National Blog of New Zealand

Vince Siemer is a name seldom discussed beyond the walled garden of New Zealand’s legal community. Behind the name however is a man who loudly expounds what he believes to be the injustice done to him by the judiciary. Or perhaps just a man who has no concept of, or simply no respect for the rule of law in NZ.

In 2005, Seimer an American businessman, had a significant (to say the least) falling out with Mr Michael Stiassny, an Auckland insolvency expert. Stiassny was appointed as receiver for Paragon Oil Systems Ltd, a firm in which Seimer was a significant shareholder. Seimer then chose, in true American style to go public with his claims of improper personal enrichment against Stiassny. He rented a car park billboard which directed viewers to his website populated with what has since been described by the Supreme Court as material highly critical of Stiassny. Stiassny then sued Siemer for defamation and applied for an injunction. All rather straight forward stuff.

Now, ordinarily the courts will not provide interim injuctive relief in cases of defamation where the defamatory material has some ground of justification. However, as a result of a 1992 Court of Appeal judgment interim injunctions for defamation can be awarded where there is in the Court’s view no reasonable possibility of a legal defence. This is tempered by the right to freedom of expression in the NZBoRA thus the jurisdiction to award injunctions is only available for clear and compelling reasons.

The High Court took the view that this was such a case. Hence Stiassny was awarded a rare interim injunction ordering Seimer to remove anything about Stiassny from his website. This injunction was perhaps unduly wide and was later recast on appeal. Ordinarily this would be where the ride stops, Seimer complies and if he wishes may push for a trial where the truth can be uncovered in his defence.

Seimer however, chose not to comply and as a result in early July 2007 upon returning from the United States, he was picked up by police and taken to the cells underneath the High Court in Auckland to be tried for contempt. There he remained until Justice Potter ordered his incarceration behind the formidable stone walls of Mt Eden prison for six weeks which he served out, complete with hunger strike.

Vince and his supporters argue that because the action originated as one of civil defamation, prison is not a possible sentence. They fail to see that the reason Vince went to jail is for failure to comply with a court order. Succinctly stated by University of Auckland Associate Professor Bill Hodge, “Society falls apart if we don’t obey court orders and the court order is cease publishing this material on this website”. Vince held the keys to his jail cell so to speak, as soon as he complied he would be released. Yet he still didn’t comply.

One has to wonder why, if Siemer strongly believe that all the defamatory material was true then why would he not push for his day in Court and call the truth to his defence. As Seimer has disregarded the original injunction the prospect of pushing to go to trial probably now seems futile to Stiassny. What hope would there be of enforcing any further court order.

Given Siemer’s total disregard for the order Solicitor-General David Collins (now a target of Vince’s attack) really had no choice but to apply to have Siemer imprisoned until he abides by it. This application was successful and Siemer now faces six  months imprisonment. However, as put so well by lawyer Steven Price of Media Law Journal, “the court in Siemer’s case ignored the indefinite detention penalty sought by the Crown and instead told Siemer he had two weeks to comply with the order, or he’d be off to jail for six months. He didn’t comply. So now this does look like a punishment. And he can’t foreshorten it by caving in and being released. No keys-in-the-pocket there.” So it appears Vince has finally raised a valid legal argument under the NZBoRA. Is there a right to elect trial by jury in civil law contempt proceeedings where their purpose is clearly punitive in nature.

To underscore his utter contempt for the judicial system Siemer dressed up as Alice in Wonderland to present his case to be tried by jury to the Court of Appeal. Thankfully the court has appointed Rodney Harrison QC as amicus, so the right to trial by jury and potential for punitive imprisonment for civil contempt does not rest with Alice.

Vince also runs a website detailing the personal lives of judges that runs close to contemptuously bringing the standing of the New Zealand judiciary into disrepute. It appears as though anyone who has adversely ruled against him becomes a target of a personal smear campaign orchestrated by him and Penny Bright.

I believe what this whole mess boils down to is the old argument that the law of defamation exists as a plaything of the powerful to silence detractors. Prima facie this is a valid concern, given the importance we place on the freedom of speech in this country, but this must be balanced against the individual’s right to protect their personal and professional reputation from unfounded criticism. Freedom of speech is an admirable principle but it’s not an absolute right. With it comes the responsibility, and it must be open to justified limitations. Ultimately we are all equal before the law, in accordance with the duties and freedoms it places upon us. Mr. Stiassny has a right to have Siemer injuncted, and Siemer has the responsibility to comply.

Siemer should pick up a copy of any constitutional law text and read just a little about what the rule of law means.