03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) offers no detail. 61 X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd [1991] 1 AC 1 (HL) at 44. 62 At 45. [134] In the ordinary course of events persons do not legitimately come by the personal hard-drive and filing cabinets of other persons. Even if Mr Slater was not party to any illegality, it seems likely that the information was obtained illegally by the sources, and this diminishes the importance of protecting the source. There is less public interest in encouraging persons who are in a private dispute with others from going to the media with unlawfully obtained confidential material to hurt them. This material prima facie is in that category. This is a factor which supports a public interest in disclosure, and that further diminishes the public interest in protecting the source. [135] The public interest in protecting the informants must be categorised as low. Weighing the factors [136] In carrying out the balancing process I consider it appropriate to bear in mind the policy reason behind the protection provided by s 68. It is to promote the free flow of information, a vital component of any democracy. That concern does not arise in a significant way in a case such as this which has developed from a private disagreement between business associates, and involves allegations involving private actions which appear to give rise to no significant public interest. [137] On the one hand I consider that there is a public interest in a full airing of all matters relating to this claim. That includes allowing all information that might assist Mr Blomfield in refuting the defences of truth and honest opinion, and pursuing his s 39 allegation that a group of named persons have with Mr Slater set out to attack him with no genuine opinion that the claims were true. There is a real public interest in those who claim that they are defamed being able to fully explore the circumstances of the defamation and what happened subsequently, and what the sources were reporting to the publisher at the relevant time. However, this is far from conclusive, and must be weighed against the other factors stated in s 68(2). [138] As against this public interest, there is no significant adverse effect arising from any disclosure of the informants that can be discerned. The public interest in the free disclosure of information to the news media by protecting sources is not a major factor. This is not a whistle blower case. Moreover, any concern at the chilling effect of disclosure of sources is lessened when the subject matter of the material originally disclosed has the mark of a private feud, and features abusive and vindictive language. Any public interest in protecting sources must be further diminished when there is evidence that a personal vendetta appears to be driving the disclosures. Further, where the material provided by the sources appears to have been unlawfully obtained, that is a further factor lessening the public interest in the free flow of information. [139] I consider that the weighing comes down clearly for removing the protection of s 68(1). I make an order under s 68(2) that the protection of s 68(1) is not to apply to Mr Slater in the proceeding. Summary of conclusions www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 28/30