03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) (b) 7 January 2011: an investigation of Albany Dairy selling drug paraphernalia to minors, which involved a story about a superette allegedly selling pipes designed for smoking methamphetamine to children; (c) 19 February 2011 – 4 March 2011: the “2011 – South African neo- nazi and skulduggery in Rodney selection” story, where the appellant covered “the story of a former South African neo-nazi member of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement holding the position of Electorate Chair for the National Party in Rodney electorate” and the National candidate selection process for Rodney; (d) 14 March 2011: “Revealed NZ Principals Federation plans to run a political campaign against the Minister of Education”; (e) 12 June 2011 – 18 November 2011: the “2011 – Labour Party website story” where the appellant broke a story of Labour Party website vulnerabilities and also information about donors and the obtaining emails from NZEI; (f) 25 July 2011 – 5 August 2011: the “2011 Phil Goff – SIS story:” which involved a story that Mr Goff was “briefed by the Director of SIS in 2011 regarding Israeli spies despite claims that Mr Goff had never been briefed” and the continuing denial by Phil Goff; (g) 2 December 2011–10 April 2014: the “2011–2014 Ports of Auckland story” involving “extensive coverage of port strike that began in 2011”, although this appears to be a re-posting of another blogger “Cactus Kate’s” story; (h) 8 April 2012 – 14 November 2012: the “Meatworkers Union financial mis-reporting in their accounts story” involving “massive financial under-reporting in contravention of statutory obligations by the NZ Meatworkers Union”; and (i) 5 – 6 September 2012: the “September 2012 interviews with key members of Fiji Government” where the appellant “[g]ained interviews with the Attorney General of Fiji” and other Fijian officials. [59] An examination of Mr Slater’s articles in 2011 and 2012 show reporting on, as well as commenting on, the political affairs of the day. While some of his writing is derivative from other sources and contains largely his comments and expressions of opinion, as the above list shows many of the stories have contained an element of breaking news. There appear to have been other stories of lesser public interest than those listed, but which were nevertheless news in the sense of being new information released to the public, such as the stories about Mr Blomfield. Mr Slater has pointed out that this pattern has continued and this year he has received a media award for “breaking” the story on the private life of the Mayor of Auckland. 36 [60] Mr Karam for Mr Blomfield places weight on what he submits to be the partisan nature of Whale Oil, and what he submits is scurrilous and malicious commentary on events and public figures. He cites what he sees to be Mr Slater’s wrongful appropriation of Mr Blomfield’s private material as an indication that he www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 14/30