One NZ chief executive Jason Paris. Photo / Dean Purcell
One NZ chief executive Jason Paris. Photo / Dean Purcell
Media law experts warn that the boss of the Warriors’ biggest sponsor could be sued for defamation over comments he made about NRL referees.
One NZ CEO Jason Paris described refereeing decisions against the Warriors during their 18-6 loss to the Panthers on Saturday as “cheating of the highest order”.He added in a tweet: “Have they got money on them to lose?”
Paris later walked back the comments, saying: “Of course, the refs are doing the best job they possibly can, but you cannot argue with the consistent inconsistencies against the Warriors game after game after game.”
The Professional Rugby League Match Officials - the union which represents the sport’s referees - has already spoken to lawyers about potentially launching defamation proceedings against Paris.
University of Canterbury law professor Ursula Cheer said Paris’ allegations were “pretty serious”.
“It is usually defamatory to call someone a cheat.”
And top Auckland media and defamation lawyer Robert Stewart said if it ever got to court, it would be “challenging for Paris to raise an honest opinion defence”.
But Stewart said such cases were “long and costly ... the only winners are the lawyers”.
Sport, he added, was an arena often containing strong opinions that were not challenged in court. Examples included controversial 2007 World Cup referee Wayne Barnes and All Blacks great Richie McCaw - described at times as a cheat by opponents - who did not take legal action when faced with accusations.
“A lot of sportspeople have to ignore opinions they would consider wrong,” he said.
Opinion defences existed but needed to be based on fact, but Stewart said Paris would have to show that decisions against the Warriors were very clearly against what the rulebook stated.
“As long as the opinion is genuinely held ... even if it is wrong, ill-informed or just plain stupid,” he said.
“To say someone is cheating and the motivation is financial gain is clearly defamatory.”
Referee Todd Smith talks to Tohu Harris and Demitric Sifakula of the Warriors. Photo / Getty Images
Cheer said calling a referee a cheat was “highly likely to be defamatory because it goes right to the heart of how they do their job”.
“Here Paris has gone even further and suggested there was bias, and even that some sort of betting on the Warriors to lose might have taken place.”
She said Paris could argue the statement was just letting off steam.
“And so [the comment] is just harmless and typical of social media discussion about sport. And Paris has actually tried to do this when he walked back from his statement.”
Cheer said referees could sue, even if no individuals were named.
“If you call a bunch of people cheats without naming them, it is still possible to sue. A member of a group can sue for statements about the group if they are able to identify themselves as members of the group. Most of the refs in the NRL would be identifiable in this way, even if they are not named. I think the ref, particularly of the most recent game Paris was complaining about, can clearly argue everyone would know who he is.”
She also said the NRL could also sue as an organisation, as its reputation would also be impacted by the statements made.
“There is a defence of honest opinion, and here Paris would have to show three things: he was expressing his opinion, it was a genuine opinion, and it was based on facts that are true. I think he could satisfy the first two requirements, but if what he accused the NRL and the refs of was untrue, he will have difficulty using that defence.”
The professor said another useful defence existed involving responsible communication on a matter of public interest. But in this case, it was a difficult point because not everyone is interested in sport or league, and in New Zealand, not everyone is aware of the NRL. But the public interest defence does not require that everyone be interested in it.
Paris may need to show he had checked game statistics to back up his defence.
“Paris has tried to limit the effect of the original statement he made by walking back from it and suggesting bias as a form of opinion which can be justified by the stats being checked,” she said.
“So he may have been able to limit the worst effects of the original statement to a short time only, until his walk back. That would reduce any damages payable because the most damaging statement has only been out there for a limited time.”
One NZ declined to comment when approached by the Herald.
