Stringer v Craig

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Palmer J
• Judgment Date: 26 November 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] NZHC 3076
• Docket Number: CIV-2015-404-2524
• Court: High Court
• Date: 26 November 2018

Between

John Charles Stringer

Plaintiff

and

Colin Graeme Craig

First Defendant

Helen Ruth Craig

Second Defendant

Angela Maria Storr

Third Defendant

Kevin Eric Stitt

Fifth Defendant

Stephen Dylan Taylor

Sixth Defendant

[2018] NZHC 3076

CIV-2015-404-2524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

Civil Procedure, Defamation — application for a production order, interrogatories and applications to strike out aspects of statements of claim or defence — plaintiff suing for defamation — High Court Rules — Defamation Act 1992

Appearances:

J C Stringer in person

C G Craig, H R Craig, A M Storr, K E Stitt, S D Taylor in person

Parties:

The Plaintiff

The Defendants

JUDGMENT OF Palmer J

Summary

1 Mr John Stringer is suing Mr Colin Craig, Mrs Helen Craig, Mrs Angela Storr, Mr Kevin Stitt and Mr Steve Taylor for defamation related to events in the Conservative Party in 2015. I determine various interlocutory applications as follows:

• (a) Mr Stringer has given notice for Mr Craig to produce two cell-phones and forensic extraction reports. That must be done at the time to be ordered for discovery. In the meantime, Mr Craig must preserve whatever he has of the phones for that purpose.

• (b) Mr Stringer applies for further interrogatories to be answered by Mrs Craig, Mrs Storr and Mr Stitt. I decline some of these as irrelevant or because the defendants have already answered them sufficiently. But Mrs Craig and Mrs Storr do need to answer interrogatories concerning their knowledge of Mr Craig's relationship with Ms MacGregor. That is because they are defending themselves on the basis the allegedly defamatory statements, that Mr Stringer's statements about the relationship were false, were their honest opinion.

• (c) Mr Stringer's application to strike out Mrs Craig's, Mrs Storr's and Mr Stitt's statements of defence, and Mrs Storr's and Mr Stitt's applications to strike out the claims against them, are declined because they have not demonstrated the defences and claims are not tenable. But Mr Stringer will need to file a further amended statement of claim and the defendants will need to respond to that.

• (d) Mr Stringer's application to strike out Mr Taylor's statement of defence is declined. The reason Mr Taylor has not yet filed a full statement of defence until now is because the Court directed he was not obliged to do so. By a fine margin, I also decline to strike out Mr Stringer's claim against Mr Taylor. Mr Stringer's purpose in pressuring Mr Taylor consistently centred on vindicating his reputation and so is not, quite, a collateral purpose. A line call should be decided in favour of preserving freedom of access to the courts.

The context of this proceeding

This proceeding

2 Mr Colin Craig was leader of the Conservative Party during the 2014 election campaign. Mr John Stringer was a Board member of the Party. Ms Rachel MacGregor Mr Craig's former press secretary, resigned two days before the election. Afterwards, Ms MacGregor and Mr Craig settled a claim with the Human Rights Review Tribunal of sexual harassment. 1

3 In June 2015, Mr Stringer began making public statements including alleging Mr Craig had sexually harassed Ms MacGregor. Mr Craig denied these allegations. On 29 July 2015, Mr Craig and his wife Mrs Helen Craig held a press conference announcing a defamation suit against Mr Stringer. They also launched a booklet, titled “Dirty Politics 2015”, claiming Mr Stringer had engaged in a campaign of dirty politics. The booklet is said to have been delivered to most homes in New Zealand.

4 In September 2015, Mr Craig filed a defamation proceeding against Mr Stringer in the Christchurch High Court (the Craig proceeding). That proceeding was initially settled by consent in January 2017 but judgment was recalled in December 2017 in respect of a claim by Mr Craig that Mr Stringer had defamed him by alleging Mr Craig had sexually harassed Ms MacGregor. 2 On 31 August 2018, Associate Judge Osborne ordered the Craig proceeding be heard concurrently with this proceeding. 3

5 This proceeding was filed in October 2015 by Mr Stringer against Mr Craig and five other defendants involved in the Conservative Party. Mr Stringer alleges he was defamed by statements:

• (a) by Mr and Mrs Craig in the booklet and at the 29 July 2015 press conference;

• (b) by Mr Craig in ancillary media and subsequent blogs and emails;

• (c) by statements by Mrs Storr and Mr Stitt; and

• (d) by Mr Taylor as anonymous “moderator” of, and contributor to, the booklet.

6 Mr Stringer seeks:

• (a) declarations Mr Craig is liable in defamation;

• (b) just over $1 million in general and aggravated damages from Mr and Mrs Craig;

• (c) another $200,000 in general damages from Mr Craig;

• (d) $35,000 in damages from Mrs Storr and $25,000 from Mr Stitt; and

• (e) $400,000 in general damages, and $287,761 in aggravated damages, from Mr Taylor.

7 In general, the defendants offer defences that the allegedly defamatory statements were the subject of qualified privilege, were true or not materially different from the truth and were an expression of their honest opinion.

8 This proceeding and the Craig proceeding are set down for trial together over four weeks in the Auckland High Court commencing 19 August 2019. These are separate from the various other sets of defamation proceedings involving Mr Craig and others which concern these events. 4

Interlocutory applications

9 All parties have made interlocutory applications which I treat in three groups:

• (a) an application by Mr Stringer for a production order;

• (b) an application by Mr Stringer for interrogatories; and

• (c) applications by Mr Stringer, Mrs Storr, Mr Stitt and Mr Taylor to strike out aspects of statements of claim or defence.

10 I also make timetabling orders.

1 Production order

Relevant law of production orders

11 Rule 8.32 of the Rules is:

8.32 Notice to produce documents or things

(1) A party to a proceeding may serve on another party a notice requiring the other party to produce a document or thing for the purpose of evidence at the hearing of the proceeding, or before a Judge, an officer, an examiner, or other person who has authority to take evidence in the proceeding.

(2) If the document or thing is in the control of the party who is served with the notice, the party must, unless a Judge otherwise orders, produce the document or thing in accordance with the notice, without the need for a subpoena for production.

(3) The notice must be treated as an order of the court to produce the document or thing specified in the notice.

Application and submissions

12 On 10 May 2017, Mr Stringer gave notice to Mr and Mrs Craig to produce one or more cell-phones and corresponding forensic extraction reports and requested they be preserved as a matter of urgency. In his Minute No 2 of 14 June 2017, Heath J recorded his understanding that Associate Judge Osborne was seized of an application on the same issue in the Craig proceeding and he was not prepared to make orders that could potentially be inconsistent with those. 5 Heath J reserved leave for Mr Stringer to ask the Court to rule on his application, with both sides having the opportunity to file supporting affidavits setting out the evidence on which they rely. 6

13 Mr Stringer submits Mr Craig has used material on the cell-phones as evidence in other proceedings and had them forensically examined, there is no reason why they cannot be provided and failing to do so will prejudice the case. He submits there are texts on the phones that were selectively missing or not discovered in other proceedings and an independent company should examine the phones. 7

14 Mr Craig submits there is no dispute that correspondence, including texts and letters between him and Ms MacGregor, will be relevant to the proceeding. He says he has the parts of one of the cell-phones in his possession, has taken reasonable steps to preserve them and has had independent experts extract the messaging records. He submits it would be proper for those documents to be discovered when discovery orders are made but they have not been made yet.

Should Mr Craig produce the cell-phones and reports and when?

15 Rule 8.32 provides a notice for production be “for the purpose of evidence at the hearing of the proceeding or before a Judge … who has authority to take evidence in the proceeding”. Mr Craig has undertaken to preserve what remains of the phones and there is evidence he has done so. 8 The question is when the cell-phones and their relevant contents must be provided to Mr Stringer and the other parties. I agree that should be when discovery is ordered. Mr Stringer can get an independent company to examine them at that point. That will be according to a timetable I set down at the s 35 conference I order below.

2 Interrogatories

Law of interrogatories

16 Under r 8.34 a party may file a serve a notice requiring another party to answer specified interrogatories relating to any matter in question in the proceeding. Under r 8.39, a statement in answer to interrogatories must set out the interrogatories and the answers and:

(2) … must deal with each interrogatory specifically, either–

• (a) by answering the substance of the interrogatory without evasion; or

• (b) by objecting to answer the interrogatory on 1 or more of the grounds mentioned in rule 8.40(1) and briefly stating the facts on which the objection is based.

17 Under r 8.40 a party may object to answering an interrogatory on the grounds only that it does not relate to a matter in question, is vexatious or oppressive, the information sought is privileged or the sole object is to ascertain the names of witnesses....