Miscarriage of justice in Craig v Williams defamation case

A High Court judge has set aside a jury’s ruling that former politician Colin Craig defamed Jordan Williams, saying there was a miscarriage of justice.

In September, Mr Craig was found guilty by a jury of defaming Mr Williams after he distributed a leaflet to 1.6 million homes in 2015 and held a press conference, alleging Mr Williams was part of a “malicious” campaign against his leadership of the Conservative Party.

After an almost four-week trial that was presided over by Justice Sarah Katz, the jury awarded Mr Williams $1.27 million in damages, the maximum that Mr Williams sought.

In a High Court judgment released today, Justice Katz said Mr Craig’s statements were not markedly worse than statements made in previous defamation cases and the damages award was “well outside the range that could reasonably have been justified.”

Mr Williams says, “The judge has offered the choice of her resetting the damages, having another jury trial, or we can go to the Court of Appeal. Over the coming days, my lawyers and I will be making those decisions.”

Justice Katz said although the jury’s process is not known,

• “It failed to take into account that several of the more serious defamatory imputations were true;

• It failed to take into account the broader context in which the remarks and leaflet were published, including that Mr Craig was responding to an attack on his own reputation and character by Mr Williams;

• It probably double-counted (to some extent) the damage caused to Mr Craig’s reputation by the remarks and leaflet;

• there was likely some double up between the punitive damages award and the aggravated (compensatory) damages award; and

• there was likely some double up between the punitive damages awarded in respect of the remarks and the punitive damages awarded in respect of the leaflet.

“The consequence is that a miscarriage of justice has occurred,” the judge said.

She said the jury’s verdict must be set aside and a retrial ordered unless both parties are willing to substitute a new damages award in place of the jury’s award.

“It is not possible to have a new trial solely on the issue of damages, as any assessment of damages must necessarily be based on the jury’s overall factual findings,” the judge said.

Justice Katz rejected Mr Craig’s bid to enter judgment in favour of him.

“I reject the submission that there was no evidence, or insufficient evidence, to support the jury’s finding that he had lost his qualified privilege,” she said.

The parties were ordered to file memoranda by 3pm, April 26 about their submissions on the damages award.

Read the judgment here.

In December, Mr Craig’s lawyer said there had been a miscarriage of justice.

Mr Craig’s lawyer — Stephen Mills, QC — said the $1.27 million damages award was “excessive” and “astronomical by New Zealand means.”

Mr Mills told the judge she could make a judgment contrary to the jury.

Justice Katz replied this “startling proposition” sounded like a matter for the appeal courts but Mr Mills said it was within her power to order a retrial or decide on it herself.