[ad_1]
One of the duo charged in connection with the NZ First Foundation donations case has argued that he would have a “media trial” if named.
The couple is alleged to have fraudulently deposited more than $ 740,000 into an NZ First Foundation account and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) uploaded it in September.
Media entities, including Things, attempted to reveal the identities of the couple prior to the October elections, however, despite hearings in the District Court, Superior Court and the request for authorization to the Court of Appeal, it was rejected.
In a hearing Thursday in North Shore District Court in front of Judge Deidre Orchard, one of the defendants sought continued deletion of the name until the end of the trial on the grounds that he and related individuals would suffer extreme hardship.
Judge Orchard reserved her decision.
READ MORE:
* NZ First Foundation Defendant Denies Charges, Chooses Jury Trial
* NZ First Foundations scandal: Court of Appeal rejects media permission to appeal decision
* The couple accused in the NZ First Foundation case continue to keep their identities secret
* NZ First Foundation Giving Scandal: Appeal Filed Over Duo Name Suppression
* Duo indicted in NZ First Foundation scandal maintains name suppression
* Duo charged in NZ First Foundation scandal keep identities secret, for now
Both defendants have denied the charges against them and have chosen a jury trial.
Bevan Read / Stuff
The couple appeared in North Shore District Court on Thursday.
The man’s lawyer said there was a media storm after the charges were brought, criticizing the SFO and the media for “actively politicizing” the charges.
The defendant’s attorney accused the media of being “irresponsible” in their reporting and NZ First leader Winston Peters had become the target of media and trolls attacks despite not being charged. .
He filed numerous affidavits in support, including one by right-wing blogger Cameron Slater, who was also present in court Thursday.
“It is about the ability of the media and social networks to use the hate methodology established by Mr. Slater to attack Mr. Peters and thereby harm [my client]. “
The lawyer said that if his client was named, he would face trial by the media.
The man disagreed with Judge Orchard when asked if he thought the suppression orders were ineffective against trollers and bloggers.
“You just have to track and find them and [my client] It will, ”he said.
JASON DORDAY / THINGS
Robert Stewart, acting on behalf of the media, opposed the continued crackdown.
OFS attorney John Dixon QC objected to the request for continued removal of the name, saying the Crown alleges the man committed fraud and deception.
“No one at the First New Zealand Foundation knew they were going to put in $ 750,000,” Dixon said.
Dixon said that while the publication of the defendant’s name may be “personally embarrassing,” it would not affect the rights to a fair trial and the reasons for the extreme hardships were not met.
Attorney Robert Stewart, acting on behalf of media entities including Things, again opposed the continuation of the repression, saying that the accused did not meet the threshold of extreme hardship.
He said the media had not politicized the information, but it was the New Zealand First Party when it tried to suppress the accusation.
“The political party generated speculation,” Stewart said.
Bevan Read / Stuff
Judge Deidre Orchard reserved her decision after Thursday’s hearing.
He said that, unlike bloggers and social media, all media entities have codes of conduct and are accountable to the Press Council and the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
“The claims made by the defendant’s attorney and Mr. Slater are all speculative … and are not supported by evidence,” Stewart said.
Stewart said Slater’s affidavit was not based on any evidence or fact and asked Judge Orchard to dismiss it.
Slater said in an affidavit that the media is seeking to lift the crackdown out of political spite, out of dislike of Peters and anyone associated with him, the court heard.
David White / Stuff
New Zealand’s first leader, Winston Peters, was not re-elected in October.
“What is that based on? It is an agenda that is presented to the court disguised as an expert opinion, ”Stewart said.
The other defendant does not seek name suppression, but his co-defendant argued that if he was named he would identify him.
THE CHARGES
Collection documents obtained by Things allege that the couple, between September 30, 2015, and February 14, 2020, deposited a total of $ 746,881 into two separate accounts, including that of the First New Zealand Foundation.
The Serious Fraud Office alleges that the couple adopted a “fraudulent device, trick or ploy” and donations for the party were entered into bank accounts of a company and the foundation without declaring them to the party secretary and / or the Election Commission.
The undeclared funds were then used to pay for party expenses and develop a fundraising database, the documents allege.
None of the accused was a minister, sitting deputy or candidate prior to the 2020 elections. They were also not a current member of the NZ First Party or staff.
