Miscarriage of justice for Craig: judge

The judge presiding over the Colin Craig defamation case says a “miscarriage of justice has occurred”.

Justice Sarah Katz said in a decision released yesterday that damages awarded against former Conservative Party leader Craig were “well outside the range that could reasonably have been justified in all the circumstances of the case. The consequence is that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.”

Craig was ordered to pay $1.27 million in damages to Taxpayers Union founder Jordan Williams after he was found to have defamed him.

Williams said yesterday: “The judge has offered the choice of her resetting the damages, having another jury trial, or we can go to the Court of Appeal. Over the coming days, my lawyers and I will be making those decisions.”

Katz said the jury’s verdict must be set aside and a retrial ordered, unless both parties were willing to have a new damages award substituted in place of the jury’s award.

“It is not possible to have a new trial solely on the issue of damages, as any assessment of damages must necessarily be based on the jury’s overall factual findings.”

Any trial judge can set aside a jury’s verdict and order a new trial if it is in the interests of justice - and if the judgement has not been formally lodged. As soon as the verdict was delivered by the jury, Colin Craig’s lawyer asked that entering the judgment be deferred because he was going to apply to have the verdict set aside. He did, Katz heard both sides and agreed to set it aside.

Craig told the Herald Katz had “got it right. It clearly was a mistrial and a retrial is the next step.”

He added Williams was entitled to appeal the decision.

“I am comfortable that we have the right decision and look forward to further clearing my name as matters progress.”

The judge ordered both parties to file memoranda by 3pm next Wednesday advising whether they consented to the court substituting its own award of damages.

If confirmation was not received by the date, Katz ordered that the jury’s verdicts be set aside and the proceedings be set down for a retrial on the first available date.

Qualified privilege entitles a person to reply to an attack on their character or reputation, even if what they say in response is defamatory.

Katz wrote that Craig’s actions “must be viewed in the broader context that his own character and reputation were under sustained attack from Mr Williams”.

“The law therefore conferred a privilege on him, for important reasons of public policy . . . here, the importance of the privilege was particularly significant because the category of speech involved is one that is deserving of a high level of protection in a free and democratic society, namely political speech.”

Katz also found there was at least one misdirection in the summing up, but it was not necessary for her to consider that in detail as Craig had established he was entitled to a retrial.