Social media broadcast 28 Sep 2024 headlines and supporting material
Headlines
Judge finds Stuff knowingly reported what they knew to be false re the defamatory aspect of the 15 Sep article.
Judge in addition: the defamatory aspect of the 15 Sep article was not published responsibly.
Judge is not persuaded that reporter’s wording was inadvertent.
Judge: Reporter, Gary Farrow’s conversation with Daniel Wood (opposing neighbour) and the evidence before me demonstrate that he held particular enthusiasm for a story highlighting the organisers’ failure to obtain resource consent.
Judge: Stuff did not comply with their own code of ethics.
Judge grants Cao and Oulton a declaration.
Supporting material
Extracts from Judgement of Johnstone J of 31-January 2024.
[71] It is most unlikely that is will be responsible to publish a defamatory statement that is known to be incorrect.
[77] I record that I am not persuaded Mr Farrow’s wording was inadvertent. His conversation with Mr Wood about his article being “front page on Monday”, and his evidence before me, demonstrate that he held particular enthusiasm for a story highlighting the organisers’ failure to obtain resource consent for the 2019 festival with only a matter of days remaining before its intended commencement.
In my view the defamatory aspect of the 15 Sep 2019 article was written because Mr Farrow intended to assert that there was some unsatisfactory aspect to the 2017 and 2018 festivals having been operated without resource consent, and because this incorrect assertion would serve to excite further public interest in the unsatisfactory position of the 2019 festival.
[84c] And when Mr Farrow reinterviewed Mr Oulton, he did not raise that issue for comment. Mr Oulton therefore was not provided with the opportunity to comment on the defamatory aspect of the 15 September article. This is not surprising, as Mr Farrow (and through him Stuff) knew it was incorrect.
[84e] Finally, while Stuff’s code of ethics contemplates the possibility of inaccurate reporting despite best, or even reasonable efforts, it does not contemplate reporting that is known to be incorrectly worded. Given the jury’s finding, and Mr Farrow’s awareness of the correct position, his article does not comply with the charter.
[86] Overall, I find as a matter of fact that the defamatory aspect of the 15 September article was not published responsibly.
[88] The above findings provide a sufficient factual basis for my view that I should grant the declaration that Ms Cao and Mr Oulton seek.
[111] I grant Ms Cao and Mr Oulton’s claim for a declaration that Stuff and Mr Farrow are liable to them in defamation for publishing the 15 September 2019 article and in particular the assertion made by the article that they operated the 2017 and 2018 festivals without resource consent that was required in order for those festivals to have operated lawfully.
