Senior lawyer escapes being in contempt

Press, 13 April 1989, Page 6

Senior lawyer escapes being in contempt

By

BRENDON BURNS

in Wellington A senior Wellington lawyer was said yesterday to have escaped by the “skin of his teeth” from being in contempt of Parliament. Mr Kit Toogood had appeared before the House’s Privileges Commitee after requiring the National member of Parliament, Mr Winston Peters, not to make claims under Parliamentary privilege. Mr Peters had issued a press statement last September criticising the involvement of three of Mr Toogood’s clients in an advertising campaign. Mr Toogood, a partner in the Wellington law firm Kensington Swan, wrote to Mr Peters and attacked the press statement. He required from Mr Peters an assurance that he would not repeat the claims under Parliamentary privilege. Yesterday, the acting chairman of Parliament’s Privileges Committee, Mr Richard Prebble, issued a report into the alleged breach of privilege. Mr Bill Birch, the Opposition Leader of the House, said Mr Peters had every right to be outraged by the letter. It was reasonable to interpret the letter as a threat. “I must say in this case the author, Mr Toogood, escaped by the skin of his teeth,” said Mr Birch. The Privileges Committee said at first sight the letter seemed to carry the implication of unpleasant consequences if Mr Peters did not comply.

Mr Toogood testified strenuously he intended no such threat. The letter was a proper attempt to dissuade Mr Peters from exercising his undoubted right to repeat the claims in Parliament. The Privileges Committee found the alleged threat to be “particularly inaptly drafted ” But it was inclined to give Mr Toogood the benefit of the doubt and found that no threat had been shown. However, the committee said two aspects of concern arose from the case. First, there was the possible use of statements made in Parliament to compound damages claims made against an M.P. Second, that repetition in Parliament of a statement made outside the House might be evidence of malice. The suggestions of adverse legal consequences for M.P.s from statements made in Parliament was of considerable concern. Mr Prebble said Parliament must uphold the right of M.P.s to speak in Parliament without the prospect of being challenged in any court. The Privileges Committee said if an M.P. were to suffer consequences from speaking in Parliament, this would breach the Bill of Rights. When any court was due to consider a matter where a question of Parliamentary privilege arose, the Speaker should provide the Court with a full argument of the privilege issues involved.