Slater loses Blomfield defamation case – has to pays costs & must disclose sources



Great victory for Journalism today. The Defamation case Matt Blomfield took against Slater has jumped its first hurdle, Slater has been told he might be a ‘Journalist’, but he has no right to journalistic protection of his sources because there was no public interest in Slater publishing any of Matt Blomfield’s stolen information.

So Slater now has to pay Blomfield’s legal costs and he must disclose all the information as to who he was publishing  this information on the behalf of. We know Slater blogs for attack groups, so Blomfield will now be able to see who Slater was in correspondence with regarding the attack on him.

In other news, the case looking into who shot at Matt Blomfield stepped up with a gentlemen in Court last week for the shooting. It will be fascinating to see what turns that Police investigation takes.


    • Do you mean his pyrrhic victory is that he was finally called “a journalist” by the judge? If so, yeah, it is kinda funny. I imagine the judge thinking to themselves “There there, young Slater, of course you’re a journalist – Just not a real one. Now pay the costs and piss off.”

  1. If the level of “public interest” is the yardstick, that kind of shoots down his case against Hager as well. Things could get quite expensive – perhaps the National cabinet could pass a hat around.

    • You clearly have to read the ruling then Murray. If you had you would notice that the Judges believed that Hager’s public interest in publishing was so incredibly high that the msm was allowed to publish the same stolen emails.

      • An amazing ruling about a private individual. All other situations where the public interest was paramount involve public figures and or government institutions.

        I think we can say in the Blomfield case Slater was acting as a henchman not a journalist.

  2. Slaters the gift that keeps giving. Endless lol’s of karma.
    Its like watching a .gif of a kid getting hit in the nuts with a cricket ball.

  3. More pigeons coming home to roost. If Slater is a journalist, then can he be held to account for other examples of slander and defamation? He has countless!

  4. Oh dear, what a shame, never mind!

    Suck it up, get over it and get on with it Slater!

    And the name of the shooter is … ??? Slater is a gun man!

  5. The Daily Blog’s two regular minus voters have been very busy on this thread. Two minus votes on every comment. Busy times.

Comments are closed.