03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) The notion of normal course of work [66] The word “work” is not defined. I assume its meaning follows the general dictionary concept of applying mental or physical effort to carry out a task.37 The mental and physical effort involved in obtaining information on news topics and transforming it into readable prose which coherently disseminates the information to a reader is work. This is what Mr Slater does when he publishes a news article. While he will often refer to other materials, there was no evidence presented to suggest that he was only regurgitating the writings of others. 37 Tony Deverson and Graeme Kennedy (eds) The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary, above n 34, at 1302. [67] It has been stated by the Court of Appeal in StockCo Ltd v Gibson that the word “course” suggests flow or continual operation.38 For a journalist to be receiving information in the “normal course” involves the concept of journalistic endeavour carried out with a degree of regularity and consistency. [68] Mr Karam submitted that employment of the journalist was a requirement. That submission derived some support from the reference in s 68(1) to neither the journalist “nor his or her employer” being compellable. However, I see the reference to the journalist or the employer in the section as being no more than careful drafting to ensure that in the case of an employer/employee relationship, the employer is not compellable when the employee received the information. I do not consider that the definition should be restricted to paid employees or persons who make a living out of the publication in question. [69] Such a restrictive definition is also inconsistent with a legislative intention that full-time employment is not a requirement. A part-time journalist who writes on a regular basis could well be receiving information in the ordinary course of that journalist’s work. This might be so even if the work was only published on a weekly or even monthly basis, providing there was that element of regularity and consistency. While the degree of work and its regularity will be factors in the assessment of normal course of work, whether the employment is full-time or part- time should not be determinative. [70] Both the amicus curiae and Mr Karam have referred to analogous Australian provisions. The equivalent Commonwealth section is s 126G of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) which defines a journalist as: a person who is engaged and active in the publication of news and who may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium. (emphasis added) [71] This definition of journalist followed a debate before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitution Affairs where a possible definition requiring a 38 StockCo Ltd v Gibson [2012] NZCA 330, (2012) 11 NZCLC 98-010 at [51]. journalist to be “employed as such” for the privilege to operate and excluding “... private individuals who make postings on the internet or produce non-professional news publications” was rejected.39 The www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 16/30