he was alongside Reagan, Thatcher in the sense of bringing tyranny to an end
I appreciate that you have expressed yourself well, however. I cannot see Reagan and Thatcher alongside Mandela ever. They both cast Mandela as a terrorist for seeking universal suffrage so that all people in South Africa had the right to vote regardless of race.
Mandela would not sit comfortably alongside such ill company; he would be civil but uncomfortable - civil unrest.
A blast from the past:
Matters revolve around the "the issues to be determined in that proceeding". s68.2 Evidence Act.
Form what I understand of this case from reports on the pleadings of both parties - Slater based his "published material", from a hard drive (stolen) that belonged to Blomfield's and was given to Slater by Blomfield's former employer (under a fanchise arrangement).
Blomfield only had one employer in such circumstance.
The informant’s, Slater's source, identity is known to both parties - IMHO there is no service to the public interest in this case in not allowing Bloomfield the disclosure sought.
It’s the outcome of the appeal which will create a precedent, one way or the other.
I consider the appeal judgment won’t have a long reach or wide application.
The appeal judgement, depending on what it is, will only create precedent that extends to defamation proceedings involving published material that is similar in nature to the material that is the subject of the proceedings between Blomfield and Slater.
You are right - I meant "News Media"..
This judgement is pretty sound::
The decision re the disclosure rests on the facts of this particular case and has regard to the defence being run by Slater.
If you look at  of the judgment - Slater has admitted the publication of the material and admits, in some instances, the defamatory meanings (that are pleaded), Slater relies on the defences of truth and honest opinion and has produced a list of the particulars (docs etc) that he relies on to support the defence he is running.
The purpose of discovery is to assist the decision maker in making a decision. To eventually make a decision the judge needs the “particulars” disclosed that Slater says support his defence.
The judgment does not consider the material published by Slater, the material that is the subject of the proceedings, are protected as New Media/Medium under s 68.
The judgment does not modify or create a precedent that lessens the purpose of s68. The judgement deals with the materials published by Slater in this case – not the wider blogging universe.
The judgment is pretty sound – what it does is signal to Slater the nature of the materials published are such that he cannot rely on s68 to defeat the disclosure sought.
The judgment here is not the end of the world, it would be a twisted world that casts Slater as a champion of the rights of others.
I feel Slater will likely challenge the judgment, the judgement will stand, Slater will refuse to attend to disclosure and will be held in contempt of Court – Slater will play the victim and milk it for all it is worth - perhaps he will end up in custody for failure to attend to disclosure.
Russell - I must correct you it is not:
Dumb and Dumber
but "Dumberer and Dumberer".
Len Brown's dream for a third term of that sleepy hollow, Auckland town:
The right message.
The Police need to acknowledge the omission to treat the complaints seriously is unacceptable whilst also progressing the inquiry.
If the Police seriously want people’s opinions of them to change they need to demonstrate that they have changed their behavior and culture. The emphasis on counter PR measures and damage control is a wasted.
Marshall instead of taking things personally and phoning people should be more concerned with setting things right in the Police force and in particular in dealing with an investigation into the gang rape allegations made by the four victims, that is after all the job of the Police.