That's what serial litigant Graham McCready has taken from the District Court's rejection of his attempt to prosecute the Prime Minister.
Mr McCready, who has successfully driven prosecutions against Labour's Trevor Mallard and Act's John Banks, filed papers with the Auckland District Court alleging a "male assaults female" charge against Mr Key. These have now been rejected over a lack of evidence.
He filed the charge, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison, after Parnell waitress Amanda Bailey came forward alleging Mr Key pulled her ponytail on seven occasions at a cafe where she worked. The Prime Minister has since apologised.
Mr McCready told the Herald the judge had cited the lack of written statements alleging the ponytail-pulling had occurred. "The judge has said we haven't submitted formal written statements sufficient to pursue the charge."
The judge had also rejected an application for an oral evidence order, which Mr McCready could then have used to summons Ms Bailey, Mr Key and any witnesses and compel testimony under oath.
Ms Bailey had said through Unite Union she would have nothing to do with Mr McCready's attempt to prosecute Mr Key.
Mr McCready said the demand for evidence complicated matters for private litigants - and also appeared to set a different standard to that which applied when he prosecuted Mr Mallard over a dust-up with a fellow MP.
"Unless you've got all the evidence ready for the filing, it doesn't even get you to court. It's raised the threshold so high to the point of impossibility."
He said he intended going back to court to overturn today's ruling. His first step was to ask the District Court to hear the application again, and if that failed he would apply to the High Court.
