Justice Jones of the Supreme Court, presiding in Cairns on Friday 29 October, is a knowledgeable and considerate man. When dealing with the defamation suit between Cairns Regional Councillor Alan Blake and CairnsBlog author, he was clearly aware of the dilemma faced by Michael Moore as an unrepresented defendant.
Justice Jones said that he wouldn’t ever give legal advice to any party, however he pointed out that defamation law was a particularly technical area of the law, meaning that it's ‘complex, rigid, and formal’ in which a party really needs competent legal advice.
At Friday's mention, in the Defamation case bought by Alan Blake who didn't attend the hearing, as he was in China learning the local customs, there were two applications for the Judge to decide on.
First was my application to strike out Councillor Blake’s original claim because of a technical deficiency in the originating document, where there was no soliticor's signature on the document. Judge Jones explained that, while the originating claim had indeed contained an error (failing to include a solicitor’s name in the originating document) that error was now corrected and the Claim remained in force. He gave me the opportunity to either accept that, or argue. Of course I accepted.
Councillor Blake was represented in Court by R.J. Anderson, Counsel from Brisbane, who mentioned something about seeking costs after I accepted this indication.
“How could you justify that? It was your error!” Judge Jones said to Anderson, and got a laugh from those gathered in the public gallery.
Mr Anderson indicated that costs were being sought for the second application, that by Councillor Blake to strike out my initial defence.
Judge Jones observed that I seemed to agree that the original defence was deficient, and that he was willing to see it withdrawn. In fact, I had lodged an affidavit with the court previously, as the Registrar informed, however this was not on a correct form, one of a "notice of discontinuance." I agreed.
Judge Jones went on to say that I appeared to be seeking leave to “re-plead” by filing a new defence. I agreed and said I have been working on the new defence, but needed more time to get it into proper shape. I also asked the judge that he wanted to visit my 89-year-old mother in Christchurch because she was having difficulty coping with the aftermath of the earthquake there, and all the continuing shocks and quakes.
As they do, Judge Jones questioned me about this and suggested that my obligations to Councillor Blake were more important than “a little holiday”, and that I perhaps ought deal with the defence before I left town. Well, I explained that it wasn’t a holiday, and that my concerns for his mother were shared by others in the family, and that was needed there now. Judge Jones accepted this.
Mr Anderson said that his side wasn’t pressing urgently about time, and that they would have no trouble with allowing 21 days.
As they do, Judge Jones questioned me about this and suggested that my obligations to Councillor Blake were more important than “a little holiday”, and that I perhaps ought deal with the defence before I left town. Well, I explained that it wasn’t a holiday, and that my concerns for his mother were shared by others in the family, and that was needed there now. Judge Jones accepted this.
Mr Anderson said that his side wasn’t pressing urgently about time, and that they would have no trouble with allowing 21 days.
“How about 42 days?” Judge Jones responded.
"That would be of concern," Mr Anderson said. The learned Judge then consulted his calendar.
He said that 42 days would place the receipt of my new defence at 10 December, a time when no Court would be sitting, and nothing could be done about non-compliance. Judge Jones then set the date for lodging a new defence at 21st January 2011, or 84 days from the mention.
He also awarded costs for Blake’s application against myself, without much argument, and warned again that if I didn’t complete the new defence properly, I would face more costs.
"The law in this area was difficult, and that you need to be very careful," Judge Jones said.
A bill for costs will arrive in due course, and is expected to amount to thousands of dollars. The best guess is in the order of $3,000. I look forward to the on-going support of CairnsBlog readers, as this important case about free speech moves slowly through the legal system. There is a "donate" button on the right-hand side, and I ask everyone to assist in this cause. We will also be running some fund-raisers over the next few months.
A bill for costs will arrive in due course, and is expected to amount to thousands of dollars. The best guess is in the order of $3,000. I look forward to the on-going support of CairnsBlog readers, as this important case about free speech moves slowly through the legal system. There is a "donate" button on the right-hand side, and I ask everyone to assist in this cause. We will also be running some fund-raisers over the next few months.
As Alan Blake arrives back in Cairns today, I expect he will have the chance to consider the olive branch that I provided just as he jumped on his plane two weeks ago, in the form of an out of court settlement, for the betterment of both parties.
The life of a blogger who wants to tell the stories other won't, is far from plain-sailing when a politician wants to shut debate and criticism down. I look forward to your help and financial support.