A Supreme Court judge on May 6 dismissed an appeal filed by a letter writer to the Kele’a newspaper, the Kele'a, and two others in a defamation case that awarded judgment and costs against them back in 2013.

The appellants were Solomone Palu the letter writer, Mateni and Laucala Tapueluelu and the newspaper.

The respondents included former Prime Minister Lord Tu’ivakano and six others who were Cabinet Ministers at the time of the letter writing in 2012.

Hon Mr Justice Scott in his judgment on 6 May said there was no duty or public interest for the appellants to publish this letter.

The defence argued that they published on the occasion of qualified privilege and that it consisted of fair comment on a matter of public interest. The basis of the letter was that Palu had heard on the radio about the proceedings then in Parliament, but the judge found that the letter made no reference to any proceedings.

The judge said the bulk of the letter was harmless commentary on current affairs but the matters complained of were not information at all: they were statements of fact for which no justification was attempted by relevance to any transcript of what had actually been said in Parliament.

“If the appellant had accurately reported that it has been claimed or even proved in Parliament that the respondents had acted as dishonestly as was alleged in the letter then the respondents claim could not have succeeded. This, however, was not as I find it, the case."

Mr Justice Scott said merely listening to proceedings in Parliament may justify a person in coming to a private conclusion that a person has acted dishonestly but cannot possibly justify the publication of a letter stating that person’s dishonesty to be the case.

"The Magistrate’s conclusion that the appellants had failed to discharge the onus upon them to prove that the publication of the letter was an occasion of qualified privilege was correct."

Case 

In 2013, the respondents took the appellants to court at the Nuku’alofa Magistrate seeking damages for defamation when the newspaper published Palu's letter, which alleged they were guilty of theft and embezzlement. The letter related to a decision to pay out millions of government money.

After a long trial, Magistrate Tatafu found for the respondents and ordered the appellants to pay damages and costs. On June 12, 2013 the appellants were ordered by the Magistrate to pay more than $200,000 in damages and costs after they were found guilty of defamation. This led to the current appeal.