Jordan Williams' apparently crushing defamation victory from last year carried within it the seeds of its own demise. And in overturning that victory, the High Court has some less than complementry things to say about his own behaviour.
by Andrew Geddis
The defamation case against Andrew Little did not result in his having to pay any damages. All in all, I think that is a good thing for the country as a whole.
Despite a degree of ambiguity over the outcome, Andrew Little appears to have come out ahead in the defamation action brought against him by Earl and Lani Hagaman.
Nicky Hager and John Stephenson’s book, Hit & Run, presents compelling evidence that our SAS was responsible for killing at least six Afghani civilians, wounding at least another fifteen, and handing over a man to be tortured for information. And then we were systematically lied to about what was being done in our name.
Think of a three-year-old girl. Maybe she’s your daughter. Maybe she’s your niece. Maybe she’s your friend’s child. But think of her.
Jamie Whyte thinks it is "legislative lunacy" for Parliament to recognise the Whanganui River as being "a person". Once again, it appears Jamie Whyte doesn't really know much about that of which he speaks.
In an opinion piece published on Monday, former Act Party leader Jamie Whyte decries what he sees as Parliament’s recent “legislative lunacy” in
Does a murderer really have the right to wear a hairpiece? Are we really living in such mad times? Or might things be a little more complex than that?
I suspect the High Court decision that prison officials acted wrongly in taking Phillip John Smith's hairpiece from him is going to turn the talkback outrage meter right up to 11. Prisoners have a right to wear a toupee? That piece of shit can keep his rug on?
Is it now legal to use TV and radio to run mean-spirited, hatchet-job attack ads on your political enemies? I decided to find out ... so here's a reprise of what happened, having previously been recounted over at The Spinoff.
In October last year I wrote a somewhat lengthy post about the Court of Appeal's decision in The Electoral Commission v Watson & Jones.
Willie Jackson is right that the low voting turnout amongst younger age groups is a real problem. But he's wrong to blame the Electoral Commission for following the law that Parliament has made.
Now that Willie Jackson has obtained the waiver needed to allow him to stand as a candidate for Labour despite not having been a party member for the required 12 months, he's setting out to prove he's worth the "winnable list placing" th
Could the Labour Party end up in court over its party list? Probably not, but this is the Labour Party we're talking about!
In the wake of Andrew Little's shoulder tapping Willie Jackson for a "winnable" position on Labour's list, along with the selection of Paul Eagle and Greg O'Connor as candidates in eminently winnable electorates, Labour is (once again) facing some strife over the role that gender plays in its candi
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is going to keep constitutional lawyers in the UK (and elsewhere in the Commonwealth) very busy for the upcoming months and years. Here's my humble early offerings on it.
The UK Supreme Court surprised no-one on Tuesday when it decided, by 8-3, that Parliament must pass specific authorising legislation before the UK Government can trigger article 50 and so begin the formal process of withdrawing from the European Union (or, "Brexiting").
Why is the Crown fighting a court case it knows it is very unlikely to win? Because doing so stops it from having to face cases it really would prefer not to deal with.
[Update: see important revisory note at post's end!]
Back in September I wrote this post about a Supreme Court decision that found quite a number of prisoners have been unlawfully detained because The Department of Corrections incorrectly had calculated their release dates.