Jennings v Buchanan Ca106/01

Jennings was a Member of Parliament who was sued for defamation by Buchanan, a senior official of the New Zealand Wool Board. Buchanan alleged that Jennings made defamatory statements about him in the House of Representatives, and then repeated them outside the House. The court had to decide whether Jennings' defence of absolute privilege under the Bill of Rights 1688 applied, and if not, whether Jennings was liable for the defamation. The Court of Appeal held that Jennings' defence of absolute privilege did not apply, and that he was liable for the defamation. Jennings appealed to the Privy Council, arguing that his statements in the House were protected by absolute privilege and that he could not be held liable for repeating them outside the House. The Privy Council dismissed Jennings' appeal, holding that absolute privilege did not extend to defamatory statements made outside Parliament, including those involving the repetition or effective repetition of statements made inside Parliament. The Court found that Jennings had effectively repeated the defamatory statements outside the House, and that his defence of absolute privilege did not apply. The Privy Council held that the protection afforded by the Bill of Rights was limited to "speech... debate or proceedings in Parliament", and that it did not extend to an individual Member's actions falling outside those proceedings. The Court also found that the use of parliamentary records to give meaning to a later non-privileged public statement did not breach the underlying purpose of the privilege. The Privy Council dismissed Jennings' appeal, and the original judgment of the High Court was upheld. Jennings was held liable for the defamation, and ordered to pay Buchanan damages in the amount of $50,000.