GUEST BLOG: Matthew Hooton – My position on NBR

For those asking, yes, Todd Scott filed a Statement of Claim against me in the High Court today. He alleges that it was negligent for me to have sent NBR the column I did about Steven Joyce. Consequently, despite the column having been published in the NBR after being read and subedited by several NBR staff including editor Duncan Bridgeman, Todd says I should have to pay some or all NBR’s costs and any losses it suffers from Mr Joyce’s litigation. I understand these are now many tens of thousands of dollars.

This is a very novel legal move. If media owners are able to seek financial redress from reporters, journalists and other contributors for supplying material that might later be found to be capable of having a defamatory meaning, despite being subedited and published by the publication itself, it would have a chilling effect on journalism in New Zealand. No one in the NBR or any other newsroom would be safe from an angry owner who later came under legal and financial pressure.

It would also create a bit of a circular situation. For example, if Todd were successful in negligence against me, I would then surely be able to successfully sue Duncan Bridgeman to get my losses back because he would have been negligent towards me when he subedited and published the column. This would be bizarre and I will not be responding to Todd’s eccentric legal move. He can make his case to the High Court and bear the cost of doing so. I’ll show up if the judge wants.

Seeing I am posting on this topic, others have raised with me Todd’s indications he may reveal who my sources were for the column. This is a red herring. The litigation Mr Joyce has launched does not target any of the points in the column for which I relied on sources, such as the background to the recent National Party leadership election. According to Mr Joyce’s Statement of Claim, he was mainly concerned about comments I made about his relationship with Chorus and also the use of the word “blackmail”. I have apologised publicly on all the points raised in his Statement of Claim and settled his complaint against me. Todd doesn’t wish to do the same.

Finally, Todd is concerned about the apology I made to Mr Joyce, and says I had implored him not to make any apology. This is, at best, misleading. I was certainly not prepared to apologise for the large number of matters Mr Joyce originally complained about, and I have not done so. As discussed above, my apology related to the points raised in Mr Joyce’s Statement of Claim in order to resolve the matter to his and my satisfaction without clogging up the courts. I think this was the sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Todd and NBR were advised that I planned to take this course of action on 11 April and I know he was aware of it because he sent me an abusive text that day as a result. I then issued the apology twelve days later on 23 April.

[UPDATE: A review of my emails also reveals that I proposed to NBR on 6 March that we apologise in the NBR of 9 March for exactly the point Mr Joyce ended up suing on. Todd rejected this proposal. If he now faces six-figure legal bills, putting his business and the jobs of those he employs at risk, that is entirely the result of his own erratic and incompetent behaviour.]

For what it is worth, I think the subeditors at the NZ Herald, where I now write, would have asked me to edit the parts of the column Mr Joyce raised in his Statement of Claim and I would have agreed. I write hundreds of thousands of words a year and sometimes use language that benefits from good subediting. My apology to Mr Joyce for the matters raised in his Statement of Claim was sincere and I reiterate it here.

Matthew Hooton is a right wing columnist.