03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) applies. [84] In coming to this conclusion, I have had the advantage that the District Court Judge did not have of more detailed information about Mr Slater’s endeavours at the relevant time and the submissions of expert counsel. I reach a different conclusion from the Judge. I consider that Mr Slater in early 2012 received information from informants as a journalist in the normal course of work and is able to rely in general on s 68(1). Disclosure of sources has taken place [85] Although Mr Slater could rely in general on s 68(1), Mr Karam submitted there had already been some disclosure of Mr Slater’s sources. He submitted that where the identity of the source had already been disclosed there was nothing remaining for s 68(1) to protect and that no protection can operate. [86] Section 68(1) is expressed to apply where a journalist has promised not to “disclose” the informant’s identity. Section 68(1) provides that in such a situation a journalist cannot be compelled to answer a question that would “disclose” the identity of the informant. It seems plain from these words that the protection cannot arise when the identity of the informant is already known. In such a situation there is no identity to protect from discovery and nothing to disclose. [87] The policy behind the provision, to protect the free flow of information, does not apply if the identity of the informant as the source of particular information is already known or able to be ascertained. The information has already flowed. It has been observed by Rares J in the Federal Court of Australia in relation to the similarly worded s 126G of the Act 1995 (Cth):40 There is no indication that s 126H(1) intended to provide confidentiality for the identity of the informant of the provider of information, where and at a time that the circumstances of its imparting are not, or are no longer, confidential. [88] One of Mr Slater’s sources is clearly identified. Mr Marc Spring has filed an affidavit confirming that he has been the source of numerous articles written by Mr Slater about Mr Blomfield which have been published on the website. He states that the information he provided was accurate and truthful. He states that Mr Blomfield owes him $68,000 and he makes various allegations against Mr Blomfield in the course of that affidavit. Therefore he is already known as a source, and there is nothing to disclose. There can be no protection under s 68(1) in relation to Mr Spring. [89] Mr Blomfield has deposed that he has strong suspicions that two other former business associates of his, Mr Warren Powell and Ms Amanda Easterbrook, as well as Mr Spring, are sources. He observes that the hard-drive and cabinets were in the possession of Mr Powell and that these were central to the information that Mr Slater referred to in his articles. He observed that each of the parties had an “axe to grind” against him. He has referred to emails which involve Mr Slater and these persons which were sent in the period when the posts about him were published. Further, in his statement of defence Mr Slater refers expressly to information provided by Mr Powell. [90] Also Mr John Price, the former liquidator, has deposed that Mr Spring introduced him to Mr Slater and Ms Easterbrook and “to a lesser extent” Mr Powell. He attended a meeting at Ms Easterbrook’s home with Mr Slater. Mr Spring was also in attendance. They wished to discuss with him Mr Blomfield’s commercial behaviour. They had with them a hard-drive containing significant information about Mr Blomfield. He believes that from comments made by them that this may www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 19/30