This happened over 3 months ago in March, but because of need for OIA inquiries about it all, we didn’t mention it at the time.
In June of last year we reported that Kerry Bolton of Paraparaumu received a police visit as a result of his mentioning to talk-back radio show host Heather du Plessis-Allan the name of former KCDC boss Mr Dougherty’s Ms Accomplice in his set-up of Cr David Scott in which Cr Scott was charged with allegedly assaulting Ms Accomplice by brushing past her during a tea break in a packed small room during a council function in April 2017.
Because Dougherty’s Ms Accomplice claimed that in the process of David Scott brushing past her, his penis came into contact with her bottom and alleged it was therefore a sexual assault, it meant once the police had laid a charge to that effect, under the law her name could not be published. That didn’t in fact happen for about a month.
Our investigation of the whole saga has uncovered so much murk that it justifies the writing of a book, which is being done.
However, the saga didn’t involve Kerry Bolton. All he did was phone the talkback show the day after the case had concluded and during his conversation with Heather du Plessis Allen mentioned the real name of Ms Accomplice (at least her then real name — we know of two first names and three surnames she has used at different times.)
As we reported on 1 November last year, the police charged Kerry Bolton under the Criminal Procedure Act, but no charge was ever laid against Heather du Plessis Allan and/or the radio station’s producer who were actually responsible for Ms Accomplice’s name being broadcast, by virtue of the 8 to 15 seconds delay and the censor button at their disposal which they didn’t use.
It’s akin to a certain local Stuff reporter writing a highly biased and inaccurate article and giving it to her editor. It the editor chooses to publish the article, then the prime responsibility for it appearing is the editor’s. Why could the police not see that? Or was it a case of the Paraparaumu police seeing that, but not caring, simply because they didn’t like Kerry Bolton?
Originally, the police charged Kerry Bolton under Section 211(1) of the Act which states:
“Every person commits an offence who knowingly or recklessly publishes any name, address, occupation, or other information in breach of a suppression order or in breach of any of sections 201, 203, and 204.”
That Subsection puts the onus on the police to prove knowledge of the law by the defendant and that it was reckless. A situation to which it would apply — which has happened in the past — is where someone distributes pamphlets outside a courtroom stating the name of an accused person in breach of a judge’s suppression order.
The police subsequently withdrew the charge under that Subsection and instead recharged Kerry Bolton under Subection 211(2) which omits the words “knowingly or recklessly” and carries a lower penalty.
At the hearing, Kerry Bolton likewise withdrew his Not Guilty plea, mainly because he did not want Ms Accomplice to be given another opportunity to claim ‘victim’ status on the witness stand. Instead his Barrister, John Tannahill announced that he would be seeking a Discharge without Conviction. Submissions from both his Barrister and the Police Prosecutor were required by mid-January.
Because John Tannahill died on Christmas Day, the hearing on the Application was delayed until March.
Oddly, at the hearing the Police Prosecutor tried to introduce two documents to support his opposition to the Application, which he had not filed with the Court by the required date, or shared them with the Defense which is required procedure.
The first was our post from June last year — we can’t see what was in it that would have helped the Prosecution.
The second was a personal letter Kerry Bolton e-mailed to Mayor K. Gurunathan asking for his help by supplying a character reference, see above. This mail was instead given to Mr Tim Power of the KCDC and in turn sent by his sidekick there, Nicola Tutt, to the Police Prosecutor “to assess whether it is of use.”
Why did Power do that, given that both Dougherty and Ms Accomplice had by that point long ceased being employed at the KCDC?
At the hearing, however, the judge said he was not going to be ambushed in that manner by the Police Prosecutor and declined consideration of either document.
The judge granted Kerry Bolton’s request for discharge without conviction, although he was required to pay into the Court $1,500 to compensate Ms Accomplice for “emotional distress” — but added that he hoped that Ms Accomplice would donate it to charity. The Police Prosecutor said $1,500 was just an insult. All up, however, with the Barristers’ fees this matter cost Kerry Bolton $10,500. While to KCDC bosses, Ms Accomplice, and judges that is a trifling amount, to someone semi-retired on a fixed income it is not; and the radio station got off without repercussions.
Unfortunately, at the hearing a recording of the relevant portion of the radio talk-back session was not played, which would have shown Ms Accomplice had lied in her affidavit that Kerry Bolton had been warned by Ms du Plessis Allen not to state any names but had done so anyway. The recording would have clearly shown that no such warning had been given.
Perjury to the court carries a two year jail sentence, but no action was taken against Ms Accomplice by the police.
In the Official Information request response we received from Wayne Maxwell of the KCDC this May, see this post, he states that Mr Power “spent less than 3 hours” on this matter. Considering that he claimed it simply consisted of this one e-mail, reproduced here, we can’t see how it could have been more than 20 minutes.
Mr Maxwell declined our request for copies of this exchange, so Kerry Bolton then asked for them under the Privacy Act which the KCDC could not refuse, see above.
A reply from K. Gurunathan received by Kerry Bolton on 3 July: