iceberg. I wait for your evidence with bated breath…

          • Gezza

             /  3rd October 2016

            I’m just waiting for him to say something nice, to anybody, about any one or any thing. It’ll be on a cold day in hell from what I’ve seen.

          • Iceberg

             /  3rd October 2016

            You really want to open the “I’m never wrong” can of worms?

            Let’s start with “The hacker Rawshark gave himself up to me with a pass phrase for the dump”.

            True of False.

            • You have diverted off topic. Can you substantiate the first accusation you made?

            • “Be great to hear from Ben R again about how this was all a set up. Pretty sure Maureen W had some strong comments to that effect?”

              I’m still waiting for your evidence proving your latest smear Iceberg. This is your second comment since you were challenged to back up your accusation.

              Having trouble finding the non-existent evidence to back up your anonymous accusation? Who would have thought! I’m not sure why I entertain your fantasies but I guess someone has to.

            • Iceberg

               /  3rd October 2016

              Just stacking up the so called “smears”.

        • Iceberg, if you make accusations it’s your responsibility to be able to substantiate them.

          • Iceberg

             /  3rd October 2016

            He’s quite a moving target though isnt he?

            Couldn’t decide between moving and slippery.

            • You appear to be the slippery one here. You made an accusation that you haven’t backed up, and seem to be avoiding that.

          • Iceberg

             /  3rd October 2016

            Your comments system is somewhat impenetrable. Seems an odd thing to make up though.

            • Your comment is somewhat incomprehensible.

              You introduced an accusation that had little to do with the topic, you just seemed to be using it as an excuse to take a swipe. And now you say it was based on something you can’t find?

            • Iceberg

               /  3rd October 2016

              No. From mobile it’s not possible to search, that I can see.

            • Did you find it yet Iceberg?

  3. Klik Bate

     /  3rd October 2016

    IMO – Colin’s just bloody lucky there wasn’t TWO of him ❗

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  3rd October 2016

      Like a soap’s evil twin ?. I do think that he was poorly treated over the moon landing when all that he said was that, as he wasn’t there when it happened, he couldn’t claim to personally ‘know’ that it happened None of us can say that we KNOW only that we assume that it did. But he was made to sound as if he’d said something quite different.

      • Klik Bate

         /  3rd October 2016

        Oh don’t be so bloody ridiculous Kitty!!

        Of course we KNOW the moon landing happened – here’s the proof woman…..

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  3rd October 2016

          Things have been faked before this and people taken in. Only the people who were there at ANY given event can state positively that it happened, the rest of us can only (at best) believe it. I think that CC said that he believed it but couldn’t actually KNOW that something that he hadn’t seen happening had happened. But he should have known what would be the result of saying it. I don’t KNOW of my own knowledge that the black men have been shot in the US-but I certainly believe it.

    • MaureenW

       /  3rd October 2016

      Lol .. comment of the day

  4. While Craig has been found by the tribunal to have seriously breached the confidentiality agreement, and has been found by a jury to have defamed Williams, there is still what appears to me to be a potentially serious and unaddressed issue – the breaching of the confidentiality agreement by another person or persons that resulted in details being presented to members of the Conservative Party and published on Whale Oil.

    While Craig responded in a poor and stupid way it was not unreasonable that he assumed MacGregor was breaching the confidentiality agreement. The tribunal has found that it wasn’t her. If Craig had dealt with the breaches properly he would now be in a lot less trouble, and others could have been in more trouble.

    • Gezza

       /  3rd October 2016

      It’s all very troubling, and there’ll be a lot more trouble to come, that’s a pretty safe bet.