In more recent years Supreme Court Justice Susan Glazebrook, writing in the Peter Ellis tikanga case, said “it is the function of this court to declare the law of Aotearoa/New Zealand and we must do so mindful of the values that in combination give us our own sense of community and common identity.”
Then there was High Court Justice Peter Churchman in the Edwards case regarding customary Maori rights under the Marine and Coastal Areas Act coming up with the oxymoronic and linguistically impossible concept of “shared exclusivity.”
But at least those statements and opinions were issued in judgements at the end of a case, after hearing all the evidence, and they were not presumed to have been decided before the cases began.
Now though, this activism has taken on a new face with judicial pre-determination laid bare. It concerns a defamation case involving independent broadcaster and journalist Chantelle Baker and the hard-left media organisation Stuff.
(If Stuff can call Chantelle Baker a right wing activist, I can call it a hard left media outlet!)
Baker claims that Stuff, in its video production Fire and Fury, defamed her and wants to have her claims heard in court.
She is also suing Kate Hannah, the founder and former director of The Disinformation Project.
Associate Judge Peter Skelton has said the case can go ahead but has ordered Ms Baker to pay a $100,000 bond in three installments before the trial, as security for any costs that may be awarded against her. This was after Stuff filed the application for security for costs.
In his decision Judge Skelton said, “while acknowledging the case is at an early stage, my assessment is that Ms Baker will face difficulties establishing her claims against the defendants.”
He then went on to say there was a reasonable likelihood that costs may ultimately be ordered against her.
Remember these words have been uttered from the bench before a substantive hearing of the case.
Stuff and Kate Hannah both admit they made the statements that Ms Baker has taken issue with, but deny they were defamatory. Ms Baker was not approached for comment in Fire and Fury but Stuff said it “relied on expert views on appropriate reporting on disseminators of mis- and disinformation.”
In other words, we don’t like what Chantelle Baker is saying and here’s someone (Hannah) who has credibility to say that.
Not mentioned in the Stuff article about the defamation claim is that Chantelle Baker has already received an out of court settlement from NZME, publishers of the New Zealand Herald, for an article in 2023 in which they quoted Kate Hannah calling Baker “a useful idiot” and naming her as part of the “Disinformation Dozen.”
That law suit was settled when the Herald implicitly agreed they couldn’t rely on Kate Hannah’s critique as expert opinion. The Herald had to retract the statements and pay Baker a settlement.
Apart from a cursory statement saying how the Herald regretted Baker experiencing distress as a result of the article, there was no apology and no mention of the financial settlement.
That was a comprehensive victory to Baker and now she’s going again.
It was victory where any skerrick of credibility that Kate Hannah ever had just evaporated.
Whether or not Baker still has the support of The Centrist, formerly owned by new NZME board member Jim Grenon, is not known. The Centrist backed her in the battle against NZME.
Judge Skelton has also made known his thoughts on Chantelle Baker’s bank account. According to a report in Stuff he’s satisfied there is “sufficient evidential basis” to infer that Baker will be unable to pay an adverse costs award.
Putting aside the obvious bias in a Stuff article about itself, the comments from the judge are disturbing.
For him to say, before all the evidence and expert witness statements are presented to the court, that Chantelle Baker will “face difficulties establishing her claims against the defendants” sounds very much like a pre-determination of the case.
I’m reminded of my friend, the retired District Court Judge David Harvey stating on a podcast panel that I appeared with him on, that every day he went to every case with a completely open mind and no pre-hearing bias. To do otherwise, he said, would not allow justice to be dispensed fairly.
From what she’s said subsequent to Judge Skelton’s decision, it appears Ms Baker will still proceed with the case, which is unlikely to be heard until next year.
But in the interests of justice let us hope that Associate Judge Peter Skelton is nowhere to be seen when the defamation suit is brought to a full hearing.
The very least Chantelle Baker deserves is a judge with the open mind of a David Harvey.
Then there was High Court Justice Peter Churchman in the Edwards case regarding customary Maori rights under the Marine and Coastal Areas Act coming up with the oxymoronic and linguistically impossible concept of “shared exclusivity.”
But at least those statements and opinions were issued in judgements at the end of a case, after hearing all the evidence, and they were not presumed to have been decided before the cases began.
Now though, this activism has taken on a new face with judicial pre-determination laid bare. It concerns a defamation case involving independent broadcaster and journalist Chantelle Baker and the hard-left media organisation Stuff.
(If Stuff can call Chantelle Baker a right wing activist, I can call it a hard left media outlet!)
Baker claims that Stuff, in its video production Fire and Fury, defamed her and wants to have her claims heard in court.
She is also suing Kate Hannah, the founder and former director of The Disinformation Project.
Associate Judge Peter Skelton has said the case can go ahead but has ordered Ms Baker to pay a $100,000 bond in three installments before the trial, as security for any costs that may be awarded against her. This was after Stuff filed the application for security for costs.
In his decision Judge Skelton said, “while acknowledging the case is at an early stage, my assessment is that Ms Baker will face difficulties establishing her claims against the defendants.”
He then went on to say there was a reasonable likelihood that costs may ultimately be ordered against her.
Remember these words have been uttered from the bench before a substantive hearing of the case.
Stuff and Kate Hannah both admit they made the statements that Ms Baker has taken issue with, but deny they were defamatory. Ms Baker was not approached for comment in Fire and Fury but Stuff said it “relied on expert views on appropriate reporting on disseminators of mis- and disinformation.”
In other words, we don’t like what Chantelle Baker is saying and here’s someone (Hannah) who has credibility to say that.
Not mentioned in the Stuff article about the defamation claim is that Chantelle Baker has already received an out of court settlement from NZME, publishers of the New Zealand Herald, for an article in 2023 in which they quoted Kate Hannah calling Baker “a useful idiot” and naming her as part of the “Disinformation Dozen.”
That law suit was settled when the Herald implicitly agreed they couldn’t rely on Kate Hannah’s critique as expert opinion. The Herald had to retract the statements and pay Baker a settlement.
Apart from a cursory statement saying how the Herald regretted Baker experiencing distress as a result of the article, there was no apology and no mention of the financial settlement.
That was a comprehensive victory to Baker and now she’s going again.
It was victory where any skerrick of credibility that Kate Hannah ever had just evaporated.
Whether or not Baker still has the support of The Centrist, formerly owned by new NZME board member Jim Grenon, is not known. The Centrist backed her in the battle against NZME.
Judge Skelton has also made known his thoughts on Chantelle Baker’s bank account. According to a report in Stuff he’s satisfied there is “sufficient evidential basis” to infer that Baker will be unable to pay an adverse costs award.
Putting aside the obvious bias in a Stuff article about itself, the comments from the judge are disturbing.
For him to say, before all the evidence and expert witness statements are presented to the court, that Chantelle Baker will “face difficulties establishing her claims against the defendants” sounds very much like a pre-determination of the case.
I’m reminded of my friend, the retired District Court Judge David Harvey stating on a podcast panel that I appeared with him on, that every day he went to every case with a completely open mind and no pre-hearing bias. To do otherwise, he said, would not allow justice to be dispensed fairly.
From what she’s said subsequent to Judge Skelton’s decision, it appears Ms Baker will still proceed with the case, which is unlikely to be heard until next year.
But in the interests of justice let us hope that Associate Judge Peter Skelton is nowhere to be seen when the defamation suit is brought to a full hearing.
The very least Chantelle Baker deserves is a judge with the open mind of a David Harvey.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
14 comments:
“it is the function of this court to declare the law of Aotearoa/New Zealand"
HELLO !! No it's not.
It's the court's function to ADMINISTER the law of NEW ZEALAND that has been passed by parliament.
This just illustrates the supreme arrogance of our activist judges who take it upon themselves to make up laws beyond what parliament has passed.
And there's more than the named here arrogantly activist on benches... past and present. As bad as politicians on the gravy trains promising all sorts -- and failing to deliver...
concur fully - judiciary, get back in yer box - please!
Judicial activism is contagious.
It seems we have in New Zealand judges who have caught the disease and it is spreading.
It is a danger to society and must be called out.
This latest decision is appalling and I hope someone does back Chantelle big time for the sake of our country.
My question is - ' have the New Zealand Judiciary been studying ' long distance what their American colleagues are currently doing (and have done so since January 2025) - that is obstruct The President of America in every step he takes.
If you are puzzled by this statement - re-read Peter's article - we have a NZ Judge ' who has made a pre-case discission on what they end result will be'. To me this is a obstruction of Legal process, and from my memory has never been made before, in NZ.
We also have had a recent legal Process, where a Journalist, of Chinese Ethnicity had a Judge make a decision on the basis of
'evidence', to which ' the accused' was not aware of said Court process, or present during the hearing, and was advised of the Judge's decision. Which has since been revoked.
Can I ponder on whether Minister Collins, who has the portfolio for Justice - will 'intervene'?
Collins might - noone else.
Stocktake:
All part of the CRT process - blur each clear branch of governance to create havoc.
Aim: weaken the supreme authority of a sovereign state = parliament in NZ. Now the NZ Parliament itself under threat from TP Maori disruption/contempt.
Ardern's WEF global governance agenda ( with herself in a key role) is advancing nicely - and supported by the apathetic sheeple.
So, the plan is right on track. Ardern even tests the waters with a dreadful book on empathetic governance ....(Woke Prince William will always give her a job if Harvard dries up.)
So.. either despair of NZ - or get out in time. You have really tried to warn people. Duty done.
I trust that the intrepid Bryce Edwards will include this in his daily round up of the media by his Integrity Institute. Or will he ? Is it too difficult for him to raise the issue of this biased Associate Judge ?
In another "tikagna" case, a man who disrupted an accident scene investigation was let off by an activist judge because if convicted the man would lose his "mana" in the community. What utter bullshi-t.
If tikanga is accepted as equal to British based law, the concept of Utu could be interesting:
lets say your 16 year old son, with only a leaner's license, takes the family car, with your permission, to get groceries one night. He picks up some of his mates; they get drunk, go for a joy ride and he causes a head-on with the car of my pregnant wife, killing her and our unborn baby. He and his mates survive.
Under my understanding of Utu, I, whose "mana" has been seriously diminished, have the right and obligation to "balance" the situation. That means that I have the option, if I choose, to kill your son and you (the wider family). According to the Peter Ellis case which ushered in the idea of Tikanga as co-equal to British law, Tikanga can be used by non-Maori. So I get to chose which system of "law" I want to use in achieving Justice for my dead wife and baby. Pretty cool.
Peter, that is indeed disturbing. If the left can get away with stacking judges for cases why can't the normal everyday people get a fair hearing. That's all most of us want. My god, we have moved so far left it's a disgrace. Shame on this judge.
Keep highlighting this info Peter, the far left msm will never publish the truth.
Very well illustrated, Anon !
Basically - apartheid judiciary in action.
Yes, certainly not Goldsmith with his history of prevarication.
PS Sorry -Goldsmith is Justice. This issue was passed to him.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.