03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) The issues to be determined in the proceeding [109] This is a defamation case. The statement of claim alleges that Mr Slater wrote and published various stories that contained particularised statements that had meanings that were defamatory of Mr Blomfield. [110] Mr Slater in his statement of defence admits that he was in possession of emails, databases and electronic files relating to the affairs of Mr Blomfield. He also admits he had possession of a filing cabinet of “physical files” relating to Mr Blomfield which he had for a short time and provided to the Serious Fraud Office. The statement of defence follows a pattern of admitting the making of the statement but denying the defamatory meanings. In the event that the defamatory meanings are made out, Mr Slater pleads an affirmative defence of truth. Mr Slater pleads that if the statements have the defamatory meanings then the statements are true in substance and in fact. He gives detailed particulars of the claims of truth. Mr Slater also pleads the affirmative defence of honest opinion. He gives particulars which reflect the particulars provided for the defence of truth. A reply was filed by Mr Blomfield in which he denied that the words complained of were expressions of honest opinion. Mr Blomfield also issued a notice under s 39 of the Defamation Act that the opinion was not genuinely held. He refers to Messrs Spring, Powell, Price and Ms Eastbrook who had “bad blood” with him, and who constructed a planned attack on him with Mr Slater for the purpose of causing him harm. 55 Devin M Smith “Thin Shields Pierce Easily: A Case for Fortifying the Journalists’ Privilege in New Zealand” (2009) Pacific Rim L & Policy J 217 at 229. [111] The issues to be determined in the proceeding are therefore whether the statements have the defamatory meanings alleged, whether those statements were true, and whether they were Mr Slater’s honest opinion, including whether the allegations in the s 39 notice were true. The public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity of the informants [112] The question of “what is the public interest” must be considered having regard to the issues to be determined. The phrase “public interest” is not defined in the Evidence Act. It is used in s 68(2) in juxtaposition with “having regard to the issues to be determined...”. I do not think that the sentence can be intended to relate to only those cases where the issues in the proceeding are of regional or national interest or importance, and for that reason of public interest. This is indicated by the statement in s 68(5) that public interest in the disclosure of evidence includes in a criminal proceeding the defendant’s right to present an effective defence. In the civil area most cases do not raise issues of public importance, but parties must have the right to present their cases effectively. [113] In Police v Campbell the public interest identified by Randerson J was the public interest in the investigation and prosecution of crime. This was an interest in favour of the source being identified as it would assist this purpose.56 In this case there are not criminal proceedings where the identification of criminals involved in criminal behaviour arises. [114] As a general proposition, when a journalist such as Mr Slater has presented to the public extreme and vitriolic statements about a person such as Mr Blomfield alleging, as he has, serious crimes by him, there is a public interest in the fair airing of those statements and the circumstances of their making when the issues are traversed in defamation proceedings. The vitriolic remarks indicate that Mr Blomfield is a danger to society. The remarks being deliberately put in the public domain by Mr Slater show there is a public interest in all the circumstances relevant www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 24/30