Darren Hughes won't be charged

The Police have announced that Darren Hughes won’t be charged, stating there is insufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution.

The focus though now will have to fall on Phil Goff and how he handled the whole situation. When the allegations first broke Phil Goff initially wanted everything hushed up until the Police had finished their investigation. That would mean if Phil had his way then today would have been the first we were hearing about all this.

Then there is the conflicting positions that Phil Goff has had through this whole matter. In one interview with Radio Wammo he left the door open for Darren Hughes to return. Goff suggests Hughes could be back if he’s cleared 4’48″ish onward (if charges were laid he’d be gone).

Astute journalists are already focusing on this aspect of the case.

Fran O'Sullivan on Phil Goff's position with Darren Hughes We also are waiting to hear from Annette King about what she knew and when?

Meanwhile I look forward to seeing how Labour will spin this up for Darren Hughes return. Given Phil Goff’s recorded pronouncements on the matter this should be a given. One has to ask though why Goff forced Hughes out, rather than just suspend him pending the outcome of the police investigation?

UPDATE: Trevor Mallard is putting about that Hughes has been cleared and that the information was leaked by the beehive, both of these pronouncements are false and he knows it. Once again trevor’s forst instinct is to lie. He is also saying that Darren Hughes is a great guy and can now rehabilitate himself. Fair enough on that I guess.

I have a great idea, how about Trevor or some other safe seat Labour candidate take themselves off the list and give their spot to Darren Hughes so he can come back into parliament at the election.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • peterwn

    Situation is a bit like an employment situation. An employee can be successfully fired for tickling the till if the evidence is sufficient on the ‘balance of probabilities’ even though the evidence would not prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Darren now resides in that ‘grey’ area. Presumably the parties (including Phil) will stay tight lipped.

  • michaels

    The bitch of this for the likes of Mallard is no-one in National attacked or really had much to say about the whole thing, nor did they ask for Hughes to be dumped. Goff did it all on his own. Interesting spin yet to come.

  • andretti

    Sorry off topic i know,but does anybody know who is colonial viper over at the Sub standard?.What a nasty vindictive hater she/he is.fuck I would hate to go through my life with an attitude like that.pretty sure she/he is a decendant of karl Marx,in fact makes him look like a right winger.

  • michaels

    Andretti, just don’t go there. Leave it to Whale to stride in and check it, he will let us know if there is anything of interest. Just a stupid stupid place to go.

  • mickrodge

    On the basis of this why shouldn’t “Big Red” be allowed straight back into parliament where he left off?

    Effectively we’re back to where we were pre “event” with DH possibly being a closet homosexual who has a reputation for not being too flash on the demon drink & (supposedly) a bit of form when it comes to propositioning young men of legal age of consent.

    Hardly crimes against humanity.

    Admittedly it’s naive & simplistic to think he can return but he was viewed as a competent & promising MP.

  • royaloaks

    Best thing would be for Darren to catch the same flight as Carter and his love man and head to Mummy Helens pad in New York to catch the UN gravy train. Helen and Carter could then train him in the art of master class pig troughing.

  • jabba

    Oj Simpson was found not guilty of murder because the glove didn’t fit. Maybe the cops tested and found the condom didn’t fit so decided not to charge him.
    The bit above about the nats not getting stuck into the Labour Party, apart from Goff’s poor handling, is a very good point.

    • The less said by National MP’s on this the better; it’s Labour’s problem.

  • gaskranken

    Dazza eh – living, breathing proof that the Big Bang Theory is true as it pertains to the microscopic galaxy that is politics in NZ.

    The time has come for Gingas to go Global, Off to the Big Apple for you Dazza…He, Helen and the Princess might run into Dommied Strauss-Kahn and his missus and they can all check out the real seat of power.

  • jman

    It’s amazing how quickly a verdict of “not enough evidence to prosecute” becomes a verdict of “innocent” to the professional spin meisters. If he really is innocent why not come clean and tell us all exactly what happened?

  • liberty

    After Paintergate, The BP scandal what else do expect from the likes of Duckman.

  • tooright

    I’m with jman. A complaint was laid by an 18 year old boy. That is a fact. Something happened. If Darren is so sure he’s innocent then tell us what went on. We can form our own view as to whether there is anything untoward, once we have the facts. No names needed – just the basic outline will do.

    As for the rest of the story who knows. The cops have said there was a lack of evidential proof to enable charges to be laid. The cops did not say there was no evidence.

    The thing that stinks about this is Labour crowing “exoneration” when there is a youth out there who was sufficiently concerned to complain to the cops. As usual with Labour no concern for the innocent – it’s all about the party.

    The problem for Hughes is this “exoneration” proves nothing – the stench will linger.

  • whalewatcher

    I think I heard Hughes quoted as saying these were ‘false allegations’.

    Memo to Hughes: to the rest of us, ‘insufficient evidence to prosecute’ does not equal ‘false allegations’.
    You remain, sir, distasteful to the electorate.

  • phronesis

    I was under the impression that these cases did not rely on physical evidence as such. I suspect that the complainant is simply not willing to testify in open court as to what happened, hence the police have no case. Perhaps the legally minded contributors out there could enlighten us as to what might happen if the complainant were to change their mind in the future?