Herald understates the case.

This morning's Herald reports that Bernard Darnton will drop his case against the Government if they simply admit they broke the law and pay it back. Darnton corrects that report on his blog:

To clarify, this was in response to a question about whether I would drop the case if Labour paid back the money. The short answer was, “No,” but my expansion on that might have caused this misunderstanding. My position is that paying back the money isn’t enough. This case is about the fact that the government is not above the law and I want Labour to accept that.

If Labour admits the misappropriation I won’t drop the case but it will certainly come to a conclusion a lot more quickly.

As he said at the outset, the importance of this case is to make clear to Governments of whatever stripe that despite our parlous constitutional situation in these sometimes Shaky Isles there are still constitutional limits on Government, the Bill of Rights 1688 being chief among them. Having that point hammered home is what this case is really all about.

LINKS: Wilson wants Brady's report before facing action - NZ Herald
Herald on Adjournment - Darnton V Clark
Helengrad, 1688. - Not PC (June, 2006)

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Politics-Labour, Darnton V Clark