IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL HRRT 024/2015 UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND PRIVATE PROSECUTION SERVICE LIMITED PLAINTIFF AND JOHN PHILIP KEY DEFENDANT TRIBUNAL: Rodger Haines QC, Chairperson REPRESENTATION: Mr McCready in person for plaintiff Mr Kiely for defendant DATE OF MINUTE: 15 June 2015 MINUTE OF CHAIRPERSON DECLINING APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF FOR INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT AND AGGRIEVED PERSON Background By Minute dated 11 June 2015 I declined an application by Mr McCready in which he sought the residential address and contact phone number of the aggrieved person (Ms Amanda Bailey) as well as the name and contact number of counsel representing Ms Bailey. The Minute was served on Mr McCready on 11 June 2015, receipt being acknowledged by Mr McCready in an email dated 11 June 2015 timed at 3:05pm and which read: Thank you for that. Hopefully the plaintiff and the Tribunal will get into step in the near future. Application for information relating to Amanda Bailey On the morning of 12 June 2015 by email timed at 10:49am Mr McCready filed a memorandum (copied to about 10 news media organisations orjournalists) requesting: The address for service for Ms Bailey. The contact details of counsel for Ms Bailey. Confirmation of ?the date that Amanda Bailey was served with all the documents filed by the Plaintiff?. Confirmation that Ms Bailey has or has not filed a separate statement of claim. That the Tribunal serve Mr McCready with any documents filed by Ms Bailey or Unite Union. It is to be remembered Ms Bailey is not a party to these proceedings and that these proceedings have been brought without her knowledge or consent. As stated in the first Minute issued on 21 May 2015: Neither Mr McCready nor claims to be the victim of the alleged sexual harassment nor do they claim to have brought the proceedings with the knowledge and consent of the alleged victim, Amanda Bailey. Indeed the statement of claim specifically acknowledges Ms Bailey has refused to cooperate in the bringing of this claim. The allegations in the statement of claim appear to have been gleaned from media reports. In my view the application filed on 12 June 2015 is little more than a reformulation of the application declined the previous day by Minute of 11 June 2015. Neither Mr McCready nor appear to have read the Minute with care or to have understood its content. They are not entitled to the information sought and the application is dismissed. Application for information relating to defendant In the 12 June 2015 memorandum Mr McCready has also requested: The address for service for the defendant. Confirmation the date the defendant was served with the statement of claim. Confirmation that the defendant has or has not filed a statement of defence. A request that Mr McCready be served with any documents filed by the defendant. Once again it must be observed neither Mr McCready nor appear to have read or understood the Minute of 11 June 2015. The date on which notice of these proceedings was served on the defendant has already been provided in that Minute along with the date on which the statement of reply is due. To date nothing has been filed by the defendant. However, time does not run out until on or about 20 June 2015. Observation By failing to read with any care the Minutes issued on 21 May 2015 and 11 June 2015 and by failing to acquaint themselves with the Tribunal?s processes as set out in the Human Rights Act 1993 and the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 Mr McCready and are wasting the Tribunal?s time with applications of no merit. Their attention is drawn to the fact that the Tribunal has statutory authority under 115 of the Human Rights Act to dismiss proceedings if it is satisfied those proceedings are trivial, frivolous, or vexatious or are not brought in good faith. It has already been made plain to Mr McCready and that they are not to bother, vex or harass Ms Bailey. Their apparent resolve to ignore directions given by the Tribunal and to continue pressing the Tribunal for information they are not entitled to may in due course reinforce any application brought by the defendant or by Ms Bailey 2 under 115. The overt attempts by Mr McCready and to seek wide publicity for their case will not assist them were such application to be made. Mr McCready and are accordingly on notice. Order For the foregoing reasons the application by Mr McCready dated 12 June 2015 is dismissed.