A key part of Don Brash's argument to get his rather fishy injunction was the claim that he would be unable to function as an MP or as National's leader if they were published. The implication was that this would be due to personal stress caused by the intrusion into his private life. But the revelation that Nicky Hagar has written a book dishing the the dirt on Don's dodgy dealings shows it in rather a different light. Rather than protecting his privacy, it seems that Brash was protecting his job against the natural consequences of his systematic dishonesty and deceit being revealed to the public. He is, as Hagar notes [JPEG], using claims of personal privacy to dodge political accountability.
Is this really something the courts should be supporting? And is false pretences a good reason to overturn such an injunction?