A day in the life of Judith Collins

8:13 am

I don’t like the MMP review. The review by the Electoral Commission was well-written and considered a lot of complex issues, but I just don’t like it. Maybe it’s their choice of font, or the paper they used.

Judicial reforms to add value to stakeholders

The government today responded to criticisms of the judiciary by announcing sweeping reforms of the court system.

The proposals released today by Justice Minister Judith Collins aim to address claims made by some that the judiciary is out of touch, and struggling to adapt to a changing environment.

Minister Contemplates Bain Options

David Bain’s compensation bid hit a major snag, after questions were raised about a judge’s report on his innocence.

Justice Ian Binnie’s report determined that David Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities of the murder of his family.

On Fisher v Binnie

I haven't read the Binnie or Fisher reports in full, or all the various correspondences or press releases being fired out by the participants in the latest David Bain fiasco.

Collins Crushes Binnie Report

If I commissioned a notable international jurist to write a legal report for me, it would take a lot of convincing from others for me to throw it in the bin. But that appears to be what Justice Minister Judith Collins has done with Justice Binnie's report on David Bain's compensation bid.

Collins' behaviour is unusual, even bold, because Binnie is highly respected and his independence in this matter is unquestionable.

So Who Won?

Judith Collins has settled her defamation suit against Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little.

Some are calling it a victory for Collins, others for Little and Mallard. Eddie and Anthony Robins at The Standard call it for the Labour MPs, while David Farrar calls it for Collins.

Who Is To Blame For The Collins Suit Farce?

The Timaru Herald doesn't approve of Trevor Mallard or Andrew Little making a game out of evading Judith Collins' document servers.

Parliamentary politics is often viewed as something of a circus, and if what goes on in Wellington doesn't quite qualify yet, should it sink to that level any time soon, there's a sideshow already running to help members of the House feel at home. 

The ongoing saga of ACC Minister Judith Collins and her attempts to sue Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little over comments she said defamed her, in relation to the recent ACC privacy breach, has become nothing short of farcical. To the point that one is forced to wonder what possible positive purpose it can now serve for either party. 

Not that the right of Ms Collins to take action in response to a perceived slight on her reputation should be questioned, but it must be proving an unwelcome distraction for her party, the needs of which surely outweigh her own. It's hardly been a smooth recent ride for National.

The editorial questions the wisdom of Collins' actions in suing Mallard and Little, but it also condemns the Labour pair.

Certainly Messrs Mallard and Little have contributed to the farcical nature of this process. Having undertaken to make life as difficult as possible for those charged with serving legal papers on them, they have helped to set off a game of cat and mouse that has reached ridiculous proportions.  

The latest episode came yesterday when Mr Mallard said he was served papers by an elderly woman, purportedly a victim of poor hospital treatment, on whose behalf an appointment had been arranged with him. 

"She pulled out the papers and told me I was served and I said `thank you very much' and took a photo of her," Mr Mallard said. He then posted the picture on his Twitter account, ensuring extensive media coverage.

There's a distinction to be drawn between what is legally permissible and what is politically wise. Collins may well be entitled to sue Mallard and Little for defamation, and one can only assume someone in her legal team thinks she has a winnable case. If this is not the case, and if her case is legally as doomed as it seems to this non-expert in defamation law, then Collins' only hope may be to pressure her opponents into settling with her before the matter goes to court. The statements made by Mallard and Little to date suggest there is no realistic prospect of a settlement any time soon.

Politically this seems like a high risk venture for Collins. If she loses her credibility will be shot, and her opponents will never stop gloating.

But what of Mallard and Little? Are they wrong to have evaded the document servers for so long? Certainly not legally: they were entitled to make Collins' people work hard to serve them.

Nor am I convinced that politically it is as bad a look as the Timaru Herald seems to indicate. If you're faced with a daft lawsuit that appears to be motivated by spite, why should you co-operate with the plaintiff at all? If the actions of Mallard and Little achieve anything, they are to highlight how ludicrous Collins' suit is.

The usual suspects on the right have pinned the blame on Mallard and Little, without questioning why Collins is engaging in this behaviour. Some of the commentary on sites like Kiwiblog about Mallard and Little make what the two Labour MPs said about Collins appear very tame indeed. Those who serially defame should probably not be so eager to see politicians sue over perceived reputational slights.

An Apology To Judith Collins

Dear Ms Collins,

Your threat to sue two MPs and one news outlet for defamation left me in a panic. Had I exposed myself to litigation? I had to rush back and read a number of my blogposts, in case the language I used might in any way have offended you.

You are clearly not a person to be messed with. I'm sure many of your colleagues admire your habitual aggression in dealing with your political opponents (and with any taxpayer-funded news outlets that get in the way), and you are certainly living up to your "Crusher" nickname. Finally. How many cars have you had crushed to date? Two? Three?

Naturally, some people might take exception to your actions, on the basis that you are using the legal system in an effort to squash any sort of public discussion of your role in the ACC scandal.

You do have a natural advantage over some of your opponents, what with being a senior lawyer and knowing the legal system so well. Goodness, you were a former Auckland District Law Society President, and New Zealand Law Society Vice-President.

So it's understandable that you would fly to the law the moment someone challenged your version of events in the ACC scandal.

It's also handy that you have the money to use the court system to your advantage, because your government has managed to all but destroy the legal aid system, and legal aid lawyers are becoming few and far between. Litigation is a rich man's (and woman's) sport.

I expect your lawsuit will cost you a pretty penny, even if you get mates' rates. It will also cost your opponents thousands of dollars, even though for the life of me I can't quite see what wrongs Mr Little and Mr Mallard committed against you. You clearly take your reputation seriously, and appear willing to pursue those who transgress against you in what appears at best to be a speculative lawsuit. Still, I suppose you know how the system works, and no doubt you'll be hoping the defendants back down in the end.

I'd love to know exactly what wrong you think Radio New Zealand committed against you. They were merely the conduit through which the alleged defamatory remarks passed. Now you and I know that's not necessarily a defence against defamation, but it's still pretty tough on a public broadcaster struggling with a budgetary freeze. What were they meant to do? Pre-record all interviews and then submit all criticisms of your performance to your office for vetting?

So anyway, I am writing to apologise to you. For anything I may have ever said or done to offend you. For being critical of your performance and the performance of your government. For implying that the Key government habitually uses intimidation and legal processes to stifle political dissent.

Clearly your reputation is of such importance to you that no form of criticism can be countenanced. As one who has been critical of National and of your performance as a minister, this puts me at risk of being sued by you.

I don't wish to be sued, so please accept my apology.

Labour To Blame For Legal Costs

The Finance Minister has confirmed that Treasury is yet again revising its budgetary estimates.

Bill English has long predicted that the government's books will be in surplus by the 2014/15 financial year.

However, a predicted massive hike in legal costs to the Crown has forced Treasury to take another look at the Government's accounts.

In particular, the prospect of ministers resorting in the future to taxpayer-funded litigation each and every time anyone says anything mildly critical about them, is expected to add a significant amount to the cost of running the country.

Treasury officials are particularly concerned that it would not be hard for anyone to come up with plenty of damning things to say about most members of John Key's Cabinet.

Mr English today urged restraint, saying that the country could not afford any more criticism of Government ministers.

"We are in tough economic times," said Mr English, "and that means we must all make sacrifices.

"I'm confident that the taxpayers of New Zealand understand that in the current environment it just isn't financially responsible for people to go about criticising members of this government."

Mr English said he did not accept that his ministerial colleagues were wasting taxpayer money by resorting to ridiculous lawsuits in order to stifle criticism.

"People like Judith Collins have a right to use legal action to cling desperately to what little reputation they have left.

"And let's not lose sight of the fact that the real culprits are the Labour opposition. Labour are entirely to blame for this expected litigation blowout.

"If the likes of Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little would just stop exposing our incompetence we wouldn't have any need to sue them."

Collins Lawsuit: What On Earth Is She Thinking?

The decision by Judith Collins to sue Trevor Mallard, Andrew Little and Radio New Zealand for defamation must be leaving her National Party colleagues shaking their heads.

It is a highly risky move, because if Collins backs down or loses her case, it will potentially destroy her ministerial career.

The ACC scandal seems to be growing bigger and bigger. It's too early to say that the stink rising up from this mess will bring the government down, but it has the potential to do considerable harm to National.

It it also astounding that Collins would sue a media outlet over this matter. If she and her colleagues had any self-awareness, they would understand that since the "teapot tape" affair the media have turned against John Key's government. Regardless of Collins' real motives behind the lawsuit against Radio New Zealand, her actions are bound to be viewed as just another example of National trying to silence the media.

I'm not the defamation law guy (I'm sure Mr Price or Mr Edwards will be along soon), but it's not entirely clear to me that anything defamatory has been said by either Mallard or Little about Collins. On the other hand, given Collins' litigious frame of mind, I'm not inclined to repeat anything they said that could potentially be construed as defamatory.

Additionally, the defendants will have potential defences available to them. Moreover, Mallard and Little might use the absolute privilege afforded to legal proceedings as a means of throwing more muck at Collins.

And if Collins wins, what then? I'm not convinced she'll get an apology from Mallard or Little, and it's unclear whether she would get a substantial damages award over remarks that seem largely innocuous.

Even if Collins wins she may lose.

A Political Appointment To The Law Commission?

Derek Cheng at the Herald reports:

Justice Minister Judith Collins has appointed former Cabinet colleague Wayne Mapp to the Law Commission, ignoring recommendations and without consulting her ministry or other interest groups.

But commission president Sir Grant Hammond said he was delighted with the decision, even though Dr Mapp was not on his radar when he recommended six candidates last year.

We should not hold any particular prejudice against a former politician being appointed to the Law Commission. It has happened in the past. Sir Geoffrey Palmer headed the body for some time, and he brought to the role a prominent academic pedigree together with one of the country’s sharpest legal minds. Palmer also had considerable experience at the business-end of law reform, having been Justice Minister for several years and PM for a short period.

Mapp will bring some of these attributes to the job, even if his political and academic stars don't shine quite as brightly as Palmer’s. I have no reason to think Dr Mapp won’t do a good job. He had a background in academia before becoming a politician, and as an MP and minister he was never particularly controversial or polarising.

However, the process under which Mapp was appointed is troubling. Justice Minister Judith Collins not only failed to select any of the six candidates put forward by the Commission’s president. She didn’t even check their availability. She didn't consult any departments, agencies or interest groups before deciding to appoint Dr Mapp. It appears that the only people she consulted were government and support party MPs.

It is thus an inescapable conclusion that Dr Mapp’s appointment was not based on his legal or academic accomplishments, but was entirely political.

The Law Commission fulfils a vital role as an independent forum for exploring legal issues and advocating law reform. It retains the respect of the legal profession, media and politicians precisely because it is seen not to be pursuing a particular agenda.

If the process of appointing members of the Commission ends up being perceived as entirely political, then the reputation of that body will suffer and many people will take its findings less seriously.

This government has a “we know best” attitude towards law reform issues. It broke records during the last parliamentary term for the frequency with which it adopted urgency in the House to pass legislation. It has frequently ignored the concerns of the legal profession, and has shown little inclination to consult on difficult or controversial issues.

Appointing one of their own as member of the Commission without any proper consultation is yet another example of this trend. Will people take the Law Commission seriously any more?

A Menace To Society?

The rule of law is under attack again, and nobody seems to care.

Sometimes it's hard to believe Judith Collins is a lawyer. It's even more astonishing that she was once vice-president of the Law Society.

I haven't seen full details of National's new law and order policy, but it appears that the Parole Board will be given the power to order the further detention of people beyond the term of their sentence, if they are deemed a danger to society.

Collins is trumpeting this as a get-tough measure to protect the community.

In effect National has decided that a group of people who have already been convicted and sentenced will now have their sentences extended. They will not be detained for longer because of any new crimes they have committed since first being sentenced, but because they might commit further crimes in the future.

Locking people up past the end of their sentence is the sort of thing despotic regimes do. It is an affront to the rule of law and yet another erosion of our civil liberties. Once again this government is showing its authoritarian tendencies, and like all authoritarian regimes it is justifying its behaviour by claiming the public are in danger.

But if the public are in danger it is this Government that threatens them. No government is perfect, but I am struggling to recall a past government as contemptuous of proper democratic and judicial processes as National is.

Baby-Eating Nats Tumble To Election Defeat

Saturday 26 November 2011 - The Labour Party, led by Phil Goff, tonight completed a crushing victory over the National Party in the General Election.

With over 98% of the votes counted, Labour were ahead of National in the party vote by over 22%, and were set to capture around 54% of the vote.

Prime Minister Judith Collins rang Phil Goff shortly after 9pm tonight to concede defeat.

"I wish you well," Ms Collins told Mr Goff. "But you can be sure we will be an active opposition, and that we'll be nipping at your heels 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

While pundits had predicted the easy victory, Labour Party supporters who had been in despair only four months earlier were still struggling to come to terms with the win.

As recently as July this year political polls showed that Labour was in the doldrums. A Fairfax poll taken in mid-July, after Labour's tax package was announced, showed the party with only 29% of the vote.

Those moves prompted soul-searching within Labour, but Labour's big opportunity came in September, when photographs of then Prime Minister John Key surfaced on the internet.

In the photograph Mr Key appeared to be eating a baby. In one picture Mr Key was shown gnawing on what appeared to be the arm of a small child.

Mr Key denounced the images as obvious fakes, and his staff pointed out that the images showed obvious signs of being photoshopped.

Deputy Prime Minister Bill English also pointed to previous posts on Imperator Fish, the website where the images first appeared, as evidence to support his claim of photo doctoring. In a post written just after the July Fairfax poll the enigmatic but talented blogger behind the award-winning site stated that the only thing that would save Labour from electoral defeat would be if John Key were caught eating a baby.

In spite of Mr Key's protestations, the calls for him to step down grew louder, until in late October Key and his deputy, Bill English, were forced to resign.

Even with the elevation of a popular and hardline new leader, it was too much for many National supporters to cope with. Labour's election slogan "We won't eat any babies" was devastatingly successful, and support for National collapsed overnight.

Phil Goff has promised that his first move as Prime Minister, after appointing his cabinet, will be to hold a full public enquiry into the baby-eating allegations. It is understood that a number of baby-eating allegation have been made against other National MPs on various reputable and non-partisan websites, such as The Standard and Tumeke.

Meanwhile, ACT leader Dr Don Brash has already denounced the proposed enquiry, claiming it to be a witch-hunt against decent law-abiding baby-eaters by "interfering nanny state do-gooders".

"The non-baby eaters are once again getting preferential treatment," said Dr Brash. "Frankly, er, I'm appalled."

Rethink On Police Pursuits Needed - Probably Won't Happen

In 2010 16 people died in police chases. This is not acceptable.

It is not acceptable that people flee instead of stopping, thus putting lives at danger.

But what also isn't acceptable are the reactions of police and politicians when anyone suggests that the police policy on pursuits may need a rethink.

I wouldn't be holding my breath on any rethink, though, if the attitude of Police Minister Judith Collins is anything to go by. Here is what the Herald reported her saying:

"I get tired of commentators who sit in their ivory towers telling the police what they should do and who live in areas where they've never had to confront real crime.

"Anybody who is so moronic to think that someone fleeing police is not criminal activity needs their heads read. Do they think dangerous driving is not criminal activity?

"Police have had years of getting really abused for doing their job and, frankly, I think the public is behind the police and they're getting sick of the police taking a beating every time the police go and do their job.

"The public realise that police just can't stand by and let dangerous drivers take over the roads."

Collins' attitude is childish and insulting. There's clearly a problem, and it won't go away by her calling people morons.

Other police forces around the world have recognised the danger of pursuits and have severely limited the powers of police to initiate a chase. In Milwaukee in the US, for example, the new policy is to pursue only where the suspect is believed to have been involved in a violent offence, or where the car being chased presents a clear and immediate threat to the safety of others and the necessity of immediate apprehension outweighs the level of danger created by a pursuit.

This is quite different to our policy, where the police can pursue anyone in theory, though of course they are required to weigh up a range of factors before proceeding.

The Herald article cited above also reports that the majority of pursuits in this country begin over minor offences. So the bad guys we would be letting escape if we changed our policy really wouldn't be monsters or child-killers.

That being the case, isn't it time we considered a different approach?

And isn't it time the people who express concern about the number of deaths in pursuits weren't vilified by the Police Minister and the Police Association?

Both Mean And Stupid

Judith Collins wants to crack down on Work and Income giving convicted drunk-drivers interest free loans so that they can apply for limited licences.

She had a nice little rant on Morning Report this morning about the issue, and even managed to blame Labour. I hope she feels better for the exercise.

But let’s step back and think about this sensibly. Limited licences are hard to get, and will generally only be available where people need a licence to keep their job.

Work and Income are giving loans away because they are trying to keep people off the dole.

The cost to the state of an unemployed person is considerable. The longer someone stays on the dole the harder it is for them to get off it. Long-term unemployment breeds poverty, which is a significant factor in crime and poor health outcomes. These things cost the state enormous amounts. In most cases the people applying for limited licences will have evidence from an employer or prospective employer that the licence is necessary for them to keep or obtain a job. So these Work and Income loans are probably helping to reduce unemployment.

Which means that clamping down on the giving out of loans is likely to increase unemployment.

Judith Collins doesn’t like lawbreakers and never will, and enjoys railing against drunk drivers, boy racers and anyone else who doesn’t fit into her tidy true-blue conservative view of the world. However, she isn’t proposing to change the rules so that limited licences are harder to get for everyone – just for those people who are poor and can’t afford the legal costs.

Respect Must Be Earned

Police Minister Judith Collins has said:

"I think it's very important to acknowledge that over the last decade or so there have been numerous attacks (in the media) on the police. There have been the reports into police conduct, all those sorts of things, none of which have actually encouraged people to increase their respect for the police."

Louise Nicholas

The thing about respect is that it has to be earned. There have been attacks on police in the media in recent years, but not all of this attention has been undeserved. Perhaps Minister Collins has forgotten about Louise Nicholas, or about the series of assault charges various police officer have faced in recent years.

Distrust of the police as an institution is a healthy thing in a civil society. That doesn't mean that most police don't do a good job, or that we should not support the ordinary efforts of hardworking coppers. But the police should be scrutinised, and if they stuff up I'm quite happy for the media to be all over them like a great big dirty all-over-thing.

If we ever find we are giving deference to people simply because they wear the blue uniform we will probably be well on the road to dictatorship.

John Key's Growth Plan

The Herald reports:

A new prison to be built in South Auckland will bring $1.2 billion in economic benefits over 30 years, Corrections Minister Judith Collins says.

But she has been criticised for announcing the gains to be had from higher crime and more prisoners. 

Ms Collins told the Rotary Club in Auckland yesterday that the 960-bed prison at Wiri was expected to bring 1900 jobs to the region in the next five years.

An economic impact report, commissioned by the Department of Corrections, expected the prison to bring $1.2 billion to the region over its 30-year lifespan.

Well that surely is a whole new angle on the entire law and order debate.

So that's National's plan for economic transformation.

(Who would have guessed Garth McVicar was such an economic genius? He's been saying for years we need more prisons)

Meet The New Spokesperson For The Sensible Sentencing Trust

Is there anything a politician won't do to gain support for a policy?

Take Judith Collins' shameless piece in the Herald today on the three-strikes law.

Her piece starts by relating the story of a horrible crime. We are being told that anyone who commits such crimes is a monster and must be put away forever.

As horrible as the crime committed by Nicholas Hawker clearly was, it isn't easy to see just what that has to do with the three-strikes law Collins is writing in support of. Nowhere does the article suggest that Hawker would have gone away for life (I mean actual life) if he had committed this offence under the proposed new laws. Would he have been on a strike already? If so why didn't Collins mention the fact?

This blatant piece of emotional manipulation also ignores the fact that judges now have the ability to impose minimum sentences, and that parole laws have been toughened considerably since the 1997 murder (a murder committed under a National government. Soft on crime, were they?)

So why raise the case, other than to smear opponents of the silly new law?

Collins says:

Time and again, victims of crime have told me they feel let down by a system that seems to put greater emphasis on the rights of offenders than victims.

Well, yes, of course they feel that way. Can you imagine many victims of a serious violent crime being satisfied with anything other than the ritual disembowelment of the offender? If someone did away with one of my children I'd want to see the person chopped into small pieces. And yet I don't support the death penalty. If our aim is solely to satisfy victims of crime then let's do away with sentencing by judges and conduct a poll of the victims: "Who wants to hang him? Any bids for a flogging? Stoning? What about life in a windowless cage?"

Could it be (and I know this will sound dreadfully unpopular) that we talk too much about the rights of victims already? How can we be impartial in our exercise of justice if we let emotion dominate proceedings?

But there's more:

People expect safe communities, where they can walk the streets without the threat of violence or intimidation, where they can sleep at night knowing their families are safe in their homes, where there is respect for property, people and the law.

Maybe we ought to then look at why people commit crime. Surely "because they're just bad people" doesn't really explain it. But that might raise a number of uncomfortable questions about the influence of poverty and economic disadvantage.

In this country we have many people who have made a thriving industry out of making excuses for criminals.

Those damned human rights people! Lefties, all of 'em!

In the past decade these people have overwhelmed the debate on law and order with their views on the rights of offenders.

Actually, who are "these people"? Because the only people who appear to be dominating the debate at the current time are the lock-em-up types beloved of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Note the reference to "the past decade" - ooh, it must be Labour she's referring to.

By making excuses for criminals, these people send a very strong signal that crime is acceptable in our communities, that it is an accepted fact of life.

I'm not sure that comment has any basis in reality. Would the Minister care to provide an example?

Recently, a senior judge told me that he believed there was "far too much emphasis on victims in our courts at the moment".

Blame the judges too. Bunch of pansy liberals, all of them.

It's this acceptance that every crime is solely a crime against the state rather than the individual that I believe is at the heart of the situation we now find ourselves in.

You wonder if she was shaking her head while she wrote this, marvelling at her own audacity. Does Collins really believe judges have no respect for victims? Of course they have respect - they are human, and they have to sit through these trials, listening to every ghastly detail. But judges are also responsible for upholding the rule of law. They must balance the rights of the victim with the rights of the offender (yes, even "bad people" have rights in our pansy liberal nanny-state) and the interests of justice as a whole. Judges must also follow precedent.

Justice and punishment must be impersonal, but that does not mean it should be blind to the human impact of crime and the human need for redress.

Straw man set up and ready to go down!

For every crime there are victims like Leigh and her family, and for justice to be truly done it must strive to bring peace and closure to those victims.

Bringing peace and closure are not the sole aims of the criminal justice system. Besides, many victims will never have closure - the trauma is just impossible to overcome. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I don't believe prison should be enjoyable. Prison should be an unpleasant experience so offenders do not want to return.

Next straw man ready to go down! I'd be surprised if many offenders think prison is a holiday camp. The fact of the matter is that many of these folk are messed up and lack the ability to control their behaviour. They don't think rationally. Most of them don't stop to think "if I waste that guy and get caught I'm going inside". Most violent offending is impulsive.

The justice system's sole focus should not be on punishment. It is very important to give people the opportunity to turn their lives around.

But pressure from those who advocate for the rights of criminals has resulted in too much focus on rehabilitating the prisoners who are least likely to be rehabilitated.

Those damn liberals again. But how do you know who can and cannot be rehabilitated?

The policy will deter criminals from committing further crimes...

Based on what evidence? 

...keep the worst offenders behind bars for longer and bring certainty to sentencing of the most hardened offenders.

Like a guy who maybe in his youth was a bad sort, but finds Jesus and then 20 years later gets done for manslaughter because he makes a careless mistake on the road? It's life without parole for him under the new law. Would that be a fair result?

Finally, shouldn't Garth McVicar get a writing credit for this article?