Court throws out Peters' defamation case

Winston Peters and David Carter

The High Court has struck out New Zealand First leader Winston Peters' latest defamation case against TVNZ and National MP David Carter.

Mr Peters alleged Mr Carter made defamatory statements about him when chairman of a parliamentary select committee inquiring into the scampi industry.

He sought to sue TVNZ for broadcasting Mr Carter's comments.

In his judgment, Associate Judge Tony Christiansen said Mr Carter's comments and those broadcast did not create the impression, as alleged, that Mr Peters was involved in serious misconduct, that his conduct was potentially criminal, or was in contempt of Parliament.

He struck out the case and said costs were reserved.

"It's great," Mr Carter said. "What the judge has clearly said is that I was doing my job in reporting the fact that allegations had been made and I sent the allegations to the Speaker.

"I had not in any way defamed Mr Peters."

The case was Mr Peters' second attempt to sue Mr Carter and TVNZ. The first case was also struck out.

TVNZ and Mr Carter applied to have the case thrown out arguing that what Mr Carter said could not considered defamatory by an ordinary, reasonable person.

Judge Christiansen noted that Mr Peters had previously argued that Mr Carter's comments were defamatory because they made it appear Mr Peters had been guilty of either serious misconduct or contempt of Parliament.

However, the New Zealand First leader recast the claim for the second case saying the comments instead made it appear Mr Peters was a party to serious misconduct, the judge said.

Judge Christiansen said Mr Carter had passed on allegations but had specifically stated it was not for him to judge "whether the allegations were correct or not".

The judge said that a reasonable person would think that Mr Carter took the appropriate action by referring the allegations to the Speaker for inquiry.

"At worst it could have been seen as political by-play," he said.

Judge Christiansen agreed with the previous decision to throw out the case and added: "My judgment goes further and rejects any claim that Mr Carter's statements are capable of supporting any inference of a suspicion of guilt."

Mr Peters' case against TVNZ was that its Holmes show asserted he was involved in serious misconduct of a potentially criminal nature.

The judge did not accept that either, saying: "Mr Peters appears to spread his context net wider than he should."

He said the show had provided balancing arguments.

"TVNZ at no time said it adopted the allegations much less that it was making them," he said.

"The words broadcast by TVNZ in its Holmes programme on June 23, 2004 are not reasonably capable of bearing the meanings that Mr Peters was involved in serious misconduct, that his conduct was potentially criminal, or was in contempt of Parliament."

He struck out the cases and reserved costs.

Mr Peters previously had to pay Mr Carter $3000 in costs over the first defamation claim.

Mr Peters is on leave recovering from a mystery illness.

- NZPA

- NZPA