John Key is not a legitimate MP. Ergo: he isn’t PM either

Someone’s been out in the sun a bit too much I think

Career criminal and jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor is going for his biggest scalp this week – the Prime Minister.

John Key’s lawyer Peter Kiely, a partner at Kiely Thompson Caisley, Adjunct Professor of Employment Law at Victoria University of Wellington and Pro Chancellor at the University of Auckland will face Taylor, no formal legal qualifications, over 150 convictions, escaped twice, in the High Court on Tuesday.

Taylor, a serving prisoner, has petitioned the High Court claiming Key’s election as MP for Helensville was unlawful because the law had excluded hundreds of potential voters from the electorate – namely, the 650 or so prisoners currently housed in Auckland Prison at Paremoremo.”

Key’s lawyers deny Taylor’s claim and add that Key won the electorate by 18,000 votes over his nearest competitor, the Green Party’s Dr Kennedy Graham who received 4,433.

The Prime Minister’s lawyer, Peter Kiely, has submitted to the court that even if all 8,727 serving prisoners in New Zealand voted for Graham, “even in this improbable scenario, the respondent would still have won the election with a majority of 9,650 valid votes”.

Answer me this:  why does a court let a serving inmate take out legal action against a Prime Minister when the law currently says that incarcerated people don’t have a vote, and therefore there is no case?  Why did it get this far?  Where a lawyer for Key and this muppet will square off on the taxpayer’s dollars?  

Taylor has challenged the Helensville result on the grounds that the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 is invalid, that remand prisoners were prevented from registering or voting and that Key “knew and benefited from” social media endorsements on polling day.

He is forging on with his claims despite already being unsuccessful in his challenge to the amendment that took away the right of prisoners to vote.

Justice Rebecca Ellis ruled in September that the amendment was not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Key’s lawyer will argue that Taylor, as a serving prisoner, does not have standing to even make a challenge to an electoral result and that remand prisoners, who are allowed to vote, did vote on polling day.

Evidence would show that 628 of the 856 remand prisoners close to the Helensville area exercised their right to vote.

I ask you again:  why has this been allowed to go this far?   What is it with the court system where idiots and vexatious litigants just have the run of the place?


– Ian Steward, Stuff


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.

  • symgardiner

    This is worth letting go through and then having him declared a vexatious litigant. It is is rubbish case all round and once chucked makes a perfect foil for achieving this.

    • Kendall

      Then make him pay all costs, to include the upkeep of his “lifestyle” in prison and pay back all of the costs of his education, probably funded by the tax payer whilst in prison.

      • symgardiner

        Unfortunately there is a cost to having a reasonably open justice system. However this is where the vexatious litigant ruling comes in.

    • Graeme Edgeler

      Taylor wins too often to be declared a vexatious litigant :-)

  • metalnwood

    For a start, someone like this should have to put money upfront for costs because on the surface it is so ridiculous.

    Not that everyone should have to put up some kind of bond but where a case looks so unlikely but is let through the process to do nothing more than be rubber stamped by the court as rubbish then I think it is appropriate.

  • Rex

    Our Courts are WAY behind what with the workloads that they have and now someone like this is allowed to waste more time with dumb cases as this! Also with some of the dummies we have sitting on the bench the guy is likely to win and waste more time! Who is paying for all this? I bet the convict isn’t!

    • MrBarrington

      Criminal list is busting and the seams…. but Civil list is relatively empty…

    • peterwn

      About time that Tony Adeane was made up to High Court judge and given cases such as this and sentencing appeals.

      • Rex

        Yes for sure. He stands out among, in the main a pretty pathetic lot!

  • steve and monique

    For Gods sake, Is the Court of this land run by monkeys. The village idiot would know this was a waste of time.

    • shykiwibloke

      That would be me, and yes I do also think it would be a waste of time.

      • steve and monique

        Sorry, but “that would be me” means???

        • johcar

          I think shykiwibloke is owning up to being the village idiot… :)

          • steve and monique

            Was wondering if that was the case.

        • shykiwibloke

          The Villiage Idiot! At least my daughters think so from time to time. :-)

          • steve and monique

            Fair enough, happy you are not in charge of the courts. He or she are not qualified or intelligent enough for the job of Village idiot

  • Aucky

    Ten to one that TV One and TV3 will be covering this ‘live’ hailing it as a David v Goliath battle and a triumph for democracy.

    • Graeme Edgeler

      I’ll take that bet :-)

  • Yeah, right, whatever…

    This requires money to put into effect. Is it maybe the latest cunning plan of the gravitationally challenged one to “destroy” JK?

  • shykiwibloke

    My concern centres around who decides what goes forward – not just silly situations like this one, but which cases to prosecute (think vexatious twit vs John Banks), what laws to enforce (think zero tolerance vs electoral laws), which ones to ignore (think stolen emails).

    It seems we have a whole layer of political activism between the guy on the street and the courtroom that needs to be dealt with. Perhaps some sunlight from WO together with some support from Garth McVicar and his mates at SST.

    • Rick H

      John Banks and his alleged “secret donations” – Vs David Cunliffe and his “Secret Trust” – (secret place where secret donations go)

      How come only one of these went through the Court (I can’t say Justice) System?

      At the end of the day, what really was the difference between these two situations?

      Yet David Cunliffe was able to “Throw the dirt” at John Banks on a daily basis; and also claim the dirt from that extended to John Key.

  • Iera

    Why is this action even against Prime Minister Key, who ran in the Election, but DID NOT RUN the Election.

    Why, especially if legal aid is involved, has the complainant not just been told to seek redress from the Electoral Commission – it has nothing to do with John Key.

    • taurangaruru

      According to the Left & MSM everything is to do with John Key.

    • Graeme Edgeler

      John Key and the Electoral Commission are both respondents in a case like this. It’s an election petition into Key’s seat, if Taylor wins (he won’t) Key will have lost his seat, are you really saying Key shouldn’t be represented in Court and given the opportunity through a lawyer to say why he shouldn’t lose his seat?

      • Iera

        No, I wasn’t suggesting John Key not be represented, I was jut questioning why the Electoral Commission, being in charge of the Election, was not involved – but since they are, it just comes down to the usual biased really uninformative krap reporting we so often get.

  • NotGandalf

    I think there is a long game being played here. I wonder if Taylor is looking at writing or releasing a book one day that includes this little misappropriation among his tall tales.
    There will always be those who love a determined repeat loser dressed up as a likable rogue.

  • Reid

    Just wait till the legal system funds the lawyer for Smith to take a case protesting the injustice of confiscating his hairpiece. That’s coming up and it’s going to go to the S.C. – guarantee it.

  • Bean

    Its just another paid day for the lawyers so they don’t mind.

  • MrBarrington

    Well the way the law is written even village idiots have rights… and I guess his lawyer (given this is Civil I expect he is funding his own case) would be arguing that the law needs to be tested in Court to determine its legitimacy (not all laws are perfect!)….

    Still the guy is being a dick.

    • Cadwallader

      The convict is acting for himself. A day away from gaol for him?

      • Micheal

        Sorry to disappoint you but he will be appearing by video link. Point 1 is that Justice Venning found against him as it was too big for her court and would have prevented the actual election.Too Big were her own words. All leading constitutional lawyers including Elias have agreed with Taylor on the illegality of the withdrawal of the prisoners voting. Secondly if the hot shot Kiely was so sharp he would have taken the offer of having this case withdrawn if the illegal voting act was removed. But being so hot that’s not an option.This chap Taylor is no clown , idiot or vexatious litigant. I have sat in on a few of his appearances and found him very sharp and definitely not to be taken lightly !

        • mike

          Kiely is going ahead so he can destroy it in court giving case law to back up the legislation.

          Taylor is scum and should shut up and stay locked up. He has too many rights for someone who has done what he has.

          • James

            what did he do?

          • Bluebottle

            Quote from Stuff


            “Taylor is serving lengthy sentences for a variety of crimes, including conspiring to deal in methamphetamine from prison, possession of morphine for supply, receiving, kidnapping, escaping from custody, possession for supply of cannabis and cannabis oil, and six firearms offences.

            He has more than 150 convictions and is notorious for escaping from prison in both 2005 and 1998 – when he and his co-offenders, including double murderer Graeme Burton, were found hiding in a luxury bach on the Coromandel amid copious amounts of red wine.

            He was once described by Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Bush as a “criminal with no social or moral conscience who is an absolute burden on the country”.”

          • Cadwallader

            What has he done except leave you seemingly spell-bound?

        • FredFrog

          If he’s so sharp, why is he in chooky?

        • caochladh

          It comes as no surprise that Elias agrees with Taylor.

  • Pete

    When are we going to just say no to these stupid claims? We seem to bend over backwards and let these muppets get all the help they need at our expense..and for what? To say we have a liberal and “fair” society.?

    • James

      we are a ‘liberal’ and ‘fair’ society Pete- we are helping bomb Iraq and destroy Syria. Just how more ‘liberal’ can we be?

  • john Doe

    Criminals in jail should neither be seen nor heard. Foregoing their civil rights is part of the punishment surely?

    • James

      Actually- its the criminals not in jail we suffer much more from.

    • Graeme Edgeler

      This is widely disputed.

  • oldmanNZ

    This can be resolved easily, re zone the prison to a new electorate (no one), then they can vote.

    • taurangaruru

      Give the prison it’s own electorate & make DotCom the MP. Criminals represented by a criminal, at least they would understand each other.

      • Albert Lane

        This sort of stupidity should have been avoided a long time ago. Any convicted inmate of a New Zealand prison should be denied voting rights, both in general elections and council elections.

  • Nige.

    This is democracey. See how the socialists have built up that word ‘democracey’ to be an untouchable word?

    When all is said and done about 1/3 of eligible voters didn’t want to be part of democracy.

  • Day Day

    So Taylor wants a Labour Govt instead? Hardly surprising, everyone knows Labour is soft on crime.

    • Graeme Edgeler

      My understanding is that he wants an election in which he was able to vote. If he wins the case (he won’t), the consequence will not be a Labour Government.

  • James

    I find it astounding that in a Nation with around 60-70% net taxes and half the country on some form of welfare- we still have these pseudo ‘conservatives’ ranting about “lefties”. lol. Government is the problem- not the answer. And they are ALL ‘left’. We need to get rid of the whole Crown fraud/ crime ring and stop funding all of their overseas projects (and profits) with our own sweat.

  • paul

    lets hope mr big starts sharing a cell with this idot

  • Graeme Edgeler

    I’m about to start replying to a bunch of the comments below. Just so I don’t have to repeat this in every reply I make, I agree that the case has no prospects of success.


  • Graeme Edgeler

    “Answer me this: why does a court let a serving inmate take out legal action against a Prime Minister when the law currently says that incarcerated people don’t have a vote, and therefore there is no case?”

    Taylor’s argument is that the law doesn’t say that a serving inmate can’t vote. He says that the right to vote is entrenched and that the law passed by Parliament removing the rights of sentenced prisoners to vote did not pass by the required 75% majority.

    I think the argument is wrong, but the argument is that the Electoral Commission illegally prevented people from voting, and that’s why there is a challenge. If thousands of readers of Whale Oil all turned up to voting places, and were told: I’m sorry, your name isn’t on the electoral roll because everyone who reads Whale Oil has been removed from the electoral roll, we’d probably say: no, that law didn’t pass, and we might challenge the result afterward. That’s what Taylor is arguing here: actually, the law change didn’t lawfully pass, so why was I denied the vote?

    Like I say, I think he’s wrong, but it’s more difficult to draw the line that at first glance. The right of people 18+ to vote is entrenched. But the exclusions from voting are not entrenched. At what point does an exclusion become so overpowering that it infringes the entrenched provision? I don’t think this case is it, but if we had an entrenched law that said: you have the right to vote at 18, but then a whole bunch of unentrenched exclusions like: except pensioners, or except Maori, or except farmers except readers of Whale Oil, or whatever, would there be some point at which the effect of the exception was so big, that you would say: actually this is basically repealing the right of those 18+ to vote, which is entrenched, so this needs a supermajority too? That this would happen *at some point* isn’t ridiculous. Taylor is just arguing: it’s this point.

    As for the question, “why John Key?” Well, Taylor is detained in Paremoremo, which is in Helensville. John Key just lucked out is all.