Mutingwende v Cooper-Taepa - [2022] NZHC 540

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2021-485-386

[2022] NZHC 540

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

IN THE MATTER

of the Defendant’s Social Media Posts

BETWEEN

TAFARA MUTINGWENDE

Plaintiff

AND

JOSHUA COOPER-TAEPA

Defendant

Hearing: 22 February 2022

Appearances:

J J Pietras for the Plaintiff

Judgment:

22 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Formal proof)

[1] In these proceedings Mr Tafara Mutingwende sues Mr Joshua Cooper-Taepa in defamation. Both are young semi-professional musicians operating in the hip hop scene. Mr Mutingwende is 23 years of age and goes under the stage name “Theo Outlandish”. He is also part of a group called Gallantino. Mr Cooper-Taepa is also a hip hop artist operating particularly in Kapiti. His stage names are “Euginthecut” and “KC4L”.

[2] In late 2020 allegations were made that a group of young men were engaged in raping, date raping, or otherwise sexually abusing young girls. These defamation proceedings concern alleged statements made by Mr Cooper-Taepa about Mr Mutingwende in an Instagram post, and particular during an Instagram “livestream” where persons were able to join what was effectively a broadcast by

MUTINGWENDE v COOPER-TAEPA [2022] NZHC 540 [22 March 2022]

Mr Cooper-Taepa. During this livestream it is alleged that Mr Cooper-Taepa said that Mr Mutingwende engaged in this kind of activity with young girls.

[3] Mr Mutingwende seeks a declaration that Mr Cooper-Taepa is liable to him in defamation, an order for indemnity costs pursuant to s 24 of the Defamation Act 1992, and a permanent injunction restraining Mr Cooper-Taepa from making or distributing any further defamatory statements about him.

[4] Mr Cooper-Taepa has failed to take any steps in these proceedings. Affidavits of service have been provided. On 12 October 2021 the Associate Judge set the proceedings down for a formal proof hearing which is the hearing that has proceeded before me.

[5] There is a second proceeding against Ms Madeline Petersen-Hodge which I understand is to be defended. The hearing before me deals only with the claim against Mr Cooper-Taepa.

Formal proof in defamation

[6] The approach the Court adopts to a defamation proceeding by way of formal proof is well established. In Solomon v Prater Clark J held:1

In a formal proof context such as this, the Court’s role is to assess whether [the plaintiff] has established the elements of his claim and, if he has, to consider the issue of remedies. The standard to which the Judge is required to be satisfied in relation to the plaintiff’s evidence “is much the same as it would be if the proceeding had gone to trial”.² Specifically, in a formal proof setting, the Court is not required to consider hypothetical affirmative defences.³ Accordingly, all issues for determination are to be determined against the standard of the balance of probabilities.

…

[The plaintiff] must establish the essential ingredients of his claim, namely that—⁴

(a)a statement has been made;

(b)the statement was defamatory of [the plaintiff]; and

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 Mutingwende v Cooper-Taepa

Details

AGLC: Mutingwende v Cooper-Taepa [2022] NZHC 540
Case: [2022] NZHC 540
Decision Date: 22 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with a case of defamation brought by Tafara Mutingwende against Joshua Cooper-Taepa. Both parties are semi-professional musicians operating in the hip hop scene. Mutingwende, known as "Theo Outlandish", is part of the group Gallantino, while Cooper-Taepa, also known as "Euginthecut" and "KC4L", is a hip hop artist from Kapiti. The case revolved around allegations made by Cooper-Taepa during an Instagram livestream that Mutingwende engaged in sexual misconduct, including rape and drug-facilitated rape of young girls. Mutingwende sought a declaration of liability, indemnity costs, and a permanent injunction against further defamatory statements.

The court had to decide whether the statements made by Cooper-Taepa during the livestream were defamatory and, if so, what remedies were appropriate. The court held that the statements were indeed defamatory, as they tended to adversely affect Mutingwende's reputation in more than a minor way. The livestream was watched by over 220 users, and Mutingwende received over 100 abusive messages on Instagram. The court accepted that the defamatory statements had adversely impacted Mutingwende's wellbeing and reputation in the music and fashion industry.

Given the findings, the court made a declaration that Mutingwende had been defamed. The court also awarded indemnity costs in accordance with Section 24 of the Defamation Act 1992, considering that Mutingwende was legally aided, resulting in a relatively modest award. The court declined to grant a permanent injunction against Cooper-Taepa, as there was no evidence to suggest that Cooper-Taepa would continue to make the defamatory statements. However, the court noted that further repercussions could arise if Cooper-Taepa were to persist in making such allegations.

Orders