August 01, 2018
Māori Council case sets defamation benchmark
Māori Television has been chastised for its reporting on a row within the New Zealand Māori Council in a case which has rewritten the rules for defamation.
The Court of Appeal says the case taken by Sir Edward Durie and his wife Donna Hall against reporter Heta Gardiner and Māori Television was a chance to assess the scope of the public interest defence in New Zealand to defamation claims in light of developments in the United Kingdom and Canada.
It updates a judgment made 20 years ago in a case taken by former prime minister David Lange which found that publications can claim what is called qualified privilege when they report on politicians.
It says that defence now extends to all matters of public concern.
However, the way Māori Television reported and published the story meant the defence didn’t apply.
The 2016 story said Ms Hall had been sacked by the executive as the council’s lawyer.
Ms Hall’s response that the story was wrong came in after the story had been prepared, so Mr Gardiner added a short live section after it was broadcast on Te Kāea reporting her denial.
Māori Television then published the story on its website without the denial, and reporting the dismissal as a fact rather than an allegation which later was proved untrue.
Te Kāea reported the judgment as upholding Māori Television's right to responsibly report in the public interest, without mentioning that in this case it fell short.
Copyright © 2018, UMA Broadcasting Ltd: www.waateanews.com