Legal Research
Cases
Slater v Blomfield

Slater v Blomfield

Case [2014] NZHC 2221 12 September 2014

Admissibility of Evidence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-005218 [2014] NZHC 2221

BETWEEN CAMERON JOHN SLATER Appellant

AND

MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD Respondent

Hearing: 23 June 2014

Counsel:

CJ Slater in person
MA Karam and MG Beresford for Respondent
J Miles QC as amicus curiae

Judgment:

12 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 12 September 2014 at 1.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
J Miles QC, Auckland.
MA Karam, Auckland.

Copy to:
C Slater, Auckland.

SLATER v BLOMFIELD [2014] NZHC 2221 [12 September 2014]

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction [1] The defamation claim [5] Section 68(1) of the Evidence Act 2006 [17] Approach to s 68(1) [33] The relevant time [36] Whether there was a promise [39] Whether Whale Oil was a news medium

Blog sites [42]

Can a blogger be a news medium? [43]
Is Whale Oil a news medium? [55]

Was Mr Slater receiving information in the normal course of his work?

The notion of normal course of work [66]

Was Mr Slater receiving information in the normal course of his work? [75] Disclosure of sources has taken place [85] Conclusion on s 68(1) [93] Rule 8.46 [95] Application for order that s 68(1) not apply [104] The issues to be determined in the proceeding [109]
The public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity

of the informants [112]

Likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informants or any

other person [121]

The public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the
public by the news media and its ability to access sources of facts [128] Weighing the factors [136] Summary of conclusions [140] Result [152] Costs [155]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Cameron Slater, is being sued for defamation in the Manukau District Court by the respondent, Matthew Blomfield. There are two matters arising in this Court. First, there is an appeal against a decision of Judge Blackie declining to extend to Mr Slater the protection given by s 68(1) of the Evidence Act 2006 to journalists from being compelled to disclose the identity of informants.1 An aspect of this appeal is a challenge to Judge Blackie’s decision that r 8.46 of the High Court Rules did not apply and that interrogatories should have been allowed. The second matter is an originating application to this Court filed by Mr Blomfield after the

filing of the appeal, as a back-up position, seeking an order under s 68(2) of the Evidence Act that s 68(1) not apply should he be unsuccessful in opposing the appeal relating to s 68(1).

[2] Both parties in this Court were originally unrepresented. Mr Miles QC was appointed amicus curiae. By the time of the hearing Mr Blomfield had briefed Mr Karam who appeared for him, and Mr Slater remained self-represented. Mr Miles presented a wide ranging submission to assist the Court.

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 [2014] NZHC 2221
Case: [2014] NZHC 2221
Decision Date: 12 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Slater v Blomfield, the Court was asked to determine whether the appellant, Cameron Slater, was entitled to the protection of s 68(1) of the Evidence Act 2006, which protects journalists from being compelled to disclose the identity of their informants. The Court was also asked to determine whether the protection of r 8.46 of the High Court Rules applied to Slater. Furthermore, the Court was asked to determine whether an order should be made under s 68(2) of the Evidence Act that s 68(1) not apply. The Court concluded that Slater was a journalist for the purposes of s 68(1) and that Whale Oil, the blog Slater ran, was a news medium. However, the Court found that s 68(1) did not apply to Slater’s source, Mr Spring, as his identity had already been disclosed. The Court also concluded that r 8.46 of the High Court Rules did not apply. Finally, the Court found that an order should be made under s 68(2) that s 68(1) not apply to Slater in the defamation proceedings. The Court found that the public interest in disclosure of the identity of Slater’s informants outweighed the likely adverse effects of the disclosure on the informants and the ability of the media to freely receive information and access sources.

Orders