I love feedback from my readership and none is better than from a previous Craig Supporter that has given me significant insight into what Colin Craig is up to, and how he has likely destroyed his ability to maintain that he has been defamed, and that he can proceed to trial given that he has conspired with others to breach my right to a fair trial before a panel of my peers.
Here is what I received from a Year 13 student:
Having previously been a supporter of the Conservative Party, its leader, and its stated values, I must report that I have, once been in receipt of the pamphlet titled “Dirty Politics and Hidden Agenda’s – Colin Craig VS Dirty Politics Brigade ….And their campaign of Lies” formed the view that Mr Craig has been in receipt of some egregiously incompetent legal advice.
I say this for the following reasons. I am a year 13 student who attends Baradene Catholic Girls College in Victoria Ave Auckland and have an interest in the “justice system”, wanting to study law somewhere else other than New Zealand.
Colin Craig was subject to what he terms as a strategised defamatory “attack” from persons within his party and from the Internet media. He has called press conferences wherein he has made serious allegations against Cameron Slater, Jordan Williams, and John Stringer of effectively “criminal slander” under the Crimes Act 1961 [repealed in 1992 when the Defamation Act was updated].
I wish to refer the allegedly aggrieved Mr Craig and his allegedly erudite counsel to the defamation cases of Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation  189 CLR 520, Lange v Atkinson  2 NZLR 22 [HC],  3 NZLR 424 [CA] ,  1 NZLR 257 [PC],  3 NZLR 385 – defamations in tort.
The other cogent cases to be considered are numerous but include inter alia; Horrocks v Lowe  AC 135, 150, Invercargill City Council v Hamlin  1 NZLR 513, and the Law Commission Report, preliminary paper 33 DEFAMING POLITICIANS – A RESPONSE TO LANGE V ATKINSON – a discussion paper. In the Court of Appeal decision [unreported, 25 May 1998, CA, 52/97, Richardson P, Henry, Keith, Blanchard and Tipping J held in Lange;
We hold that the defence of qualified privilege applies to generally published statements made about the actions and qualities of those currently or formerly elected to Parliament and those with immediate aspirations to be Members, so far as those actions and qualities directly affect or affected their capacity (including their personal ability and willingness) to meet their public responsibilities. The determination of the matters that bear on that capacity will depend on a consideration of what is properly a matter of public concern rather than private concern. (para 1)
Read more »