My Day in Court
And not covering myself in glory
If you have been following the New Zealand media in recent days, you may have noticed my name surface in coverage of a defamation trial currently before the Auckland District Court. This week I appeared as a witness in the case brought by Northlander Julian Batchelor, publisher of the 2023 booklet Stop Co-Governance, against disinformation researcher Dr Sanjaya Hattotuwa and TVNZ.
Batchelor alleges he was defamed in a TVNZ broadcast and accompanying online story in which Dr Hattotuwa offered commentary on Batchelor’s writings. Dr Hattotuwa is the first defendant; TVNZ the second. I was asked by the principal shareholder of NZME, Jim Grenon, to appear as an “expert witness” on issues of news gathering, editorial balance, and fairness in broadcast journalism. Mr Grenon is funding Batchelor’s case.
My evidence was straightforward. In my professional opinion, Dr Hattotuwa’s voice was dominant in the story, while Batchelor’s response was relegated to a perfunctory summary at the end. The written version of the article was roughly 600 words. Dr Hattotuwa’s comments accounted for 205 of those words. Batchelor’s response amounted to a single 10-word sentence. That, I argued, raised legitimate questions about balance and proportionality in a story that purported to examine contested claims.
Ninety minutes in the witness box under cross-examination by TVNZ’s counsel, Daniel Nilsson, was an education. Nilsson is sharp, precise, and relentless — qualities I suspect are highly prized in a courtroom, even if they would make for uncomfortable television interviews. I was questioned closely about my written Brief of Evidence, particularly sections addressing declining public trust in mainstream media.
I had argued that on certain issues — notably climate science and race relations — journalists increasingly present a narrow range of perspectives, often framing dissenting voices as marginal or unworthy of serious consideration. When pressed for examples, I cited two recent cases.
The first was the near-total absence of mainstream media coverage of last week’s visit by renowned physicist and climate alarmism sceptic Will Happer. Happer, a distinguished academic with a long career in physics, was interviewed on Newstalk ZB’s The Country. Beyond that, his visit was effectively ignored. Whatever one thinks of his views, the decision by mainstream outlets not to engage with them at all is itself revealing.
The second example was the unfolding Willie Jackson affair at the Manukau Urban Māori Authority — an issue generating considerable discussion online, yet attracting virtually no attention from major news organisations. To my mind, these silences are not incidental. They contribute directly to public perceptions that the media decides, in advance, which topics and viewpoints are acceptable.
Only one mainstream journalist, Shayne Currie from the New Zealand Herald, was present on the press bench during my evidence, although Joel McManus from The Spinoff also covered the trial. Currie did not include my comments on media trust or selective coverage in his reporting. That is, of course, his prerogative. Editors choose what they regard as newsworthy. But I remain of the view that my remarks about declining trust in the media were more pertinent than questions about my association with Reality Check Radio or its billboards.
Still, I was not the reporter. I was the witness.
I am under no illusion that I covered myself in glory in the witness box. This was my first experience giving evidence in a civil trial, and it showed. My only previous court appearance was 26 years ago as a defendant — guilty, remorseful, and accepting the consequences of a drink-driving charge. That, frankly, was easier. Lawyers such as Nilsson and Dr Hattotuwa’s counsel, Davey Salmon KC, are adept at seizing on any imprecision or stray phrase and turning it into a point of pressure.
My greatest regret came after I had finished giving evidence. My appearance had been delayed, it overran, and I missed my scheduled flight home. While frantically trying to rebook via the Air New Zealand app, Phil O’Sullivan, now head of TVNZ News, popped his head into the room, wished me a Merry Christmas, and moved on.
Distracted, stressed, and careless, I called out to him and made a few comments about the case and my involvement. I may well have referred to Julian Batchelor as “a nutter”, having watched his performance in court the previous day.
Under questioning, Batchelor had defended claims that Māori culture was “lacking in character”, suggested there was pre-Māori habitation of New Zealand, and alleged that “600 farmers in Otago” were armed and ready to act because of Māori privilege. He also refused to disclose who funded his pamphlet, prompting suggestions he may have been in contempt of court. From the public gallery, it did not strike me as a strong showing.
I assumed my exchange with O’Sullivan was private, a conversation between former colleagues. I should have explicitly said it was off the record. I did not. That was my mistake. Mea culpa.
O’Sullivan must have tipped off Davey Salmon about my comments and, under questioning, repeated them in court. They are remarks which will be of no help to the plaintiff’s case.
I retire, somewhat bruised, from the ranks of defamation trial witnesses. The experience reinforced for me just how much power large media organisations wield — and how carefully that power must be exercised if public trust is to be maintained.
It also gave me one more reason to remain sceptical of TVNZ News.
Peter
I have been following the hearing from a distance and caught the various news reports of the case. Defamation is always a dangerous horse to ride - as Oscar Wilde discovered - and one's reputation comes under the microscope. After all, if your reputation is suspect you have a problem.
There were two things about your story that interested me. The funding of the litigation is irrelevant yet it has been seized upon. Shock, horror - Jim Grenon is funding the case.
And so the irrelevant rabbit hole of Grenon's involvement is quite meaningless in the overall scheme of the case but from the point of view oif constructing a narrative it is very important.
Here you have an avowedly conservative person with money who is on the Board of NZME funding a suit against TVNZ (another media outfit) and poor innocent helpless Sanjana Hattotuwa. A classic case of a beat-up by a wealthy right-winger. That will be the narrative and although it won't be quite as bold as that, it will create a strong inference.
The second point is Hattotuwa. Why anyone would rely on him as an authority for anything beyond stating that the sun rose (and even then I would look out my window to be sure if Mr H made such an assertion) is beyond me. But H makes good copy and has colouful soundbites so not surprising.
I covered the Disinformation Project in detail and have had cause to examine some of H's subsequent pronouncements. He is strong on opinion and good on conclusions buit his research methodolgy, if you can find out what it is, is often superficial. He does not release his data (although sometimes he construct pretty tables and spreadsheets) and so it is impossible to independently verify his claims.
I would hope that Batchelor's counsel had put H's feet to the fire as far as research and data gathering is concerned. The defence of honest opinion (which I imagine is what H is running) requires some evidential basis for the opinion, and that is where H could be shaky. But I am not running the case and what I am saying is based on second hand info.
As far as your own position is concerned - an expert gives opinion evidence within his field of expertise. The fact that he does so does not mean that he unequivocally supports the party for whom he gives evidence. So you may well think that the person for whom you give evidence is whatever you might personally think. But that doesn't contaminate your opinion evidence.
So don't sweat it Peter. It probably tells us more about Mr O'Sullivan and his ethics than it does you.
As therapy may I suggest soime sustained driving involving a 2 wood and a bag full of white balls on a convenient fairway.
I have a piece on TVNZ coming out on Substack tomorrow - not complimentary I might add. It is entitled "A Saucerful of Secrets".
Take care and have a great Christmas.
DJH
I am reminded of the late Herbert W Armstrong who commenced as a Pastor in a small rural district where communication was difficult because of distance. He recognized early the communicative power of Public Radio to reach the people and he built what became the "World Tomorrow" Christian broadcasts. A small but effective voice in a very large field of media noise.
Today every pagan persuasion of agenda and politic jostle to spread their version of calculated misinformation across that media and no small number of pagan adherents expound and defend the babel of the day. Mostly they seek to use Taxpayer subsidized free media to do so. We all have every reason to be skeptical of the media, and the motives of those in control. As Gump might say, "Stoopid is, as Stoopid does, in the media because of its reach, it might well be said, "Evil is, as Evil does"
From the ideals of Magna Carta we the people believe our Courts serve justice, but so often the Court in hobbled by its own regulation, that is designed to serve authoritative power, hence not always are Court proceedings as clear and unambiguous as might be expected. Often trivialities are expanded to the point of clouding out the fundamental points of justice. Moreover Counsels purposefully exploit that opportunity to obfuscate a principled claim. The political opponents of Julian will go to any measure to discredit him personally, in order to denounce his cause in public and discredit his actions by manipulated media bites. No one will recall the cleverness of the Counsel, but everyone will see the media bites reported in a manner framed to the medias agenda.
This is in essence why, NZCPR, Hobson's Pledge, RCR, The Platform, your own Substack, and even the Good Oil, are along with Julian's Stop Co-Governance, so important to the fabric of the nation. Like Armstrong's early broadcasts, they are a beginning, They need community support.
Thankyou for your service.