• Full Story

Crown seeks $14,000 from teapot cameraman

Email
Print

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 7:37a.m.

Bradley Ambrose

Bradley Ambrose

The freelance cameraman who made the "teapot tape" recording may have to fork out $14,000 to pay court costs.

Bradley Ambrose took a civil case in late November, seeking a ruling that a cafe conversation he recorded between Prime Minister John Key and ACT's Epsom candidate John Banks during the election campaign was not private.

But Chief High Court judge Helen Winkelmann ruled that she could not make a determination on the issue.

The Attorney-General has filed a memorandum in the High Court at Auckland seeking $13,669.45 in costs from Mr Ambrose, the New Zealand Herald reported.

It said the Crown was seeking costs related to the hearing which came to court just two days after it was filed in the High Court.

Mr Key had complained to police after Mr Ambrose handed the recording to the Herald on Sunday, while TV3 also has a copy. Neither has published it.

News outlets were searched by police investigating whether Mr Ambrose intentionally recorded the conversation between the pair.

Mr Ambrose has yet to be charged by police.

NZN

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

12 Jan 2012 10:43a.m.

Ricardo wrote:

Storm in a tea cup. I still reckon they were arguing over who's missus knocks up the best roast. Does ANYONE really believe they would have discussed anything sensitive in so public a space. Grow up.

31 Dec 2011 03:30p.m.

katrina wrote:

Of course the cup of tea was a publicity stunt. Reporters need to learn to stop scavenging and trying to create hoo ha about nothing. Do you really think they would have said highly controvercial and secretive things with a million reporters in earshot? A lot of time and money has been wasted over this non event

30 Dec 2011 01:01p.m.

David wrote:

@Dan, by what logic? Clarke is more like suggesting that because he doesn't like JK, he has no mandate to push any policies he campaigned on. By Clarkes on logic, Labour has no mandate to stop Key. What I'm suggesting is that if people didn't want those things, they should have said so on the 26th.

29 Dec 2011 11:50p.m.

Cheap wrote:

I'd pay 14,000 to here what that ****** said about NZr's and publish it so we know what a piece of work our PM really is.

29 Dec 2011 08:51p.m.

Dan wrote:

@ David: I don't think Clarke actually said that labour has the mandate to govern, rather that National does not have the mandate for asset sales. In fact I would go as far as to say that if those apathetic people had come out to vote I would be astounded if Key would be able to force through asset sales. Key has a hairline majority for asset sales as it is since the Maori Party won't support the policy.

29 Dec 2011 01:34p.m.

David wrote:

Clarke (Ben) get over it, if National got 33% of the vote then by that logic Phil Gone got only 15% of the total vote. How you can seriously claim that Key has no mandate yet Labour does is beside me (and most of NZ). Politics is about a contention of ideas and Key went to the polls openly about what they planned to do.. and got nearly twice the vote of Labour. Just because you don’t like him doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a mandate.. if people wanted him gone then they should have gone out on the 26th and voted him out, that’s how democracy works period.

29 Dec 2011 12:06p.m.

Neil wrote:

The N.Z. media have, at times, and more so recently, become too involved with trivialities and the tea party saga is no exception. Bradley thought he had a lot to gain from his actions, not so much by leaving his mobile switched on but what he did afterwards. He took a gamble and now he must pay .... Perhaps Goff can pass the hat around as he treated the matter like a dog with a rag doll before Peters got on the band wagon.
Let this be a warning to all reporters - do we want to see a situation here that has recently occurred in other countries ? What comes next ? Blackmail ?

29 Dec 2011 11:32a.m.

Marjorie Dawe wrote:

There was no conclusive decision and neither party was the victor. Why then is this guy being bullied by people who feel that the content of a very public conversation was that important it required extreme measures to be protected. Time to find out whats in the recording people.

28 Dec 2011 06:10p.m.

Clarke wrote:

JOhn Key... man without support... 33 percent of the country got him into power... 33 percent voted the other way... and 33 percent he couldnt motivate to get off their couches to come out and support him. JOhn Key has to be acknowledged as Prime Minister... and a man without a moral mandate... I know morality and John Key dont go hand in hand... that he has no concept of the words definition, but this term he is merely Prime Minister by default... 66 percent of the country didnt come out and vote for asset sales, welfare cuts, and more laws protecting the priviledged like himself. He is a smile and wave politician with very little substance... and no moral mandate.... or he would have gotten over 50 percent of the total available vote.... not 48 percent of the 65 percent of people who bothered to show up on November 26th.

27 Dec 2011 11:10p.m.

Matty wrote:

Of course he should have to pay it! The issue was already being delt with in the courts, but Ambrose wanted a rushed verdict on whether he could release it before the election... (most probably so he could receive a large payoff for it) He chose to go back to court for an extra hearing (with extra court costs), where he was told that the couldn't make a premature decision. Now who does he expect will cover those costs? I don't blame him for trying to get an earlier verdict, as he may well have received a large sum selling the tapes to the media. But it was always a gamble. He incurred the charges... he pays..