Mr Craig was an aspiring politician.[1] From 2011 to 2015 he was the leader of a small political party, the Conservative Party. The party contested the 2011, 2014 and 2017 general elections. It gained modest success at the first two, but failed to cross the five per cent threshold that would have earned it parliamentary seats.
[1]The facts are set out in very considerable detail in the judgment below: Craig v Slater [2018] NZHC 2712 [High Court judgment]. A useful summary is to be found at [1] to [16]. It is necessary for present purposes only to summarise the most essential facts.
From 2011 until 2014, Rachel MacGregor was the press secretary for Mr Craig and the party. It is evident that an attraction developed between the two, part spiritual, part romantic and part sexual. Some sexual activity (short of intercourse) occurred between them on one occasion, on the night of the 2011 general election. Ms MacGregor then came to her senses and sought to revert to a professional relationship only.[2] The same cannot be said of Mr Craig. He continued to write Ms MacGregor lengthy personal letters and poems.
[2]At [79].
Following Ms MacGregor’s resignation in September 2014, she alleged that Mr Craig had sexually harassed her and that she had not been paid in full. A mediated, confidential settlement ensued in which Mr Craig agreed to pay Ms MacGregor $16,000 and forgive a debt of some $19,000, and Ms MacGregor agreed to withdraw her sexual harassment claim.
Information about Mr Craig’s conduct towards both Ms MacGregor and the party board were leaked to Mr Slater, a conservative activist who ran a now‑defunct blog site called Whaleoil.[3]Mr Slater’s sources were two. First, a party board member, John Stringer, who harboured reservations about Mr Craig, and had his own ambitions. Secondly, a friend of Ms MacGregor’s, Jordan Williams. He was another conservative activist who, for reasons best known to himself, felt at liberty to impart his friend’s confidences. All three have since ended up in defamation proceedings with Mr Craig.[4]
[3]In September 2014, Whaleoil had nearly 5 million page views…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Craig v Slater
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Craig v Slater [2020] NZCA 305
Case
[2020] NZCA 305
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
- Parties: Colin Graeme Craig (Appellant) vs Cameron John Slater (First Respondent) and Social Media Consultants Limited (Second Respondent)
Nature of the Dispute: The case involves a defamation lawsuit where Colin Craig, a former leader of a political party, sued Cameron Slater for defamatory statements made on Slater's blog, Whaleoil, and other media outlets. Craig sought damages for statements made by Slater alleging sexual harassment, financial impropriety, and other misconduct.
Court: The Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Legal Issues: The court had to decide on several issues, including whether certain statements made by Slater bore the meanings alleged by Craig, whether those meanings were defamatory, the application of defenses such as truth, honest opinion, and responsible public interest communication, and whether damages should have been awarded to Craig.
Court's Reasoning and Outcome: The Court found that the High Court had erred in several respects. It allowed the appeal to the extent that Slater was liable for additional defamatory publications and that Craig was entitled to damages. The Court held that certain meanings alleged by Craig were indeed borne by Slater's publications, some of which were defamatory. It also found errors in the application of the defenses of truth, honest opinion, and responsible public interest communication. Regarding damages, the Court ruled that a nil damages award was defective and that Craig was entitled to some measure of compensation. The Court remitted the issue of damages and costs to the High Court for redetermination.
Final Orders: The appeal was allowed to the extent set out in the judgment, and damages were remitted for redetermination in the High Court, along with costs therein, in light of the terms of this judgment.