Blackmailer gets some beans. Not enough though.

Lord and Friends of all f*ckwits, Graham McCready, plead guilty to blackmail charges the other week.

The convicted tax fraudster can now add blackmailing to his list of impressive character defects.

His own journey to court began in July 2010, when he threatened to expose claims that a company director was guilty of financial impropriety and was mentally ill. McCready claimed he was acting in the best interests of minority shareholders, and would keep quiet if the man surrendered his company position and signed over his majority shareholding to McCready.The victim, whose name was suppressed along with that of his company, promptly told McCready where to go, Justice David Collins said yesterday.McCready was charged with blackmail and pleaded guilty on the day his trial was to have started.

And what does a repeat offender who arguably abuses the court process get for his crimes? A lousy 6 months community detention, consisting of sitting around his home between 7pm and 7am. 

In other words, he gets to do what he does already, since McCready isn’t a productive member of society and claims to be a beneficiary. Certainly on state support of some kind. Sitting around home at night is hardly a burden when he’s not the type to be dining out at Arbitrageur or attending the theatre.

 The problems McCready caused cost the company about $80,000, a figure that McCready quibbled with later as he sat outside the court.The victim said he still found it hard to understand why McCready did it.It felt as if the whole episode had been a game to McCready, in which he misused the courts for his personal crusade. During one court hearing, McCready had offered him a toothbrush, saying the man would need it where he was going.

Time for this guy to be declared a public menace, and a vexatious litigant.

There are plenty of other people out there like McCready who are entertained by the courts who seem to bed over backwards for them allowing them to pursue vexatious claims at considerable expense to their targets…they almost always are beneficiaries or bankrupts and so the financial sanctions against them that would normally stop a sane person do not apply.

One litigant I am investigating has even boasted in an email about his crusades and legal challenges. More on that later. It is time that a register of litigants was made so that courts can have some idea as to their form…a race book with a score if you will listing all their failures so that courts can fairly assess the merits of the case before exposing the victims of their judicial bullying to considerable cost.

  • Mr_Blobby

    The problem is that when some one is ordered to pay costs, it does not reflect the actual cost. Prisoners, beneficiaries and bankrupts should be vetted before being allowed to proceed. We have had several cases brought about by jail house lawyers with nothing better to do and nothing to lose.

  • peterwn

    Tuariki Delamere has also been throwing around private prosecutions against immigration officials (let’s say that he plays right down to the wire for his clients) but Crown Law successfully derailed them. There has been some thought given to banning private prosecutions, but some have succeeded in one case showed up the Police in a very bad light. However the ‘barrier’ should be raised IMO and the accused should be treated differently from those in police prosecutions eg excused from most preliminary hearings and being allowed to sit at the defence lawyer’s table rather than in the dock.

    As for vexatious litigants in general, the courts are extremely reluctant to deny people their day in court, perhaps Judith could amend the Judicature Act and the District Courts Act to signal to judges that they should more readily declare someone ‘vexatious.’ Roger Payne for example has been rattling around the justice system for years suing judges, the National Party, Amy Adams, etc. Anyway the National Party finally managed to bankrupt the guy for not paying costs for his failed actions re Raikaia seat.

    That is one way to deal with a vexatious litigant – hope he does not pay costs then bankrupt him (even if you might get one in the chook as a lawyer did in the Wellington High Court foyer a few years ago after bankrupting a vexatious litigant).

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      What if they are already bankrupt. I now of one case where this is happening and the costs just challenge the validity of a bankrupt taking the case are already over $20k

      • peterwn

        (sigh) yes, it does seem a bankrupt can try and contest bankrupcy – Barry Hart seems to be trying this lark, so did Roger Payne. Generally speaking a bankrupt has no standing to sue in his name, only the Official Assignee can, but again it seems judges can make an exception. I think the judges are too kind and accommodating to these vexatious litigants.

  • Patrick

    I know a fellow that given a bit of cash is willing to pay a friendly visit to cocks like McCready & explain that he is being a silly bugger.
    All very amicable of course…….

104%