Editorial: Andrew Little's defamation action has resonated

Judges and philosophers would struggle to resolve the conflicting principles that faced the jury in the defamation action brought against the Labour Party leader, Andrew Little, by donors to the National Party, Earl and Lani Hagaman. The jury had to decide not just whether the Hagamans' reputation was damaged but if so, whether Little's comments were permissible for someone in his public position. In other words they had to decide which was more important: a person's right to be recompensed for a false personal slight, or the ability of MPs to raise matters they believe to be in the public interest.

In the event the jury found Earl Hagaman had been defamed by one of a number of comments Little had made about a hotel management contract the Hagamans were awarded. But it was unable to decide whether Little's comment was protected from legal liability since he was speaking in his political role. Lani Hagaman says she intends to make another attempt to have that question decided in the courts but, as things stand, the case has had a good outcome from all points of view.

By taking the case as far as she has, Lani Hagaman has stood up strongly for her scruples and those of her ailing husband. She has received a fulsome public apology from Little on the witness stand. The Hagamans won the hotel contract in Niue Island in a tender at arms length from the Government and Little had to concede he had no grounds of suggesting it was related to the donation at the last election.

The Labour leader, and perhaps others who are too quick to suppose political donations bring material rewards, ought to be chastened by the lengths the Hagamans have gone to defend their good name. Little has suffered the pressure of facing a $2.3 million damages claim and the political embarrassment of a court appearance in election year. But he did not deserve to be personally bankrupted. He was doing his job, putting a Government action under scrutiny. With a third party involved he ought to have made sure he was on firm ground.

It is to his credit that he accepted the costs of defending the case and the possibility of damages he might not have been able to afford without mortgaging his home. Since he had previously criticised John Key for failing to carry such costs personally, Little perhaps had no choice. But he did so, no doubt putting himself and his family through considerable anxiety.

The case has left open the possibility his comment could even be permissible under the privileges of Parliament. MPs have an absolute privilege when speaking in the chamber to impugn the reputations of individuals outside at no risk of a defamation suit. When their words are reported outside the chamber they carry the same privilege on condition the report is accurate and published in the public interest, not malice. Little invoked that "qualified privilege" for his comments outside the House.

The jury has not rejected his defence out of hand. If the Hagamans go back to court for a conclusive ruling, a jury could give MPs greater licence to speak outside Parliament in the public interest.