McCready told not to “bother, vex or harass”

The latest Graeme McCready farce seems to have ended in court (yesterday) with McCready told not “bother, vex or harass” Amanda Bailey.

Ponytail pulling case ends in confusion

An attempt to get John Key under oath and talking about ponytail-pulling has failed with the private prosecutor being told to stop being a nuisance.

A new ruling today has seen Graham McCready’s application to the Human Rights Tribunal end in bumbling confusion with the litigator told not “bother, vex or harass” victim Amanda Bailey.

A finding from Tribunal chairman Rodger Haines QC today sharply told Mr McCready to leave Ms Bailey alone.

The ruling showed Mr McCready had no way of serving Ms Bailey with a summons and said it was because he was “not entitled to the information sought”.

“It is to be remembered Ms Bailey is not a party to these proceedings and that these proceedings have been brought without her knowledge or consent”.

McCready tried to make it all about him and force Bailey to play along.

Mr Haines said Mr McCready had not read with care previous rulings from the Tribunal related to the case he was trying to bring and it showed he was “wasting the Tribunal’s time with applications of no merit”.

He said the repeated applications to the Tribunal to get “information they are not entitled to” could strengthen any application by Ms Bailey or Mr Key to have the whole case dismissed.

Mr McCready said the tribunal had misunderstood confusion over the process and determined his actions were “frivolous and intended to harass the victim Amanda Bailey”.

He said he had no way to serve a summons on Ms Bailey to get her evidence into court.

“The Pony Tail Gate case is therefore at an end,” he said.

Good. It should never have started.

Any action if any should be entirely up to Bailey.

McCready loses one case, starts another, promises a third

Graeme McCready’s criminal prosecution against John has been rejected by the District Court. He complained about the bar being set to high but he had no evidence. If the police pressed charges with no evidence it would be absurd, and so is McCready’s action.

The Herald reports:

The case against Mr Key got tossed out after the judge criticised the lack of written statements.

The judge had also rejected an application for an oral evidence order, which Mr McCready could then have used to summons Ms Bailey, Mr Key and any witnesses and compel testimony under oath.

Amanda Bailey has refused to have anything to do with his legal action. AN no other alleged witnesses have helped him either.

But he’s continuing his political crusade.

The Hamilton-based litigant filed a case with the Human Rights Tribunal this afternoon seeking $30,000 punitive damages from the John Key over the infamous ponytail-pulling incidents.

He filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Mr Key just hours after a District Court judge tossed out an attempted criminal prosecution over pulling the hair of Parnell waitress Amanda Bailey.

Instead of pursuing the matter through criminal courts, Mr McCready said he had switched to a civil jurisdiction which would be more straight-froward.

“In the Human Rights Tribunal I can directly summons these people,” he said.

So still no evidence, so he seems to want the Tribunal to effectuate his investigation. Ludicrous.

Mr McCready said he could have pursued the case at the same time as the criminal complaint but did not want it to appear as if he was assaulting the case on all fronts.

“I could have but then I would look like a vexatious masked crusader, which I’m not of course. I would look like a serial litigant. I only do one of these a year.”

But he does appear to be assaulting the case on as many fronts as possible.

He said he also intended complaining again to the Independent Police Conduct Authority about Mr Key’s police bodyguards, to whom Ms Bailey complained about the hair-pulling.

He said the officers should have taken action – and that they would have done were he in the cafe pulling someone’s hair.

And if he fails with these next two actions then what? What a year so he doesn’t look like a serial litigant?

Key: prosecution likely, by-election possible

At Kiwiblog Peterwn has posted his view on the likelihood of a prosecution of John Key – very likely – and of a subsequent by-election in Key’s Helensville electorate – start preparing.

  1. A private prosecution appears very likely, if not from Mr McCready, then from the ‘victim’s’ supporters (eg Unite Union’s lawyer).
  2. There are three possible charges a. assault (6 months), b. male assault female (2 years), c. sexual assault (7 years).
  3. If a MP is convicted of b. or c. his seat is vacated and his seat is filled at a by-election or the party’s next person on the list as appropriate.
  4. Mr McCready has gone for b. Any other private prosecution is likely to go for b. as this has the potential to cause serious political damage.
  5. On past performance a District Court Judge would allow a private prosecution even if the ‘victim’ has not been consulted over this.
  6. Mr McCready cannot be called a vexatious litigant he has succeeded with one private prosecution and has been successful with the other as Crown Law took it over. Even if his attempt fails because he is having to do it via a shell company, a private prosecution by Unite appears likely.
  7. Historically an accused’s spouse could not be called upon to give evidence against the accused – the law has been changed to allow for this. The days of ‘feme covet’ are well and truly over.
  8. With what is currently known I cannot see why any prosecution for b. should not succeed.
  9. An accused in this case an accused has two options – try to get the charge downgraded from b. to a., or if proved try and get a discharge without conviction with respect to b. (I think the chances of this would be good based on other ‘discharge’ cases but don’t count on it). Diversion would be a possibility for a., but I am not so sure about b.
  10. So in conclusion, National would be well advised to start preparing for a Helensville byelection now. Both Winston Peters and Judith Collins will be licking their chops in anticipation.

Peterwn often posts comments that indicate he has a good working knowledge of law.

With a few exceptions the general feeling seems to be that Key’s alleged offending is at the lower level of severity, but as long as the maximum sentence available is two years or more then any conviction would force a resignation from Parliament.

This potential outcome disproportionate to the crime may seem tough but them’s the rules. It may increase the possibility of a discharge without conviction but that would cause a political uproar in some quarters.

Assault can cover a wide range of severity. I think simply touching someone could potentially be ruled assault – including touching someone’s hair apparently.

The Hon J A Banks v the Crown

Flipper at Kiwiblog posts

CA428/2014. The Hon J A Banks v the Crown.

Has the Crown capitulated?

That question will be answered today just after 10 am when the Court of Appeal sits in the Wellington HC’s courtroom #6.

He asks that because Paul Dacre QC, who has run the Crown’s case, has been replaced by Mike Heron, the Solicitor Genera – details here. We might find out this morning.

Flipper also recaps the case.

To recap, the Crown sent solicitor Rowan Butler to interview Dotcom over the new evidence (from two US businessmen) that Banks would present to the CoA. Banks’ counsel had observed the rules and disclosed that to the Crown.

The interview with Dotcom (in the presence of his then counsel, P Davison) took place on September 29, 2014, and Butler reported to Crown Counsel Dacre in a memorandum, also on September 29. The “Butler Memorandum” introduces a new Dotcom claim – that there were two meetings with Mr and Mrs Banks, one of June 5, 2010 and the other on June 9, 2010. He had earlier asserted that there was only one meeting on June 9. Wylie J, however, found that the lunch was on June 5, as later also attested by the US businessmen.

The crux of the date issue is that both Mr and Mrs Banks were proven to have been elsewhere on June 9, and could not have been at a “second” meeting/luncheon with Dotcom on that date.

Now, understand this: This information was known to the Crown on September 29, 2014. It was not disclosed to Jones/Banks, nor to the Court of Appeal when it heard the case on October 29, 2014 – one month later. In fact the
existence of the Butler memorandum was kept secret by the Crown until finally it was released (received by) to David Jones (Banks) on February 27, 2015.

On March 2, 2015 (the weekend intervened) David Jones filed a memorandum with the High Court requesting a section 347 (discharge) hearing. David Jones then went back to the Court of Appeal because it appears, on the face of evidence now belatedly disclosed by the Crown, that the Court was deliberately misled.

It has been reported that ‘the Court’ was very unhappy.

The Crown seem to be in a very awkward position on this.

It would be ironic if a Graham McCready instigated prosecution is thrown out after an appeal the day before he files for another prosecution, this time against John Key.

Using the courts for political hit jobs seems to be McCready’s aim these days.