The Pleadings...
[39] Similarly, a Statement of Defence must plead explicitly any affirmative defence. When 'truth' is the basis of a defence, it is necessary to make it clear what is said to be true, so the plaintiff knows what case he or she has to meet. Where a defendant raises an imputation of misconduct against a plaintiff, the plaintiff ought to to be able to go to trial with knowledge of the acts which are alleged and which the defendant intends to rely to justify the imputation. Similarly, where defences of honest opinion and/or qualified privilege are raised, sufficient particulars must be given to inform the plaintiff of the basis on which the opinion is based, or the circumstances which give rise to a privileged occasion.
I would imagine this is where dear old aunty kent is getting stuck in his statement of defence 'finding sufficient particulars must be given to inform the plaintiff of the basis on which the opinion is based.'
Of course it is recorded that Stockdale, Taylor, Purkiss, Parker are all mates of the same bent. In fact by description Stockdale and Taylor have 'spoken' for Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss because it is a given that both the writer and publisher are responsible. What Stockdale says, swears ....'there was no blood inside the rifle...David Bain had scratches on his chest on the morning of the killings...Karam lied on the Laws show....David was not stripped searched...I got from the horse's mouth.' is in fact the mouth of Parker and Purkiss, because the two ps are the publishers and the words spoken between any of the partners are in fact the words of those that remain silent, or who are complicit in the defamation being disseminated.
But we can go further, a lot further. Joe Karam is entitled to state his case on the issue of the forensic evidence against Robin and argue that his reputation was damaged by the claims that there was no blood in the rifle and so on and that he was a 'myth maker, making myths,' the many claims that are inaccurate and which the hate-sites continue to proliferate. The two ps have no defence that ursurps the trial transcript or evidence, they have nothing to point to support their claims (or those so published of their site members) they can't show the published articles were 'reports of truth on a subject of public interest...fair and accurate reports of statements made in courts.. honestly held opinion or comment based on true facts..' because none of the facts exists, even variations of them, they could find favour as a defence, don't exist. Literally, on such matters there is no credible defence. Parker and the others went far beyond honestly held opinion into defamation based on untruths, whether they were careless or not, or mislead into believing the 'truth' as it has existed for them - is wholly their responsibility. There is no room for saying that Aunt Agatha told me and I believed her.
Others have spoken about the aggravating factors of the defamation of Joe Karam in that it has continued as we all see by Taylor, Cameron and others on Trade Me - if had been simply that Parker had believed the mythical 'Aunt Agatha' until the point he discovered the truth, he was bound to withdraw and apologise - but he has maintained his position and in the last few weeks we have seen his 'gallants' revealed as deliberate liars continuing a propaganda campaign. If the blood in the barrel is one of the recorded offences, we may yet hear Stockdale reading from a credited trial transcript the evidence of Peter Ross, or directly from the job sheet of Hentschel the evidence regarding the 'extensive' blood in the rifle, and when asked where it was that he (Stockdale) in fact got his 'truth' we may yet hear who the horse's mouth is. That horse's mouth, or mouths have a lot to answer for and someone is coming calling for those answers. Who will it be? I hope also to hear from some old favourites fattonybalonyobook, nina_concertina, goobergoof, arsew..e - just to name a few explaining the 'truth' of their ongoing defamation.
If this case ever gets to court - that is, if Parker and Purkiss and co don't withdraw as they would be well-advised to - may we expect some reliable reporting of the case from some source?
ReplyDeleteRelying on the mainstream media for accurate reporting is a dead loss, as is amply shown by the reporting of the Bain retrial. What WERE they thinking?
That's an interesting point Observer. Something to keep an eye on.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell, not one NZ paper reported in any detail the evidence regarding the blood found in the rifle, only some mention in the Judges summing up reported on stuff. I believe the blood in the barrel is the single most important piece of evidence, absolutely.
The 'seminal' piece by the 'master' vanbeynan also excluded it, fortunately however, his jury stalking did not escape the media and somehow, the worm having turned to some degree, I believe there'll be strong interest in accurate and detailed reporting.