In court tomorrow

[BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted]

Hayden versus Associated Newspapers.

The Judge? Go on guess. Mr Justice Julian Knowles.

Remember him? I couldn’t be happier.

This is according to contacts at the NZ fruit farm

Exciting times

Is anyone going to be there? Will come back here for news.

Ooh. 🍿🍿

🤞

I don't get Hayden's litigation strategy. Assuming they lose tomorrow then Associated will go after them for costs. Since that was always a likely outcome, then either Hayden has to resolve that in some way or would have to go for an appeal. Which will simply increase the stakes.

Since Hayden could never have gone into this expecting to win, either it risks turning into a high stakes game that Hayden is likely to lose or they're hoping that some kind of settlement can be obtained. But where's the benefit to Associated in settling at this stage?

I don't understand it either nauticant but I think it's more than a Yaniv style case where it appears to me that settlements are his main income (having never made much cash on reviewing sex toys or managing failing girl bands).

This is much more about the point the claimant has to prove and sadly I can't see any point being proven, beyond the obvious, that big newspapers can afford good lawyers who understand the law about what they can and cannot publish.

Different types of cases and courts of course and goodness knows how either can be funded. Both self represent don't they so I guess lawyer fees are low but awarding costs for Associated would be cost an astronomical amount surely?

Could be proven wrong of course, given the current madness in the judiciary, but save me some popcorn and a seat Fanny watching with great interest.

Girding my loins for this

Without a slam dunk case, it works if you can shield yourself from costs, some forums allow this, or if you have the right kind of leverage to force a settlement.

Without either of those, Davina vs Goliath doesn't make sense as a strategy.

At the moment I'd expect Associated costs to be a few tens of thousands.

No, the defence is a lack of intention to kill. Showing that what they were involved in was consensual is evidence of a lack of intention, I suppose.

Lack of intent should not be a defence to killing via an act that carries a high risk causing death, such as choking someone or holding a knife to their throat during sex.

• If I point a gun at someone and I don't mean to pull the trigger, but my finger slips on the trigger and I shoot them dead, I should be charged with murder not manslaughter because pointing a gun at someone carries such a high risk of shooting them that no one (with the possible exception of trained police in the line of duty) should consider doing it unless the intention is to kill.
• If I choke someone during sex and I don't mean to kill them, but I misjudge the pressure I apply to their neck and they die, I should be charged with murder not manslaughter because choking someone carries such a high risk of killing them that no one should consider doing it unless the intention is to kill.
• If I hold a knife to someone's throat during sex and I don't mean to kill them, but I slip and cut their throat and they die, I should be charged with murder not manslaughter because holding a knife to someone's throat carries such a high risk of cutting them that no one should consider doing it unless the intention is to kill.

This really isn't hard.

And before anyone says "but some women like it": the kind of man who would choke a woman or hold a knife to her throat or harm her in any way, even at her request, is not the kind of man who should be tolerated on this planet. Someone asking to be hurt does not oblige another person to hurt them and men who respect women would never harm us.

(I may have recently broken out of "kink" conditioning.)

I didn't really follow the hearing last week but wasn't it only about whether the care should continue to trial? In which case Hayden may well win this one. It's basically like the referee saying at half time, look you're not playing well but I'm going to let you play the second half anyway.
W
Getting through half time doesn't mean you'll have won at the end of the match.

I believe it is a judgement as to whether the case has legs and can go to trial?

A trial would be interesting

Will we get the result 'live' as it were?? I've got to head out not long after half past.....but I need to know the outcome!!

Neither party expected to attend, which usually means the judgment is 'handed down' in an empty court and nothing actually gets read out. So I'm not going to bother heading over. It'll be publicised shortly, if only by Hayden Haydenself.

Judgments are always interesting to read in full.

Placemarking

so, it either goes to trial, or it gets booted out? Is that correct?

Presumably either way there will be costs going one way or the other at some point?

How long will it take!?

No defamation

Will Haydenself have to pay costs??

From Hayden’s twitter

16 tweets and Knowles condemns you too

Not a fan of women maybe?

X-post.

‘With good grace...’ good lord!🙄