Nottingham conviction and sentence appeal – judgment

The Court of Appeal judgment of Dermot Nottingham’s unsuccessful appeals against conviction and sentence (and the successful Crown appeal calling for a harsher sentence) is now online – NOTTINGHAM v R [2019] NZCA 344 [30 July 2019].

The judgment found that there was strong evidence linking Nottingham with harassing and defamatory posts on the Lauda Finem website – I will cover this in more detail in another post.

Nottingham’s argument in his defence were in part self-defeating. He claimed:

  • Posts on an overseas based blog (Lauda Finem) were not covered by New Zealand law.
  • There was no evidence that he was responsible for the posts.
  • The posts were truthful so could not be deemed to be harassment or breaches of suppression.
  • The five people he was found guilty of harassing “started it” and deserved to be attacked.

The trial jury, the trial judge and the three Court of Appeal judges disagreed with him on all these claims.

His sentence was increased to 31 months in prison, but as he had already served three and a half months home detention this still qualified him for a home detention sentence. While the offences were judged to be serious he was largely spared time in prison due to serious health problems. He was re-sentenced to a further 12 months home detention (including a ban on using the internet), 100 hours commununity service, plus a further six month ban on using the internet after home detention finishes.

He was originally charged in 2015 and went to trial last year after a number of delays.

Following a five-week jury trial before Judge Down, Mr Nottingham was convicted in May 2018 of five charges of criminal harassment and two charges of publishing information in breach of a suppression order. He was subsequently
sentenced by the Judge to 12 months’ home detention and 100 hours of community work. He appeals both his conviction and sentence. The Solicitor-General also appeals the sentence, on the grounds of manifest inadequacy and error in principle.

The suppression charges:

In his summing-up, Judge Down directed that publication of the brothers’ names had occurred in New Zealand in breach of the suppression order. The key issues for the jury were, therefore, whether Mr Nottingham was the publisher or a party to the publication, and whether he had done so knowingly or recklessly in breach of the suppression order

The criminal harassment charges:

In the course of investigating the breaches of name suppression, the police identified a number of LF articles which they considered amounted to criminal harassment. Charges were laid in respect of five complainants, all of whom have been granted permanent name suppression and who we will refer to as T, C, H, B and M. The common denominator between them all was that they had at some stage crossed Mr Nottingham’s path in circumstances he took issue with.

In respect of each complainant, articles appeared on the LF website containing material the Crown alleged was “offensive” in terms of the Harassment Act 1997.

The articles included names, photographs and other personal details indicating extensive background research on each of the targets. It was alleged that some of the photographs had been obtained by Mr Nottingham or by one of his associates at Mr Nottingham’s direction. It was common for Mr Nottingham to ensure that articles were drawn to his complainants’ attention by providing them with the electronic links. The Crown also alleged various other acts of harassment — including “following” and in one case initiating a private prosecution.

At the same time he was being prosecuted for those offences Nottingham and associates continued act in a similar manner, as the many ongoing attack posts on LF show. He also unsuccessfully attempted four other private prosecutions, including one against myself. Two of these went to trial and were dismissed and described as vexatious.

As he attempted several times in my case he applied to adduce new evidence, usually a last minute stunt (the morning of hearings and in two cases during a hearing).

Mr Nottingham filed four affidavits, including one of 333 paragraphs by his brother, P R Nottingham. We assume the premise to be that they represent fresh or relevant new evidence.

We do not regard any of this material as meeting the test for admission in Lundy v R. It is neither fresh, nor (in most cases) relevant.

That sounds very familiar.

The breach of suppression order charges:

Mr Nottingham pursues two arguments:

(a) LF is overseas domiciled and “you cannot be a party to a crime that never occurred in an overseas jurisdiction”.

In his summing-up, the Judge directed that, as a matter of law, publication occurs where material is comprehended and downloaded and that accordingly there was publication in New Zealand irrespective of LF’s domicile. He said that this was a function of “Judge-made” law and that it was also a feature of s 7 of the Crimes Act 1961.

We identify no error in that direction. It did not involve any assumption of extra-territorial jurisdiction. It stated what we regard as a now uncontentious proposition: that a blog available to New Zealand internet users is regarded as published in New Zealand.

They make it clear that using an overseas based website (like WordPress) does not exempt you from New Zealand law if  it is directed at a New Zealand audience.

Physical location of the LF server was, in that context, irrelevant. What was required was proof either of direct publication (that Mr Nottingham was LF), indirect publication (that Mr Nottingham was a co-principal with LF, working directly with it to effect publication in New Zealand) or that he was a party to LF’s publication. That is exactly as the trial Judge put it to the jury, supported by an accurate description of the “party” requirements. Mr Krebs is correct that the question of whether Mr Nottingham “caused” the publication (in any of the legal senses relevant) was a matter of fact for the jury. No error of law was made by the trial Judge.

(b) The Crown failed to establish to the criminal standard that he was either the publisher of the material or a party to its publication.

The Crown advanced a circumstantial case. As Mr Nottingham reminded us, there was no “smoking gun” in the sense of an email attaching a final draft of the articles sent to LF. Nor was there any “electronic footprint” on any of the computers searched by the police which demonstrated that the article, as published, had originated from Mr Nottingham.

…Turning then to the circumstantial evidence relied on by the Crown to establish publication, we agree with Ms Brook that it was very strong, if not overwhelming.

I will cover this more detail in the next post,

We are not therefore satisfied that the verdicts on the breach of suppression charges were unreasonable or that the convictions resulted from a miscarriage of justice.

In Nottingham’s hapless attempt at prosecuting me (and three others) he claimed that we had in some convoluted way enabled people to find their way to suppression breach posts on LF – posts that he has been found guilty of posting.

Conviction appeal — the criminal harassment charges

Again, both the Crown and Mr Krebs submit that the appropriate approach is to treat Mr Nottingham’s appeal as essentially a challenge to the reasonableness of the jury verdicts. We agree, although noting that the main focus of Mr Nottingham’s second set of written submissions (filed on the morning of the appeal hearing), and of his oral submissions, was on the proposition that he ought not to have been convicted because the statements made in the articles (whether by him or not) were true or, alternatively, opinions based in truth.

…Identity (in the sense of responsibility for the acts either as principal or party) was therefore in issue on all charges. Again, Mr Nottingham’s position (both at trial and on appeal) was that there was no evidence of information being communicated from computers under his control to the LF website. And again, the Crown case was (and is) the evidence identifying him as the “driving force” behind the harassment was, if not overwhelming, certainly very strong. We start with that issue, because of its relevance also to the breach of suppression convictions.

We do not consider it necessary to set out all of the circumstantial evidence relied on by the Crown to establish identity in respect of each of the harassment charges. We agree that the jury’s conclusion on the facts was one reasonably available to it. Indeed, we consider it almost inevitable.

In the case of T, Mr Nottingham sent her a link to the first article immediately after it was published and a draft, created two days before publication, was found on a computer to which he had access. In addition, images appearing in the other articles were found on the same computer.

In the case of C, word versions of all three articles were found on a computer to which Mr Nottingham had access together with images from the articles. Likewise, drafts of other unpublished articles were also found.

In the case of B, although no draft of the principal article (published on 24 April 2013) was identified, the draft of another “unpublished” article (prepared approximately a year later) was found, and this contained very similar references to the 2013 publication. For example, the published article interposed the description “belted” between the complainant’s first and last names, and the draft contained the phrase “Beat Me”. The published article described her as “a stupid troll”, the draft as a “dumb cow” and “complete fuckwit”.

In the case of H, a word version of the first article was found on one of the computers, together with photographic images which were included in the articles and a screen shot of H’s Facebook profile. Likewise, screenshots of images in the third article were identified, as was the draft of another unpublished article in a similar vein.

And in respect of M, a word version of the first article was found on a computer to which Mr Nottingham had access together with the image of H which appeared in the same article.

In addition to this specific evidence, there was also a body of general evidence establishing either that Mr Nottingham was LF, a co-principal of LF or was, at a minimum, a party to the publications.

Although much was made of the fact that others had access to the computers at Mr Nottingham’s Hillsborough residence, particularly his brothers Anthony and Phillip, there was ample evidence that Mr Nottingham had overall responsibility and control. For example, there was an email in which Anthony told Mr Nottingham to stop treating him “like one of your fucking employees”.

Funny. While the Nottinghams, and other associatess like Earle McKinney, Marc Spring and Cameron Slater, where all involved in various ways in various campaigns of attack and harassment, they didn’t always get along with each other. very well.

By a wide margin we conclude that on the issue of “identity”, Mr Nottingham fails to satisfy us that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable.

Nottingham has tried to claim or imply it wasn’t him, but if it was it didn’t matter anyway.

Mr Nottingham cast the prosecution as an attack on his unalienable rights of free speech and as having a “chilling effect” on his “legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights”. He said that truth is a complete answer to any allegation that material given to any person or placed on electronic media was offensive within the terms of the Harassment Act.

Except that as is made clear later while posts at LF may have been based on skerricks of truth they were substantially embellished and bolstered by false claims.

The trial judge is quoted:

It has been pointed out already that given the highly inflammatory and abusive language used to impart the truth in some of these Lauda Finem articles, the Crown says that claim of truth is something of a red herring. It is also fair to say that even truthful allegations can be made and repeated in ways that are intended to and do in fact harass.

You might remember [C] in cross-examination saying effectively that these things are not true (was her response) but, even if they were, it does not mean that they can be repeated and presented in this way, in a way that makes me feel harassed and frightened.

The Court of Appeal:

We do not consider the trial Judge to have erred in his approach to this issue. The jury was legitimately entitled to take into account truth or falsity in its assessment of offensiveness, but it was only one part of a composite of considerations relevant in that respect.

Much of what was published could at best be described as virulent opinion with only a tangential connection to anything arguably true. And in respect of many of the comments, we regard even that description as excessively generous.

As the Crown said in closing, the posts were littered with “hate-filled [invective]” and were strongly misogynistic.
T was, for example, described as a “useless fucktard” and “scum of scum of scum and then some scum”. It was said that she wanted an identified person dead and was operating “in a similar fashion to the manner in which the [Nazis] singled out the Jewish community”. In respect of C, her surname was predicated by the sobriquet “cumsac”. And it was said she needed to be “brought to justice before she commits very serious offending such as murder”.

M was described as a “bent ex-cop” with the suggestion he was “on the take” (allegations vehemently denied and never established).

I have seen Nottingham claim many things (in court documents) as truth and evidence that has not been backed up with any actual evidence.

Anyone who has read through posts on LF will recognise this style of attack that bears very little semblance to “truth”.

It was not unreasonable for the jury to identify such material as offensive.

Now the bit where Nottingham claims he was justified in doing what he also tried to claim he didn’t do.

We also note that the “lawful purpose” which Mr Nottingham asserted at trial was his ability to respond to actions by the complainants which he considered to be unlawful or unjust.

(H was alleged to have been complicit in her husband’s operation of a website Mr Nottingham considered to be fraudulent; M was alleged to havemisconducted himself in office in a way which resulted in financial loss to
Mr Nottingham; C had made a police complaint about an associate of Mr Nottingham’s he alleged to be false; T had made accusations he considered baseless and B had assisted H’s husband).

A similar point appears in his written submissions on appeal, where he refers to “the issue as to whether the complainants had contributed to their problems”, albeit in a paragraph which combines submissions in relation to both conviction and sentencing. In oral submissions he further urged on us the fact that “they started it”.

We note the inconsistency of that argument with his underlying proposition that there was inadequate proof he was either the publisher of the LF articles or a party thereto.

However, that aside, the proposition that “they deserved it” was self-evidently not a defence to the charges Mr Nottingham faced.

We are also satisfied that the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable in its implicit acceptance that the intention/knowledge requirements in s 8 of the Harassment Act were proven.

The Crown case was that anyone who discovered they were a target of LF would reasonably fear for, among other things, their mental wellbeing and that this was plainly intended by Mr Nottingham, or at least he knew that it was a likely result.

As previously stated, attacks along similar lines continued on LF at the same time that Nottingham was being prosecuted – and he was protected from public exposure with name suppression.

T’s concerns included to her physical wellbeing. This was because of photographs posted to the site from someone who had clearly been tracking her movements and because the phrase “two head shots to be sure”, had been inserted  between her first and last names in the 29 April 2013 article. Her fears were compounded by the fact that the article was forwarded to her with a link to a scene from the Quentin Tarantino film “Pulp Fiction” which showed a person being shot in the head.

Although Mr Nottingham suggested that this was a reference to T’s treatment of certain people, we agree with the Judge that “it is not unreasonable and should have been foreseeable that those statements would be read as a threat towards [T]”.

I had implied death threats directed at myself on LF and Twitter, but I suspect it more likely to be via associates.

Nottingham submitted that the trial judge:

… did not fairly sum up the competing evidence, effectively casting aside the evidence that established that [the complainants] were not telling the truth, when the prosecution was alleging defamation.

But:

In this case, we regard as compelling the following exchange between the Judge and Mr Nottingham which occurred in chambers immediately after the summing-up:

The Court: All right, now any matters arising?

Mr Nottingham: Sir, may I comment that that was a very fair summing up.

The Court: Thank you. I tried very hard to ensure that it was.

Mr Nottingham: It was.

A number of other complaints were dissected and overruled.

Accordingly, Mr Nottingham’s appeal against conviction is dismissed.

The sentence appeals

The sentence was premised on the following findings of fact which we agree were consistent with the jury’s verdicts:

(a) Mr Nottingham either was LF (in other words the leading mind of that blog) or he was so intimately related to it that it was proper to conclude that he provided information and draft articles to that blog knowing and intending that they would be published.

(b) Publication and other intimidating and harassing conduct was either carried out by Mr Nottingham himself or at his direction and he knew his conduct was likely to cause the individuals involved to fear for their safety or that of family members.

(c) Although Mr Nottingham may, at least initially, have reasonably believed he had legitimate grievances in respect of the complainants, he elected to pursue these, not by lawful and reasonable means, but by personal attacks on an “anything goes” basis.

The trial judge on the harassment charges…

…it went “without saying” that all of the offences were sufficiently serious to justify a starting point of imprisonment.

CoA:

In respect of the breach of non-publication orders, the Judge noted the Crown submission that the maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment be adopted as the start point. The Judge categorised these breaches as blatant and contemptuous and noted Mr Nottingham showed no remorse.

In respect of the combined total starting point of two years and four months’ imprisonment, he then gave a four-month discount to reflect what he described as Mr Nottingham’s “multi-faceted and complex” health problems, which in the Judge’s view meant that a sentence of imprisonment would be much harder for him than for an average middle-aged man in reasonable health. He identified this as the only mitigating factor resulting in a provisional end sentence of two years’ imprisonment. That required that the Judge give consideration to home detention which, consistent with authority, he recognised as having a general and specific deterrence value.

He said he regarded home detention as an appropriate and sufficient response.

The indicated months’ home detention sentence was then apportioned in the way we have previously indicated. Special conditions were imposed including that Mr Nottingham attend counselling or treatment programmes as directed by a probation officer and that he not use any electronic device capable of accessing the internet without prior approval from
a probation officer.

Again Nottingham seems to be speaking on behalf of whoever posted at LF:

Mr Nottingham said that the sentences should be commuted to time served (three and a half months home detention) and without the requirement for community work on the primary ground that the LF articles on which the harassment charges were based were “not designed to make anyone fear for their safety”.

How would he know what the design of the posts was if he wasn’t involved?

By contrast, the Crown submitted the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that nothing less than a custodial sentence is sufficient to capture the level of denunciation and deterrence required for what it says was an egregious breach of non-publication orders and malicious and misogynistic attacks on members of the public.

Ms Brook submitted that manifest inadequacy arises primarily from the wayin which the sentences were structured, and in particular, what she says was an excessive discount for totality. She submitted that the final sentence should have been in the region of three years five months’ imprisonment, made up of cumulative sentences, save that the sentences for the two breaches of the suppression order were properly imposed concurrently with each other and cumulatively on the sentences for criminal harassment.

…Ms Brook therefore submitted that the Judge’s sentence should be quashed and a new sentence imposed in the region of two years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

We accept Ms Brook’s submission that the offending against C and T justified a 12-month starting point for each.
The language used was particularly demeaning and offensive and the fact that a photograph was taken of T without her knowledge and subsequently published must have been calculated to add to her insecurity.

The offending against B, H and M was not as serious, although there were strongly misogynistic elements in the articles about B and H and the implication that M was corrupt was clearly a very damaging one given the nature of his employment.

We consider cumulative sentences of six months (in relation to the offending against B), five months (in relation to the offending against H) and five months (in relation to the offending against M) appropriate.

In respect of the breach of suppression offences, we agree with the Judge that they were sufficiently interconnected and similar in kind to attract concurrent.

Discount for poor health

In respect of the Judge’s four-month discount for ill health, we consider that he was particularly well placed to make the necessary assessment.

We agree with the Judge that Mr Nottingham presented with a complex combination of physical and mental health problems. Several reports identify him as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) attributable to childhood
trauma and although Dr Skipworth says this diagnosis “is controversial in cases of life-long trauma such as Mr Nottingham describes”, nevertheless he accepts it is one way clinicians choose to diagnose and understand “long-term personality dysfunction, interpersonal relational difficulties, cognitive impairment and mood dysregulation in presentations such as Mr Nottingham’s”.

We also note a diagnosis of a traumatic brain injury sustained in a high-speed motorcycle accident in 1996 and a further serious motorcycle accident in 2016 which Dr Walls was concerned had “significantly aggravated the old traumatic brain injury”.

Likewise, Mr Nottingham suffers from a significant number of physical impairments, principal among them recurrent and serious atrial fibrillation. This condition in turn compounds the congestive heart failure from which he also suffers. Multiple hospital admissions have resulted.

Overall, we are not persuaded that the Judge was wrong to make the allowance he did.

There’s not doubt there are serious health issues (and more than what is stated here), and that prison would impose more hardship than normal.

With such a dire health report I wonder that there would be far better and more important things to do than harass people and get bogged down in lengthy court procedures.

Combining the totality and health discounts, we therefore arrive at a sentence of 31 months’ imprisonment which is approximately 30 per cent higher than the Judge’s end point.

In re-sentencing Mr Nottingham we are, however, obliged to take into account the three and a half months of home detention he has already served. Allowing a seven-month discount in this respect again brings Mr Nottingham’s sentence to a level where the Court is obliged to consider home detention. We consider that to be an appropriate sentence, particularly having regard to:

(a) Mr Nottingham’s physical and mental health, which we consider would make the consequences of imprisonment disproportionately severe;

(b) the opportunity to direct participation in rehabilitative programmes, as recognised by the Judge; and

(c) the ability to protect the interests of the complainants and the community by the imposition of restrictive conditions of internet access, again as recognised and directed by the Judge.

I hope the complainants and other victims are adequately protected.

With no sign of acceptance of responsibility nor remorse I have doubts about the prospects of rehabilitative programmes having much impact.

Our approach is therefore to impose concurrent sentences, as follows:

(a) in respect of the offending against C, 12 months’ home detention, concurrent with all other sentences;

(b) in respect of the offending against T, 12 months’ home detention, concurrent with all other sentences;

(c) in respect of the offending against B, eight months’ home detention, concurrent with all other sentences;

(d) in respect of the offending against H, six months’ home detention, concurrent with all other sentences;

(e) in respect of the offending against M, six months’ home detention, concurrent with all other sentences; and

(f) in respect of each breach of suppression, five months’ home detention concurrent with all other sentences.

The existing (part-served) sentence of home detention is quashed.

A new sentence of 12 months’ home detention (with identified concurrent home detention sentences) plus 100 hours’ community work is imposed, subject to the same conditions as imposed by the District Court.

That’s additional to the three and a half months home detention already served.

I’m aware there are some people who claim to have been badly affected by attacks by Nottingham and his cronies think that prison is deserved, but (and I haven’t been as severely affected) I don’t have a problem with the end sentence, despite him continuing with attacks and harassment while facing the charges this sentence applies to.

However if Nottingham offends again he would deserve what Court should then deal him.

I note that Nottingham tried to get a judge to put me “in prison by Christmas” in 2015 – for (allegedly and incorrectly) enabling people to find his posts at LF. But as with his double standards on name suppression – abusing and breaching it for others but claiming it for himself (as did Cameron Slater), what he wanted to inflict on others was something he tried to weasel out of for himself.

Full judgment: NOTTINGHAM v R [2019] NZCA 344 [30 July 2019]

Dermot Nottingham appeals fail, sentence increased

The original 12 month home detention sentence (three and a half of which has been served) and 100 hours community work has been quashed, and replaced with a new sentence of 12 months home detention presumably beginning from the appeal judgment made last week. He has been banned again from using the Internet for 18 months.

After being charged in 2015 and following numerous delays Dermot Nottingham went to trial last year and was found guilty by a jury of five criminal harassment charges and two breaches of court suppression orders.  He was sentenced in July 2018.

Nottingham appealed both the conviction and sentence, and the Crown also appealed the sentence, claiming it was ‘manifestly inadequate’.  Nottingham has lost both of his appeals, and the sentence has been increased, but again by a judicial whisker he has avoided a prison sentence.

NZ Herald: Blogger’s convictions for ‘malicious and misogynistic attacks’ on former MP, business people stick

Auckland’s Crown Solicitor Brian Dickey said at Nottingham’s sentencing the breaches were an “attack on the High Court”.

Judge Jonathan Down also categorised the breaches as “blatant and contemptuous” and noted Nottingham showed no remorse.

In one instance he sent one of his victims a scene from the Quentin Tarantino film Pulp Fiction, which showed a person being shot in the head.

He can be very nasty, and has attacked many people over the last decade. The charges were laid were deemed representative of the worst examples, but that’s debatable, I have heard claims of despicable attacks (disclosure –  Nottingham has attacked me extensively including trying unsuccessfully to prosecute and imprison me, which was part vindictiveness, part an attempt to concoct a defence for the charges he faced).

All of Nottingham’s harassment victims have been granted permanent name suppression.

The Crown also alleged various other acts of harassment, including “following”, and in one case initiating a private prosecution.

I’m ware of private prosecutions against seven people or companies. These all failed, and after hundreds of thousands of dollars of court costs were awarded against him Nottingham with no attempt made to pay them Nottingham was adjudicated bankrupt in September 2018.

Nottingham, who represented himself, had also called former Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater to give evidence and argued at his trial that his “articles” were covered by freedom of expression rights.

Slater has also been implicated in making use of the notorious attack website that Nottingham was found to have been the main user of. From his sentencing notes last year “Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem (in other words, the leading mind of that blog) or he is so intimately related to it that it is proper to conclude that he provided information and draft articles to that blog site knowing and intending that they would be published. He makes the concession…that he has never denied that he has supplied information to the website…” – see “Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem…or he is so intimately related to it…”

Nottingham and Slater have been associated in a number of legal proceedings (including the attempted prosecution of myself and three others), but others have also been involved and aided and abetted, including his brothers Phillip and Antony, Marc Spring and Earle McKinney.

During his appeal, Nottingham argued his convictions should be quashed because the blog site was based overseas.

“You cannot be a party to a crime that never occurred in an overseas jurisdiction,” he said.

So he didn’t deny attacking and defaming people on the website, he just claimed he was immune from new Zealand law.

However, in his summing-up at the trial, Judge Down said: “Even if the main parts of a crime are committed abroad, if you do something to further that crime, and you have done it in New Zealand, that crime, the whole thing can be prosecuted in New Zealand.”

The Court of Appeal judges, Justice John Wild, Justice Susan Thomas and Justice Matthew Muir, agreed.

“We identify no error in that direction,” they said.

Slater’s “unambiguous position” was it was impossible to do anything online which did not leave “footprints everywhere”, the Court of Appeal decision reads.

Despite this, the Court of Appeal sided with the Crown’s position that the circumstantial evidence relied on was “very strong, if not overwhelming”.

It included text messages and internet history showing Nottingham was trying to obtain and research information about the Dudley case, particularly the names of the defendants.

While a police search of computers Nottingham had access to identified several key court documents, including the judge’s sentencing notes, witness statements and a witness list.

Seven hours before publication of the blog, Nottingham also wrote to the police officer heading the inquiry with the subject line: “Report I Am authoring on the Dudley killing”.

The Court of Appeal said much of the harassment material “could at best be described as virulent opinion with only a tangential connection to anything arguably true”.

In other words, Nottingham attacked people making false accusations and assertions, something I have seen a lot of in emails and court documents.

“As the Crown said in closing, the posts were littered with ‘hate-filled [invective]’ and were strongly misogynistic,” the judges said.

In calculating the sentence the Court of Appeal judges arrived at 31 months’ imprisonment – about 30 per cent higher than Judge Down’s end point.

However, in re-sentencing Nottingham, the trio of judges was “obliged” to take into account the three and a half months of home detention he had already served.

“Allowing a seven-month discount in this respect again brings Mr Nottingham’s sentence to a level where the court is obliged to consider home detention.”

If that had been the original sentence last year Nottingham would have ended up in prison.

The court quashed the existing, part-served, sentence and imposed a new 12 months’ home detention term, plus the 100 hours of community work for the suppression breach.

Nottingham’s special conditions also remained, and include not using any electronic device capable of accessing the internet without prior approval from a probation officer.

I take from this that the new 12 months home detention term begins from last week’s appeal judgment. And I presume there remains a further 6 month Internet ban after that, which would run through to early 2021.

At least this and his bankruptcy (after he took nearly a year to file a statement of affairs he is due to be discharged from bankruptcy on 11 September 2022) should limit his capability to attack and harass people online should also restrict his habit of vexatious litigation.

Nottingham and his gang of online thugs remain unrepentant and a lot of defamatory attack material remains online, but that poses more risks to him than anyone. I think at least one legal proceeding continues against Nottingham for posts done years ago.

Will Nottingham try to appeal this new sentence in the Supreme Court? On past behaviour he may like to try, but the Official Assignee may make that difficult if not impossible. I need to find out, because bizarrely suppression on aspects of the failed case against me continues until his case has reached a final resolution.

When more details are available online in the judgment I will do a post on that.


Many judgments with suppression involved or from the District are not published online, but here is a reference to some of those that are:

Nottingham v Maltese Cat Limited [2019] NZCA 246 (24 June 2019)

That is just back to 2015, Nottingham has a long legal history.

I think in all but one of those Nottingham lost his case.

There is one appeal he won, where a High Court judge supported a District Court judge ruling that Nottingham was in contempt of Court, but due to the judge not following procedures correctly the finding was set aside.

Nottingham fails in court again

Dermot Nottingham has failed in another application to the Court of Appeal, this time seeking further Crown disclosure before an appeal against his conviction and sentence last year. The CoA ruled out “evidence neither before nor capable of being before the Court, or the background motives of those who did or did not give evidence, to the extent that was not already put in evidence”.

Nottingham must have been involved in more court proceedings than most over the last decade, with a very high failure rate. He used to describe himself as ‘justice campaigner’, but I think more appropriate descriptions are ‘hopeless’  and ‘vexatious’.

The latest judgment – NOTTINGHAM v R [2019] NZCA 188 [30 May 2019] – follows a hearing in 20 May – that was supposed to be an appeal hearing but was delayed until later this month as that date was reassigned to hear his application for discovery.

[1] After a lengthy jury trial in Auckland, the appellant was found guilty of two charges of breaching non-publication orders and five charges of criminal harassment. He was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention and 100 hours’ community work.

[2] The Solicitor-General has appealed Mr Nottingham’s sentence on the basis it is, she says, manifestly inadequate. Mr Nottingham has appealed both conviction and sentence. These appeals are to be heard by Criminal Appeal Division on 25 June 2019.

[3] On 13 March 2019 Mr Nottingham filed an application seeking orders for further disclosure from non-parties and the Crown pursuant to “the salient provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011”.

Very ironic. In Nottingham’s private prosecution of myself and three others he repeatedly failed to provide proper disclosure, and never provided adequate disclosure, ignoring a number of legal requirements, requests and orders of the court.

[4] The non-party disclosure application was considered by this Court and declined in a judgment dated 14 May 2019…

See Nottingham refused fishing expedition by Court of Appeal.

Continued from the latest judgment:

…This judgment deals with the application against the Crown.

[7] Mr Nottingham contends that this information is relevant and necessary to due consideration of the appeals on 25 June because the police did not properly investigate the complaints made against him and there was a conspiracy including police officers to “fit [him] up”. The documents will assist him “build layers to show how the investigative process went awry”.

This is not unusual. He claimed a conspiracy involving police and court officials and media in his failed private prosecutions of APN, Prentice and Allied Press, George, but never provided any evidence.

Also “The appellants’ allegations of bias and conspiracy have been rejected by the High Court and Court of Appeal on the basis that they are not supported by the evidence.” – DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM, PHILLIP NOTTINGHAM AND ROBERT EARLE MCKINNEY V THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2017] NZCA 145 [28 April 2017]

“Gilbert J struck out Mr Nottingham’s statement of claim in a judicial review proceeding brought against the District Court at Auckland and the second respondents alleging a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Gilbert J found the claim was “replete with scandalous and outrageous allegations” and that no attempt was made to provide factual particulars of the various allegations of dishonesty.” – DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2018] NZSC 110 [20 November 2018]

Earlier in the prosecution proceedings currently being appealed Nottingham accused a judge of misconduct and ‘tampering with evidence’.

[10] In open Court, Mr Nottingham raised the issue of whether or not Judge Collins should preside at the mentions hearing. He stated as follows:

I’ve filed a judicial review of your decision and of Judge Paul’s decisions in the prosecution of Mr Honey, where I was prosecutor, I’m alleging that you misconducted yourself in relation to the legal finding that a person who is a
accused cannot be cross examined on an affidavit they have produced in support of an application for the continuing name suppression. Serious allegations are made against you, the High Court is to hear those allegations, there is a strike out being (inaudible) which we are confident of getting rid of, so it’s submitted Sir, with your knowledge of that, the allegations against you will be improper for you to continue to make any directions and that this matter of a callover should be adjourned to another date where another Judge can read that, my submissions on a memoranda …

A little later Mr Nottingham said as follows:

Sir, you’re aware of the allegations against you. The allegations include you tampering with the transcript. …
If you consider it’s fit for you to stand here when there’s a prima facie case that you tampered with the transcript. To remove the very material that proves that you made a decision –

The Judge then said as follows:

Are you in Court saying to me that I have tampered with a transcript?

Mr Nottingham replied:

I am saying there is a prima facie case for it, yes …

Well a Judge cannot sit with a prima facia case of him tampering with evidence on a factually related matter and that he’s aware of the allegations and they are [laid] before the supervisory Court of this Court. I can have a judicial review filed within four weeks.

The Judge went on to say as follows:

Do not interrupt and I’m going to give a judgment for a ruling in a moment on a question of contempt of Court.

 – NOTTINGHAM v SOLICITOR-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 1325 [15 June 2017]

Back to the latest judgment:

[9] As noted earlier, the Crown submission is substantive and substantial. It is also compelling. If the material now sought was relevant to culpability, it should have been sought and obtained before or at trial. If relevant to penalty, it should have been sought and obtained before sentencing. Be that as it may, what matters most here is its utility (if any) to the appeals pending in this Court.

[10] As to that, Mr Nottingham has entirely failed to persuade us that any of the material now sought is necessary for the due conduct of the appeals.

[12] This application is, therefore, an ill-assessed distraction from the issues on appeal. These must focus on the admissibility of the evidence adduced, the inferences properly to be drawn from that evidence and the directions given by the trial Judge, rather than on evidence neither before nor capable of being before the Court, or the background motives of those who did or did not give evidence, to the extent that was not already put in evidence. There is a limit. It has long since been crossed in this application.

Result

[13] The application is declined

So next up is the actual appeals in two weeks on 25th June, unless Nottingham finds another way to divert or delay.

The courts sound like they have had enough of his stunts, but I wouldn’t rule out more urgent memorandums – he has often filed or tried to file those right up to and during hearings. In one of my appeal proceedings he filed a memorandum just hours before a hearing applying to adduce new evidence, despite the case having never made it to trial.

Like then, the latest failed application sounds like Nottingham is trying to relitigate his prosecution, but in this case it was him being prosecuted. And the Court is not allowing him to re-write criminal procedures.

The many identities of Marc Spring include…

Here are some pseudonyms that I believe have been identified as being used by Marc Spring in various media and social media forums.

  • ThreeMonkeys
  • SHAFT
  • The Ape
  • NOT MIKE
  • 4077th
  • Gweg pwesland
  • pimp
  • phillip
  • DaveG
  • slicedcheesesandwich
  • Justice4Matt
  • BLOMFIELDS EX BIZ PARTNER
  • Harry ‘Gold Star’ Stottle
  • Harry Stottle
  • to HELL in a handbasket
  • The Assasin
  • David Jessop
  • CHEEKY DARKY
  • the MONKEYS RAINCOAT
  • Elton
  • Samantha Hays
  • The Barber
  • They Walk, they talk, they harm
  • THE PRIEST
  • Hannibal Lecters Psychologist
  • Inspector Clouseau
  • Rod
  • I HAVE THE HARD DRIVE
  • MARC NEVER FORGETS CUNT
  • I AM OWED TOO
  • THE WORST NIGHTMARE
  • When dies Bankrupt = Businessman
  • Jean
  • Bus Driver
  • LORD DONKEY
  • Harvey Specter
  • TYRANT/THE TYRANT
  • HUSTLER
  • BUCK WIT
  • Shagger
  • Gimp of Greenhithe
  • Spiderman wants his mask back
  • RAMBONE OF RAMBONIA
  • Reaper Crew
  • Gay Mo
  • Rolf Harris
  • Bill Brown
  • Reaper Crew

I expect there have been many more.

A number of those are familiar to me.

An H Stottle commented on Lauda Finem on 3 March 2017. On the same thread there is also a Cock Goblin comment.

Cock Goblin also comments on a post on 8 January 2017 – that’s on a post that sounds to me like it was also written by Spring.

Reaper Crew rang a bell, and sure enough, on Lauda Finem:

SHAFT (aka Spring) also comments on that thread.

This is very familiar to me. The rest of that latter comment published an article from NZ Herald that Dermot Nottingham, aided by Marc Spring, Cameron Slater and Earle McKinney went on to run a private prosecution against the Herald (sort of, they charged the wrong company), Allied Press, myself and Lynn Prentice. They also demanded that the article was taken down, claiming it could prevent  fair trial that Nottingham was facing, while it remained on Lauda Finem right through to his trial (and is still online).

The following comment:

Charges were indeed filed within 4 months, but the prosecution was a vexatious mess and costs awarded against Nottingham contributed to him being declared bankrupt.

Background to the APN/Prentice charges is detailed in a failed appeal: NOTTINGHAM v APN NEWS & MEDIA LTD [2018] NZHC 596 [29 March 2018]

As well as being bankrupt Nottingham is currently serving home detention after being convicted of criminal harassment and suppression breaches where he was found to be the main force behind Lauda Finem (an appeal will be heard against the sentence and also for a stronger sentence later this month).

Slater has also fallen foul of court costs after a length defamation proceeding with Matthew Blomfield and has also now bankrupt.

Earle McKinney has managed to escape most consequences, but put his company Advantage Associates Limited into liquidation last year. Nottingham had been his sole employee until he had an accident in April 2016.

Spring has also escaped major consequences – so far.

Spring was still active under different pseudonyms this week. One he has been using at Your NZ for several months is Bill Brown.

The many identities of Marc Spring

The launch this week of the book Whale Oil understandably put Cameron Slater and his dirty blogging at the centre of attention. But he has been in some cases paid and aided, abetted and used by a number of accomplices.

Someone who has been closely associated with Slater in his sustained attacks on Matt Blomfield is an ex-business associate of Blomfield’s, Marc Spring. If anything he has done more for longer than Slater.

One way Spring has kept attacks going against Blomfield (and others including myself) is his use of many identities (pseudonyms) in his online activities.

How many identities? That’s hard to quantify, but it’s many. my guess is well over a hundred identities, if not many more.

Spring has used multiple identities to make it appear as if there is wider support for his claims, his false and misleading information, and his mistruths or lies.

From Whale Oil (the book):

..,an increasing number of nasty and inflammatory statements about Matt started  appearing on news sites and blogs, under many different names, this giving the appearance of many people hating Matt and saying he was dangerous and damaging.

It was at this point Dunedin blogger Pete George inadvertently poked the bear. Noticing a number of nasty comments about matt on his blog he allowed Matt – with whom he had no previous contact – a right of reply.

As a result George found himself targeted on Twitter, tagged on @laudafinem and @marcspring…

Things got much worse for George, who found himself embroiled in a length and expensive legal action taken against him by Dermot Nottingham. Marc Spring also served documents on him, as well as suggesting to George that he could be ‘fucked over’ as someone else had been on Whale Oil.

Following a few clues, George ‘began’ to think about things that could be related’.

In September 2015 he wrote to Matt to let him know what he’d discovered: a list of 47 aliases, all emanating from digital addresses related to Marc Spring.

(Excerpts from the book)

That number of identities astonished me (but it isn’t that many names, it was also included many email address identifications). They had started in January 2015, so over about eight months.

He used more since then, especially over the next few months when there was a major attempt to disrupt and discredit Your NZ. He continues too use multiple pseudonyms here. How many in all? I haven’t counted. Fifty, sixty, seventy perhaps. And that’s just here.

One common technique is posting a comment under one pseudonym, and then replying under one or more other pseudonyms that agree with or add to the original comment, trying to give an appearance of wider support and agreement for his accusations and attacks.

I’ve also seen similar methods used at Lauda Finem. It’s quite possible most comments there are by Spring and associates trying to give the appearance of credibility and support for the outlandish posts there. I believe that Spring has also either written or at least contributed to posts at Lauda Finem. Some of the later ones sounded deranged.

Spring has close associations with Dermot Nottingham, who was found last year by a jury and a judge to have been the main person behind Lauda Finem (Slater also has links to that website).

I also believe that Spring has probably been using multiple identities at Whale Oil, and I believe at Kiwiblog – there was a comment there this week that sounded very Spring-like to me.

It is likely he has used other identities elsewhere in social media.

Spring was blatantly and openly active on Twitter, often associating with @laudafinem in harassment of me, but has now tried to scrub that. But he has mostly acted anonymously.

It is hard to know whether Spring operated all these identities himself, or whether he had help. I know that Nottingham also used multiple identities, but they were identifiably different.

This use and abuse of pseudonyms has not only been a means of attack, abuse, harassment and defamation, they have also at times been done in breach of court orders.

It’s hard to imagine how Spring managed to manage so many identities, but to an extent that gave him away – he often tried to disguise himself when establishing a new identity, but eventually revealed the same old style and tricks. It became a giveaway when he inevitably attacked Blomfield. The manner in which he does this has become very familiar.

In ways Spring’s deception has been quite sophisticated, either carefully planned or from a lot of experience. But he couldn’t keep disguising his motives, which were to attack Blomfield, and anyone he considered a threat to his campaign of harassment.

This multi-identity deception is an abuse of the use of pseudonyms, and it makes things more awkward for the many people who legitimately and reasonable use pseudonyms (or more to the point, a pseudonym).

It means one has to be sceptical of online claims and campaigns. With experience it becomes easier to spot the pseudonym abusers, but only if you’re looking for it.

The use of multiple pseudonyms or switched pseudonyms is largely under control here at Your NZ. It happens, but I usually know when it happens.

Whale Oil in particular cannot be trusted. While I think it’s likely Spring has used multiple identities there it also looks to me like it is a common practice there – not of ordinary users, but of blog management. A few years ago Pete Belt was sprung giving a favourable review to  book Slater had published using an alias. Slater and Spring have worked together so it is not a surprise that they might use the same sort of deceptions.

From my experience and observations Spring has to be the king of fake online identities. And he is still at it.

So what is the ‘Whale Oil’ book about?

A book called ‘Whale Oil’ by author Margie Thomson was launched by Nicky Hager last night in Auckland to a large receptive crowd. I now have a copy of the book, and have been able to have a quick look through it.

The book has been very well researched and well written. It is very readable, and should be of interest to a much wider audience than people involved in blogging.

Disclosure: I was interviewed by Margie, and feature in a very minor way in the book, due to the fact that I was dragged into a campaign of harassment and was myself harassed when I put a stop to attacks here on Your NZ.

Obviously the book is about the Whale Oil blog and about Cameron Slater aka ‘Whale Oil’ the blogger (or sort of ex blogger). But it is about much more than that.

Primarily the book is about Matt Blomfield and his partner Rebecca and daughters Rosalie and Bella, and the extreme harassment they have been subjected to for about a decade. The worst of this was a home invasion attack on Blomfield in which a shotgun was used and Matt was seriously assaulted in front of his family, who were also targeted, But there was much more attacking and harassment, ranging from extensive attacks on Matt’s business operations, threats to family, and even an attempt by someone called Cam Slater trying to friend a 10 year old daughter on Snapchat.

The handling of the assault and a number of other complaints made to the police, in particular the lack of police action, feature prominently through the book. These issues are still under scrutiny.

The six year defamation case that Matt pursued against Slater also features. This shows that claims by Slater and associates on Whale Oil that lead to the defamation, throughout the proceedings, were largely a big pile of whale shit. Finally last October a judge ruled that after years of deliberate delays and stalling and incompetence, Slater had no credible defence.

Damages may take another year to be determined, but as Slater declared himself bankrupt it could be a hollow victory for Matt, unless some of the company and asset ownerships that have been ‘rearranged are unraveled.

Also under scrutiny in the book is ‘Operation Bumslide’, a campaign of harassment by Slater and ex business associates of Matt’s – Warren Powell, Marc Spring and Amanda Easterbrook, plus the close association with the notorious Dermot Nottingham.

Matt’s challenging but determined efforts to shut down Lauda Finem and their notorious website are also covered. However there is still a lot of material still online, despite a jury and judge finding that Nottingham was largely responsible. Spring and Slater were also implicated in using Lauda Finem to harass and attack people, including myself (and many others).

Things have caught up on Slater and Nottingham, both now bankrupt and both suffering health problems – although it is apparent that Whale Oil overstated the effects of the stroke suffered by Slater last October, and Slater tried to avoid and delay court proceedings claiming he was incapacitated, while showing he was far more capable than he was claiming.

But what about the others? It is claimed that Powell paid Slater, which has implications of the campaign against Matt being a paid hit job. But Powell moved overseas.

Easterbrook is put under scrutiny for her involvement. She seems to have avoided consequences so far, but will be uneasy about what is written about her.

And Spring, in my opinion, still looks like a loose cannon, unrepentant and intent on continuing his harassing activities. The book claims that evidence shows that both Spring and Slater discussed the attack on Matt before it happened as well as immediately afterwards. Lack of police action in that respect looks odd, but Spring seems to have been dealt with leniently by police over the years of harassment. Perhaps an attempt at justice will finally be seen to be done.


The book also looks at the wider and very topical issue of bullying and online harassment, and the failure of the police and court system to adequately protect people.

Nottingham has been convicted of five counts of criminal harassment, in which he harassed people over periods of several years. The sentencing judge said that the five charges were the worst of many found on the Lauda Finem website. I disagree with the judge on this.

Matt Blomfield and Rebecca and Rosalie and Bella have, I believe, been subjected to far worse, over a longer period of time, than any of the victims for which Nottingham alone has been convicted. I am amazed and concerned that the police have not addressed this adequately, or addressed those working with Nottingham, in particular Slater and Spring.

Perhaps the book will prompt some more holding to account for the worst case of harassment by a big margin.

These are nasty people who seem to enjoy trying to destroy people’s lives (they have called it fucking over’ – and possibly in one case, take lives. They seem unremorseful, unrepentant, and Spring at least seems intent on continuing with this behaviour, while claiming to be a victim (something Slater and Nottingham have also done). This is typical of bullies.

Matt Blomfield has done something huge for the many victims of abuse from this group of people, he has stood up to them, he has had significant successes, and through this book has highlighted a number of things that should be of concern to the public.

‘Whale Oil’ is about far more than a blog. It is about a pod of pricks.

This has been online bullying at it’s worst. At least it has now been confronted and serious questions have been asked. However more answers are needed, and as a society we need to be looking at how we can prevent this sort of thing from happening, at least to this extent.


Margie has done a great job with this book. Please read it. Copies have been distributed to book shops around the country.

Those of you who have followed things here over the past few years will recognise a lot of what is detailed in the book, but there will be things that will (or should) shock you.

It should also have wider appeal. It details real dangers of harassment online, and how the tentacles of that can spread into the real world, doing real harm.

The book can be ordered online, eg: https://www.whitcoulls.co.nz/product/whale-oil-6462218

But bookstores should have copies.

Nottingham’s conviction and sentence appeals delayed

Dermot Nottingham’s appeal against conviction and sentence, and the Crown appeal against a ‘manifestly inadequate’ sentence, has been moved to 25 June, after the scheduled appeal date last Monday was used for a pre-hearing application for further disclosure.

Recently NZH reported that the Court of Appeal declined an application for non-party disclosure – see ‘Malicious and nasty’ blogger accuses former MP of perjury, asks court to release their emails

The judgment says that Nottingham was on a fishing expedition trying to get phone, email and medical records of victims of criminal harassment, which he was convicted of and sentenced in July last year, and that Nottingham and his defence had had ample opportunity to cross-examine at trial.

We are neither satisfied that those persons are likely to hold the information Mr Nottingham seeks nor, even if we thought that was likely, that all or part of it appears to be relevant. The open-ended and speculative nature of the reasons on which Mr Nottingham based his application reflect the almost inevitability of that conclusion. The application is, in reality, a fishing expedition and, being made in the context of an appeal, has even less justification than might have been the case if it was made pre-trial.

This sort of speculative fishing for evidence in court to support accusations made by Nottingham is a common tactic of Nottingham – his failure to support accusations with evidence has been a recurring problem in his private prosecutions and appeals. This is why he has failed in court so often. He also tried to avoid bankruptcy by submitting claims of debt from family and associates that had no proof of debt supplied.

The recent judgment also details an application by Nottingham for further Crown disclosure. The Court determined that this had to be decided at a hearing, so the scheduled appeals hearing last Monday was changed to deal with the disclosure application, and;

…the Crown and Mr Nottingham’s appeals against sentence and conviction and sentence respectively will be heard on 25 June 2019.

That runs close to the end of Nottingham’s 12 month home detention sentence, but his six months’ post-detention term runs beyond that.

The judgment also gives details of the criminal harassment that Nottingham was convicted of.

(a) A1, separated from her partner A2 and made a complaint to police of assault against him. Mr Nottingham was an associate of A2 and began, in his capacity as an advocate, to work on his behalf. This resulted in an extended course of conduct towards A2 characterised as criminal harassment.

(b) Between 2011 and 2013 the defendant adopted a course of conduct towards B characterised as criminal harassment.

(c) Between 2011 and 2015, the defendant embarked on a course of conduct which has been characterised as harassing C.

(d) Between November 2011 and February 2015, Mr Nottingham embarked on a course of conduct amounting to criminal harassment of D.

(e) Between November 2011 and June 2014, the defendant embarked on a course of conduct amounting to criminal harassment of E.

So the harassment was over extended periods of up to more than three years. From sentencing notes:

It was clear to me that, for some of the complainants, life over an extended period of time had been made very uncomfortable and distressing, in some cases affecting the daily lives of some complainants whose reputations in their community had been so badly maligned as to cause them to withdraw within themselves.

These were just deemed to be the worst examples.

During that five year period the defendant undertook numerous campaigns of harassment against a number of individuals, the most egregious and persistent of which were represented by the five complainants in the trial.

There are many people who have been targeted by Nottingham and associates, which includes Earle McKinney, Marc Spring and Cameron Slater. Given what Matthew Blomfield was subjected to he dispute “the most egregious and persistent of which were represented by the five complainants in the trial”.

And I know there are others who feel they had valid claims of harassment as well.

To a lesser but still substantial extent Nottingham and his associates also attacked, abused, threatened and harassed me via email, Twitter, that infamous website, and via the courts for three and a half years. I’m not sure if it is over yet, because Nottingham has a record of attempting out of time appeals.

However Nottingham is now quite restricted in what court action he can take, as any legal action is subject to approval of the Official Assignee. He was adjudicated a bankrupt in September 2018, which normally lasts for three years. However, despite being required by law to provide a Statement of Affairs within two weeks that has still not been done, and the three years doesn’t commence until the Statement has been provided.

This will give some respite for the many people who have been hassled and harassed by Nottingham. The same applies to Slater, who periodically claims to be the victim of what he calls ‘lawfare’ – something he has been very much associated with doing himself. Also a bankrupt, Slater (since February this year) is also now under the jurisdiction of the Official Assignee.

The current 12 month home detention sentence began on 26 July 2018. It includes the following restrictions:

[61] Mr Nottinghan, the jury having found you guilty on all seven counts, you are convicted on each of those counts and sentenced as follows. The conditions are as follows:

(b) You are not to associate with or contact any victim or witness of your offending without prior written approval of a probation officer, except in relation to C. You may correspond with her solicitors in relation to current proceedings.

(c) You are not to possess or use any electronic device capable ofaccessing the Internet for capturing, storing, accessing or distributing images (including without limitation any personal computers, notebooks, tablets or cellphones) without prior written approval from a probation
officer.

[62] You will also be subject to six months’ post-detention conditions which will mirror the conditions that I have just imposed.

There will be a number of people interested in the outcome of Nottingham’s appeal, and also the Crown appeal.

And whether he has been rehabilitated. There is little sign of that yet. Sentencing notes:

Mr Nottingham does not qualify for any consideration of reduction of sentence for guilty pleas, or indeed for
remorse. He has doggedly defended the allegations and required the complainants to give evidence. Although this does not add to the sentence I impose, it highlights why Mr Nottingham is not entitled to any discount for remorse or acceptance. Indeed, I recall that one of the complainants stated quite clearly that she considered her being required to give evidence in this proceeding was a continuation of the harassment towards her.

The recent judgment noted that a hearing for an application for phone, email and medical records from victims would have further impacted on them.

[24] That A and D, as the jury’s verdicts establish, victims of Mr Nottingham’s criminal harassment, is a further reason not to put them through the invasive process that a hearing of this application would occasion.

Sentencing notes:

[53] In his written submissions, Mr Nottingham makes it plain that he disagrees with the findings of the jmy and challenges many of the rulings of the Court. As is characteristic of his approach to legal proceedings, I anticipate that Mr Nottingham will pursue all avenues of review and appeal and is unlikely ever to accept that what he did was not only unlawful, but reprehensible.

NZH:

Brian Dickey, Auckland’s crown solicitor, said Nottingham’s harassment was at the high end of the criminal spectrum, calling it “so malicious, so nasty”.

“He shows absolutely no insight into his offending, no remorse,” he said at the blogger’s sentencing.

That doesn’t appear to have changed.

I haven’t seen any sign of remorse from Nottingham’s associates either. One was recently still trying to blame me for standing up to them and reacting to their harassment.

Nottingham’s apparent ongoing lack of remorse may or may not be a factor in next month’s appeal, but it must be a concern for the many victims of his attacks and harassment.

Court of Appeal, 25 June 2019 is the next date of significance, unless Nottingham tries more of his delaying stunts.

Nottingham’s claims of perjury and court record

Dermot Nottingham has an extensive record of litigation, most of it unsuccessful. When he doesn’t get the judgments he wants he often blames others – sometimes the judges, and this has got him into trouble with courts. He also has a habit of blaming the victims of his legal misadventures, and also the victims of his harassment.

And this is what has happened after he was convicted of five counts of criminal harassment last July – he claims the victims of his harassment committed perjury.

NZ Herald: ‘Malicious and nasty’ blogger accuses former MP of perjury, asks court to release their emails

While ‘malicious and nasty’ may sound harsh from my experience with Nottingham it is an appropriate description. I think he could justifiably be called worse things than that.

A “malicious and nasty” blogger, who was convicted of criminal harassment and breaching court orders, has now accused a former parliamentarian of perjury.

Dermot Gregory Nottingham was found guilty of five criminal harassment charges and two breaches of court suppression orders following a lengthy trial, in which he represented himself, during April and May last year.

Nottingham was targeting business people, civil servants and a former member of Parliament.

He had taken and published photos of them, their homes and was making false claims of drug abuse and corruption.

One of the five victims, all of whom have permanent name suppression, said they had been stalked and photographed, with their images appearing on the blog page.

Now, however, Nottingham wants the cellphone records, emails and medical notes of three of his victims.

He claims they are guilty of perjury, having testified at his trial.

In an application for a non-party disclosure hearing, Nottingham asked the Court of Appeal for the emails sent and received by the then-MP about himself.

He also sought the cellphone records for the past six months from a second victim and the medical records of a third.

Nottingham claimed this would prove they lied at his trial.

However, in its decision sent to the Herald yesterday evening, the Court of Appeal refused Nottingham’s application.

The three judges said the application is “in reality, a fishing expedition”.

Accusations of lying and fishing expeditions sound familiar. When launching private prosecutions against myself, APN, Allied press and Prentice he didn’t have evidence, just accusations that he hoped to prove in court (not the way prosecutions are supposed to work).

The first and only time I met Nottingham face to face, outside the Dunedin court in October 2015, he falsely accused me of lying in front of my lawyer. Later viaa email he threatened to report my lawyer to the Law Society for falsely alleged ‘serious misconduct’. He also said:

In due course I will be examining certain persons that I have been reliably informed are anonymous posters on your clients hate blog.   As part of that process I will be seeking their email and others records. 

I will also obtain your clients telephone and text records, and his emails.
 
This procedure will clarify whose criminal agenda he [and they] are pushing.

His ‘reliable’ informants were as bad as him at making things up.

This is a similar tactic he has just used with the Court of Appeal. It indicates he didn’t have evidence he claimed he had when applying to a judge to file charges. He made up accusations and conspiracies  – he claimed that the police, court officials and media had conspired against him, but never produced any evidence.

After eleven months the charges against APN and Prentice were dismissed at trial, and a week later Nottingham withdrew the charges against Allied Press and myself. The costs judgment NOTTINGHAM v APN NEWS & MEDIA LTD [2018] NZHC 1004 [9 May 2018] gives some indication of how the prosecutions were conducted:

[13] Mr Nottingham had brought a private prosecution against APN and Mr Prentice alleging that they had breached confidentiality orders in contravention of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[14] Judge Collins dismissed the case against APN because Mr Nottingham did not have the right defendant..

[16] Judge Collins also held that Mr Nottingham’s evidence at trial fell well short of proving that Mr Prentice was the author or guiding hand behind the website alleged to have made the offending publication. He ruled that Mr Prentice had no case to answer.

[17] Before me, Mr Nottingham did not attempt to explain how, on any appeal, he could remedy this evidential lacuna. Rather, he sought to argue:

(a) that he, as prosecutor, should not have been required to bring the best available evidence to the Court;

(b) he should not have been required to prove every element of the charges; and

(c) that counsel for the defendants had an obligation to advise him if there was an error in his charging documents.

[18] These assertions demonstrate Mr Nottingham’s fundamental misunderstanding of the criminal justice system. They are untenable propositions, and it was frivolous and vexatious to attempt to advance them.

[24] Importantly, for present purposes, the affidavit was in any event inadmissible. As I noted in my judgment, it was replete with irrelevant material, opinion evidence and pontification by a Mr McKinney, who appeared as Mr Nottingham’s McKenzie friend, as to what he – Mr McKinney – thought the law is, or perhaps more precisely, should be. The affidavit contained a number of pejorative comments about Judge Collins and how he ran the trial. It also contained pejorative comments about other persons, in particular…Mr Prentice’s solicitor.

Conclusion

[26] The respondents were put to unnecessary expense, by Mr Nottingham’s multiple procedural failings, and by his obduracy in persisting with this matter, when it was or should have been clear from the outset that the proposed appeal was devoid of any substantive merit.

This is typical of a number of judgments against Nottingham.

The website nzlii.org lists 49 legal documents involving Nottingham going from last year back to 1989. Thirty five of them have been since 2015, an average of nine per year – and these are by no means all. They don’t include any from the District Court, where many of the proceedings began, and they don’t include judgments still covered by suppression.

In my case (alongside Allied Press) none of the proceedings documents are online. Over three years there were nine District Court appearances up until the charges were withdrawn. And following that there were two costs judgments in the District Court, two in the High Court (appeals) and one in the Court of Appeal. Nottingham must have been to court over a hundred times over four years.

Lying and perjury are common accusations.

From Nottingham v Real Estate Agents Authority [2015] NZHC 1616 (10 July 2015)

[29] The appeal is on the grounds:

That the Tribunal acted corruptly, dishonestly, and immorally…

1.1 Misreporting or not reporting evidence that proved that [the defendant] was guilty of the alleged offending;

2.1 Misreporting or not reporting evidence that proved that the CAC had acted corruptly;

14.1 Relying on the impossible explanations of [defendants] when the evidence that was before them proved those explanations as clear and relevant perjury;

[153] I also note that the Tribunal described itself as being concerned and disturbed that the Messrs Nottingham “generated an atmosphere of intimidation in our courtroom”.

[154] Given the nature of some of the appellants’ allegations against the Committee,the Tribunal had to ensure that the hearing was conducted in a structured and measured fashion and that the more extreme allegations did not detract from the real issues.

[155] I am satisfied that the exchanges of concern to the appellants amount to no more than the Tribunal doing its best to manage proceedings and to deal with issues sensibly and reasonably while being fair to all parties.

From Nottingham v Auckland District Court [2017] NZHC 777 (27 April 2017):

[8] Mr Nottingham commenced the present proceeding on 12 September 2016. The proceeding is styled as an application for judicial review. However, it alleges a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and seeks relief that cannot possibly be given in the context of an application for judicial review.

[9] In particular, Mr Nottingham alleges that Judge Paul and Judge Collins (who made procedural directions and rulings in the criminal case) conspired with District Court staff, the second defendants, the second defendants’ counsel and unnamed others, including members of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature, to “defeat, prevent, pervert, interfere, and obstruct justice in order to wrongfully acquit the second defendants” and to award costs in favour of the second defendants.

[10] The asserted “overt criminal actions” are baldly stated in 43 subparagraphs. These comprise outrageous and scandalous conclusory allegations which are wholly unsupported by any factual particulars. This can be illustrated by reciting the first ten alleged overt criminal actions on the list: “committing perjury”; “suborning perjury”; “promoting perjury”; “maladministering judicial office by protecting perjurers”; “maladministering judicial office by ignoring perjury”; “maladministering judicial office by encouraging perjury”; “making formal and informal applications that were based on, and supported by perjury, which perjury also contained false accusation against the plaintiff, [and others, involved]”; “maladministering judicial office by encouraging, and/or ignoring such applications, as cited immediately above”; “making [knowingly] false written, and/or oral, submissions, and/or rulings, as to facts, and law, in order to defeat, prevent, pervert, interfere, and obstruct justice”; and “ordering and/or carrying out the destruction of evidence”.

[11] No one is entitled to make allegations of serious misconduct, such as fraud or bad faith, let alone the extremely serious allegations of criminal conspiracy, corruption and dishonesty that have been advanced in this case, without being in possession of sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case to prove it. Detailed particulars of the specific facts relied on must be pleaded to support the allegation. The statement of claim filed in this case fails miserably when judged against that standard.

Three months later Nottingham was granted leave to file charges against myself and three others after making conspiracy allegations that for which no cogent evidence was ever presented.

[14] The hopelessness of the present claim becomes even clearer when one examines the relief sought, almost all of which could not possibly be entertained in the context of an application for judicial review. The relief sought includes:

(a) an order setting aside the judgment of the District Court acquitting the second defendants and replacing it with a judgment of this Court entering convictions against the second defendants on all charges brought against them by the plaintiff, including convictions on charges that were not accepted for filing or heard;

(b) an order setting aside the judgment awarding costs to the second defendants and replacing it with an award of indemnity costs against the second defendants and their counsel in favour of the plaintiff;

(c) an order holding the second defendants and their counsel “in contempt for perjury, suborning perjury and conspiring to falsely accuse, and conspiring to defeat the course of justice”;

(d) a declaration that the perjury committed by the second defendants and suborned by their counsel was of a most serious nature and that the police should be notified of the specificity and impact of that perjury;

(e) an order directing that the behaviour of the defendants’ counsel be reported to police and the Law Society;

(f) a declaration that the District Court judges have criminally mis-conducted themselves in public office and should be subject to removal procedures as a result;

(g) a declaration that the judges should be investigated for contempt of court;

(h) an order giving access to the plaintiff of all communications between judges and staff and the second defendants, any anyone else [who] communicated with the District Court and the judges;

(i) a substantial award of damages in favour of the plaintiff against the judges and unnamed District Court staff; and

(j) an order stopping the defendants from harassing the plaintiff and his family.

[16] I have no doubt that Mr Nottingham’s claim must be struck out. It is replete with scandalous and outrageous allegations without any attempt having been made to provide supporting factual particulars. Further, almost all of the relief sought could not be granted in the context of an application for judicial review. I am satisfied that these flaws in the claim are of such a fundamental character that they could not be saved by amendment.

That last relief sought (i) is ironic given that Nottingham was the one who was later found guilty of multiple charges of criminal harassment, but he had a habit of accusing others of doing what he did. I was accused of harassing him and his family and associates when they were clearly the ones doing the harassing.

Those here who witnessed the extensive attacks on myself, commenters and Your NZ in late 2015 will attest to who was harassing who.

From Maltese Cat Limited v Doe [2017] NZHC 1634 (14 July 2017):

[26] Mr Nottingham seeks to obtain a declaration that there exists a strong prima facie case to lay criminal charges against those involved in these proceedings where false allegations and fraud have been committed (in the Family Court proceedings). This is opposed on the grounds that it is not an interlocutory application. I agree. False allegations in the Family Court let alone fraud are not an issue in these proceedings.

[27] This is a statement of an intention to prove perjury by the plaintiffs and others under cross-examination etc. This is not an interlocutory application, contemplated in a Part 18 High Court Rules hearing.

[28] This application intends to prove that others have sought to promote, assist, and fund the litigation in order to subvert the due process. Similarly this is an abuse of a Part 18 hearing.

Nottingham made similar (false) accusations against me.

[37] This is an application to have the Court hold the deponents for the plaintiffs in contempt for perjury and conspiring by order to obtain a fraudulent means.

[39] This is an application by Mr Nottingham for search orders of the providers of the emails and phone services to the plaintiffs, to prove a collateral purpose. There is no basis for such an order.

Similar to what he has just tried with the Court of Appeal.

[45] This litigation is in a form far removed from that contemplated when the Court was asked and agreed that the proceedings should continue as an application under Part 18 of the High Court Rules. It is not possible in interlocutory proceedings to resolve all issues of admissibility of the hundreds of pages of “evidence” Mr Nottingham intends to rely on.

[46] I am also concerned that Mr Nottingham apparently does not intend to give evidence himself when there is a live suspicion that he is the person who is the source of the defamatory material on the internet.

Subsequent to this Nottingham was found guilty of posting such material on his website, and he admitted he was the author, but claimed he was immune from New Zealand law, and (NZH): He had tried to argue at trial that his “articles” were covered by freedom of expression rights.

From Nottingham v District Court at Auckland [2018] NZCA 345 (3 September 2018):

Background

[2] In 2014 Mr Nottingham commenced a private prosecution against the respondents, Mr Martin Honey, Mrs Stephanie Honey and Mr Hemi Taka. The charges arose out of claims by Mr Nottingham that the respondents had operated a fraudulent real estate website. There was also a charge of perjury. After a 17day judge-alone trial, Judge Paul dismissed the charges on the basis that there was no case to answer.[3] He acquitted the respondents and made an order that Mr Nottingham pay them costs totalling $117,000 under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.

So a private prosecution alleging perjury was dismissed. Costs awarded against Nottingham in this lengthy proceeding and others, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, led to him being declared bankrupt in September 2018 – see HONEY v NOTTINGHAM [2018] NZHC 2382 [11 September 2018].

I am not aware of any of Nottingham’s allegations of perjury or conspiracy being proven. He has been unsuccessful in almost all of this long litany of legal failures.

Talking of lying and perjury, in his failed attempt to prosecute me, in court documents Nottingham denied responsibility for posts on the now shut down laudafinem.com website.  From Notes of Judge J C Down on Sentencing 26 July 2018 (not online):

[22] Now, I make some findings of fact. Consistent with the verdicts of the jury I have concluded that between 2010 and 2015 Dermot Nottingham published or had published numerous articles on the blog site laudafinem.com. Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem (in other words, the leading mind of that blog) or
he is so intimately related to it that it is proper to conclude that he provided information and draft articles to that blog site knowing and intending that they would be published.

[23] During that five year period the defendant undertook numerous campaigns of harassment against a number of individuals, the most egregious and persistent of which were represented by the five complainants in the trial.

There were many others, including against myself and commenters here. I think that it is debatable that the worst were represented by those Nottingham was convicted of harassing. I have been contacted by a number of victims, who have gone as far as claiming Nottingham has ruined their lives.

[41] In relation to the breach of non-publication orders, Mr· Nottingham states as follows at paragraph 40 of his submissions:

It would seem odd that a severe sentence would be imposed on a party to supplying information to an overseas website on two killers that received no punishment, inclusive of no convictions, and name suppression, as to their identities.

[42] Not only does such a statement reinforce the contempt with which Mr Nottingham holds the decisions of the Court and the non-publication orders, but establishes beyond doubt that Mr Nottingham harbours no sense of remorse in relation to any of this offending.

So he now doesn’t deny providing posts to the infamous blog, despite denials of involvement (lying or at least misleading) in other court proceedings.

Nottingham is appealing his conviction and sentence. The Crown is also appealing his sentence.

Court of Appeal daily list for Monday 20 May:

2:15pm
CA472/2018 & CA492/2018 (to be heard together)
CA472/2018 Dermot Gregory NOTTINGHAM (In Person) v The Queen
CA492/2018 The Queen v Dermot Gregory NOTTINGHAM (In Person)

Nottingham refused fishing expedition by Court of Appeal

Dermot Nottingham’s appeal against his conviction and sentence is on the Court of Appeal fixture list for next Monday. He has already been to the court trying to get cellphone records, emails and medical notes of three of his criminal harassment victims, claiming they lied at his trial, but the court refused that, calling it a fishing expedition.

NZ Herald: ‘Malicious and nasty’ blogger accuses former MP of perjury, asks court to release their emails

A “malicious and nasty” blogger, who was convicted of criminal harassment and breaching court orders, has now accused a former parliamentarian of perjury.

Dermot Gregory Nottingham was found guilty of five criminal harassment charges and two breaches of court suppression orders following a lengthy trial, in which he represented himself, during April and May last year.

He was then sentenced to 12 months’ home detention and 100 hours’ community work for what Judge Jonathan Down described as a blatant and contemptuous breach of court orders and an arrogant view of right and wrong.

Nottingham was targeting business people, civil servants and a former member of Parliament.

He had taken and published photos of them, their homes and was making false claims of drug abuse and corruption.

One of the five victims, all of whom have permanent name suppression, said they had been stalked and photographed, with their images appearing on the blog page.

The sentencing judge said they were the five worst cases of harassment, but that’s debatable. There were many victims of attacks from Nottingham and associates – including myself and others participating here at Your NZ.

Now, however, Nottingham wants the cellphone records, emails and medical notes of three of his victims.

He claims they are guilty of perjury, having testified at his trial.

This isn’t the first time he has made claims like that when court judgments haven’t gone his way (he has been a frequent visitor to courts over the past ten years, unsuccessfully most of the time).

In an application for a non-party disclosure hearing, Nottingham asked the Court of Appeal for the emails sent and received by the then-MP about himself.

Nottingham claimed this would prove they lied at his trial.

He also sought the cellphone records for the past six months from a second victim and the medical records of a third.

He has made a number of accusations in the past without having evidence, including in his failed prosecution of me.

But as in the past the Court of Appeal ruled against him.

“We are neither satisfied that those persons are likely to hold the information Mr Nottingham seeks nor, even if we thought that was likely, that all or part of it appears to be relevant,” Justices Stephen Kos, Brendan Brown and Denis Clifford ruled.

“The open-ended and speculative nature of the reasons on which Mr Nottingham based his application reflect the almost inevitability of that conclusion.”

The three judges said the application is “in reality, a fishing expedition”.

“Moreover, and most importantly, each of [the victims] gave evidence at Mr Nottingham’s trial and were cross-examined at considerable length.

“That cross-examination was an opportunity to test their evidence, both as to its credibility and its reliability.”

The Court of Appeal judges said because those being asked to divulge personal information were victims of Nottingham’s criminal harassment, it was further reason not to put them through the invasive process that a hearing would occasion.

Court of appeal judges referring to “victims of Nottingham’s criminal harassment” suggests it will be challenging for Nottingham to get the convictions overturned.

Nottingham, meanwhile, also appealed both his convictions and his sentence.

He had tried to argue at trial that his “articles” were covered by freedom of expression rights.

He has admitted writing “articles” on ‘that blog’ which will be nameless here, and I think that many who have read articles there, especially about themselves, will suggest Nottingham abused freedom of expression rights.

The prosecution against him, he claims, was a “false case” and the police had created evidence to “fit him up”.

That sounds like what he tried to do with me and others. Court costs awarded against him in those failed cases led to him being declared bankrupt last September.

Brian Dickey, Auckland’s crown solicitor, said Nottingham’s harassment was at the high end of the criminal spectrum, calling it “so malicious, so nasty”.

“He shows absolutely no insight into his offending, no remorse,” he said at the blogger’s sentencing.

The Crown had asked for a prison sentence after Nottingham’s conviction and is appealing the sentence. That will be heard at the same time as Nottingham’s appeals.

See Dermot Nottingham sentenced for criminal harassment, suppression breaches

How many victims of Slater and Nottingham?

There have definitely been hundreds of victims of attacks, defamation and harassment carried out by Cameron Slater and Dermot Nottingham. Probably thousands. Some of their targets have been separate, some have been joint.

As has been well covered over they last two days Matthew Blomfield has been a victim of defamation, with both Slater and Nottingham involved. That will no doubt have impacted on others, especially Blomfield’s family.

But I was also dragged into the field of fire when I stopped another in their gang of online bullies and thugs, Marc Spring, from continuing attacks on Blomfield here at Your NZ and they turned against me. This resulted in attacks and defamation online, three years of court battles, considerable expense, impact on family and impact on a number of people contributing at Your NZ, some of whom where attacked via Lauda Finem,

Over the last three and a half years I have been contacted by a number of people telling me they have also been the victims of attack, some saying their lives have been ruined.

As a result of the social media publicity yesterday at The Daily Blog, ‘Phaedrus’ says (to Blomfield):

In 2011, Slater targeted me in my role as a primary school principal because I was very active in fighting against national standards. My suspicion (although I have no evidence) is that this was coordinated with then Minister of Education Anne Tolley’s office. While the vitriol was in no way comparable to that fired at you, it was still enough to end my career as a school principal and to contribute to a breakdown in my health. Your success in making him accountable gives me great joy.

At Kiwiblog, Debbie says:

I owe you gratitude it seems, Pete George.

I personally was described in the worst possible terms on Nottingham’s blog – however I didn’t have the resources to do anything about it, and it was only one blog post (that was more aimed at other parties, but I still got a mention by default). I’m very glad it’s gone. Thank you.

Actually Blomfield deserves the credit for that too. He had Lauda Finem shut down through the court. See  BLOMFIELD v THE OWNER AND/OR ADMINISTRATOR OF WWW.LAUDAFINEM.COM [2018] NZHC 2747 [24 October 2018]

Last year Nottingham was convicted on two counts of breaching suppression orders. From the sentencing notes:

[22] Now, I make some findings of fact. Consistent with the verdicts of the jury I have concluded that between 2010 and 2015 Dermot Nottingham published or had published numerous articles on the blog site laudafinem.com. Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem (in other words, the leading mind of that blog) or he is so intimately related to it that it is proper to conclude that he provided information and draft articles to that blog site knowing and intending that they would be published.

Nottingham wasn’t Lauda Finem on his own, brothers, Slater, Spring and others have also used LF to attack and defame many people.

Nottingham was also convicted of five counts of criminal harassment – but as for the suppression breaches these involved just some of the victims.

[18] It was clear to me that, for some of the complainants, life over an extended period of time had been made very uncomfortable and distressing, in some cases affecting the daily lives of some complainants whose reputations in their community had been so badly maligned as to cause them to withdraw within themselves.

[23] During that five year period the defendant undertook numerous campaigns of harassment against a number of individuals, the most egregious and persistent of which were represented by the five complainants in the trial. I concluded that his conduct by publishing said articles, through other intimidating and harassing conduct- including threatening, watching, photographing, following – was either carried out directly by Detmot Nottingham or at his direction and that he knew his conduct was likely to cause the individuals to fear for their safety or the safety of family members.

[25]…Mr Nottingham seeks to justify and make lawful his conduct towards others by reference to the conduct of other bloggers who habitually take an aggressive and attacking approach in purporting to uncover corruption and injustice.

[29] The Crown further proposes that there are a number of aggravating features to the criminal harassment charges, namely the extent of the harm. The allegations against the complainants included that that they were alcoholics, used drugs, were promiscuous or were corrupt professionals and public officials. The Crown characterised the language used by Mr Nottingham as malicious, misogynistic and entirely abhorrent. Without the need for me to repeat any of those specific offensive allegations, I concur with the summary of Mr Nottingham’s conduct. I also accept that those aggravating features are present.

I’ve been subjected to some of those allegations.

And Blomfield was also subjected to similar allegations – actually I don’t understand why he wasn’t included in “the most egregious and persistent of which were represented by the five complainants in the trial”.

Blomfield was targeted by Nottingham, Slater, and associates. As I was. As were many other people.

A number of people (in addition to Blomfield) were subjected to campaigns of attacks on both Lauda Finem and Whale Oil.

Some of these were prominent in the media, like Len Brown, Bevan Chuang, Colin Craig. It is well known that Slater often attacked Bill English on Whale Oil – English features in the last post on LF nearly two years ago.

But many people attacked and affected were just ordinary people who for one reason or another attracted the ire or whatever of Nottingham, Slater. It’s well known that Slater used to attack people who simply happened to feature in news items.

The ‘West Coast ferals’ is on example, where family and friends of a young man killed in a car accident joined the long list of victims. While that put Whale Oil into the news, it also featured on Lauda Finem. It included this reference:

There is however one exception, a lone image that remains testament to Slaters attack on Mr Matthew Blomfield and one of Blomfields media bitch’s, aka the TVNZ journalist John Hudson; a hunting trophy, albeit in a slightly different form, that has been left almost as if by design, a warning perhaps?

It is a lengthy tirade that turns largely against Blomfield with a raft of typical unsubstantiated accusations and slurs.

It seems to LF that Mattthew Blomfield might just fit the profile of the hacker. After all he certainly has lashings of motive, a definite hatred of Slater, what with an upcoming court hearing which he looks set to lose.

LF often predicted that Blomfield would lose against Slater. One of the many things they were wrong about, as we now know.

The above LF post also included references to and attacks and swipes at a number of other people, including journalists and a mayor.

How many people are victims of all of this, to varying degrees?

It must be thousands. And it took over six years for Blomfield to make a stand and finally get a result.

Many people will be applauding this, for good reason.