03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) imparted from the informant to the journalist. It is perfectly conceivable that a person may start out publishing not as journalist, and become one when a certain level of work and content is achieved. Thus while the whole period of publishing endeavour may be relevant, there must be focus on the time of promise and disclosure. [37] It is not entirely clear when Mr Slater’s regular blog began. There are articles that have been disclosed going back to 2010. Mr Slater published the articles that are the subject of the proceeding in May and June 2012. He deposed that he received four “filing cabinet drawers” containing documents which he delivered to the Serious Fraud Office in August 2011, and that in or about February 2012 he was provided with a hard-drive. This hard-drive appears to have been a primary source of material. There are emails which indicate that Mr Slater was gathering information in the early part of 2012. The former liquidator of Mr Blomfield’s company, Mr John Price, deposed that he met with Mr Slater on 6 May 2012 and was made aware that he and others had a hard-drive containing information about Mr Blomfield. [38] I conclude that the promise and disclosure of information occurred in early 2012. Mr Slater and Mr Blomfield did not suggest any different time. Therefore I will examine the issue of whether Mr Slater received the information as a journalist focussing on early 2012. Whether there was a promise [39] Although there is not a great deal of evidence about Mr Slater promising his informants not to disclose their identity, he deposed that he “promised the person/people who provided [him] the information that their identity or identities would not be disclosed”. He did not give further details of the circumstances surrounding the giving of the promise. His statement was not challenged in the affidavit evidence and there was no application to cross-examine him on the point. [40] There is nothing inherently improbable in Mr Slater providing such a promise in the circumstances. Indeed, it is entirely possible that he would have given that type of assurance. It would have been preferable for more detail to have been provided,24 but given the lack of an evidential challenge, I am satisfied that this criterion was satisfied. [41] I am also prepared to assume that the informants here provided the information in question in the expectation that it would be published by Mr Slater on his Whale Oil website. This leads to whether that was publication in a news medium. 24. It is to be noted that in Police v Campbell, above n 19, at [35] it was recorded that the journalist had given a detailed account of the circumstances of the interview. No such detailed account of the circumstances of any interviews was provided by Mr Slater. Whether Whale Oil was a news medium Blog sites [42] The internet allows any person to publish (that is to issue information to the public) without the backing of financial resources or ownership of an established print, television or radio medium. A blog can be seen as www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 9/30