Judith Collins is threatening defamation action against those who accuse her of leaking. But I thought you could say anything you wanted about MPs?

Just a very quick note on the announcement by Judith Collins that she will sue Trevor Mallard, Andrew Little and Radio NZ for defamation ... mainly because I've yet to see any commentary by those who ought to be talking about it ... and yes, Steven Price and Graeme Edgeler, I am looking at you.

First up, I don't know why she is going after Radio NZ. Yes, it did broadcast the allegedly defamatory comments by Mallard and Little. But it did so in the course of live-to-air interviews, not as part of edited news reports. So to seek damages from them just for being the medium by which the allegedly defamatory claims were made seems like shooting the messanger ... which has a pretty chilling effect on those organisations that carry live-to-air interviews.

I mean, what was Radio NZ meant to do here - refuse to allow Labour MPs to comment on this issue in case they say things that might be defamatory? Is that really the sort of news media Collins wants to see? One that either doesn't carry political interviews at all, or which only does so by way of pre-recording and screening?  

Second of all, there's been some on-line discussion as to whether the Court of Appeal's decision in Lange v Atkinson will work to protect Mallard et al if they have said Collins was responsible for the leak (and it turns out she wasn't). (I note that I'm not sure Mallard et al have said this - but I haven't looked closely enough at all the comments made in the various Radio NZ appearances to pass conclusive judgment.) This has to do with the defence of "qualified privilege" that the Court created as follows:

Our consideration of the development of the law leads us to the following conclusions about the defence of qualified privilege as it applies to political statements which are published generally:

(1) The defence of qualified privilege may be available in respect of a statement which is published generally.

(2) The nature of New Zealand’s democracy means that the wider public may have a proper interest in respect of generally-published statements which directly concern the functioning of representative and responsible government, including statements about the performance or possible future performance of specific individuals in elected public office.

(3) In particular, a proper interest does exist in respect of statements made about the actions and qualities of those currently or formerly elected to Parliament and those with immediate aspirations to such office, so far as those actions and qualities directly affect or affected their capacity (including their personal ability and willingness) to meet their public responsibilities.

(4) The determination of the matters which bear on that capacity will depend on a consideration of what is properly a matter of public concern rather than of private concern.

(5) The width of the identified public concern justifies the extent of the publication."

I think it's pretty clear that the importance of this issue justifies public comment - so it is an occasion to which qualified privilege attaches. However, it is important to note the word qualified here - the legal protection given to those who publicly say things about MPs regarding matters of general concern relating to their ability to do they job is not absolute. Only comments made inside the House attract that level of protection. And so the Court stated that the legal protection that qualified privilege provides will be lost "if the defendant takes what in all the circumstances can fairly be described as a cavalier approach to the truth of the statement."

The Court then goes on to detail what may lead to such a loss of the qualified privilege defence:

[48] No consideration and insufficient consideration [of the truth of the claim] are equally capable of leading to an inference of misuse of the occasion [of privilege]. The rationale for loss of the privilege in such circumstances is that the privilege is granted on the basis that it will be responsibly used. There is no public interest in allowing defamatory statements to be made irresponsibly - recklessly - under the banner of freedom of expression. What amounts to a reckless statement must depend significantly on what is said and to whom and by whom. It must be accepted that to require the defendant to give such responsible consideration to the truth or falsity of the publication as is required by the nature of the allegation and the width of the intended dissemination, may in some circumstances come close to a need for the taking of reasonable care. In others a genuine belief in truth after relatively hasty and incomplete consideration may be sufficient to satisfy the dictates of the occasion and to avoid any inference of taking improper advantage of the occasion. 

[49] A case at one end of the scale might be a grossly defamatory statement about a Cabinet Minister, broadcast to the world. At the other end might be an uncomplimentary observation about a politician at a private meeting held under Chatham House rules. It is not that the law values reputation more in the one case than the other. It is that in the first case the gravity of the allegation and the width of the publication are apt to cause much more harm if the allegation is false than in the second case. A greater degree of responsibility is therefore required in the first case than in the second, if recklessness is not to be inferred. Responsible journalists in whatever medium ought not to have any concerns about such an approach. It is only those who act irresponsibly in the jury's eyes by being cavalier about the truth who will lose the privilege.

So, whether or not the Lange v Atkinson qualified privilege defence applies (provided there have been defamatory statements made, of course) depends upon the basis for Mallard's and Little's claims about Collins involvement in the leak of Pullar's name. 

Right - over to comments. But please remember, there are threats of defamation flying around here and so rather than risk becoming a test case, I will exercise editorial discretion on anything I think opens me (and the site) to expensive legal fees.

Comments (6)

by John Norman on March 30, 2012
John Norman
Can't but agree with your point about live-to-air broadcast. As a listener one of the reasons I enjoy radio is to hear what people have to say. As to truth/lie/whatever how can one (including broadcaster) know veracity or otherwise until assertion or statement uttered.? Unless there is something pertinent in the matter alluded to that we don't know then perhaps an inference not of the above in nature has been taken. Asking now (not commenting), regarding the CoA's "QP" could someone - perhaps yourself Andrew - expand par (3)s "personal abilities and willingness" and Par (4) "private concern". Might one term, for instance, apply usually or fairly to the other? Hoping I'm clear on this.. [and if not then perhaps we can do something about it :-) ] Gee, I'm hoping this doesn't monobloc.. if it does and no one is willing aid me out of the problem then I'll not be back..
by Pete Sime on March 30, 2012
Pete Sime

Wouldn't that open Collins up to a pre-trial discovery process, potentially risking the disclosure of politically damaging material?

by william blake on March 30, 2012
william blake

This is the second time within six months that this government has used the law to 'moderate' the media. It may be that the politicians are operating from a position of principle but it appears that they have something to hide. But they know this, so (a) they are very confident that the legal action will serve their purposes, blowing smoke and buying time and (b) they probably do have something to hide.

 

by Philip Grimmett on March 31, 2012
Philip Grimmett
I love it when legal eagles talk dirty. Some commentors would say the media are being monstered by powerful interests which lawyers would be too timid/ guarded to say. Enuf said before the police knock on my door.
by Peter Clareburt on March 31, 2012
Peter Clareburt

i think you are saying that a Labour MP could leak material and then accuse an National Minsiter of the of the leak and that in the public interest this would be an OK state of affairs. There must be some comback on the truth.

by on July 13, 2012
Anonymous

Welcome to cheap designer bagsour online sales shop, where you can always buy the most affordable price to a your favorite cheap designer handbag. These cheap designer purses ; The cheap purses is fashioned in a Nova Check and features black leather trim, snap over fastener, convertible shoulder strap, shackle buckles, side pockets on the outside, nickel fittings, changing pads, PVC with nylon lining, and comes in black or Nova Check.

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.