• Full Story

Teapot tape cameraman faces financial ruin

Email
Print

Teapot tape cameraman faces financial ruin

3News NZ

Freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose

Freelance cameraman Bradley Ambrose

The freelance cameraman at the centre of the furore over the "teapot tape" faces financial ruin, his lawyer says, with the Attorney-General seeking nearly $14,000 in court costs.

A memorandum has been filed in the Auckland High Court seeking $13,669.45 in costs from Bradley Ambrose after he went to the High Court asking for the conversation between Prime Minister John Key and ACT party Epsom candidate, now MP, John Banks, to be declared public.

Chief High Court judge Justice Helen Winkelmann rejected Mr Ambrose's request.

Mr Ambrose's lawyer Ron Mansfield says the demand for costs will put unnecessary pressure on the freelance cameraman.

"The costs that the Government is now seeking through Crown Law would be enough to ruin any small to independent contractor in the initial stages of trading. This action presumably reflects the government's position and attitude towards individuals in a position of Mr Ambrose," he told Fairfax New Zealand.

Mr Mansfield said his client took the matter to court to protect his ability to work as a subcontractor - the sole income for his family.

"Mr Ambrose just wants to be able to get on with his work so he can support his family."

The demand for costs would be fought, his lawyer said.

Mr Ambrose has said the recording of the conversation, at a media-staged event in the final weeks of the election campaign, was inadvertent.

He is still waiting to hear from police about whether charges will be laid.

Otago University political analyst Dr Bryce Edwards has labelled the demand for costs "political vindictiveness".

NZN

Post a Comment

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


(Won't be published)



Comments

6/01/2012 8:59:06 a.m.

anne wrote:

The 'tea tape' was recorded during a highly political event on the doorstep of the election organised by key and banks,overseas in a democracy when any political type of recordings are made it becomes a 'public right to know' and are released,whether or not it brings down the politicians that said damaging references to the public or intended policies, voters were being manipulated to vote for banks,to take the action that brownlee and key took is just not a democratic move at all,its more like a dictatorship move,to fob off the comments in the tea tape as nothing then why not release them and get them over and done with and trust the voting public,if they are so damaging this would be the reason to involve police and authorities so shutdown the release of tea pot tapes,now to lay the costs to the reporter is a follow on from a smarmy key, banks alliance who are acting like a 'drunken sailor', power unbecomes them both, ambrose was just doing his job and on hearing the tapes decided to give them to his boss,this move was more respectifull of the people of nz than key or brownlee's reaction,nz'ers must demand that their rights are upheld and fight for the freedom of information regardless who it comes from,nz does not need police searching offices of the media to protect two ethicaly challenged characters hell bent on power,now they have it under false pretences,god help nz.

5/01/2012 10:41:08 a.m.

madness wrote:

All the hassle over this recording is just making it look like they did talk about things they would not have liked to be overheard. Good on Ambrose for doing what he did. Bet he wishes he had just made it public in the first place, because he would have paid the same price in the end and we all would have know what the two sneaky men were taklking about. If they wanted their convesation private they should have had it in a private place. Must have been some dirty goods on that tape I think. Anyway we now have to suffer another three years with the Nazi's. Gunna be a long three years!!!!! Should have alot better choices by the next election I'd say and hope!!

1/01/2012 9:17:15 a.m.

Jim wrote:

Hey I think the Crown is being petty seeking costs John probably spends more than this on " boys club " fees Might be a good time for the photographer to think about getting some cover for such eventualities though

31/12/2011 9:58:07 p.m.

Martin wrote:

I'm sticking to coffee.

31/12/2011 4:35:44 p.m.

Bruce wrote:

Dear sweet teabags, it was never inadvertant as he left a remote recording device switched on at the table nearby, found he had "accidentaly" recorded the conversation, did not delete it but immediately provided it to media then went to lengths to get it released for distribution purposes. That did not happen and the crown has gone for costs. He got caught holding the bag. That is it in a nutshell. Gave it a go and lost. There was a principle of privacy which was breached deliberately. Be naive if you wish but there is no Argument and no hatred at all, just facts.

31/12/2011 3:25:33 p.m.

Peter wrote:

Why did he not immediately erase they recording? Why did he take the recording and hand ut over to the media (he's self employed and wasn't required to hand it over to anyone)? Why did he then go to the High Court and cost the tax payers (you and me) all this expense? He did all of this for two reasons - 1) politically he is anti Key & Nats and 2) Finacial gain if he could pull off the publication... But he lost on both of the gambles - and now he has to pay the piper!

31/12/2011 3:16:04 p.m.

atrout wrote:

That is the risk that media chose to take when gathering information. Also it is not an action by Key to punish Ambrose- it is the consequence of a judicial decision. It is also not the first time that Ambrose has exercised poor judgement.

31/12/2011 12:20:57 a.m.

Mike wrote:

"Where I come from private means private. Lying changes nothing." Funny how that doesn't apply to the public it only applys to powerful people out in public when it suits them.

30/12/2011 9:29:56 p.m.

Teabags wrote:

Dear Bruce - The recording of the two Johns was inadvertent and was not done for commercial gain. There has never been any payment for the audio nor was it ever requested. The High court did not find against Ambrose. It's decision was that it was unable to give a decision. So Bruce and all the other haters out there - please gather all facts before making ill-informed arguments.

30/12/2011 5:01:24 p.m.

Bruce wrote:

He did it deliberately for commercial gain, he got caught and now he pays. Key did not request compensation, the courts did. None of us would want to be taped whilst going about our peaceful business and the courts acordingly foiund against him. There is a message in this and I hope other media are listening. Murdoch could not do this either!