New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 68 evidence act 2006

Legal area

Court

2 Jun 2021

CHRISTIAN v NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED [2021] NZHC [1278]

Citation

[2021] NZHC
Court

High Court

The Court held the second defendant is not required to answer the challenged interrogatories: s 68(1) protects disclosure of confidential sources and the plaintiff failed to show under s 68(2) that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the likely adverse effects and the public interest in media source protection; rule 8.46 independently bars interrogatories into sources or grounds of belief in defamation proceedings unless necessary in the interests of justice and the plaintiff did not establish necessity; specified interrogatories were also objectionable under r 8.40(1)(d) and r 8.40(…
3 May 2019

MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED v STAPLES [2019] NZCA 133

Citation

[2019] NZCA 133
Court

Court of Appeal

The court held s 68(1) protection applies and s 68(2) did not justify disclosure because the respondents failed to show a significant public interest in knowing the informants' identities relevant to the defamation defences; by contrast there was a substantial public interest in protecting journalistic sources and in media reporting on systemic issues arising from Christchurch earthquake claims; therefore the Associate Judge's order for unredacted disclosure was quashed insofar as disclosure would identify informants.
17 Dec 2015

HAGER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 3268

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3268
Court

High Court

The warrant and the search were declared fundamentally unlawful because the police failed to discharge the strict duty of candour by not informing the issuing judge of the relevance and weight of journalistic privilege (s 68 Evidence Act) and TVNZ principles, a material omission which rendered the warrant and consequent search unlawful.
19 Nov 2015

SLATER V BLOMFIELD [2015] NZCA 562

Citation

[2015] NZCA 562
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to adduce further evidence was dismissed because the material relied on was not shown to be fresh, was largely inadmissible hearsay and not cogent, and could with reasonable diligence have been produced in the High Court; accordingly Asher J's balancing under s 68(2) was not displaced.
17 Jun 2015

SLATER V BLOMFIELD CA 678/2014 [2015] NZCA 240

Citation

[2015] NZCA 240
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time granted because the delay was minimal and excusable given the applicant was self-represented, the respondent suffered limited prejudice in context, the appeal raises issues of public importance concerning protection of journalists' and bloggers' sources under s 68 and the appeal was not hopeless; accordingly leave to appeal was granted so that s 68(2) and r 8.46 issues can be considered by this Court.

New Zealand Case Law

CHRISTIAN v NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED [2021] NZHC [1278]

MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED v STAPLES [2019] NZCA 133

HAGER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 3268

SLATER V BLOMFIELD [2015] NZCA 562

SLATER V BLOMFIELD CA 678/2014 [2015] NZCA 240