Slater v Blomfield - [2015] NZCA 562

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA678/2014
[2015] NZCA 562

BETWEEN	CAMERON JOHN SLATER Appellant
AND	MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD Respondent

Hearing:	9 November 2015
Court:	Wild, Miller and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person M G Beresford for Respondent J G Miles QC as Counsel assisting
Judgment:	19 November 2015 at 4 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.

BThe appellant must pay the respondent’s costs calculated as for a standard application for leave to appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

Introduction

The appellant, Mr Slater, operates a blog on the internet which he calls Whale Oil. The respondent, Mr Blomfield, has sued him in the Manukau District Court claiming he has been defamed by material published on the website.
Judge Blackie in the District Court held in an interlocutory ruling that the blog was not a “news medium” as defined in s 68(5) of the Evidence Act 2006.[1] This had the consequence that Mr Slater would not be a “journalist”, and s 68(1) of the Act would not apply.[2] Section 68(1) provides that a journalist who has promised not to disclose an informant’s identity may not be compelled to do so.
[1]Blomfield v Slater DC Manukau CIV-2012-092-1969, 26 September 2013.
[2]Section 68(5) of the Evidence Act 2006 provides that a “journalist” is a person who in the normal course of his or her work may be given information by an informant expecting it to be published in a news medium.
On appeal to the High Court at Auckland, Asher J determined that Whale Oil was a news medium and Mr Slater could properly claim to be a journalist.[3] However, the Judge ruled that the names of his sources should nevertheless be disclosed under s 68(2) of the Evidence Act. This provides:
68 Protection of journalists’ sources
…
(2)A Judge of the High Court may order that subsection (1) is not to apply if satisfied by a party to a civil or criminal proceeding that, having regard to the issues to be determined in that proceeding, the public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity of the informant outweighs—
(a)any likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informant or any other person; and
(b)the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by the news media, and, accordingly also, in the ability of the news media to access sources of facts.
[3]Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221, [2014] 3 NZLR 835 [judgment under appeal].
Mr Slater has filed an appeal against the s 68(2) ruling. He now applies for an order under r 45 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 for leave to adduce further evidence in that appeal.

Background

Mr Blomfield had provided marketing services to Hell Pizza until 2008 and had been a director of the company, Hell Zenjiro Limited (in liquidation) which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Slater v Blomfield

Details

AGLC: Slater v Blomfield [2015] NZCA 562
Case: [2015] NZCA 562
Decision Date: 19 November 2015 at 4 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Slater v Blomfield, Mr. Slater, the operator of the Whale Oil blog, appealed a High Court decision that required him to disclose the identities of his sources under s 68(2) of the Evidence Act 2006. The appeal involved whether Mr. Slater could adduce further evidence to support his application for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the application for leave to adduce further evidence was dismissed as the proposed evidence was not fresh, credible, or cogent.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the evidence Mr. Slater proposed to adduce was fresh, credible, and cogent, and whether it was admissible and relevant. The Court held that the evidence was not fresh as it could have been produced at the trial with reasonable diligence. The evidence was also not credible or cogent because it contained hearsay statements and was not sufficiently specific regarding the time when the events allegedly occurred. Furthermore, the evidence was inadmissible because it was hearsay, and the Court did not consider any of the proposed evidence cogent in relation to the relevant findings made by the High Court. Therefore, the application for leave to adduce further evidence was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs calculated as for a standard application for leave to appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

Orders