Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters Fails In Privacy Claim Against Paula Bennett, Anne Tolley And Others

Vice Prime Minister Winston Peters’ privacy claim for a leak of his pension details has failed because he was unable to identify who was responsible.

A higher court ruling released this afternoon said Peters’ privacy was deliberately violated in the run-up to the 2017 general election to publicly embarrass and harm him.

But the New Zealand Prime Minister’s claim against former government ministers Paula Bennett, Anne Tolley and others failed because “it could not establish that they were responsible for the disclosure of the payment irregularity to the media.”

For that reason, Judge Geoffrey Venning ruled that his claim for damages and a statement that his privacy had been violated was dismissed.

In addition to the statement, Peters had requested $ 1.8 million in damages from Bennett, Tolley, the former executive chairman of the Ministry of Social Development, Brendan Boyle, the Commissioner of State Services, Peter Hughes, and the Ministry of Social Development.

The court determined that if he were successful in his claim, the damages would have been much lower: “in the region of $ 75,000 to $ 100,000 it might have been appropriate.” The costs in the case were reserved.

Peters has not responded to requests for comment.

Bennett and Tolley said in a joint statement that they were satisfied with the court’s decision, “since the judge has said that our evidence was accepted and not questioned.”

“We do not believe that the claims against us should have been made when there was no evidence to support them,” they said.

“It is a shame that it was necessary for taxpayers to bear the financial burden of these legal proceedings.”

Bennett and Tolley had their legal costs covered by the Government. The Crown’s costs in the case were more than $ 500,000.

In May 2017, the Ministry of Social Development discovered that Peters had mistakenly received a pension from the single person for seven years despite being in a long-term relationship with his partner Jan Trotman. Once alerted, he paid the $ 18,000 difference and MSD decided not to open a fraud case.

Boyle alerted the State Services Commission, and Tolley and Bennett were briefed on their portfolios of social development and state services under the convention “no surprises.”

Details of the overpayment reached the media in August 2017, a month before the general election in which Peters would likely play a key role.

After the elections, Peters, who was now deputy prime minister, took legal action.

A two-week hearing was held in November, in which Peters and the ministers appeared in the witness box.

Venning said in his decision that Peters had a reasonable expectation that the details of the overpayment would be kept private.

“In particular, he had a reasonable expectation that the details of the payment irregularity would not be disclosed to the media.”

“Deliberate disclosure of the details of the payment irregularity to the media would be considered highly offensive to an objective and reasonable person.”

However, Peters had acknowledged that neither Bennett nor Tolley were directly responsible for the disclosure to the media.

Furthermore, with the exception of Mrs. Tolley’s very general and careless comment to her sister, the revelations of [Bennett] and [Tolley] they were for an appropriate purpose or otherwise for people with a genuine interest in knowing. “

While appearing in the witness box, Tolley admitted that he had told his sister about Peters’ overpayment after his sister praised him.

“I sincerely regret my outburst with my sister. I was tired and angry,” she said at the time.

But she said she was not responsible for the information reaching the media. Bennett also denied being the source of the leak.

Boyle and Hughes’ disclosures under the no-surprise policy were also “for an appropriate purpose” and for ministers who had “a genuine interest in knowing the details of the payment irregularity,” the ruling said.

During the hearing, MSD and the Crown argued that Peters was responsible for the improper payments.

Judge Venning, however, said the error arose through a combination of circumstances.

“The ambiguous nature of the form, the MSD officer who processed Mr. Peters’ request and Mr. Peters himself are fully responsible for the error that led to the irregularity in payment.”