The librarian and the letter
A former principal claiming her reputation was damaged by a letter sent out to the school community has triggered an ‘‘unusual’’ defamation trial in Marlborough.
Her lawyer said defamation cases were normally reserved for the ‘‘highrise buildings and printing presses’’ of the country’s media, not a ‘‘rural village’’.
Former Rai Valley Area School principal Muff Newton brought the defamation case against former school librarian Faye Leov and her husband Bernard, and Dunedin writer Sue Dunn.
The Leovs employed Dunn in 2012 to write a book about conflict within the school, and Dunn sent the letter that September, asking people to share their experiences.
But Newton claimed there were 14 defamatory statements in the letter, directed at her and depicting her as ‘‘evil and malevolent’’.
The trial ran for two weeks and lawyers gave their closing arguments on Thursday and Friday at the Blenheim District Court.
Newton’s lawyer Richard Fowler QC said the statements in the letter clearly referred to Newton, though she was not named.
In the letter, Dunn wrote that ‘‘something extremely sinister’’ and ‘‘alarming and heartbreaking’’ had happened at the school.
It was ‘‘undoubtedly the worst story of workplace bullying to surface in New Zealand’’, she wrote.
A ‘‘ruthless saboteur’’ had ‘‘systematically set about to insidiously degrade’’ people linked to the school, Dunn wrote.
The saboteur’s actions had caused harm to children and staff at the school, and the wider community, she said.
‘‘Those of you who have aligned yourselves with this bullying should step back to take an objective look,’’ Dunn wrote.
‘‘The only way you can be a true colleague and friend is by helping her to face the truth.
‘‘A monstrous thing has happened and now is the time to defang the monster.’’
Defence lawyer Christopher Griggs said the statements did not name Newton as the subject.
But if the court found they identified Newton, several of the statements were presented as opinion, using phrases such as ‘‘points to’’ and ‘‘seems to suggest’’, Griggs said.
There was no proof Newton was subject to ‘‘ridicule, odium or contempt’’ as a result of the letter, he said.
And the Leovs should not be held responsible for what Dunn wrote, Griggs said.
Dunn emailed Leov a draft of the letter in September 2012, but Leov repeatedly wrote that she was uncomfortable with it and asked Dunn to change some parts, and have a lawyer check it. The letter was not read by a lawyer. Leov explicitly told her not to send the letter on September 16, but Dunn said she had already sent it five days earlier.
‘‘We must have had a misunderstanding,’’ Dunn wrote.
Statements in the letter about Newton being a bully were fact, Griggs said.
An expert witness gave evidence that they considered Newton’s behaviour constituted workplace bullying.
Three teachers and a library committee member gave evidence of the ‘‘devastating’’ physical and emotional harm caused to them and others by Newton; from anxiety, depression, weight loss, hair loss and insomnia, to the resignation of teachers, Griggs said.
But Fowler said Newton was not a bully.
‘‘Mrs Newton’s actions were nothing more than standard and understandable measures to manage the school.’’
Before Leov was fired in 2008, she clashed with Newton over a shared library for the school and the community.
The library society, including Leov as chief librarian, disagreed with Newton over how much control the school had over the library.
Newton was acting on legal advice, not malice, when she refused to meet with some staff and trespassed two volunteers from the library, Fowler said.
Fowler said the Leovs should be held partly responsible because they ‘‘fed’’ Dunn the information used in the letter, knowing it was likely to be published, and provided a list of people to send it to.
The Leovs paid $7500 to Dunn later that year as per their contract, which seemed to endorse Dunn’s decision to send the letter, Fowler said.
Newton sought an apology from the Leovs and Dunn and a correction to be sent to the people who received the letters.
However if the judge ordered the apology and correction and the defendants failed to follow through, Newton suggested she be awarded $100,000 in damages.
Justice David Collins reserved his decision, and said he expected it would be released within eight weeks.
He hoped the rural community, which had packed the courtroom every day of the trial, could finally move on, whatever the outcome, he said.