03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) [126] The only possible adverse effect is that the sources, whoever they may be, may be shown to have been party to the making of potentially defamatory statements. In these circumstances I do not consider that to be an adverse effect that carries particular weight. [127] In summary, no significant adverse effect that would result from the disclosure of the identity of the informant has been identified. 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] Whereas the likely adverse effects referred to in s 68(2)(a) are directed to the particular circumstances of the informant or other person, the factor referred to in s 68(2)(b) of the public interest in the communication of facts and the ability of the news media to access sources, is of a more general nature. It focuses on the public interest in the ability of the news media to receive information freely and access sources. This factor would appear to have particular relevance where the facts and opinion that are the subject of the communications are of public interest and significance. [129] This is not a whistleblower case. There are no political issues, or matters of public importance at stake. Mr Blomfield is not a public figure. There is no evidence that his company, now in liquidation, is the subject of ongoing public interest. The claims against him have not appeared to attract significant public interest. The overall impression given by the extensive material that has been provided is that the three named persons involved in the informing, Mr Spring, and possibly Mr Powell and Ms Easterbrook, were in a dispute situation with Mr Blomfield arising out of a failed business venture. There is a good deal of material from the informants which shows a certain personal animosity towards Mr Blomfield. There is nothing to indicate that the informers have been driven by altruistic motives. [130] I accept Mr Miles’ general submission that there is little public interest in protecting informants intent on pursuing personal vendettas or when conducting personal or commercial attacks. In these circumstances I do not consider that denying Mr Slater the protection of s 68(1) will deter members of the public from communicating confidential material to the media of public importance or interest. While I have held there is a public interest in the disclosure of the sources in this case, there is little public interest in protecting them. [131] The way in which the sources have acted is also relevant in assessing the weight to be placed on the need to protect them. It was said in X Ltd v Morgan- Grampian (Publishers) Ltd in the context of a case decided under s 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (UK) by Lord Bridge:61 But another and perhaps more significant factor which will very much affect the importance of protecting the source will be the manner in which the information was itself obtained by the source. If it appears to the court that the information was obtained legitimately this will enhance the importance of protecting the source. Conversely, if it appears that the information was obtained illegally, this will diminish the importance of protecting the source unless, of course, this factor is counterbalanced by a clear public interest in publication of the information, as in the classic case where the source has acted for the purpose of exposing inquiry. [132] In that case the House of Lords on facts very different from this case ordered a journalist to disclose the identity of a source who was in possession of a stolen copy of the plaintiff ’s business and refinance plans. The House of Lords considered it essential that the identity of the informant be disclosed to prevent severe damage to the plaintiff’s business and to the livelihood of their employees.62 [133] Mr Blomfield alleges that his filing drawers and hard-drive were stolen. This issue has not been addressed by Mr Slater in any detail. He confirms he had these items in his possession, but denies that they were stolen. While Mr Slater denies having been party to the unlawful taking of the hard-drive and other materials, he www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 27/30