My description of the Crown's attempt to recover nearly $14,000 in costs from photographer Bradley Ambrose as 'dangerous' and 'vindictive' (see Expert slams Govt 'attack' on media) has generated quite a bit of debate on the issue (although this may be due to a lack of other political news).
Andrew Geddis makes some interesting points in his post It's always tea-time, and we've no time to wash the things between whiles.) disagreeing with me that seeking costs is unusual or politically motivated, but at the same time saying that the claim may well be turned down and, in fact, that the police are unlikely to lay charges against Ambrose.
Legal niceties aside, is it in National's interest to go into the New Year with this dragging on? Few seem to be in any doubt that it suits Winston Peters to continue, with Geddis reporting rumours that Peters will start the new year with a reading of the complete tea tape transcript in Parliament - something Geddis argues he would be legally entitled to do, although he is not so sure the media would be free to report on it.
The media in general take a dim view of the legal action. The Herald, not surprisingly given their direct involvement, says that the greater public interest involved in the case means that the Crown should pay its own costs see: Crown should pay its own tea tape bill and 'Tea-tape' costs bid is disturbing
This view is supported by the ODT which also questions whether the government wants to continue giving ammunition to Winston Peters this year see: Winston Peters: 'Tea-Gate' again. Of course Winston has already waded in, claiming that this legal dispute has nothing to do with the government, rather it is between the National Party and Ambrose (see RNZ: Winston Peters takes Attorney-General to task)
