Declined
Bradley Ambrose has had his application to have the Key-Banks meeting declared as “not private” declined.This does not mean the Judge has decided they are private or public, just that she is not going to rule in view of the Police investigation.
Now can we focus on real issues.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: secret recordings
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Not if he appeals!
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Not a big surprise. Bradley Ambrose should have considered the impact to his reputation and potential job opportunities before shopping the tape around.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:41 pm
DPF: you are obviously a “glass half full” man….Garner and Gower will do their best to keep this “issue” in the news…
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Prosecute Garner and Gower, then. Have a look at the relevant sction of the Crimes Act.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Bradley White/Ambrose has still done a fine job (depriving Labour of media airtime) for the bulk of the last fortnight of the election campaign.
Now what were those policy issues to discuss again…oops, time’s up!
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:46 pm
The issue has just been kicked into touch where it will remain until after the election when it wont matter and nobody will care anymore – if they ever did.
But we will get three minutes on the News tonight – film of Lawyers and judge preening and uttering lofty words of little meaning.
What a waste of time
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Can’t say I’m surprised.
I hope Mr Collins, the Solicitor General asked for costs.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Perhaps Dunk the Hunk and Gower should lawyer up?
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:49 pm
What sort of legal bill would the cameraman be up for with this action? How much is it to file this action in a High Court?
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Chris2 – my understanding is that TV3 supplied their lawyers for him. Clearly there’s pay-off for them if the decision went in his favour.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:51 pm
The cameraman wont have paid a cent…TV3 will be have stumped up for….gosh…thick end of $15k I suspect…not less than 10….
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Oh dear, how sad, tut tut, never mind.
Now the fun starts as the Herald [and TV3] try to spin this decision in a way that doesn’t totally destroy any remaining credibility.
Oops – too late!
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:54 pm
@Chris2 (2:49pm)
It was estimated on the radio the other day that getting his legal team to court would leave no change from $30,000. For a guy who couldn’t buy next wek’s groceries, that is a pretty big bite so he is now either chewing like hell or has financial backing from his “non-employers”
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:58 pm
WHAT A FUCKING GUTLESS JUDGE!
She didn’t want to interfere with a police investigation? WTF?!!!!
She is a judge. She is a separate branch of government (the branches being judiciary, executive, legislature). The police are not a branch of government! The police’s job is independent who act on the Crown/public’s behalf. Citizens can go to a court and prosecute just like the police.
By denying Ambrose a declaration just wastes police resources.
That judge is an idiot! It was a sit on the fence decision that doesn’t say anything. If National or any right wing blogger reports this as some type of victory they are a bunch of dumb arses.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Just reinforces that judges are useless these days.
Her job is to make judgements. She should have ruled, one way or the other.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:02 pm
The Judge more or less hinted what she was going to do yesterday. Really no big surprise here. She basically told Ambrose to take his thumb out of his mouth and let the system run it course.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:03 pm
The judgement by Winkelmann J is here:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Portals/0/images/Ambrose%20v%20AG.pdf
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Someone Else “By denying Ambrose a declaration just wastes police resources.” – well that’s your opinion.
As opposed to my opinion, that by seeking a statutory declaration Ambrose was wasting the judge’s time.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Seeking a declaration avoids the police investigating the mens rea argument of ‘intentional’.
Ambrose was smart, the judge was wasting everyone else’s time by sitting on the fence.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:15 pm
This was an attempt to use the civil jurisdiction of the High Court to pre-empt a police investigation before it could be fully argued. The ruling is therefore entirely predictable. If this sort of stunt worked then everyone facing criminal charges could seek a declaratory judgment on the meaning of something before it could be argued before the criminal court.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Check out the profile of the Judge here: http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845379
An interesting couple of phrases in that profile:
“However, in the last two years, Winkelmann J has demonstrated a worrisome tendency toward unduly protecting the Crown and powerful interests from legal accountability in secret.”
“Would have close connections with Banks and key businesses from her legal practise.”
ROFLOL!
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:19 pm
You mean after claiming that his recording was unintentional, he then tried to secure a backup position by having the conversation declared public. Coupled with shopping the recording to the media, this looks (on the balance of probability) like his recording was intentional.
It gives me great glee to think how kakked his pants must be…
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:19 pm
tvb,
Great post and well said.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:30 pm
This is a great victory for the ‘decent people’ over the lowlifes.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Having spoken with a number of people over the last fortnight about the Tea Tapes, the overarching theme of comments (regardless of individual thoughts on whether or not the contents should be released) is that nearly all have been amazed with the approach that the Media have taken. Many had previously felt that while such techniques were common overseas, our media operated with a higher level of journalistic integrity and as a result we were immune from Journalist attempting to create the news vs just report it.
While there are comparisons to the News of the World scandal in the United Kingdom I don’t believe NZ journalists have reached that level quite yet, however it is clear there is a growing need for us to have our own inquiry into media ethics as is currently occurring there.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Dear Bradley Ambrose,
You are pond scum.
Best regards,
Bob R
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:40 pm
The legal blocking tactics of the gang of 3 at TV3 qualifies them for a cup of tea without sugar,when the learned judge was aware of their gutter Labour party back street knee capping tactics.The same gutter tactics have been used in different ways throught the election period.Number one LIAR Goff with his filthy Mafia type Pamphlets attack on young babies and their mothers.Also the blatant lies about state house tenants being evicted if they vote National.Goff when questioned on TV on news about the Labours poisonous depraved attack on the young mums and their babies seemed like perhaps he had a hand in it.Surely John Key ,when Goff attacks him should counteract with Labours pamphlet depravity.”Green sign terrorists”Norman Aussie commie dropout and ex milicuddy serious party Turei said they knew nothing about it,just like saying Goff didnt bring in GSTin Eighties or sell state assets from 1984 to 1990.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:43 pm
David Garrett, and others,
Ambrose’s costs would be north of $50K, TV3′s costs about $25-$30K. John Keys costs $15-$20K.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:01 pm
“Now can we focus on real issues.”
Exactly. Like getting a conviction against the slimey prick and his equally slimey TV3 mates.
Masterley
Surely his counsel would have realised that this was a loser and it was only publicity. How could there be a finding on an issue that would be necessarliy be decided in the course of any criminal proceeding where witnesses will be heard? A finding now would cut right across the process of identification of witnesses and their evidence.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Judge’s decision seems pretty cautious. Facts are as plain as day as I see it. What could a police investigation possibly uncover which we don’t know already?
Anyone who thinks this is a private conversation is bonkers. A media event orchestrated by Key and Banks as a publicity stunt and then privacy is raised when they say something embarrassing and are caught out? Absurd.
A lot here seem to hate the media. Authoritarian fools.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:34 pm
“A finding now would cut right across the process of identification of witnesses and their evidence.”
Baloney. We all know what happened cause it was a publicity stunt and we all witnessed it on TV. Key and Banks organise media circus and then throw a hissy fit when it turns to shit. Boohoo.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:34 pm
TDM,
I think that the bright idea to seek a Declaratory Judgemnt was not Ambroses.
My own view is that the application was funded by a media outlet, although which one I am not sure about.
If that assumption is correct then publicity would have been the driver and not the prospects of success or cost.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Changed my mind on this one. Although I still think Key should have spoken to the electorate about the contents of the tape there is no doubt that it was private. Reading the judgement was a pain because it’s clear that Key thought the conversation was private as was entitled to, whether the pre-amble to it had been staged or not. Ambrose should have resolved the issue about it’s privacy before he did anything at all with it. To say that a private conversation more or less accidently or inadvertently fell into his hands does not give him or the public ownership of it.
The Judge knew Key’s position on its privacy because he’d laid a complaint with the police about it, the idea that you own something that has ‘accidentally’ come into your hands is bizarre.
What the Judge did get right is that the investigation shouldn’t be predjudiced by a declaration but let to run it’s own course.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:47 pm
@Someone Else: Stop trying to be a complete stalk – perhaps you should read tvb’s post at 3:15 pm.
And open both eyes as you read it…
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:47 pm
@Someone Else (111) Says:
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Check out the profile of the Judge here: http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845379
An interesting couple of phrases in that profile:
“However, in the last two years, Winkelmann J has demonstrated a worrisome tendency toward unduly protecting the Crown and powerful interests from legal accountability in secret.”
“Would have close connections with Banks and key businesses from her legal practise.”
—
Are you suggesting something here ? It’s a serious allegation.
We have a justice system for a reason, and we gotta comply with the court decision.
If you are not happy with the decision, I would suggest you to contribute to the plaintiff to make an appeal or take it to the higher court, while the rest of us focus on something else that really matters; instead of stamping your foot around and bad mouthing …
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
The very best thing about the judges finding is that it will drive the left nuts.
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:55 pm
“there is no doubt that it was private”
…aside from the media frenzy which Key and Banks had invited as a publicity stunt. Since when were publicity stunts private?
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:59 pm
“Bob R (528) Says:
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Dear Bradley Ambrose,
You are pond scum.
Best regards,
Bob R”
Bob R – what do you really mean? What is achieved by insulting someone on-line like this?
As far as I can tell Ambrose has not posted here, so is unlikely to read your post.
There is far too much of this on all blogs feft, centre or right wing.
It only serves to lower the tone of this blog.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Probably a wise decision. Ambrose’s story has to be checked out, so even though I think the conversation wasn’t private personally, the judge has made the correct ruling imo, because she needs to be in full possession of the facts to make an informed decision.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:04 pm
I don’t care if they were standing in the middle of a media newsroom.
We are all entitled to speak privately with no hidden microphones.
This guy ran off to sell his tape which undermines totally his credibility.
Hats off to the Herald for refusing to publish even if they have sort of leaked it.
The public believes privacy is important. Even for politicians.
Goff must be spitting – more than a week of Botoxed appearances and still the tea party hogs the headlines. Is Stephen Joyce really this Machiavellian?
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:10 pm
The plods on their way to the media outlets to execute and stroke john boy keys ego ie(i snap my fingers and the plods who are not busy because crimes down (YER RIGHT) do the deed) for national. Key can you get the donut eating plods to swing by JJs home and hammer the 4 in that hell hole called a home. This is a brown baby who was given the maori/island bash which distroyed this baby bros gut and killed him , OPPS Keys shonkey deal with banks is far more important than another killed kid, one of to many this year killed under the PM JOHN KEYs watch, but its towards a better future
There were 4 national supporters in that house,who killed JJ.?????????
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:11 pm
BeaB,
I agree we are entitled to speak privately, but we should not expect conversations to be private in circumstances where there is no reasonable expectation of such privacy. If we orchestrate a media circus then it is absurd to expect privacy. Key and Banks want to create this distinction where they want publicity with the cameras filming them through the glass, but don’t want to have their conversation recorded. That’s ridiculous. If you want a private conversation then find somewhere where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:14 pm
***Bob R – what do you really mean? What is achieved by insulting someone on-line like this?**
@ Voice of Reason
Very little, but it made me feel better. I think the guy intentionally recorded the conversation, pretended it was an accident and tried to hock it off. It’s hardly ethical behaviour is it? Admittedly, the pond scum comment was a bit harsh. Apologies.
@ Weihana,
There was an expectation of privacy as the media were on the other side of the glass and removed recording devices. The rules were clear and understood. Even the editor holding the transcripts of the conversation acknowledged that.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Scott Chris,
…she needs to be in full possession of the facts to make an informed decision
But what facts exactly? People seem to be talking in principle without acknowledging the reality of the situation which is that the facts are as plain as day. We all know what happened and this police investigation is a complete waste of time and an abuse of power. Its only purpose is to delay this issue until after election day.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
I think this excerpt from Stuff sums up the complexity of the legal issue:
>>Chief High Court judge Justice Helen Winkelmann delivered her decision today saying she declined to make the declaration as it would amount to a “mini-trial” in advance of a police investigation into the matter.
>>”It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the police would be deterred from pursuing not only the investigation but also any potential prosecution by the existence of such a declaration.”
>>She said she did not feel she had enough factual evidence to decide whether the conversation was private or not.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6019903/Tea-tape-to-remain-private-for-now
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Alex: Clearly I have been in the wrong branch of the law all my life!
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:18 pm
YOU CAN TAKE PHOTOS OF US TALKING.
BUT YOU CANNOT RECORD ANYTHING WE ACTUALLY SAY, THAT WOULD BE WRONG.
NO I’M NOT WHORING FOR ATTENTION!
DON’T MAKE ME GET THE POLICE INVOLVED. YOU KNOW THEY HAVE PLENTY OF SPARE TIME AND NOTHING BETTER TO DO.
THERE’S NOTHING TO HEAR, HERE… MOVE ALONG NOW PLEASE.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Weihana says:- “But what facts exactly?”
Whether or not Ambrose went out to deliberately record the conversation. To me, this whole case hinges on that. Intentionally eavesdropping in a public place still amounts to an invasion of privacy imo.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Bob R,
Establishing rules does not mean one automatically has a reasonable expectation of privacy. No reasonable person could believe that in such circumstances their conversation could not be intercepted. Key and Banks tried to use the media to their advantage but got bitten. That’s how it works and trying to bring privacy into this is rubbish.
Moreover, I would argue this distinction between filming and audio is artificial. It is either private or not. It is not private with regards to audio but public with regards to film. That’s nonsense, especially given that part of the conversation is generally decipherable by observing the speakers lips.
Lesson: if you want privacy don’t orchestrate a media publicity stunt.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Scott Chris,
Forgive me if I don’t quite understand the law here, which I probably don’t… but whether or not the conversation is private or public would not seem to me to depend on whether ambrose deliberately recorded the conversation or not. This would, I expect, be determined by whether or not the people having the conversation had a reasonable expectation of privacy which would depend on whether the circumstances reasonably permitted such privacy. The circumstances didn’t permit this because the people having the conversation had deliberately orchestrated a media circus which makes it quite different to people who have not invited the media to join them for a cup of tea.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:29 pm
http://tvnz.co.nz/election-2011/search-warrant-executed-tvnz-over-tea-tape-4563258
“Police have executed a search warrant at TVNZ in connection with the tea tape conversation between John Key and John Banks.
DVD copies of field footage of the meeting between National Party leader Key and Act’s Epsom candidate Banks at a Newmarket cafe earlier this month were handed to police this afternoon.
A search warrant was also executed this afternoon at the Herald on Sunday.”
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:30 pm
***No reasonable person could believe that in such circumstances their conversation could not be intercepted.***
So it wasn’t reasonable to expect the media to remove recording devices as requested?
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Weihana – can you point me to evidence that Key and or Banks actually ‘invited’ the media? I just searched for any reference to the media actually being ‘invited’ but it seems they ‘invited’ themselves.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Weihana
Okay, put it this way. Suppose you’re out on the town with some friends, and one of the females realizes she is menstruating and hasn’t brought a pad. She needs to ask one of the other females if they may have one, so they convene to the public ladies toilet to resolve the issue. A mate of yours is curious as to what they may be conspiring about, so he presses his ear to the door.
Question is, did the females have a reasonable expectation of privacy and did your hypothetical mate violate this right?
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:43 pm
@ RightNow
It seems that the event was arranged with the expectation that the media would attend. But it also seems clear from the judgment that they were expected to take their recording devices and go outside while the two chatted.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Portals/0/images/Ambrose%20v%20AG.pdf
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Bob R – Cheers
In my view I think the recording was accidental – however once he realised what he had, then he sought to profit from it.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:47 pm
RightNow,
As Bob was just saying there was an expectation that they would attend. To suggest Key and Banks did not intend that the media turn up is disingenuous.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Scott Chris,
Yes I think they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the toilet. One would not reasonably expect people to press their ears up to the females toilet in order to listen in.
On the other hand one would reasonably expect that if you organize a media circus over a cup of tea then you best be careful about what you say and who is listening given that a media frenzy is going on merely inches from your table behind glass which may or may not be sound proof.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Yes he did seek to profit from it. Whether the media were invited or not, at the point of the conversation they were clearly excluded. To say they could have lip read the conversation is irrelevant, in the 2 men’s minds they were having a private conversation and that was their reasonable expectation. John Key was entitled to complain and the idea of ‘finders keepers’ doesn’t have a place in this situation. All that said, be interesting when it finally comes out as it surely will.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:59 pm
This is a real issue. Why has John Key gone to such lengths to put a gag on this tape? I’d like to know what is in it for that very reason.
November 23rd, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Nostalgia,
Whether the expectation of privacy was reasonable or not is an objective test, not a subjective one. The fact that “in the 2 men’s minds” it was private does not make it so.
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Even if it was accidental I wonder if, after discovering it, you intentionally keep it and try to use it then does it become intentional after the fact?
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
What you do with it after the fact Weihana is indicative of any intention you might have had before the fact, more water to go under the bridge on this. Ambrose says both that it was ‘accidental’ and that it wasn’t ‘private’ which sounds like two bites at the cherry to me.
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Quite aside from the whole issue of prejudicing a police investigation, it is quite inappropriate for a judge to give a declaratory judgement on the strength of contested facts. This application was only ever going to succeed if the judge concluded that a meeting between two people in a public place can never involve a conversation which those two people could reasonably expect to be private between themselves. That was never going to happen.
As far as relying on Kiwisfirst as an authority on the predispositions of any of the judges, you would get much better results by putting a fox in charge of the henhouse. For some insight on that website, check the bios of the various judges and then go to Judicial Decisions Online and review those cases where various judges have made adverse findings against the site owner. You will find a remarkable relationship between the severity of the criticisms against the judges and the cases over which those judges presided. Mr Seimer does not send Christmas cards to Winklemann J.
The judge was not sitting on the fence. There are very clear principles as to when a court should exercise its discretion to grant a declaratory judgement. This was never, in my view, a case where a declaratory judgement could or should be made. As somebody pointed out above (sorry – have not got time to get the reference because I am late home) this was a futile attempt to stymie a police prosecution using the civil process.
I also suspect that the news media wanted the declaration because, once made, they would be free to publicise the content of the discussions. It was all totally self-serving and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the public interest. Even if there had been cross-examination, I doubt whether a judge would venture to make a declaration.
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Plebe
I take it that before you made that thoroughly irrational rant, you verified that the police took personnel away from the murder enquiry and assigned them to the Prime Minister’s complaint?
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Weihana says:- “One would not reasonably expect people to press their ears up to the females toilet in order to listen in.”
Well there you have it. If you accidentally happened to hear what was going on, then fine, but if you pressed your ear up against the door, then you crossed the line. Point is, both parties wanted privacy in a public place.
Certainly there were press a few feet away, but how many of them recorded what was being said? You may feel that Key and Banks were acting imperiously, but that behaviour is the right of their station… well Key’s anyway, so that is why it is important for me, at least, to find out whether the recording was intentional.
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Scott Chris,
Well no I’ m saying the reasonableness of their expectation is dependent upon the circumstances, not whether the listener overheard accidentally or on purpose. A reasonable person would not normally expect to be overhead in the toilets whether by accident or on purpose. A reasonable person would reasonably expect that their conversation may be heard if they have a cup of tea and orchestrate a media circus around such a meeting.
The mens rea of the person doing the listening in would only seem relevant with regards to a criminal prosecution assuming that the conversation is private. Given that I think the conversation was public then the prosecution should be a non-starter.
November 23rd, 2011 at 6:33 pm
A reasonable person would probably anticipate that people nearby might be able to overhear. They might therefore take precautionary measures such as leaning forward, speaking in a low voice, changing the subject or waiting until that person passed. Equally, they might simply look at that person to let them know that they were intruding.
If they want the conversation to be private (ie not overheard or intercepted), they can guard against normal eventualities. They cannot guard against somebody who disguises an operating microphone and leaves it on the desk. If Ambrose honestly believed that this was a public conversation and that neither participant had any expectation of privacy, he could have stood closer to the desk and listened in. He says that he alerted security to the microphone. I have not read the specific reference in his affidavit. I am willing to bet that he did not tell security that there was an operating microphone on the desk. I am also willing to bet that the reason that he did not mention that fact is that he knew full well that it would be removed immediately.
November 23rd, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Privacy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The two Johns believed their conversation was private, therefore it must be private. By accidentally recording it, Ambrose had or has no rights to the information on the tape and certainly should not have the rights to give or onsell it to another party.
November 23rd, 2011 at 7:25 pm
DrDr says:- “Privacy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The two Johns believed their conversation was private, therefore it must be private.”
So using that argument, if I consider Parekura Horomia to be thin, then he must be thin.
Subjective truth isn’t absolute truth.
November 23rd, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Weihana says:- “A reasonable person would reasonably expect that their conversation may be heard if they have a cup of tea and orchestrate a media circus around such a meeting.”
Well your position is clear, but from my perspective, you have unreasonable expectations of what constitutes a reasonable expectation. This level of intrusiveness, if it is that, is unprecedented, so how could you be reasonably expected to anticipate that?
However, now that the game appears to have changed, I would reasonably expect public figures to be more discreet in public.
November 24th, 2011 at 8:40 am
The media interests in this case will be apoplectic as their attempt at shutting down a police investigation has been thwarted.
Justice Winklemann had no choice but to defer judgement in light of an ongoing investigation otherwise to do so would have surely set a dangerous precedent.
If one of the witnesses called during this case testifies that the media were asked to remove their microphones does that not indicate a request for privacy?
November 24th, 2011 at 9:12 am
Nothing stopping Ambrose from working. Nobody will take him on as he must be considered a serious liability.
It was his fault that he sold the tape to the media. He did not have to. But that’s ethics ?
He can get the dole I expect.
November 24th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
High Court Chief Judge Helen Winklemen was expected to rule on the legality of the tapes by determining whether they were filmed in a public or private setting.
However with a Police investigation in process all the evidence had not been heard on whether any laws had been broken.
It was optimistic of Bradley Ambrose’s lawyers to seek a decision under those cicumstances and Judge Winklman correctly deferred the case until all the evidence could be considered.
The action taken by Bradley Ambroses’s lawyers could be construed as a case where the cart was being placed before the horse, and as a consequence Judge Winkleman was reluctant to engage in the argument.
November 24th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Scott Chris,
“However, now that the game appears to have changed, I would reasonably expect public figures to be more discreet in public.”
I don’t think the game has changed though. If you want a private cup of tea you can still have it. Just don’t invite a media circus.
Having said that though, I will change my position somewhat from yesterday and acknowledge that there is, at least, an argument that the conversation was private and as such it was the right decision for the judge to make in light of a police investigation.