Legal Research
Cases
Stringer v Craig

Stringer v Craig

Case [2020] NZHC 644 3 April 2020

Defences in Defamation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-2524

[2020] NZHC 644

BETWEEN
JOHN CHARLES STRINGER

Plaintiff

AND

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

First Defendant

HELEN RUTH CRAIG
Second Defendant

ANGELA MARIA STORR
Third Defendant

KEVIN ERIC STITT
Fifth Defendant

STEPHEN DYLAN TAYLOR

Sixth Defendant

Hearing:
19 August to 6 September 2019 with supplementary submissions

on 16, 27 and 30 September 2019 and 29 and 30 January 2020

Appearances:

J C Stringer in person assisted by R Hills, McKenzie friend C G Craig in person assisted by T F Cleary, McKenzie friend H R Craig, A M Storr, K E Stitt and S D Taylor in person

W Akel, Counsel assisting the Court

Judgment:

3 April 2020

JUDGMENT NO 3 OF PALMER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday 3 April 2020 at 3 pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

All parties in person
W Akel, Barrister, Counsel assisting the Court

STRINGER v CRAIG [2020] NZHC 644 [3 April 2020]

Table of Contents

Summary.............................................................................................................. [1]

What happened?.................................................................................................. [4]

The Conservative Party and the players  [5]
Mr Craig and Ms MacGregor  [7]
Leaks from the board  [10]

Mr Craig’s resignation [13]

Mr Stringer’s statements  [17]
Mr and Mrs Craig’s press conference  [21]
Mr Stringer’s suspension and alternative board  [23]

Mr Stringer’s further statements [28]

The booklet [32]
Mr Craig and Mr Stringer’s statements [37]

Other defamation proceedings  [38]
Mr Craig’s proceeding against Mr Stringer  [41]
Preparing for Mr Stringer’s proceeding  [46]

Trial of Mr Stringer’s proceeding [53]

Law of defamation............................................................................................. [63]

Publication of defamatory statements [63]

Defences [66]

Pleadings and issues........................................................................................... [74]

1Are the Craigs liable for statements in the booklet and at its launch? [80]

The booklet and press conference [80]
Were the booklet statements defamatory and published by the Craigs? [83] Were the press conference statements defamatory and published? [92] Does the Craigs’ defence of qualified privilege succeed? [99] Do the Craigs’ defences of truth or honest opinion succeed? [114]

2 Is Mr Taylor liable for statements in the booklet?................................ [126]

Were the statements defamatory of Mr Stringer? [126] Were the defamatory statements defamatory published by Mr Taylor? [130] Do Mr Taylor’s defences succeed? [134]

3 Is Mr Craig liable for his other statements?.......................................... [139]

10 August 2015: Guest Blogpost [139]

Other statements [145]

4 Are Mrs Storr or Mr Stitt liable for their emails?................................ [147]

Were the statements defamatory and published by Mrs Storr and Mr Stitt? [147] Do Mrs Storr’s and Mr Stitt’s defences succeed? [154]

Result................................................................................................................ [159]

Annex 1: Table of Allegedly Defamatory Statements

Summary

[1] In July 2015, after the implosion of the Conservative Party, Mr Colin Craig and Mrs Helen Craig said Mr Craig had been the victim of dirty politics as the Party’s former leader. They named three individuals as responsible, including Mr John Stringer, a former Conservative Party Board member. They gave a press conference and published a booklet saying so and distributed it…

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 Stringer v Craig

Details

AGLC: Stringer v Craig [2020] NZHC 644
Case: [2020] NZHC 644
Decision Date: 3 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stringer v Craig involves a defamation claim brought by John Stringer against Colin and Helen Craig, Stephen Taylor, Angela Storr, and Kevin Stitt. Stringer, a former member of the Conservative Party Board, accused the defendants of defaming him through various statements and publications following the implosion of the Conservative Party. The defendants argued that their statements were either true, honest opinions, or protected by qualified privilege.

The court found that the defendants' statements, which accused Stringer of being a liar, engaging in attack politics, coordinating with others to target Craig, seriously breaching party rules, acting unlawfully, and betraying others, were defamatory and published by the defendants. However, the court held that the defendants' statements were protected by the defences of qualified privilege, truth, and honest opinion. The Craigs' statements were made in response to Stringer's attacks on them, and their force and vigour were not out of proportion to Stringer's. Taylor, Storr, and Stitt's statements were also protected by qualified privilege, as they were made in discharge of their duty to communicate with party members.

The court dismissed Stringer's claims, stating that the suit was misconceived. The court also invited submissions on costs and thanked the counsel assisting the court for their significant assistance.

Orders