Newton v Dunn

[2017] NZHC 2083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CIV-2012-406-000272 [2017] NZHC 2083

BETWEEN

LORETTA ANNE NEWTON

Plaintiff

AND

SUSAN MAREE DUNN First Defendant

FAYE COLLEEN LEOV and BERNARD LESLIE LEOV

Second Defendants

Hearing:	25 July 2017-28 July 2017;  31 July 2017 to 4 August 2017
Counsel:	R J B Fowler QC and P J Radich for Plaintiff No appearance for First Defendant C J Griggs and C M Kenworthy for Second Defendants
Judgment:	29 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

PART I INTRODUCTION

[1]      The   genesis   of   this   defamation   proceeding   was   a   dispute   between Mrs Newton, when she was the Principal of the Rai Valley Area School (the School) and Mrs Leov, when she was the School librarian.   Their dispute had a profound effect on their lives and careers.  It also divided their community.

[2]      Mrs Leov believed she was bullied by Mrs Newton.   On the other hand, Mrs Newton  believed  Mrs  Leov  was  refusing  to  comply  with  lawful  directions

which she gave Mrs Leov in her capacity as the School Principal.

NEWTON v DUNN [2017] NZHC 2083 [29 August 2017]

[3]      The dispute between Mrs Leov and Mrs Newton resulted in Mrs Leov taking an extended period of sick leave and being dismissed from the School in 2008.  She responded  with  a  claim  for  unjustified  dismissal  against  the  School  Board  of Trustees (the Board).  The Board issued a public apology  to Mrs Leov in 2010.  Mrs Leov never returned to the School.  In 2011 Mrs Newton resigned, primarily because of her dissatisfaction with the way the Board managed Mrs Leov’s employment dispute and her own associated health issues.

[4]      Approximately two years after Mrs Leov’s employment dispute was resolved, she and her husband engaged Mrs Dunn to write a book about her experiences and to expose Mrs Newton as a bully.  To assist in gaining information, Mrs Dunn sent a letter dated 10 September 2012 to approximately 50 people, most of whom, lived in the Rai Valley community.  This letter is the primary focus of this proceeding.  She also sent a letter to representatives and members of Mrs Newton’s church and a further letter to people associated with the Rai Valley community.

[5]      The letter of 10 September 2012 contained a number of profoundly serious allegations against Mrs Newton.  Those allegations are reduced to six imputations in this judgment, the most damaging of which were that Mrs Newton bullied Mrs Leov and others in the School and “destroyed the lives of others”.

[6]      The term “workplace bullying” is central to this proceeding.  In the context of

this case, there are three elements to the ordinary meaning of that term:

(1)It involves unreasonable and persistent conduct by one person against another.1

(2)       The conduct in question is unwarranted and harmful to the recipient.

1      Refer  Duncan  Black  and  others  (eds)  Collins  English  Dictionary  (10th  ed,  HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, 2009) for the definition of “bully”: “a person who hurts, persecutes, or intimidates weaker people”; Tony Deverson and Graeme Kennedy (eds) New Zealand Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2005): “a person who uses strength or power to coerce others by fear”; Lesley Brown The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993): “a person who uses strength or influence to harm or intimidate those who are weaker”.

(3)The recipient of the conduct lacks the ability to defend him or herself, possibly because of their lower status or ranking in the workplace environment where the conduct in question takes place.2

[7]      Mrs    Newton    commenced    defamation    proceedings,    initially   against Mrs Dunn, and subsequently also against Mrs and Mr Leov when further information came to light about their role in the 10 September 2012 letter.

[8]      This judgment explains why I have concluded that Mrs and Mr Leov are liable in defamation for the letter of 10 September 2012 even though it was written by  Mrs  Dunn.    I  also  explain  why  almost  all  the  passages  contained  in  the

10 September 2012 letter have the imputations pleaded by Mrs Newton and why

Mrs and Mr Leov’s defences of truth and genuine opinion have failed.

[9]      One of the many unusual features of this case is the relief that I have resolved is appropriate, namely, a recommendation that Mrs and Mr Leov publish a letter correcting their defamatory statements and apologising to Mrs Newton pursuant to s 26 of the Defamation Act 1992.  In my assessment, a correction and apology from Mrs  and  Mr  Leov  is  a  more  effective  remedy than  an  award  of  damages.    If, however, Mrs and Mr Leov fail to follow this recommendation, then they will be liable for damages in the sum of $100,000.  I have ordered that Mrs and Mr Leov pay Mrs Newton’s costs on a solicitor/client basis.

[10]     This judgment is divided into seven parts, including this introduction.  The remaining six parts are:

Part II – Background

Part III – Publication

Part IV – The meaning of the published words

Part V – Truth

Part VI – Honest opinion

2      Whilst this feature of the concept of bullying in the workplace is important in the present case, it is not necessarily the case that all those who bully others in the workplace are senior or have a senior rank or status to those who are the subject of bullying.

Part VII – Relief

PART II BACKGROUND

Rai Valley School and Community Library

[11]     Rai Valley is a small rural community located at the top of the South Island. It lies approximately half way between Nelson and Blenheim and services a large area dominated by farming and forestry.   Most people who live in the Rai Valley region know each other and many are related to each other by birth or marriage. They have, through necessity, developed a high level of independence and resilience. The  residents  of  this  community  place  a  great  deal  of  significance  upon  their integrity, trustworthiness and reputations.

[12]     The School caters for students from their first day of primary school through to the end of their secondary school careers.3   During most of the relevant period, the School   role   fluctuated between about 153 students and 18 teachers to about 89 students  and  12  teachers.4      The  School  is  dependent  upon  the  community  for financial and practical assistance to ensure students receive the benefit of modern facilities and resources.

[13]     The Community Library at Rai Valley can be traced back to 1936  when community books  were kept in  a purpose-built library and debating hall in the Rai Valley village.  Over time, the Community Library struggled to meet the needs and expectations of the Rai Valley community.  A community meeting took place on

28 July 1994, where it was resolved to establish a new Community Library located at the School.   The construction of the new library facility (the  library) was only possible because of the commitment of members of the community who devoted time, money and resources to the construction of the library.

[14]     Mrs and Mr Leov were two key forces behind the library construction.  Mrs

Leov and her husband farm a property near Rai Valley and have lived in the area for

3      Years one to thirteen.

4      Education Review Office Report 2001 and Education Review Office Report 2007.

decades.   Mrs Leov spent 26 years working as a part-time French teacher at the School, she also supervised distance learning students and was the School librarian. Mrs and Mr Leov actively participated in raising money to build the library.  This involved applications to the Lotteries Commission and the Community Trust for grants as well as community-based fundraising activities.  Mr Leov also sourced the timber for the library building, helped to fell the trees and arranged for them to be milled at his family farm.   He regularly worked on the building site.   Mrs and Mr Leov even paid for the library’s telephone and fax line.

[15]     The Board was also involved in the development of the library building.  The building was located on the School’s premises, meaning the land upon which the library  was  built  belonged  to  the  Ministry  of  Education.  The  Board  created  a building sub-committee in 1997 that was involved in the construction of the library.

[16]     In this same year the Rai Valley Community Library was registered as an incorporated society (the Society).   The Society’s  constitution  stated  the library comprised two parts, the School Library and the Community Library.  It provided for a governing committee (the Committee) comprising four persons elected from the community together with the School Principal, one representative from the Board and  the  School  librarian.    The  constitution  stated  that  the  “organisation  and

management of the library shall be the responsibility of the Committee”.5     The

librarian was to “be in charge of the library”.6   The Committee could decide on the public  opening  times  of  the  library  and  “the  library  could  be  closed  by  the Committee or its delegated representative on any occasion”.7     Mrs  Leov was a member of the Committee by virtue of her role as the School librarian.  She was also elected Chairperson of the Committee.   There is no record of the Board having considered the terms of the constitution.  It also transpired that Mrs Newton did not become aware of the provisions of the constitution until approximately four years

into her term as School Principal.

5      Constitution of the Rai Valley Area School/Community Library Incorporated, cl 5.1 (1997).  In

2007 cl 5.1 of the constitution was amended to read “organisation of the library shall be the responsibility of the library committee … The day-to-day management of the library is to be controlled by the principal and the librarian with library responsibilities, and they shall consult with each other to ensure that each works for the mutual best interests of the Rai Valley Area School and the community.”

6      Clause 9.1.

7      Clause 13.

[17]   The library building, which is an impressive, large alpine chalet style construction,   was   opened   by   the   Governor-General   on   4   November   1999. Mrs Payton, another driving force behind the new facility explained in her evidence that   the   Governor-General,   in   his   opening   remarks,   praised   the   Rai Valley community for its success in creating the new facility.

[18]     Although it was not appreciated at the time, the governance and management arrangements for the library were fraught with difficulty.   Mrs Leov, who was an employee of the Board and subject to the management of the Principal, was also accountable to the Committee which she chaired.   The difficulties in these arrangements were exacerbated when Mrs Newton and Mrs Leov began to clash over library matters and Mrs Leov’s role in the School.

Mrs Newton and Mrs Leov

[19]     Mrs Leov and Mrs Newton have known each other for decades.  Mrs Newton first met Mrs Leov when she visited the Leov family farm as a school girl.

[20]     Mrs Newton and her husband farm a property approximately 35 kms from

Rai Valley, near Havelock.  They have lived in the Havelock area since 1980 and in

1998  bought  the  farm  which  they  currently  own  with  Mr  Newton’s  brother. Mrs Newton taught at Havelock School up until 1994 when she was appointed as a senior teacher at the School.   Mrs Newton was promoted to Deputy Principal and then,  in  2002  following  the  retirement  of  Mr  Freeth,  she  became  the  School Principal.   In addition to her teaching career, Mrs Newton has participated in community affairs and is an active member of the Anglican Church.8    Mrs Newton and Mrs Leov started their working relationship in a positive and cordial manner. Over time, however, their personalities began to clash.

[21]     Mrs Newton  was  widely  liked  and  supported  by  many  people  in  her community.  She has also, however, been the subject of considerable criticism.  It is clear that Mrs Newton brought a different leadership style to the role of School

Principal than that of her predecessor and that she was a comparatively firm leader of

8      The relevance of Mrs Newton’s role in the Anglican Church is made apparent in paragraphs [60]

and [61].

the  School  who  expected  staff  to  follow  her  lawful  directions  and  accept  her authority.

[22]     Mrs Leov was also a strong-willed person, who held firm views about how the library should be managed.  Mrs Leov had a significant emotional investment in the library and was not happy to have Mrs Newton challenge her control of the library.

[23]     Mrs  Leov’s  commitment  to  the  library  blinded  her  ability  to  properly understand   her   duties   and   responsibilities   to   Mrs Newton   and   the   Board. Mrs Newton on the other hand,  was firm in her determination that school staff comply with her lawful instructions.   Ultimately, both Mrs Newton and Mrs Leov became tragic victims as they sank deeper into the quagmire of their dispute.

The troubles at Rai Valley

[24]     The relationship between Mrs Newton and Mrs Leov began to unravel in late

2006 when the Committee undertook a fundraising campaign to enable the library to purchase new computers and software.  The focal point of this particular fundraising campaign was a fete on 24 September 2006 organised by a committee chaired by Mrs Leov.  Issues arose about the hiring of portable toilets, security guards and the payment of electricity charges.  The Board set its expectations which were conveyed by Mrs Newton to Mrs Leov.

[25]     Approximately six weeks after the fete, Mrs Leov approached the Board seeking $3,000 to assist with the purchase of the proposed new computers and software.   The Board agreed to this request on 6 November 2006.   The Board’s agreement was subject to conditions designed to protect the School’s interests in relation to the new computers.  Mrs Newton explained:9

… The Board wanted to be involved in the choice of the computers and other arrangements in relation to them.   The Board required that there be a committee to address the purchase of the computers and that two Board members be on the committee.

9 Brief of Evidence in Reply of LA Newton at [33].

Mrs Leov disputes Mrs Newton’s recollection of events and says the Board was happy to support the Committee’s acquisition of new computer facilities.

[26]     Mrs  Leov  spoke  to  Mrs  Newton  on  9  November  2006.    During  their discussion, Mrs Leov told Mrs Newton that the Committee would no longer need the additional $3,000 that the Board had agreed to pay because an additional $1,000 raised at the fete had been discovered.   Mrs Leov says that this meeting became acrimonious  and  that  Mrs  Newton  accused  her,  among  other  things,  of  being “sneaky” and uncooperative.  Mrs Newton, on the other hand, says Mrs Leov was obstructive and appeared intent on purchasing new computers and software without the Board’s input.  Mrs Leov says she was very disturbed by Mrs Newton’s attitude

and left the meeting in tears and shaking.  Mrs Newton, however, says:10

I was certainly not aggressive towards Mrs Leov in any way.  I did try to be firm in [pointing] out the position of the Board and myself as [P]rincipal.  I did not accuse her of sneaky behaviour.  Mrs Leov certainly did not leave the room in tears and shaking.

[27]     It was at about this time Mrs Newton began investigating the basis upon which the library was managed and governed.  She sought a copy of the constitution from Mrs Leov  who told her that it was available “on-line”.  Mrs Newton’s notes record she obtained a copy of the constitution and read it for the first time on about

23 November 2006.

[28]     Following the meeting on 9 November 2006, Mrs Leov instructed her lawyer, Mr Fletcher, a partner in the Blenheim firm of Gascoigne Wicks to assist her.   A meeting was scheduled for 24 November 2006 between Mrs Newton, Mr Hodges, the Chairman of the Board, Mrs Beattie, another member of the Board, Mrs Leov and  her  support  person,  Mr Webster,  the  District   Library  Manager  for  the Marlborough District Council and a member of the Committee.  That meeting was adjourned  however  without  notice,  following  the  delivery  of  a  letter  from Mr Fletcher to Mrs Newton giving notice of a personal grievance by Mrs Leov. Mrs Newton said in her evidence that Mrs Leov’s instructions to Mr Fletcher to initiate a personal grievance against the Board was a significant milestone in their

deteriorating relationship.

10 Brief of Evidence in Reply of LA Newton at [38].

[29]     The Board  engaged  Mr Yeoman  from  the New Zealand School Trustees Association to assist in managing the escalating problems.  The dispute between Mrs Leov and Mrs Newton became more entrenched when, on 6 December 2006, the School proposed to reduce Mrs  Leov’s teaching time to two  periods  per week. Mrs Newton  explained  that  this  decision  was  unrelated  to  the  dispute  between herself  and  Mrs  Leov.    She  said  it  was  caused  solely  by  annual  management decisions to meet student needs and these necessitated a reduction in teaching time for some subjects, including French.  A formal offer setting out Mrs Leov’s position as distance learning supervisor and school librarian, and job descriptions were sent to her on 19 December 2006.  Mrs Leov’s distance learning supervisor hours were also reduced.  Unfortunately, the letter stated Mrs Leov was required to be vetted by the New Zealand Police as a term of her employment.  The letter said Mrs Leov needed to obtain a police clearance “at least every three weeks”.

[30]     Mrs Leov approached the local constable, Mr Barsanti, about the three week police vetting requirement.  He wrote to Mrs Newton on 5 January 2007 asking for an explanation as to why the police needed to provide a clearance for Mrs Leov every  three  weeks.     Mr  Barsanti  gave  evidence  that  this  requirement  was unnecessary.   On the same day, Mrs Leov resigned from her position as French teacher.  She continued however, her roles as school librarian and distance learning supervisor.

[31]     On 13 February 2007, a meeting was held at Mrs Newton’s office.   Those present were, Mrs Newton and Mr Hickling, the Deputy Principal, Mrs Leov and two of her support persons, Mrs Billingsley11  and Mr Crabtree.   Mrs Leov gave evidence that Mrs Newton was “inflexible” in regards to the job descriptions when an alternative was proposed by her.   Mrs Newton says that at that meeting she pointed out the three week police vetting requirement was an error and that the correct position required Mrs Leov to obtain a police clearance every three years and that she apologised for the error.  Mrs Leov says Mrs Newton did not apologise but

acknowledged that there had been a typing error in the 19 December 2006 letter.  On the  same  day,  Mr  Fletcher  wrote  to  the  Board  setting  out  a  number  of  issues

concerning Mrs Leov’s employment.   The letter referred to the three week police

11     Previously known as Mrs Lawrence.

vetting issue and said that “[e]ven if this [was] a mistake it [was] a careless mistake which [was] deeply upsetting for Mrs Leov”.12

[32]     The employment dispute continued to percolate.  One feature of the dispute was the library budget, which Mrs Leov says Mrs Newton froze.   Mrs Newton however contends she asked Mrs Leov to provide previous budgets, which were not produced, and to refrain from spending school funds while Mrs Newton was away overseas to enable the library curriculum team’s input into the budget.  There was an unsuccessful attempt at mediation in April 2007.  Around the same time, Mrs Leov realised she was being overpaid and informed the School of this fact.  The School then calculated that Mrs Leov had been overpaid by $1,597 and on 27 April 2007

Mrs Newton  informed  her  in  writing  that  she  needed  to  repay  this  amount. Mrs Leov repaid that sum a year later on 11 April 2008, after Mrs Newton engaged the services of School Support Ltd to recover the money.

[33]     On 14  June 2007,  the community part  of the  library was  closed  by the Committee for half a day to enable Mrs Leov and the library volunteers to attend the funeral of Mrs Reid, their colleague and friend.  Mrs Leov sent a letter explaining this to Mrs Newton on 11 June 2007, suggesting that if Mrs Newton wanted the “school element of the library to remain open” then the student librarians could issue and return books.

[34]     On 25 June 2007, Mrs Newton sent a letter to Mrs Leov setting out five concerns.   The letter said that Mrs Newton wanted to discuss these matters with Mrs Leov on 28 June 2007 at 2.00 pm.   Mrs Newton warned Mrs Leov that she might decide to refer her concerns to the Board which, in turn, may consider if some form of disciplinary action was appropriate.  These matters concerned unauthorised expenditure of $219 when the library budget was temporarily “frozen”; inappropriate comments to students about Mrs Leov’s employment issues; not following proper procedures when closing the library to attend Mrs Reid’s funeral; not applying for leave to attend the same funeral; and, failing to send police vetting responses for

library volunteers directly to the School as directed.

12     Letter from Gascoigne Wicks to Board of Trustees, 13 February 2007 at [8(e)].

[35]     On  the  same  day  a  letter  was  sent  to  Mr  Fletcher  about  the  terms  of Mrs Leov’s employment.  That letter acknowledged that the requirement Mrs Leov obtain police clearance every three weeks was a typographical error and that the police vetting process would need to be undertaken every three years as “required by the  Education  Act”.13    The  School  sought  an  immediate  meeting  to  resolve Mrs Leov’s  employment  issues.    On 28  June 2007  Mr Fletcher  responded    that further information was required before Mrs Leov could properly respond to the concerns that had been raised.   Mrs Newton sent a further letter to Mrs Leov on

29 June 2007 saying she was “extremely disappointed and concerned at the way in which  [Mrs  Leov]  had  responded  to  [Mrs Newton’s]  note on June 28 requiring [Mrs Leov] to meet with [Mrs Newton] to discuss the closure of the library”.  There were  further  communications  from  Mrs  Newton  to  Mrs  Leov,  and  between Mr Fletcher and Mr Yeoman, including a letter dated 10 September 2007 where the issue of Mrs Leov’s unauthorised expenditure was again raised.

[36]    By this stage the relationship between Mrs Newton and Mrs Leov had deteriorated beyond repair.  Minor points of difference between them were inflated beyond any sense of proportion.   Issues that should have been able to be resolved amicably escalated to legal disputes.   An example of issues being over inflated occurred when the School cancelled the library’s phone and fax line and incorporated it  into  the  School  telephone  system.    At  least  one  of  Mrs Leov’s  supporters

considered this to be an act of bullying by Mrs Newton.14

[37]     The  employment  dispute  was  one  of  several  fronts  on  which  the  battle between Mrs Leov and Mrs Newton unfolded.  Mrs Leov instituted complaints to a number of people and agencies, including to Mr King MP, the local Member of Parliament and to the Ministry of Education.   The Board enlisted Mr Yeoman’s assistance to deal with Mr King’s inquiries.   Mr Yeoman and the Board met with Mr King on 12 October 2007.  Mr King appears to have been satisfied by the Board

and Mr Yeoman’s assurances that Mrs Newton had not bullied Mrs Leov.

13     Letter from Rai Valley Area School to BA Fletcher, 25 June 2007.

14 See [182]-[183].

[38]     The Ministry of Education engaged Mr Crichton, a lawyer, to investigate the

governance of the library in response to Mrs Leov’s complaint.  In his report dated

30 April  2008,  Mr Crichton  commented that  “Mrs  Leov,  not  unnaturally,  [had] tended to take a proprietorial interest in the library”.   He also noted that “the [P]rincipal [was] entitled to see the librarian as a member of her staff who [was] able to be directed to do or not to do certain things …”.15    Mr Crichton concluded the Society’s constitution was “fatally flawed”.   He recommended “fundamental changes”, including “that the librarian cease to represent either the School or the

Community and instead advise the Library Committee …” and “that the librarian not

be eligible for any office on the Library Committee”.16

[39]     The entrenched nature of the dispute between Mrs Newton and Mrs Leov can be seen in letters exchanged between Mr Fletcher and Mr Hardy-Jones, a lawyer in Blenheim who acted for Mrs Newton and the Board.  That dispute led to a meeting on  17  September  2007  at  which  time  Mrs  Leov  responded  to  a  number  of Mrs Newton’s concerns.  From Mrs Leov’s perspective, Mrs Newton then intensified her “bullying” of Mrs Leov.  She says Mrs Newton “… would belittle and humiliate [Mrs  Leov]  at  school  meetings,  and  particularly  at  library  curriculum  team

meetings”.  Mrs Leov says Mrs Newton:17

… alleged at these meetings that [Mrs Leov] bought unauthorised computers and software and this had been “detrimental” to the school.  [Mrs Newton] instructed school staff members at a library curriculum meeting not to co- operate with [Mrs Leov] in relation to the new computers.  She also said that in future staff would be issuing all library books – not librarians.

Mrs Leov says she “was shattered for [her] library staff and frightened for them as they were being targeted now”.  For her part, Mrs Newton firmly refutes Mrs Leov’s allegations and the claims that she bullied Mrs Leov or “instructed school staff members not to co-operate with Mrs Leov in relation to new computers”.18

[40]     Mrs Leov says that by this stage she had been subject to Mrs Newton’s

bullying for about a year and her health was beginning to suffer.  She explained in

15     Report for Ministry of Education on the Rai Valley Area School and Community Library, J Crichton, April 2008 at [6.7]-[6.8].

16     At [7.1].

17 Brief of Evidence of CF Leov at [197].

18 Brief of Evidence of LA Newton in reply at [105].

her evidence that she “began to have suicidal thoughts” and “was too frightened to answer  the  telephone,  the  door  or  open  the  mail,  or  even  go  outside  into  the garden”.19    On 16 November 2007, Mrs Leov provided the School with a medical certificate and “took sick leave to try [to] recover from the extreme stress [she] was under”.20     Mrs Leov remained on sick leave up until 22 August 2008, when the Board  terminated her employment.

[41]     Around the same time a public meeting was held in the fire brigade hall in Rai Valley.  Mr Webster gave evidence that he spoke at that meeting in support of Mrs  Leov.   Others supported Mrs Newton.   By this stage, the dispute between Mrs Newton and Mrs Leov had broadened and caused the Rai Valley community to become deeply divided.   On 6 November 2008, Mr Fletcher wrote to the Board putting it on notice that Mrs Leov was pursuing a claim of unjustified dismissal.

[42]     The employment dispute between Mrs Leov and the Board culminated in a judicial settlement conference being conducted by the Employment Court in May

2010.  Mrs Newton was not present at that settlement conference. An agreement was reached between the Board and Mrs Leov.   As part of that settlement the Board issued a public apology to Mrs Leov and acknowledged that it did not effectively deal with her allegations of unfair treatment at the School and that her health and wellbeing had suffered significantly as a result of the events.  The Board expressed its deep regret for its conduct and unreservedly apologised to Mrs Leov, her family and others for the distress they had suffered.

[43]     In the meantime, Mrs Leov initiated further complaints against Mrs Newton.

One of those complaints was sent to the Teachers’ Registration Board on 22 October

2008.  On 22 March 2009, the Teachers Council Complaints Assessment Committee wrote to Mrs Newton saying that it had resolved to dismiss Mrs Leov’s complaints. The letter said:21

The [Complaints Assessment Committee] was not satisfied that there was any evidence to support the allegations of misconduct, especially bullying,

19 Brief of Evidence of CF Leov at [206].

20 At [214].

21     New Zealand Teachers Council “Complaint about [Mrs Newton]”, 22 March 2009 at 1.

by [Mrs Newton] … [Mrs Newton] has demonstrated considerable patience and forbearance in this situation.

[44]     In   her   evidence,   Mrs   Newton   explained   that   Mrs   Leov’s   numerous complaints to the police, the Ministry of Education, the Department of Labour, the Education Review Office and the local Member of Parliament about her alleged bullying of Mrs Leov failed to produce any findings that supported these allegations. For example, the Education Review Office reports covering the relevant period were generally positive.  A report from the Education Review Office, which it compiled following a visit to the School in May 2007, described Mrs Newton as a “reflective

practitioner  who  leads  by  example”.22    A  Principal  Appraisal,  completed  by

Mrs Redshaw,  the  Rural  Schools’  Advisor  employed  by  the  Rural  Education Assistance Programme in 2009, described Mrs Newton as being “a committed professional leader who [was] exceeding the criteria for the professional standards for Area School Principals”.23   The same report said Mrs Newton was an “excellent role model for teaching and learning”, built “effective relationships with students” and set “clear expectations for teachers”.24   Mrs Redshaw explained in her evidence that earlier reports she had completed in relation to Mrs Newton were similar to the

2009 assessment.

[45]     Nevertheless, Mrs Newton was deeply affected by the way the Board handled Mrs Leov’s employment dispute.  She says that the terms of the settlement led her to feel “very let down and unsupported in that there had been a settlement with allegations against [her] when [she] was not there to answer them”.25    Mrs Newton said she had been advised not to attend the settlement and was visiting her daughter in Australia who was unwell at the time.  Mrs Newton says the public apology to

Mrs Leov intensified divisions within the Rai Valley community and that she was particularly affected by newspaper articles that cast her in a “poor light” and “anonymous letters” she received.26    Mrs Newton explains that the pressure on her

was so heavy that she too “became unwell and depressed.  [She] went on sick leave

22     Education Review Office Report 2007 at 3.

23     Principal Appraisal 2009 at 12.

24     At 12.

25 Brief of Evidence of LA Newton at [31].

26 At [32].

and into serious health decline”.27   Ultimately, Mrs Newton and her husband decided she should retire from teaching.  She resigned on 2 November 2011.

[46]     Thus, by the end of 2011 both Mrs Leov and Mrs Newton had prematurely finished their long teaching careers.  Between them they had approximately 50 years experience.  This was experience which the School could not afford to lose.  Both had suffered serious health issues and the Rai Valley community had become deeply polarised   with   one   faction   supporting   Mrs Leov   and   the   other   supporting Mrs Newton.

[47]     Unfortunately, the settlement of the employment dispute did not alleviate divisions in the Rai Valley community.   Letters and articles published in the local newspapers in 2010 and 2011 reflect the entrenched feelings of grievance within the community.  The election of a new Board did not lead to resolution of the difficult relationship between the Board and the Committee.   A petition was sent to the Ministry of Education from some members of the Rai Valley community.  This led to the Secretary of Education replacing the Board with Ms Wysocki as Commissioner,

pursuant to s 78M(2) of the Education Act 1989 in March 2011.28   Unfortunately, Ms

Wysocki passed away before she could resolve the lingering issues that had caused immense damage to Mrs Leov, Mrs Newton, the School, the Committee, and the Rai Valley community.

[48]    The governance and management structures for the library also changed following Mrs Newton and Mrs Leov’s departures from the School.  These changes commenced in 2009 when a formal Licence to Occupy Agreement was executed between the Committee and the Board.  In 2013, the constitution of the Society was redrafted.  It appears that draft may not have been registered, but I understand the Committee now operates under the 2013 constitution.   Under that version of the constitution the Committee comprises four persons appointed by the Board and four persons who represent the community.  The Principal is an ex officio member of the

Committee.  The day-to-day management of the library is “the responsibility of the

27 Brief of Evidence of LA Newton at [33].

28     “Notice of Appointment of a Commissioner for Rai Valley Area School (291)” (11 March 2011)

27 New Zealand Gazette 789.

[P]rincipal who [works] to ensure the library operates for [the] mutual best interests

of the Rai Valley Area School and the community”.29

Mrs Dunn

[49]     Mrs  Newton  thought  that  her  retirement  would  bring  her  dispute  with Mrs Leov to an end and provide an opportunity for the community and the parties to recover from the ordeal.  Unfortunately, Mrs Newton’s hopes soon evaporated.

The contract

[50]     In 2012, Mrs Leov attended an art course in Otago. There she met Mrs Dunn, a professional writer, who listened to Mrs Leov’s account of what had taken place and decided to use Mrs Leov’s experiences as the foundation for a book about bullying in the workplace in New Zealand.   Mrs Leov, together with her husband, met  with  Mrs Dunn  on  two,  or  possibly  three  occasions  in  Arrowtown  and Queenstown.  Those discussions led to Mrs and Mr Leov agreeing to pay Mrs Dunn

$27,000  to  write a book  based  upon  Mrs  Leov’s  experiences.    Clause 2  of the contract set the scene for what was soon to unfold.  It states:30

The goal:

To create a book [the Faye Leov Story], which is to show the true nature of bullying in the workplace, and demonstrate the devastating emotional and physical cost to Faye and the others involved.  Integral to this story will be the profiling and exposure of a bully, Loretta Newton, former principle (sic) of the Rai Valley Area School.

Interview

[51]     As part of the preliminary investigation for the book, Mrs Dunn interviewed Mrs and Mr Leov on or about 6 August 2012 in Queenstown.  The interview was recorded.   A transcript of the interview, comprising 55 pages, was presented in evidence.  The transcript shows that Mrs and Mr Leov were still deeply affected by the dispute.  For example, Mrs Leov said that as a result of her experiences she could

now “sense” bullying if she entered into a place where bullying occurred.  At times

29     Constitution of the Rai Valley Area School, Community Library Incorporated, cl 5(a) (2013).

30     Writing Agreement between Mrs Dunn and Mrs and Mr Leov (undated) at 2.

during the interview Mrs Dunn and Mrs and Mr Leov referred to Mrs Newton in vitriolic terms.

[52]     Examples of the extreme animosity that Mrs Dunn and Mrs and Mr Leov displayed towards Mrs Newton included Mrs Dunn referring to Mrs Newton as “conniving”.31    She said she was determined to proceed with the book, even if she had “to cage a demon”.32   Mr Leov talked about Mrs Newton “hypnotising [people]

so that she could manipulate them”.33    At another point in the transcript Mr Leov

compared Mrs Newton to those who ran “the camps in Germany [and] Poland”.34

Mrs Leov spoke about the effect Mrs Newton had on people in the School and referred to a student who “came into the school as quite an intelligent little girl and left it like a raging lunatic”.35

[53]     In a particularly disturbing and graphic part of the interview Mrs Dunn and Mrs Leov envisaged Mrs Newton being placed “on the back of a cart … tak[en] down the town and put on her knees in the middle of the street” where she could be “thrash[ed] … with birch”.36

Draft letter

[54]     On 30 August 2012, Mrs Dunn sent Mrs Leov a draft letter that she was proposing to send to people who had “been associated with the Rai Valley Area School and Community Library”.  The draft letter (dated 29 August 2012) was sent under cover of an email dated 30 August 2012, in which Mrs Dunn said, amongst other things:

I woke this morning with a sense of urgency …

I have written a letter which will probably shock you.  I want to send it to everyone across the board, including the newspapers and the television.   I want everyone to start addressing this now.  If my instincts are right this will provide the story and I will be able to get on with its writing …

31     Transcript of 6 August 2012 Interview at 9.

32     At 2.

33     At 16.

34     At 38.

35     At 34.

36     At 42.

Take a look at this rough draft, if you can or if you feel you can’t – get [Mr Leov] to.  I feel this is a very important move, but I need you to trust me and give it your blessing.

[55]     In her draft letter Mrs Dunn explained her aim was:

[To]  author  a  book  that  looks  at  a  topical  issue  that  affects  all  New Zealanders, and in particular those harmed in the Rai Valley story.  The issue is workplace bullying and in this case, serial workplace bullying.  It is my intention to cover the events that led to the catastrophic community breakdown  in what  was  formerly your  idyllic,  peaceful,  and fun-loving, family orientated community, Rai Valley.  We have the facts.  Now we need the human face stories.

…

My main concern is around events that took place in the Rai Valley Area School, and Library, particularly during the years the school was under the leadership of Mrs Loretta [A] Newton … and the then Board of Trustees, chaired by Jonathan Hodges.  There are other major players whom I haven’t named for now, but you will know who you are.

…

This  is  a  very  tragic  story.    Sitting  in  my  office  with  mountains  of paperwork, gathered through months of investigation, I saw a very sinister story unfold.   It has been alleged, and in some cases acknowledged, that many people have suffered irrevocable harm through the actions of one school [P]rincipal, and those who sanctioned and endorsed her behaviour. This book will look at the effects of this extreme case of workplace bullying, which had an impact on the staff, community volunteers, pupils and parents that were connected to, or worked at the Rai Valley Area School and the Community Library.

…

Mrs Dunn asked recipients to assist her to “bring the story together” by inviting them

to share their stories with her.

[56]     The draft letter consisted of a brief introduction and a longer substantive section.   There are eight  passages  in  the draft  letter that  are significant  to this litigation. Those passages stated:

(1)       I can assure you that all the documentation and evidence, points to a saboteur in your midst, and that saboteur sacrificed your community in order to satisfy her own appetite for bullying, controlling and finally breaking human lives.

(2)       Evidence I have, seems to suggest that [Mr] Hodges and some of his [Board]  did  appear  to  genuinely  accept  that  [Mrs Newton]  had deceived them about the real situation …

(3)      This   appears   to   be   one   of   the   most   extreme   cases   of   a

workplace/community bully, to come to light in New Zealand …

(4)       We  must  understand  a  bully  already  has  serious  relationship difficulties, harbours issues of inferiority and jealousy, and could be, in most respects, deemed mentally unwell and socially inept …

(5)       A bully has the charm and charisma to get people to believe them, often resorting to a victim mentality if needed, to gather allies.  More often than not, they belong to a church or similar organisation, and are seen to be doing good elsewhere. This is all part of the game.

(6)       For  those  of  you  who  have  aligned  yourselves  to  this  bully behaviour, I feel genuinely concerned for you.  I only ask that you give this a fair hearing and you step back to take an objective look. If  you  find  yourself  rushing  to  pick  up  the  phone  to  inform Mrs Newton,  you  probably  are  understandably  feeling  scared  of being implicated, or it might be you have become one of the “loyal followers and believers”.  The only way you can be a true colleague and ally to a person such as this is by employing honesty.  Help her to face the truth.

(7)       I believe [Mrs] Newton may have recently returned to some form of teaching position and knowing what I now do, I have a concern for the staff, pupils and parents of that school.   Who will be the next teacher to fall or will it be one of your children?   Anyone who supported  renewal  of  [Mrs]  Newton’s  teacher  registration  must surely be placing themselves and their career at risk.

(8)       At the very least no-one should have endorsed a teacher who, as indicated by [Ms] Wysocki, commissioner, if I understand her comment correctly, did not actually leave the profession of her own volition.

The 10 September 2012 letter

[57]     During  the  first  week  of  September  2012,  Mrs  Dunn  and  Mrs  Leov exchanged a number of emails relating to the contents of the draft letter.  In Part III of this judgment I examine those emails as part of my analysis of the role played by Mrs and Mr Leov in authorising and participating in the sending by Mrs Dunn of the

10 September letter to approximately 50 recipients.   The names and addresses of most of those recipients were sent to Mrs Dunn by Mrs Leov.  A copy of that letter was also sent to the Marlborough Express.

[58]     The 10 September letter comprised an introduction, followed by a nine page substantive section.  In some cases Mrs Dunn wrote a personal note to recipients at the end of the letter.   I set out Mrs Dunn’s letter in full as an appendix to this judgment.  It is sufficient for present purposes to quote the following key passages of the letter:37

(1)       This is undoubtedly the worst story of workplace bullying to surface in  a  New  Zealand  community,  and  in  particular,  within  a  small school.

(2)       All the documentation and evidence, and the official records of the facts, point to a school and community being systematically divided and broken, by a ruthless and unwell saboteur.

(3)      That saboteur, often disguised as someone doing good, literally sacrificed  the  wellbeing  of  your  children,  and  numerous  fine teachers in order to satisfy her own appetite for, controlling, degrading and breaking, human life.

(4)       If you were good at what you did, aimed for excellence, opposed any wrongdoing, told the truth, held a position of responsibility, got a public or official pat on the back from someone, were popular, or you simply created something lovely and were noticed for it, this would be enough.

(5)      She systematically set about the insidious degradation, public humiliation and in some cases, complete destruction of human lives that saw through her, or received the “back patting” she so hungered for.

(6)       However   the   evidence   I   have,   does   seem   to   suggest   that [Mr] Hodges  and  some  of  his  Board  of  Trustees  did  appear  to genuinely accept that [Mrs] Newton had deceived them about the real situation.

(7)      I acknowledge this was an extreme case of workplace bullying.

(8)       It started with one small man, a bully, who had a personal mandate to destroy those who challenged his feelings of inferiority.

(9)     This appears to be one of the most extreme cases of a workplace/community bully, to come to light in New Zealand.

(10)      We must try and understand the nature of a bully.  They have low self-esteem, possibly have serious relationship difficulties, often harbour feelings of intense jealously, and could be, in most respects, be (sic) deemed mentally unwell and humanly inept, but socially charming to some …

37     Letter from Mrs Dunn, 10 September 2012.

(11)      A bully has the charm and charisma to get people to believe them, often resorting to a victim mentality if needed, to gather allies.  More often than not, they belong to a church or similar organisation, and are seen to be doing good elsewhere. This is all part of the game.

(12)     For  those  of  you  who  have  aligned  yourselves  with  this  bully behaviour, I feel genuinely concerned for you.  I only ask that you give this a fair hearing and you step back to take an objective look. If  you  find  yourself  rushing  to  pick  up  the  phone  to  inform Mrs Newton,  you  probably  are  understandably  feeling  scared  of being implicated, or it might be you have become one of the “loyal followers and believers”.  The only way you can be a true colleague and ally to a person such as this is by employing honesty.  Help her to face the truth.

(13)      I believe Loretta Newton may have recently returned to some form of teaching position and knowing what I now do, I have a concern for the staff, pupils and parents of that school.  Who will be the next teacher to fall or will it be one of your children?   Anyone who supported renewal of Loretta A. Newton’s teacher registration must surely be placing themselves and their careers at risk.

(14)     At the very least no-one should have endorsed a teacher, who, as indicated by [Ms] Wysocki, commissioner, if I understand her comment correctly, did not actually leave the profession of her own volition.

[59]     It will be immediately apparent that there were a number of passages in the draft letter that were incorporated into the letter of 10 September 2012.

Letter of 1 October 2012

[60]     On 1 October 2012, Mrs Dunn sent an email attaching her 10 September

2012 letter (the letter of 1 October 2012) to a number of people connected with the Anglican Church in the Nelson-Marlborough region, including Bishop Ellena, the Bishop of Nelson.

[61]     The letter of 1 October 2012 was the basis of Mrs Newton’s second cause of action  for  defamation  against  Mrs  and  Mr  Leov.    In  his  closing  submissions Mr Fowler QC advised that it was no longer alleged Mrs and Mr Leov published the

1 October 2012 letter and so therefore the second cause of action was no longer pursued against Mrs and Mr Leov.  Suffice to say that the letter sent by Mrs Dunn to members of the Anglican Church contained a number of very damning comments about Mrs Newton.

Letter of 8 October 2012

[62]     On 8 October 2012, Mrs Dunn sent a further email to a number of people in the Rai Valley community.  That letter forms the basis of Mrs Newton’s third cause of action for defamation against Mrs and Mr Leov.

[63]     It is not necessary to set out all of the contents of that letter.  The essential features of that letter are contained in the following paragraphs:

Unfortunately due to events of the past week in relation to writing this book, I have decided I need to plan my work with the safety of myself and my family in mind.  As many of you will know, there has been many friendly reminders to tread with caution while dealing with this topic and I am now listening.

…   My intentions were to meet with many of you but have decided as a precaution, I am going to limit most communications to phone, email or skype …

I trust this story will bring to light the enormous damage perpetrated in your lives and that due redress and compensation will be available for those of you who have lost careers and income …

A monstrous thing has happened and it is now time to defang the monster.

The proceedings

[64]     On  10  October  2012,  Mr  Radich  of  Radich  Law  in  Blenheim  wrote  to Mrs Dunn  advising  that  he  was  instructed  by  Mrs  Newton  to  issue  defamation proceedings against her in relation to the letter of 10 September 2012.   This proceeding was commenced by Mrs Newton, initially only against Mrs Dunn, on

1 November 2012.

[65]     On  23  August  2013,  after  information  was  obtained  from  Mrs  Dunn, Mrs Newton  applied  to  join  Mrs  and  Mr  Leov  as  second  defendants  in  the proceeding.     On  30  October  2013,  orders  were  made  by  consent  granting Mrs Newton’s application.   Thus, from that date Mrs and Mr Leov have been the second  defendants  in  this  proceeding.    By  this  time  Mrs  Dunn  had  elected  to dispense with the services of her lawyer and represent herself.

[66]     In a memorandum dated 5 March 2014, Mrs Dunn accepted that the letters she sent on 10 September and on 1 and 8 October 2012 defamed Mrs Newton. Mrs Dunn told the Court that she sent the letters in question “in collaboration with, and under the instructions of, [Mr and Mrs Leov]”.  Mrs Dunn said that she had been “misled” and that she was “foolish to [have] allow[ed] [her]self to become involved in this battle”.  Mrs Dunn agreed without reservation to furnish a public apology and retraction for the contents of the letters she wrote.

[67]     Mrs Dunn’s admissions do not bind Mrs and Mr Leov.

The joint tortfeasor release rule

[68]     Mrs Dunn has, in effect, played no further role in this proceeding and did not give  evidence.    Although  Mrs Newton  has  not  formally  settled  the  proceeding against Mrs Dunn, she has conveyed her desire to accept Mrs Dunn’s apology and not to continue her claim against her.  However, it is theoretically possible Mrs Dunn could still be proceeded against.

[69]     Mr  Griggs  submitted  that  Mrs  Newton  had  settled  her  claim  against Mrs Dunn and that this settlement precluded her from continuing her claim against Mrs and Mr Leov.   The basis of that submission relates to what is known as the “joint tortfeasor release rule”.  Under that rule, a settlement with one or more joint

tortfeasors  is  a  bar  to  continuing  a  proceeding  against  other  joint  tortfeasors,38

notwithstanding the provisions of s 17 of the Law Reform Act 1936 that permits a plaintiff who obtains judgment against one tortfeasor to pursue proceedings against another person who would have been liable as a joint tortfeasor.

[70]     Mr Griggs’ submission relied on part of Mrs Newton’s evidence in which she had said that when Mrs Dunn apologised Mrs Newton “accepted that apology and [has] no wish to have a continuing claim against her”.39   That statement was made in the context of Mrs Newton saying that all she wanted was for Mrs and Mr Leov to

apologise and that if they did so she would not pursue any other claims against them.

38     Refer Kelliher v Bridges (1911) 31 NZLR 203 (SC); Brooks v NZ Guardian Trust Co Ltd [1994]

2 NZLR 134 (CA) at 138 and Nandro Homes Ltd v Datt HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-6676,

16 March 2009 at [62].

39 Brief of Evidence of Evidence in Reply of LA Newton at [266].

[71]     Mr Fowler addressed Mr Griggs’ “joint tortfeasor release” submission by explaining that he and his client were fully aware of the risks of releasing a joint tortfeasor and had deliberately kept Mrs Dunn in the proceeding as first defendant. Mr Fowler explained that although it was unlikely Mrs Newton would continue with her claim against Mrs Dunn, there was, as a matter of law, no formal settlement of the claim against Mrs Dunn.   Further support for the proposition that Mrs Dunn continues to be a defendant can be seen in a minute of Associate Judge Osborne dated 28 August 2015.  By that stage Mrs Dunn was not taking any active step in the proceeding.  Leave was granted to Mrs and Mr Leov to bring a cross-claim against

her if they wished.40    They did not do so, but nevertheless Mrs Dunn remained a

party.

[72]     In my assessment, the joint tortfeasor release rule is only engaged where there has been a clear and unambiguous settlement of a claim by the plaintiff against one or more joint tortfeasors so as to release the remaining joint tortfeasors from any ongoing liability.41    The implications of the joint tortfeasor release rule are so significant that it should only be invoked where there has been an unequivocal settlement with one or more joint tortfeasors.42    That normally would be done by way of a formal settlement and the filing of a notice of discontinuance.  That has not happened  and  although  Mrs  Newton  currently  has  no  wish  to  continue  her proceeding  against  Mrs  Dunn,  she  has  not  formally  settled  her  claim  against Mrs Dunn, who continues to be a defendant in this proceeding.  For this reason, I am satisfied the joint tortfeasor release rule does not apply in the circumstances of this case.

The pleadings

[73]     In her third amended statement of claim Mrs Newton alleges the passages from the letters of 10 September and 8 October 2012 set out in paragraphs [58] and

40     Newton v Dunn HC Blenheim CIV-2012-406-272, 28 August 2015 (Minute of Associate Judge

Osborne) at [4](b).

41     Duck v Mayeu [1892] 2 QB 511 (CA); New Zealand Trainers Association Inc v Cranson HC Wellington AP14/98, 22 March 1999; National Insurance Life and Health Ltd v Wayman HC

Auckland AP135/99, 7 April 2000; Nandro Homes Ltd v Datt, above n 38, at [63].

42     In New Zealand Trainers Association Inc v Cranson, above n 41, the Court went even further at

7 where it stated: “Courts nowadays are reluctant to construe an agreement with one tortfeasor as a release rather than a covenant not to sue, unless it is plain that the agreement was intended by the plaintiff to operate also as a release of other joint tortfeasors from their liability”.

[63] of this judgment are defamatory.  It also explains what Mrs Newton says are the natural and ordinary meaning of the statements in question.  Aspects of the meaning of the alleged defamatory statements are disputed.  That dispute is addressed in Part IV of this judgment, in which I analyse the meaning of the statements identified by Mrs Newton as being defamatory.

[74]     In her pleading Mrs Newton initially sought $350,000 general damages and

$50,000 punitive damages in relation to the 10 September 2012 letter and the same sums in respect of the 8 October 2012 letter.   She also sought a recommendation from the Court that Mrs and Mr Leov publish an apology and correction of the matters that are the thrust of this proceeding.

[75]     Mr Fowler informed me that Mrs Newton’s primary objective was to obtain a recommendation that Mrs and Mr Leov apologise and correct the defamatory statements for which they were responsible.  He said that if such a recommendation was made and not complied with, then Mrs Newton would seek general damages limited to $100,000 together with solicitor and client costs.  I return to consider the terms of relief in Part VII of this judgment.

[76]     It is now necessary to focus upon the role Mrs and Mr Leov played in the publication of the letters of 10 September and 8 October 2012.   That task is undertaken in Part III of this judgment.

PART III PUBLICATION

[77]     It is a basic tenant of the law of defamation that, in order to be liable, it must be established that the defendant published the statement in question to some person,

other than the plaintiff.43     Each  repetition of a  defamatory statement  is a fresh

43     Powell v Gelston [1916] 2 KB 615 at 619; Pullman v Hill 1 QB 524 (CA) at 528 and Stephen Todd (ed) The Law of Torts in New Zealand (7th ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2016) at [16.5.01].

publication and creates a fresh cause of action.44   Lord Denning explained this aspect of the law of defamation in the following way:45

Our English law does not love tale-bearers.  If the report or rumour was true, let [the defendant] justify it.  If it was not true, [the defendant] ought not to have repeated it or aided its circulation.  He must answer for it as if he had started it himself.

[78]     In the present case, the letters of 10 September and 8 October 2012 were sent by Mrs Dunn to approximately 50 recipients.  Mrs and Mr Leov can only be held to have published those letters if they either authorised or participated in the sending of the letters by Mrs Dunn.

[79]     The contention that Mrs and Mr Leov authorised or assisted Mrs Dunn to publish the letters of 10 September and 8 October 2012 requires an examination of two interrelated legal concepts.

[80]     First, under the law of agency, a Principal, by word or conduct may confer authority to act on the Principal’s behalf.  This authority “may be either express or implied, and may arise by the Principal permitting the agent to act in some way in the conduct of the Principal’s business with other persons.”46

[81]     Second, is the concept of the liability of co or joint publishers under the law of  defamation.    That  concept  provides  that  “where  a  defamation  proceeding  is brought against two or more defendants who participated in or authorised the same publication, … each defendant is liable for the whole of the damage caused to the claimant”.47      This  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  “accessory  liability”,  which  was

explained in the following way by the High Court of Australia in Webb v Bloch,48 in

which Isaacs J said:49

All who are in any degree accessory to publication of a libel, and by any means whatever conduce to the publication, are to be considered as [P]rincipals in the act of publication:   thus if one suggest illegal matter in

44     Truth (New Zealand) Ltd v Holloway [1961] NZLR 22 (PC) at 25-26; Simunovich Fisheries Ltd v Television New Zealand Ltd [2008] NZCA 350 at [74] and [93]-[94].

45     Associated Newspapers Ltd v Dingle [1964] AC 371 (HL) at 410-411.

46     Pascoe Properties Ltd v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 616, [2015] NZAR 457 (CA) at 464.

47     Matthew Collins Collins on Defamation (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014) at [4.39].

48     Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331.

49     At 364.

order that another may write or print it, and that a third may publish it, all are equally amenable to the act of publication when it has been so effected.

[82]     Thus, “[a]t common law, responsibility for publication extends beyond the authors of defamatory statements to all who composed and participated in the preparation and communication of the statement …”.50

[83]     In his comprehensive submissions Mr Griggs argued that the passage from Webb v Bloch that I set out in paragraph [81] was modified by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland in Thiess v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd (No 5).51

Mr Griggs submitted that Thiess stands for the proposition that a defendant cannot be held liable as an accessory to a publication unless he is “shown to have exercised control over its final form”.52   Mr Griggs relied on the observations of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland when they said that at most, the defendant in that case, “… played a subsidiary and intermediate, if important, part in the creation of  the  product  that  in  its  finished  state  ultimately  went  to  air”.53      Mr  Griggs submitted that Mrs and Mr Leov did not exercise control over the final form of the letters of 10 September and 8 October 2012, and that at most they may have played “a subsidiary and intermediate … part in the creation of the …” letters, thereby bringing them within what Mr Griggs described as the “Thiess exception” to Webb v Bloch.

[84]     Mr Griggs submitted that the approach taken in Thiess had been followed in Purcell v Cruising Yacht Club of Australasia54 and endorsed by the authors of Gatley on Libel and Slander.55

[85]     There are two reasons why I do not agree with Mr Griggs’ submission that the law articulated by the High Court of Australia in Webb v Bloch and which I have cited in paragraph [81] has been modified in the way he suggests.

50     Matthew Collins, above n 47, at [4.36] citing R v Payne (1695) 5 Mod 163 (KB) at 167; 87 ER

584 at 586-587 and Webb v Bloch, above n 48.

51     Thiess v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (No 5) [1994] 1 Qd R 156 (QSC) at 194.

52     At 195.

53     At 195.

54     Purcell v Cruising Yacht Club of Australasia [2001] NZWSC 927.

55     Alastair Mullis and Richard Parkes Gatley on Libel and Slander (12th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2013) at [6.11].

[86]     First, an examination of Thiess reveals that the issue in that case was not whether the defendant “published some, but whether he published all, of the matter supporting the defamatory imputations”.56   The way the “co-publisher” question was put to the jury in that case was questionable.  Nevertheless, that case was confined to a  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  defendant  was  a  co-publisher  because  he published all of the material in question.

[87]     Second, the learned authors of Gatley on Libel and Slander explain Thiess in the following way:57

A person who provides material or even participates in a television programme is not necessarily a co-publisher with the television company for the whole programme.

(Emphasis added)

[88]     The statement in Gatley on Libel and Slander explaining Thiess accurately sets out the law governing co-publishers, namely that it is a question of fact in each case as to whether or not a defendant “procured” or “participated” in the publication of the statements in question so as to render him or her liable as a co-publisher for any defamation.58   Neither Thiess or Purcell modify this explanation of the law.

The facts concerning publication by Mrs and Mr Leov

[89]     Both the agency and co or joint publisher concepts hinge upon the facts.  It is necessary therefore to ascertain exactly what role Mrs and Mr Leov played in the publication of the letters of 10 September and 8 October 2012.  To do so it has been necessary to carefully examine dozens of emails sent between Mrs Leov and Mrs Dunn.   Those emails are comprehensive and provide a reasonably clear window through which to see the respective roles of Mrs Dunn and Mrs and Mr Leov in the publication of the letters in question.  The following analysis refers to just a small

portion of the total number of emails that they exchanged.

56     Thiess v TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd (No 5), above n 51, at 195.

57     Alastair Mullis and Richard Parkes, above n 55, at n 82.

58     At [6.11].

Initial correspondence

[90]     At an early stage in their relationship Mrs Dunn wrote to Mrs Leov setting out her initial proposal to write a book.  In that letter, which appears to have been written before the terms of the contract were agreed to, Mrs Dunn explained how she would need to undertake research and interviews until she had “pried open every possible door” and had enough material to make the book “one to be reckoned with”. At some stage after Mrs Dunn wrote that letter, Mrs and Mr Leov agreed to the terms

of the contract which said Mrs Dunn would:59

… conduct all research and interviews necessary for the writing of this story. [Mrs Leov would] advise on suitable participants and [would] provide any resources and materials that may assist the writer …

Correspondence concerning the draft letter

[91]     On 6 August 2012, Mrs Dunn interviewed Mrs and Mr Leov.   As noted earlier,  the  transcript  of  that  interview  is  laced  with  vitriolic  comments  about Mrs Newton that emanated from Mrs Dunn and Mrs and Mr Leov.  In that interview, Mrs Leov discussed the need to interview people connected with the School and library.    Early  in  the  interview,  Mrs  Leov  warned  Mrs  Dunn  not  to  contact Mrs Billingsley  until  “the  end  because  she  was  the  person  who  was  telling everybody not to speak to anybody”.  Towards the end of the interview, Mrs Leov agreed to supply the names, addresses and telephone numbers of people associated with the library and the School whom Mrs Dunn should contact.  Mrs Leov assisted Mrs Dunn in this task when, on 19 August 2012, she sent an email to Mrs Dunn which set out a list of people whom Mrs Dunn should contact.   The email was followed  by  another  email  on  20 August  2012  from  Mrs  Leov  to  Mrs  Dunn, suggesting she contact Mr and Mrs Crabtree, who were her supporters.

[92]     On 30 August 2012, Mrs Dunn sent a draft letter to Mrs and Mr Leov under cover of an email in which she warned Mrs Leov that the draft letter would probably “shock” her.  Mrs Dunn emphasised the letter was “to go to everyone” and that it

would “stir things up” but that she was “ready”.

59     Writing Agreement between Mrs Dunn and Mrs and Mr Leov (undated) at 4(I).

[93]     In  a  return  email  on  31  August  2012,  Mrs  Leov  said  that  she  trusted Mrs Dunn and indicated that some of Mrs Dunn’s letters would need to be posted and she would provide the addresses.  The following day Mrs Leov said in an email to Mrs Dunn that she needed to talk to Mrs Billingsley before the letters were sent because she would advise people not to talk to Mrs Dunn.   The following day Mrs Leov sent a further email to Mrs Dunn saying that Mr Leov was going through the draft letter and that the main source of concern for him was the way Mr Hodges was portrayed.  Later, on 2 September 2012 Mrs Leov emailed Mrs Dunn saying that “in the main” she and Mr Leov were happy with the letter.  The only part of the letter that caused concern were comments about Mr Hodges’ conduct.   Mrs Leov acknowledged this letter would “stir things up” and that she needed to know “when [Mrs  Dunn]  started to send  it” as  Mrs  Leov  needed  to  talk  to  Mrs  Billingsley beforehand  to  ensure  she  did  not  “scuttle  it  all”.   At  the  time,  Mrs  Leov  also expressed some concern about sending the letter to everyone. A copy of Mrs Dunn’s draft letter appears to have been sent back to her under cover of Mrs Leov’s email with a passage relating to Mr Hodges highlighted.

[94]     On 3 September 2012, Mrs Dunn sent an email to Mrs Leov saying that she would make the suggested amendments regarding Mr Hodges.  Mrs Dunn explained why she considered it necessary to send the letter to everyone except for those whom Mrs Leov was particularly concerned about.   Mrs Dunn said that she was “still compiling additional names to include and would like to have a comprehensive final list ready to be sent to everyone within the next week if possible” and she still required  Mrs  Leov’s  help  with  locating  addresses.    Mrs Dunn  explained  that everyone would receive the letter “pretty much at the same time” and the responses would give Mrs Dunn “an idea of how to plan” her proposed visit to Rai Valley, to interview those who were important to talk to.  Later that day Mrs Leov responded to Mrs Dunn saying that she and Mr Leov “were happy with that” and commented how nice it was for Mrs Dunn to include a personal note in the letter to Mrs Leov’s supporters.

[95]     On 7 September 2012 Mrs Dunn sent an email to Mrs Leov saying she was “nearly there with the collation of addresses” but that there were “a number that [were] still being illusive” (sic) and that Mrs Dunn needed Mrs Leov’s help to obtain

the “illusive” (sic) addresses.   Mrs Dunn also asked for a list of the people who should  receive a personal  note from  Mrs  Dunn with  the letter.    Later  that  day Mrs Leov responded saying she was “happy to help out with addresses” and that she would  highlight  the  names  of  those  who  should  receive  a  personal  note  from Mrs Dunn.  Later on the same day Mrs Leov sent another email to Mrs Dunn saying she had a “quick look through the list” of the addresses that were required, and could “complete most of it”.  On 9 September 2012, Mrs Leov emailed Mrs Dunn a list of the addresses of the intended recipients of Mrs Dunn’s letter. Three minutes later she sent another list of recipients’ addresses to Mrs Dunn.

[96]     On  11  September  2012,  Mrs  Leov  responded  to  communications  from Mrs Dunn saying that she would look at another list which Mrs Dunn appears to have sent to her.  Pertinently, Mrs Leov remarked that she hoped the letter that was to be sent by Mrs Dunn “[would not] sabotage the spring fete” that she was helping to organise in Rai Valley.  The following day Mrs Dunn replied, thanking Mrs Leov for the recipients addresses.  Mrs Dunn said that the last thing she would want was to “sabotage the spring fete” but that it was urgent to get the letters out.  She said there was “never a best time for something such as this” and that she would defer her visit to Rai Valley until after the spring fete as the “combination of the letter and the fete [would] have people reflecting”.

[97]      Mrs  Dunn  said  she  wanted  “to  slip  into  the  community  in  a  quiet unobtrusive,   conciliatory   way,   hoping   to   get   more   information   and   maybe unexpected confessions, from those who [were] quietly ashamed of their involvement”.   Mrs Dunn said she hoped the letter would “provoke that shame”. The same day Mrs Leov responded to Mrs Dunn.  In that email Mrs Leov suggested Mrs Dunn send Mrs Payton’s copy of the letter to Mrs Leov for her to hand to Mrs Payton.

Sending the letter of 10 September 2012

[98]     On 14 September 2012 Mrs Leov emailed Mrs Dunn saying, amongst other things, she would look at the “other list” of the recipients Mrs Dunn had sent her. The following day Mrs Leov sent another email to Mrs Dunn, saying “please don’t

send the letter to Rai Valley until” she had a chance to speak to Mrs Billingsley.

Mrs Dunn replied on 16 September 2012:

Oh Faye [Leov] we must have had a misunderstanding.   The letters have been sent and will arrive Mon or Tues.  Somehow I thought you were [all ready] to go.  Might be best to get in touch with [Mrs Billingsley] today or early tomorrow.  So sorry for confusion.  It will be ok.

[99]     Mrs Leov’s response read:

Can’t.  She is away today.  Oh no.  It will be like putting the letters in a fire. If she says no don’t talk no-one will.  I think I did ask you to let me know before you sent them …

[100]   Mrs Dunn then said:

Just a thought Faye [Leov].   Perhaps it is better for you to disassociate yourself from [the] letter. Leave me to take ownership of that.

[101]   Later on 16 September 2012 Mrs Leov emailed Mrs Dunn saying she had spoken to Mrs Billingsley who confirmed that if the letter was inflammatory and appeared to be written on behalf of Mrs Leov then recipients “could close ranks” and the outcome would then “depend on how” Mrs Dunn “handled it”.   Mrs Dunn’s response was:

Sometimes there is no easy way to bring justice and I know this well from past experience. All will be ok.  I would not wish to sabotage anything and I think if we just take it quietly the letter will have surprising results.  Hang in there.  I think you might be surprised who will talk.  Nothing in the letter implicates you or [Mr Leov] at all …

[102]   Mrs  Leov  sent  two  further  emails  to  Mrs  Dunn  on  the  evening  of

16 September 2012.    One of those  emails  contained a list  of people who were thought to be supporters of Mrs Newton.

[103]   Hard copies of the letter dated 10 September 2012 started to be received by its intended recipients on Monday 17 September 2012.  That day Mrs Theilen-Shaw, a former teacher at the school and supporter of Mrs Leov, sent an email to Mrs Dunn saying she had received the letter and provided her email contact address.  A similar email  was  sent  to  Mrs  Dunn  on  the  same  day  by  Mrs  Dellabosca,  another  of

Mrs Leov’s  supporters.    Mrs  Dunn  received  other  replies  from  people  in  the

Rai Valley community willing to talk to her.

[104]   On 18 September 2012 Mrs Leov sent two emails to Mrs Dunn, one of which said:

… The letters have reached Rai Valley.  People are extremely angry.  They say it is inflammatory and could be suable.  Many will not talk.  The school is furious.  All most people are interested in, is who instigated this – and [what] they will do [to] them.  They are having problems finding out who started it though because of the notes you have put on the cover letters but they realise that you have talked to people and you have a lot of information. I do wish you had waited until after the fete as I wanted …

[105]   In the second email Mrs Leov asked Mrs Dunn whether the letter had been sent to Bishop Ellena.  Later that day Mrs Dunn sent Mrs Leov a reply, encouraging her to “hold fast” and that “[Mrs] Newton needs to be stopped urgently”.

[106]   It was at about this time Mrs Billingsley met with Mrs Leov.  Mrs Billingsley said that Mrs Leov was distressed and upset by the contents of the letter and concerned the letter had not been approved by Mr Fletcher before it was sent.

[107]   On 21 September 2012, Mrs Leov emailed Mrs Dunn with the contact details of a person who had not received the letter and who Mrs Leov described as being “pivotal to the story”.60    On 22 September 2012, Mrs Leov sent another email to Mrs Dunn asking if  the  letter should  be sent  to  two  of Mrs  Leov’s  supporters, Ms Nancarrow and Mrs Freeth.  Mr Dunn responded the following day saying she would send copies of the letter to “all [who Mrs Leov] suggest[ed] although some of them were already sent [copies] in the first batch”.  Later that day Mrs Leov asked Mrs Dunn how much she was owed under the terms of the contract.

[108]   In an email dated 28 September 2012, Mrs Leov said to Mrs Dunn that she had:

… no problem with people knowing it was me who gave you the information initially.  As you know I have been through much worse than this … [We] still have our dignity and still believe this is the right thing to do.

60     Mrs Leov had also provided two more names on 18 September 2012 by email.

Letters of 1 and 8 October 2012

[109]   On 1 October 2012, the day Mrs Dunn wrote to the Bishop of Nelson and others  connected  with  the Anglican  Church  in  the  Nelson-Marlborough  region, Mrs Dunn sent Mrs Leov an email explaining that she was deferring her trip to Rai Valley until the end of October because she had received a lot of material that required consideration.   In that email Mrs Dunn referred to having made contact “with the church and others [Mrs Leov] suggested”.  Mrs Leov responded later that day and provided further contact details for people who Mrs Dunn should contact. Mrs Dunn sent a copy of the 10 September 2012 letter to one of the persons referred to in Mrs Leov’s 1 October 2012 email the following day.

[110] On 8 October 2012, Mrs Dunn sent a further letter to people in the Rai Valley community the key parts of which I have set out in paragraph [63]. The recipients of that letter were many of the same people who received the 10 September 2012 letter. In her 8 October 2012 letter Mrs Dunn said she was taking precautions to protect her safety. Mrs Leov emailed Mrs Dunn the next day saying she had just read Mrs Dunn’s letter “to everyone” and that she was glad Mrs Dunn was taking precautions. Mrs Leov warned Mrs Dunn that Mrs Newton and her supporters would go on the offensive.

Correspondence after 8 October 2012

[111]   On 10 October 2012, Mr Radich sent his letter to Mrs Dunn advising his firm was acting for Mrs Newton and that her letter of 10 September 2012 was highly defamatory.

[112]   In an email Mrs Leov sent Mrs Dunn on 12 October 2012, she referred to advice she had received from Mr Fletcher.  According to Mrs Leov, Mr Fletcher was concerned by the reference to Hitler and that this was “the biggest bullying case in New Zealand” in Mrs Dunn’s letter.  Mrs Leov said to Mrs Dunn:

If you had said one of the biggest cases and made no mention of Hitler it

would be different … [Mr Fletcher] is going to work with you direct …

[113]   Later that day Mrs Leov told Mrs Dunn that Mr Fletcher wanted to know who got the letters.  He had said if it was only those involved then that “would be a plus for us”. Mrs Dunn responded:

My reference may not have been to Hitler, but if so I was alluding to the same scenario started with bullying tactics.   I did say possibly one of the worst cases to surface, “not the worst case in NZ”.  I am willing to defend those comments to the hilt.  The actual letter was sent to all those who had connections with the Rai Valley Story at some stage, even Educational and government officials.  On advice I did send a personal letter to Bishop Ellena and two ministers in order to address the harm perpetrated in the church and safeguard the lives of others.  I will also defend that action.

[114]   Mrs Leov responded to Mrs Dunn saying that according to Mr Fletcher, because  the  letter  had  “not  been  published  to  every  Tom,  Dick  and  Harry Mrs Newton’s  reputation  [had]  not  been  harmed”.     According  to  Mrs  Leov, Mr Fletcher was confident that the contents of the letter were not defamatory as they had “the proof for all except Hitler and biggest bullying case but that could probably be proven as well”.

[115]   For completeness it is to be observed that in an email to Mrs Dunn on

7 November  2012,  Mrs  Leov  suggested  Mr  Fletcher  “sped  read”  the  letter  of

10 September 2012.  On 15 November 2012 Mrs Leov told Mrs Dunn she would pay her a further $7,500 pursuant to their contract.   Three days later Mrs Leov told Mrs Dunn that another supporter of Mrs Leov’s wanted a copy of the 10 September letter.  Mrs Leov said she would send a copy of that letter to that person.

Role of Mrs and Mr Leov publishing the letters of 10 September and 8 October 2012

[116]   The materials that have been made available to me, and in particular, the contemporaneous emails lead me to the following conclusions.

[117]   Prior to 1 September 2012, Mrs and Mr Leov knew that Mrs Dunn had prepared a draft letter. Prior to 16 September 2012, Mrs and Mr Leov knew this letter would go to approximately 50 recipients who were, in the main, connected to the Rai Valley community and the School.   There were three concerns that Mrs and Mr Leov had with the draft letter.   The first was that they did not like the way Mr Hodges had been portrayed.  On the other hand, they had no difficulties with the

way Mrs Newton was vilified in the draft letter.   Second, Mrs Leov conveyed her desire  the  letter  not  be  sent  until  she  had  had  an  opportunity  to  talk  to Mrs Billingsley.      This   was   a   tactical   concern.      Mrs   Leov   did   not   want Mrs Billingsley adopting an unsympathetic stance towards the letter and for her to dissuade others from assisting Mrs Dunn.  Mrs Leov’s concerns in this respect were not in the slightest bit related to the way the draft letter portrayed Mrs Newton. Third, Mrs Leov was also concerned the letter not be sent prior to the Rai Valley spring fete which was scheduled to be held around 23 September 2012.  Again, this was purely a tactical concern unrelated to the actual content of the letter.

[118]   The letter of 10 September 2012 was sent by Mrs Dunn to its recipients on about 12 September 2012 and received by them around 17 and 18 September 2012. The  letter  was  not  exactly  the  same  as  the  draft  letter.    Of  the  14  allegedly defamatory statements contained in the letter that was actually sent, eight can be traced to the draft letter.

[119]   Thus, while she expressed some ambivalence about the timing of the sending of the 10 September letter, Mrs Leov was content for Mrs Dunn to send that letter to a number of recipients.  The letter of 10 September contained eight key passages that were in the draft letter that Mrs and Mr Leov had carefully considered.

[120] After the first batch of the 10 September letters were sent, Mrs Leov encouraged and facilitated Mrs Dunn sending the same letter to a small number of people.  Mrs Leov provided Mrs Dunn with the contact details for those recipients. In one case Mrs Leov said she herself sent the letter to a recipient.   By this stage Mrs Leov was fully aware of the contents of the 10 September letter and was willing for it to be sent to further recipients.

In the last few months I have carried out an independent investigation, and my findings are both alarming and heart-breaking.  What was to be an investigation of an isolated incident, soon turned into something quite different.   Case after case, began to arrive on my desk, revealing the magnitude of this mass perpetration of harm.  This is undoubtedly the worst story of workplace bullying to surface in a New Zealand community, and in particular, within a small school.  All the documentation and evidence, and the official records of the facts, point to a school and community being systematically divided and broken, by a ruthless  and  unwell  saboteur.    That  saboteur,  often  disguised  as  someone  doing  good, literally sacrificed the wellbeing of your children, and numerous fine teachers, in order to satisfy her own appetite for, controlling, degrading and breaking, human life.  Unfortunately, only loyal followers were deemed worthy enough to escape her attention, and along with the support of those who joined her in her crusade, she took the library and the school to its knees.  What was it she wanted to achieve?  What pleasure could anyone gain from leaving such a legacy of shame?  More so, what did you have to do, to have yourself singled out as a target?  The truth is sad and pathetic, and would almost be laughable, if it hadn’t resulted in so much devastation for so many.  If you were good at what you did, aimed for excellence, opposed any wrong doing, told the truth, held a position of responsibility, got a public or official pat on the back from someone, were popular, or you simply created something

lovely and were noticed for it, this would be enough.  This made you an instant target.  A bully will not share their glory with another, and the Rai Valley bully was no exception.  She systematically set about the insidious degradation, public humiliation and in some cases, complete destruction of human lives that saw through her, or received the “back patting” that she so hungered for.  Unfortunately her appetite became insatiable and it is only now, we are able to see the full extent of her harming behaviour.

I understand that there have been many attempts to point the finger elsewhere, but in the face of evidence, that is impossible.  Understandably some members of the community wanted to heal the wounds that have torn their community apart, in any way they could, but hiding the truth only leaves the blame where it does not belong, and applying superficial band aids, does not heal.  This only serves to cover what lies beneath.  Hiding the truth has become a practised art in Rai Valley but it has only served to inflame the already, festering wound.  It is not my intention to bring further harm to the community of Rai Valley, but it is my intention to explore the real story, so healing can be ministered to all those who need it.  I trust you will read this with an open mind, and accept the honourable intentions of this letter, which is simply to uncover the truth, so the community and the parties involved can put things right and move on.

Hello. My name is Susan Dunn.

As a writer I find solace in knowing, that when it is needed, the pen can indeed, be mightier than the sword.  I trust this gives you the same hope it affords me.  When all else fails, and things go wrong, we can turn to the pen and the use of our voice to get the truth out, and put things right.  When those who should listen won’t, and we have frustrated every avenue of recourse open to us, then we must tell the story to a wider forum, and ask that forum for their verdict.

With that in mind, I am seeking to put a voice to something that has gone horribly wrong for many people in Rai Valley.  This is a very serious matter and many lives, including yours, depend upon its outcome.

I am therefore humbly and respectfully asking for your help.  My current work is to author a book that looks at a topical issue (often silenced) that affects all New Zealanders.  My wish is for this book to also serve as a forum of redress for all those severely harmed in the Rai Valley story.   The issue I am speaking of, is workplace bullying, and in this case, serial workplace bullying.  It is my intention to cover the strange events that led to a community breakdown, in what was formally an idyllic, peaceful, caring, fun loving, and family orientated community. We have the facts.  Now we need to put the human face to the story.

I have decided to send all parties the same request, and out of respect and support for the courageous people who have looked for suitable remedies to fight this harm, I have opened this up for public debate. These people have been ignored and treated shabbily, by their own community, and by the organisations who stonewalled their attempts to get justice. At every turn individuals were met with official silences, refusals and often, blatant cover-ups.  The question remains.   How did one person manage to evade an honest scrutiny by the organisations who were repeatedly informed of the problems that existed?   Why did the RVAS Board of Trustees, The Education Review Office, The Teachers Council, The Ministry of Education, The Statutory Managers, The School Trustees Association, NZEI Te Rui Road, the local MP’s, four Ministers of Education, The Privacy Commissioner and OSH turn their backs on these people, when there were so many of them reporting harm and asking for help?  How could the affairs and actions and failures of Loretta M Newton (Muff Newton), reported by so  many, be  duly ignored.   For those of you who receive this letter as a representative of these organisations, could you please respond as appropriate for your part in this matter?   It is of course your choice to respond in either an official or non-official capacity, or not to respond at all.  If you would prefer, please make contact with me if you wish to discuss this further.   I would however, deem it in your best interests, to offer the people of Rai Valley and a very interested New Zealand public, an explanation for actions or non-actions taken at the time.  Failure to do so could be constituted as a determination to maintain this sophisticated wall of silence and denial that enable this appalling harm to continue unabated in the first place.  I understand this is a difficult situation, and many of you have careers to protect, but what of all the people in the Rai Valley who have lost theirs. What if this had happened to you?  Your responses and understanding are also part of the human story.  Many of you did not respond according to the requirements of your positions. Why?  Were you afraid for your positions?  Were you taken in by the Newton lie, and so dismissed the victim’s requests for help?   Did you feel you did a good job in the circumstances, or did you simply not take the time to care?  You may have felt ill equipped to deal with such allegations, or it could have been a lack of understanding of the effects and seriousness of bullying in a workplace that lead to your decisions.  In any case I would very much like to hear your thoughts.  We need both sides of the human story documented for public  debate.    No  longer will this  remain  in  the quiet  paper  shuffling,  side  stepping, official/unofficial “closed door” forum.  This is about human beings lives and this is serious. I trust those of you who originally failed to see the gravity of this situation, will now be

prepared to issue apologies and acknowledge the need to look at suitable remedies for those harmed.

I am sending this letter to those who have suffered harm, to the alleged perpetrator, L Newton, (you have a right to tell your story) to those perceived as her supporters, and those who have been caught up in this mess and found themselves taking sides, by accident or design.  To all of you I would like to say.  This book is going to be written, but its final verdict and how you are presented to NZ, depends on you.   I need your stories, your thoughts, and your feelings.   It is time to look at this objectively and come up with a solution.  Let’s explore what really happened, and be big enough to learn from it.  I know you all wish the community to return to the way it was.  That is also my wish.  Help me find the truth and help the Valley heal.

Sadly we have to face what has happened.   There have been grave allegations, and documented evidence of serious bullying in the Rai Valley School and Library.  This was finally  identified  and  acknowledged  by  a  Ministry  appointed  school  commissioner, Claudia Wysocki, but whether these events happened as a matter of omission, or deliberate commission, is still open for debate.

My main concern is around events that took place in the Rai Valley Area School and Library, particularly during the years the school was under the leadership of Mrs Loretta M. Newton. (Muff) and the then RVAS Board of Trustees.  There are other major players whom I haven’t named for now, but you will know who you are.  I will acknowledge there was an apology issued by Jonathon Hodges, on behalf of the BOT, as directed by the employment court, for the significant harm and division caused by the dismissal of the school’s librarian. This must surely have been a joke.   What happened in response?   The bully was once [a]gain left unscathed.   This should have had the whole community acknowledging the terrible harm perpetrated,  but  instead,  many  still  refused  to  see,  and  as  had  been  the  pattern,  the perpetrator continued to enjoy her life while others lost theirs.   This apology, although maybe well meant, did nothing to explain the damage perpetrated by what seemed to be an unholy and damaging alliance formed between The BOT under Jonathon Hodges, and Muff Newton.   In fact there seemed to have been many unhealthy alliances formed with Mrs Newton from various quarters, over her period of Principalship, with catastrophic effects on the lives of the many victims.   However the evidence I have, does seem to suggest that Jonathon Hodges and some of his Board of Trustees did appear to genuinely accept that Muff Newton had deceived them about the real situation, and they endeavoured to rectify their wrongdoings.  This was unfortunately too little and way too late.   Sadly because of their inactions much was lost and many people were hurt.

We have here, a very unusual story.   This story could have been avoided, if all those involved had been equipped, both to do their job adequately, and to let human decency prevail.

As I sat in my office reading the mountains of paperwork, gathered through months of investigation, I was appalled at the sinister story emerging.  These documents I had before me were detailed accounts of the official and unofficial journeys of the many people who have suffered irrevocable harm through the actions of this one school [P]rincipal.

These documents also tell a story of the many who were caught up in the lies and deceit. These people became pawns in the game and sanctioned and endorsed her behaviour.  I do feel for some of you as the further you got yourselves in, the harder it was to get out.

This book will simply explore what really happened in Rai Valley, not only to get justice for the victims and restore peace, but also to show New Zealanders that work place bullying is still accepted in the fabric of the New Zealand workplace.   More education is needed.

Bullying can have serious and tragic consequences.  Adults as well as children need our protection.  A bully is no respecter of persons.  They will strike when and where they will. No one is immune.  It is a fallacy to think that only the weak will be targeted.  It is more often the good, the kind, the successful, and the well-liked that attract attention.  The next victim could be you.

It is most certainly happening in other organisations as I am writing this. This is inexcusable and it is time for New Zealanders to show zero tolerance to the bully in their midst.  It is also time for us to become involved and help those who are being victimised.

While making my way through this case and looking at those of others, it has become evident, that teachers in NZ schools and those who work in educational systems are particularly vulnerable. They are largely unprotected when it comes to redress and they have so much to contend with.  I acknowledge this was an extreme case of workplace bullying, but it may not be an isolated case.  What happened here had such a devastating effect on many of the staff, community volunteers, pupils and parents that were connected to, or worked at the Rai Valley Area School or the Community Library, that it must be examined and made public.

I  will  also  closely  scrutinise  why  so  many  Educational  organisations  and  government officials failed to listen and respond appropriately, to those requesting help.   As a consequence they either knowingly or unwittingly, let a serial bully dish out serious harm to those victims, without any restraint or accountability.  This all happened, unbelievably, in one of our beautiful New Zealand rural communities, and of course this has had far reaching consequences for the whole population in the Rai Valley area, and beyond.

So what can be done? We need to ask questions, find answers and ensure this behaviour will never again be tolerated in our communities.  One bullying incident is one too many, but this case is even more shocking, as one person spirals out of control and gets away with serial harming, and her own special brand of “in-house terrorism”.  How could anyone get away with such a thing in New Zealand?  Why did her friends and allies not see?  Why did they rally to her side and watch others’ lives being broken by her actions.  Why were some so bewitched by her wiles, they took a stand against their own close colleagues, lifelong friends and even family members in support of this one person?  In short how has she been believed to such an extent that people have fallen at her feet in a show of faithful allegiance?

There was once a charismatic figure who managed to rally a whole nation to horrifically torture and gas fellow human beings on mass.   Nations have been stunned for decades, asking, how could this happen.  I will tell you how.  It started with one small man, a bully, who had a personal mandate to destroy those who challenged his feelings of inferiority.  The trouble is, as success grows, so does the power and the appetite for it.  Before we know it we are dealing with the need for mass extermination.  Serial bullies are no different.  They may play in a smaller field but their handiwork can be just as devastating.

Some of you may wonder why I have chosen to pursue this story, and why I will do so relentlessly until the truth is told.   It is because the more I uncover, the more I realise I cannot remain silent.   This appears to be one of the most extreme cases of a workplace/community bully, to come to light in New Zealand, and for those of you, or your family members, who were harmed in any way, or accused of harming, this is your opportunity to tell your story.  This is not about a witch hunt.  It is about Justice – something New Zealanders have always believed in, but often failed to deliver.  I want to uphold the right for ordinary New Zealanders to at least be given a hearing.

Will you help me bring this story together?   I would like to give you this opportunity to share your understanding of what you know.  I would love you to send me a summary of

your human story.  What did you see happening?  Were you harmed?  Were you unwittingly involved in perpetrating harm?  Did you see others harmed and fail to act?  Has this affected your life and how?  Why do you think this happened?  Who do you think was responsible? Were there others involved?  It is important to note that I already have many facts, and much damning evidence, but this is your chance to tell your story, in your words.  I am looking for the human cost factor, the heart of the story.  It is a chance for all to acknowledge what has happened.  It is time to take responsibility if you have done harm, or been involved with those who have, and let others hear your side of the story.

You may contact me by email at  [email protected], send your material to my physical address, or if you wish to speak with me personally, please email and I will arrange a time to meet with you, if appropriate.  Please feel free to express anything you wish, and do say if you want to give me some information but don’t want your story, or your name implicated in this publication.  You may not feel you can write formally but any notes, thoughts or even scribbles would be very much appreciated.  I would love to give you a voice.  If you would rather not write, but would like a phone call, could you email and tell me a little bit about you, and if applicable, I will endeavour to phone you in the next few weeks.

Please tell me all you can, so I can tell the reader all I know.   This devastating situation could arise in any workplace or community,  and  this could  have  happened to  anyone, anywhere.  This is not just about Rai Valley.  It is also about New Zealanders starting to talk about the nature of bullying and its catastrophic effects in our communities.   Too many productive lives are being lost in this country, and many, especially those who are in power, continue to turn a blind eye.  We need to serve notice to the bullies that enough is enough. We are entitled to enjoyment of life in our communities, our workplaces, our schools and other organisations.  Is it time to make bullying a criminal offence? What do you think?  My hope is this publication will force a look at present legislation, and will finally get some answers as to why our systems for protection and justice are so ineffectual.  We want action for change on a national level, and especially at a legislative level.  This is not a story about the weak.  This is a story about brave people who tried to understand what was happening, and fought back.  This work hopes to address the need to bring this out in the open.  Not only does a situation such as this create an unsafe place for the victims, but the silence surrounding the issue gives the bully free and continuing reign.   Therefore all the organisations that failed to act created an environment that enabled this bully’s behaviour to escalate out of control.

We must try and understand the nature of a bully.  They have low self-esteem, possibly have serious relationship difficulties, often harbour feelings of intense jealousy, and could be, in most respects, be deemed mentally unwell and humanly inept, but socially charming to some.  It is also common for a bully to gather in allies with an overuse of this charm coupled with subtle deceit. These allies subsequently become enlisted as pawns in the game to harm, that diminishes and finally destroys the lives of others.   A serious bullying episode will ensure that the target is slowly humiliated, disempowered and publically diminished, until they can no longer function adequately in their place of work and or in fact anywhere.  Loss of physical and emotional health is often the outcome, along with loss of career and income. It is not unknown for victims to take their own life.  Alarmingly the situation in Rai Valley nearly ended in deaths.  I have documented evidence to support this. This is for real. Would you like this to happen to you?  It is also common for a bully to polarise and destroy former family and friend relationships, through systematic manipulation and lying.  A bully has the charm and charisma to get people to believe them, often resorting to a victim mentality if needed,  to  gather  allies.    More  often  than  not,  they  belong  to  a  church  or  similar organisation, and are seen to be doing good elsewhere.  This is all part of the game.  I would like to ask all of you – DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR.

I know at your very heart you are all good people, so let’s help each other and get this conversation out in the open.  People have been hurt.  Everyone knows that.  Let’s get to the truth, find a compensatory path for those harmed, and get the vehicle for change on the road.

Some of you will be unaware that a commissioner appointed to investigate the situation in Rai Valley Area School, uncovered 18 cases of serious harm perpetrated by one woman. This means 18 lives (that is those identified – there may be many more) in your small community that had no redress at the hands of a sociopathic bully, and suffered serious physical, mental, social, career and monetary loss.  It was very sad that the commissioner passed away before the report was published, and now, full access to its contents are being denied.  The question I keep asking at every turn, is:  WHY?  Why did this happen?  Why didn’t anyone do anything?  Why did officials refuse to act?  Why was the obvious trail of human  destruction  being  ignored,  or  so  carefully  covered  up.     Who  is  protecting Muff Newton and why?  How did she manage to get people to dance to her tune?  Do you think I am being too harsh?  I would like to know what you think.  Any insight you may have would be most welcome.   I don’t wish to be inflammatory.   We just want some answers.

All your information will be treated with total confidentiality unless stated otherwise.  So anything goes.  Please tell it like it is, or was.

Thank you so much for listening to me.  Now I am ready and waiting to listen to you.  I would like to gather your material by September 30th, 2012.  If I do not hear from you within that time frame I will accept that you have chosen not to contribute. And that is totally fine. It is indeed a delicate community matter and you are under no obligation to respond.

For those of you who have aligned yourselves with this bully behaviour, I feel genuinely concerned for you.  I only ask that you give this a fair hearing and you step back to take an objective look.  If you find yourself rushing to pick up the phone to inform Mrs Newton, you probably are understandably feeling scared of being implicated, or it might be you have become one of the “loyal followers and believers”[.]   The only way you can be a true colleague and ally to a person such as this is by employing honesty.  Help her to face the truth.  This would be a kindness.  I will be sending her a copy of this also.  I would like to remind all readers of this document, that this is not fantasy.  I have all the documentation to back up what I am saying.  I believe many of you found yourselves doing and saying things that you are not proud of, as you became aligned with this person. This is your chance to put things right.  I believe Loretta Newton may have recently returned to some form of teaching position and knowing what I now do, I have a concern for the staff, pupils and parents of that school. Who will be the next teacher to fall, or will it be one of your children? Anyone who supported the renewal of Loretta A Newton’s teacher registration must surely be placing themselves and their careers at risk.   At the very least no-one should have endorsed a teacher, who, as indicated by Claudia Wysocki, commissioner, if I understand her comment correctly, did not actually leave the profession of her own volition.  However, that is now in the hands of officials, so let’s see what happens this time.  Forgive my cynicism, but perhaps we  will  only  get  a  verdict  upon  publication  of  the  book,  when  public  opinion  finally demands it.

I look forward to hearing from you all at your earliest convenience.  Remember your stories will remain with me and nothing will be divulged unless your express permission is granted.

Kind regards

Sue Dunn

@The Writer