Protecting yourself from legal action 

Keep contemporaneous notes of interviews, calls and meetings, including dates, times and what was said. Save underlying documents such as court filings, company records, government reports and messages from sources.

 How much detail you keep can depend on the sensitivity of the story and the people involved. For many stories, fuller records will help you show that your reporting was careful and responsible if it is challenged. For particularly sensitive or high‑risk sources, it may be appropriate to limit or later reduce identifying details in your notes and messages once you have done the necessary verification, so you are not holding more information than you reasonably need.

Think clearly about public interest. Ask what larger issue your story speaks to – for example, financial misconduct, public safety, misuse of power, environmental risk, corruption or systemic abuse. You do not need legal jargon, but you should be able to explain in a sentence why the story matters beyond private gossip.

Be explicit about verification. Record what you checked and what you could not check: which documents you relied on, what the record shows, and which points are still disputed. In the text itself, distinguish clearly between reporting on allegations and asserting that something is proven.

Separate facts from opinion. Present the key factual findings as clearly and neutrally as you can, then signpost when you are moving into comment or evaluation (for example, “In our view…”, “This suggests that…”). The clearer the structure between fact and opinion, and between what is established and what is alleged, the fewer easy opportunities there are for someone to launch a defamation claim as a way to put pressure on you.

Decide whether to seek comment from the subject and, if so, how and when to do it. Keep copies of emails or messages inviting comment, and any responses, so you can show later that you offered a fair opportunity to reply. If there are safety or harassment concerns – for you or for sources – discuss options with trusted advisers before making contact. The law does not require you to put yourself or others at risk, but you should be able to explain why you approached right of reply in the way that you did.

Section 68 of the Evidence Act 2006 allows a court to excuse a journalist from identifying confidential sources, but the protection is not guaranteed and has been applied inconsistently in New Zealand. You should assume some risk that a court may, in certain cases, still order disclosure, even where there are genuine concerns about harm or retaliation

Because of that, it helps to think about source protection both in legal and practical terms. For many stories, keeping clear records will be appropriate and useful if your work is challenged. For more sensitive or high‑risk sources, some journalists take extra precautions: limiting how many people know a source’s identity, and reducing the amount of identifying material they retain by the time of publication.

When you promise confidentiality, be clear and honest with sources about what you can and cannot guarantee. You can explain that the law gives you some tools to resist orders to disclose, but that a court can ultimately decide otherwise, and that your own practices (for example, how widely you share or store identifying information) are part of how you try to keep them safe.  

Whatever approach you take, treat source protection as a conscious, case‑by‑case decision rather than something automatic. Think ahead about why you are keeping particular records, or choosing not to, and how you would explain those decisions later if they are questioned.

Note the deadline, read the letter carefully, and make sure someone you trust sees it: an editor, an experienced journalist or, if possible, a lawyer.

Threat letters often open with inflated claims about damages, costs, and disclosure. New Zealand courts do award damages for defamation, but rarely on the scale often claimed in pre‑action letters, and punitive figures in letters are often more about intimidation than legal reality.

Even a short conversation with a lawyer experienced in media law can help you understand which complaints are serious and which are overreach. Universities usually have legal advisers; student media outlets may have standing arrangements with firms or external advisers. Use them.

 If you are working within a New Zealand tertiary institution, it can also help to understand the protections for academic freedom and freedom of expression in section 267 of the Education and Training Act 2020, and to raise concerns through internal channels early. Those provisions do not replace legal advice, but they can strengthen the case for institutional support when external pressure is applied.

Save every threat letter and email. Do not assume it is safely hidden behind “without prejudice” wording; in New Zealand, judges can still look at threatening correspondence when deciding if a case is abusive or how to deal with costs. If things go to court, your lawyer can usually put key letters in the evidence so the judge can see how the pressure started.

A good media lawyer can often tell quite quickly how serious a letter is. When you go through it together, pay attention to what is missing as well as what is there – for example, vague complaints that do not identify the specific content, or sweeping claims for excessive damages or disclosure. Learning to spot those gaps will help you recognise when a threat is a genuine litigation risk, and when it is mostly about trying to intimidate you into backing down.

Once proceedings are filed, there can be some value in pleading defences early: truth, honest opinion or responsible communication on a matter of public interest. Although these defences will usually require a full trial, setting them out at the outset can have practical and psychological benefits in some cases and may help narrow the real issues in dispute.

Where a plaintiff is based overseas or has weak links to New Zealand, your lawyers may consider applying for security for costs—an order requiring the plaintiff to pay money into court as a condition of proceeding. This can deter plaintiffs who have chosen New Zealand primarily to increase pressure and cost, rather than because it is the natural forum.

In New Zealand, legal aid is available for defamation, at least in principle, subject to means and merits tests. It is not a complete answer to the cost problem—many defendants will not qualify—but for some student journalists or small outlets it can make a real difference.