03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) have been obtained from Mr Powell (the latter remark being hearsay). The three 40 Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2012] FCA 766 at [24]. showed him information on their laptops. Ms Easterbrook advised Mr Price that she would give him a copy of the hard-drive to assist him with his investigations. [91] He also says there was a second meeting at Ms Easterbrook’s house with her and Mr Spring and Mr Slater also in attendance. His evidence was to the effect that they were more interested in discussing Mr Blomfield’s history, rather than matters specifically concerning his liquidation. [92] There is a basis for Mr Blomfield’s suspicions and the activities of Ms Easterbrook and Mr Powell are relevant to the s 68(2) exercise. But if suspicion, even a reasonable suspicion, could force the disclosure of identity, the benefit that lies behind s 68 of protecting sources and the true flow of information, would be greatly diminished. Given that the only proven source is Mr Spring, it is only his identity that is exempt from the protection under s 68(1). Conclusion on s 68(1) [93] Thus, Mr Slater has successfully challenged the District Court’s decision that he was not a journalist under s 68(1) and so is in general entitled not to disclose the identity or identities of his informant(s). However, the appeal while being allowed on this point does not result in him obtaining protection against disclosing Mr Spring as a source as Mr Spring’s identity has already been disclosed. Therefore s 68(1) does not apply with respect to Mr Spring. Any questions that will involve answers disclosing Mr Spring as a source must be answered, and any documents which show him to be a source must be discovered. [94] I now turn to the related point of whether Mr Slater can also rely on r 8.46 of the High Court Rules. Rule 8.46 provides a different protection which is not limited to journalists. Rule 8.46 [95] Rule 8.46 of the High Court Rules provides: 8.46 Defamation proceedings If, in a proceeding for defamation, the defendant pleads that the words or matters complained of are honest opinion on a matter of public interest or were published on a privileged occasion, no interrogatories as to the defendant’s sources of information or grounds of belief may be allowed unless the interrogatories are necessary in the interests of justice. (emphasis added) [96] Rule 8.46 was updated by r 11 of the High Court Amendment Rules 2004. It now reflects the new terminology of the substantive changes made by the Defamation Act 1992 replacing “fair comment” with “honest opinion”. Rule 8.46 refers to the opinion being expressed on a “matter of public interest”. This phrase was relied on by Judge Blackie in rejecting Mr Slater’s reliance on the rule. www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 20/30