IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2015-404-1845 [2016] NZHC 2496
JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS
v
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG
Hearing:
28 September 2016
Counsel:
P A McKnight and A J Romanos for plaintiff S J Mills QC and J Graham for first defendant
Judgment:
19 October 2016
REASONSFOR JUDGMENT OF KATZ J [Defence of qualified privilege]
This judgment was delivered by me on 19 October 2016 at 11:00am
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors: Langford Law, Wellington
Chapman Tripp, Auckland
Counsel: S J Mills QC, Barrister, Auckland
P A McKnight, Quayside Chambers, Wellington A Romanos, Barrister, Wellington
Introduction
[1] Jordan Williams is the founder and Executive Director of an organisation known as “the Taxpayers’ Union”. Colin Craig is the founder and former leader of the Conservative Party, a political party that unsuccessfully contested the 2011 and
2014 Parliamentary elections.
[2] Mr Williams brought these proceedings against Mr Craig, in defamation. He alleged that Mr Craig defamed him in remarks he made at a press conference on
29 July 2015 (“Remarks”) and in a leaflet that was made available at that conference and was subsequently delivered nationwide (“Leaflet”). I will refer to the particular statements that are said to bear defamatory meanings as “the statements”. Mr Williams claimed, amongst other things, that the natural and ordinary meaning of the statements was that he had told lies about Mr Craig, including that Mr Craig had sexually harassed a person and that he had sent her sexually explicit text messages. Mr Williams further alleged that a reasonable person who read or heard the statements would understand them to mean that Mr Williams is dishonest, deceitful, a serial liar, cannot be trusted and lacks integrity.
[3] The trial proceeded by way of a jury trial, before me, during the period
5 September 2016 to 30 September 2016. After the evidence had concluded, Mr Craig sought a ruling that the Remarks and the Leaflet were published on occasions of qualified privilege. The particular category of privilege is one that entitles a person to reply to an attack on their character or reputation, even if what they say in response might, in itself, be defamatory.1
[4] Determining whether a defence of qualified privilege arises in any given case requires a two stage analysis.2 The first stage is to identify whether the relevant statements were made “on an occasion of privilege”. This is an issue for the Judge, on which the defendant bears the onus of proof. If an occasion of privilege exists, then the second stage of the analysis is to consider whether it has been lost
(hence the phrase “qualified” privilege). This is an issue for the jury, on which the
1 See Alastair Mullis and Richard Parkes (eds) Gatley on Libel and Slander (12th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2013) at [14.51].
[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 Williams v Craig
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Williams v Craig [2016] NZHC 2496
Case
[2016] NZHC 2496
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Williams v Craig, the High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether statements made by Mr Craig were published on occasions of qualified privilege. Mr Williams alleged that Mr Craig defamed him in statements made at a press conference and in a leaflet distributed nationwide. The court had to decide whether these statements were protected by qualified privilege, a defence that allows a person to reply to an attack on their character or reputation, even if the reply might be defamatory. The court concluded that Mr Williams' actions constituted an attack on Mr Craig's character and reputation, and that Mr Craig's reply was relevant and made to an audience with an interest in receiving it. Therefore, the statements were published on occasions of qualified privilege. The court directed the jury to consider whether the privilege had been lost, which they ultimately found to be the case. The court's decision highlights the complexities in determining the scope of qualified privilege, particularly in cases involving a reply to an attack.