A "malicious and nasty" blogger, who was convicted of criminal harassment and breaching court orders, has now accused a former parliamentarian of perjury.
Dermot Gregory Nottingham was found guilty of five criminal harassment charges and two breaches of court suppression orders following a lengthy trial, in which he represented himself, during April and May last year.
He was then sentenced to 12 months' home detention and 100 hours' community work for what Judge Jonathan Down described as a blatant and contemptuous breach of court orders and an arrogant view of right and wrong.
The High Court orders Nottingham breached were for the Stephen Eruwera Dudley manslaughter case after he named and published photos of the two teenage defendants - who have permanent name suppression - on his blog.
As a result of Nottingham's disregard for the court orders, a police detective began investigating his site and found "several campaigns of harassment".
Nottingham was targeting business people, civil servants and a former member of Parliament.
He had taken and published photos of them, their homes and was making false claims of drug abuse and corruption.
One of the five victims, all of whom have permanent name suppression, said they had been stalked and photographed, with their images appearing on the blog page.
"I was hyper vigilant and wary, especially at night knowing Nottingham knew where we lived," they said.
Now, however, Nottingham wants the cellphone records, emails and medical notes of three of his victims.
He claims they are guilty of perjury, having testified at his trial.
In an application for a non-party disclosure hearing, Nottingham asked the Court of Appeal for the emails sent and received by the then-MP about himself.
Nottingham claimed this would prove they lied at his trial.
He also sought the cellphone records for the past six months from a second victim and the medical records of a third.
However, in its decision sent to the Herald yesterday evening, the Court of Appeal refused Nottingham's application.
"We are neither satisfied that those persons are likely to hold the information Mr Nottingham seeks nor, even if we thought that was likely, that all or part of it appears to be relevant," Justices Stephen Kos, Brendan Brown and Denis Clifford ruled.
"The open-ended and speculative nature of the reasons on which Mr Nottingham based his application reflect the almost inevitability of that conclusion."
The three judges said the application is "in reality, a fishing expedition".
"Moreover, and most importantly, each of [the victims] gave evidence at Mr Nottingham's trial and were cross-examined at considerable length.
"That cross-examination was an opportunity to test their evidence, both as to its credibility and its reliability."
The Court of Appeal judges said because those being asked to divulge personal information were victims of Nottingham's criminal harassment, it was further reason not to put them through the invasive process that a hearing would occasion.
The Solicitor-General has filed an appeal of Nottingham's sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate.
Nottingham, meanwhile, also appealed both his convictions and his sentence.
He had tried to argue at trial that his "articles" were covered by freedom of expression rights.
The prosecution against him, he claims, was a "false case" and the police had created evidence to "fit him up".
Both appeals are set to be heard later this year.
Nottingham, described as a justice advocate who has been involved in defamation proceedings, developed a public profile in the 1990s after exposing odometer tampering on imported cars.
In 2003, he also faced a possible contempt of court charge after publishing a video online of a High Court judge's driving offence while it was before the courts.
Brian Dickey, Auckland's crown solicitor, said Nottingham's harassment was at the high end of the criminal spectrum, calling it "so malicious, so nasty".
"He shows absolutely no insight into his offending, no remorse," he said at the blogger's sentencing.
Dickey also said the breach of the suppression orders were an "attack on the High Court".
The Herald has chosen not to name the blog site which published Nottingham's posts because some of the offending content remains online.