Crow represents himself in High Court in sex toy appeal

25 August 2010 Stuff News

Kiwi pornographer Steve Crow turned lawyer for a day in the High Court at Auckland in a scrap over a whopping bill owed to a sex toy and DVD company in Australia.

Calvista Australia Pty, which has an office in Auckland, says it is owed for goods supplied to Crow’s companies in New Zealand. It had earlier won a judgment by default in the Auckland District Court for A$39,897.36 with certain conditions which meant he has to put up the money as security while he continues disputing the case.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4060652/Crow-represents-self-in-sex-toy-appeal

But Crow, who was today appealing that decision over the security, told Justice Judith Potter today that Calvista’s action is opportunistic and malicious. ”They are trying to ascribe liability where none exists,” he said. ”The order is unjust and inconsistent.”

Crow said the district court judge was wrong in making the default order. ”I’m being asked to pay $39,000 because my lawyers did something wrong. I’m not going to do that. It’s not going to happen. It’s a situation best argued in the district court,” said Crow.

He said his lawyers were late in filing a statement of defence and Crow then moved quickly to try and remedy the situation. ”The substantive matter is very simple. If we had gone under normal timelines in the district court, it would have been thrown out,” he claimed in court. Calivista argued Crow had not proved the district court judge had acted on a wrong principle.

Justice Potter reserved her decision.

UPDATE 8 September 2010.

Stephen (Steve) Peter Crow’s appeal was dismissed in a judgment by J Potter dated 8 September 2010. The appellant (Mr Crow) was ordered to pay $39,879.36 to the court by 17 October 2010, and if he failed to do so the judgment against him for his outstanding debt to Calvista Australia Pty Ltd would remain in force and he would lose all right of appeal against the judgment. The Judge ruled that the respondent, Calvista, was entitled to make a full claim for disbursements against Mr Crow who, in representing himself was not entitled to claim for any costs, having lost his appeal.