You wondered how long it would take for someone to work out that the injunction over Tom Phillips and the various bits and pieces we are not allowed to talk about, would be talked about. 

Maybe this is widely understood. Maybe it isn't. 

But an injunction, as imposed by a New Zealand court, is applicable only to New Zealand. 

It was an effective mechanism in 1979, or even 1999. But post the internet, and especially social media, it borders on pointless. 

So what we have post the injunction on Phillips and the various issues around his family, is everyone knows what's in it and have done from the start. 

Offshore operators are spreading it about the place like no tomorrow, which led some people to raise it with the Justice Minister who is "having a look at it" as though that means anything. 

But he is "not optimistic". No kidding. 

Which leads to the obvious question: why go for an injunction, and also why would a judge offer an injunction knowing no one internationally is going to adhere to it? 

The answer to the first question is: I don’t know. The answer to the second is: my guess is no judge wants to state the obvious by admitting defeat. 

Because in turning it down, because it's pointless, you are in effect setting a precedent and every application going forward would be open to that precedent and therefore you don’t want to be the person who blew it up. 

Also, do not underestimate the egos associated with the judiciary who, despite the modern world, still hold the idea that they count for something and they hold sway over the discourse of matters in their courts. 

The other major issue, international outlets or not, is of course the vacuum. If you create a vacuum, it gets filled with nonsense. 

I know what's in the injunction. I have been told by people who know so I know the weirdness that’s out there that isn't real, or indeed close to it. 

All in all, the whole thing is a monumental mess. Gossip rules the roost. 

The real story is there to be had. 

It's all over the world and the judiciary might want to think about how they handle these matters going forward because the horse has bolted and the Justice Minister, I can assure you, will not be offering anything by way of solutions. 

You wondered how long it would take for someone to work out that the injunction over Tom Phillips and the various bits and pieces we are not allowed to talk about, would be talked about.&nbsp;
Maybe this is widely understood. Maybe it isn't.&nbsp;
But an injunction, as imposed by a New Zealand court, is applicable only to New Zealand.&nbsp;
It was an effective mechanism in 1979, or even 1999. But post the internet, and especially social media, it borders on pointless.&nbsp;
So what we have post the injunction on Phillips and the various issues around his family, is everyone knows what's in it and have done from the start.&nbsp;
Offshore operators are spreading it about the place like no tomorrow, which led some people to raise it with the Justice Minister who is "having a look at it" as though that means anything.&nbsp;
But he is "not optimistic". No kidding.&nbsp;
Which leads to the obvious question: why go for an injunction, and also why would a judge offer an injunction knowing no one internationally is going to adhere to it?&nbsp;
The answer to the first question is: I don’t know. The answer to the second is: my guess is no judge wants to state the obvious by admitting defeat.&nbsp;
Because in turning it down, because it's pointless, you are in effect setting a precedent and every application going forward would be open to that precedent and therefore you don’t want to be the person who blew it up.&nbsp;
Also, do not underestimate the egos associated with the judiciary who, despite the modern world, still hold the idea that they count for something and they hold sway over the discourse of matters in their courts.&nbsp;
The other major issue, international outlets or not, is of course the vacuum. If you create a vacuum, it gets filled with nonsense.&nbsp;
I know what's in the injunction. I have been told by people who know so I know the weirdness that’s out there that isn't real, or indeed close to it.&nbsp;
All in all, the whole thing is a monumental mess. Gossip rules the roost.&nbsp;
The real story is there to be had.&nbsp;
It's all over the world and the judiciary might want to think about how they handle these matters going forward because the horse has bolted and the Justice Minister, I can assure you, will not be offering anything by way of solutions.&nbsp;

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Mike's Minute: The Tom Phillips info injunction is useless

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/8463d577-d97e-4640-96b3-b36b015b42f6/transcript

Advertisement