>
DomPost: "Mallard pleads guilty to fighting charge"
> LAWS179: "
Parliamentary privilege and the fracas in the lobby"
I see Trevor Mallard has pleaded guilty to a charge of fighting in a public place under the Summary Offences Act 1981. Although the guilty plea is understandable to resolve the prosecution, it's interesting to look at the offence. I can't see how the charge would have been made out, because the Lobbies of the House surely don't qualify as a "public place"?
s7 Fighting in public place
Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who fights in a public place.
2 Interpretation
Public place means a place that, at any material time, is open to or is being used by the public, whether free or on payment of a charge, and whether any owner or occupier of the place is lawfully entitled to exclude or eject any person from that place; ...
As a member of the public, have you ever tried to walk into the Lobbies while Parliament is sitting? I don't think so!
> Parliament: "Ayes Lobby" (Picture)
4 comments:
Heh I have had pizza in the lobbies while the House was sitting but did then get evicted by the Speaker!
In Caithness v Police (1986) 2 CRNZ 201, Jeffries J held that the banquet hall of Parliament was a public place for purposes of the act even when it was being used for a function with invitations being checked at the door.
Not a very good decision, in my view. But I think it is still the law.
Nigel:
Yes. I noted that in the Adams commentary. However, it probably doesn't apply. The banquet hall, with invited guests, is different to the Lobbies. Only MPs in their parliamentary duties and other employees are permitted into the Lobbies. Quite simply there's no public element.
I suspect Mallard just pleaded guilty to get rid of the idiot pursuing him, as you say.
Can you say "vexacious litigant"?
Post a Comment