“The process is the punishment”: Free Speech Union discusses BSA’s SLAPP against Plunket

We’re pleased to report that since 2023, no publicly funded SLAPPs have been filed in New Zealand’s employment jurisdiction against ex-employees, such as Tauranga City Council v Brown, Hamilton City Council v Halse (which remains under a protracted appeal process), Victoria University of Wellington v Sawyer and Bay of Plenty District Health Board v Shaw & Others.

Leighton Associates reported on all four of the above examples since 2019. 

What is a SLAPP?

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism or opposition.  In a typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win; their goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion.  SLAPPs bring about freedom of speech concerns due to their chilling effect, and plaintiffs’ generally obfuscatory conduct (from Wikipedia).

With the exception of Bay of Plenty District Health Board, the New Zealand public bodies did win, because they had access to taxpayer or ratepayer funds creating a huge power imbalance.  The inherent vindictiveness had so much momentum that any political wind change had little effect, not to mention that discontinuing an action is likely to attract an adverse costs award.

New Zealand’s judiciary and even media have mostly avoided applying the term SLAPP to retaliatory or intimidatory legal matters, although Judge Beck made an exception in June 2023:

[46] On the other hand, the Authority does have the power to dismiss frivolous or vexatious proceedings. Mr Halse has submitted that the proceedings brought against him are a SLAPP…  SLAPPs are a form of abusive litigation where powerful plaintiffs bring claims against individuals or smaller organisations in retaliation for them speaking out about some matter of public interest.  The concept of a SLAPP has received little attention in New Zealand; however, it is possible that claims of this nature could be struck out as being vexatious or an abuse of process.

Which brings us to a non-employment legal matter that developed during the second half of 2025.  The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) established under the Broadcasting Act 1989 (BA) to enforce broadcasting standards.  The BA likely did not anticipate public access to the world wide web in 1994, much less podcasting.   The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 came into law to address this legislative gap, alongside other legislative amendments such as the Privacy Act 2020.

However, the BSC claimed to have jurisdiction over webcaster and veteran journalist Sean Plunket, founder of The Platform.   A viewer of one of Plunket’s podcasts in mid-2025 made a complaint to the BSA about a comment they found offensive, assuming that the BSA had jurisdiction over Plunket.

The BSA’s use of legal gymnastics to claim jurisdiction over Plunket, itself offensive, led to calls to disestablish the BSC.   To be fair, technology is a factor in the BSC’s increasing obsolescence given that television is now digital, and nowadays a television is just another device, like a computer or a phone.

We reported on the BSA-Plunket matter in October 2025: Spectacular blowback after BSA’s power grab  

And we thought that the issue would quietly fade away, but there has been a recent flare-up, and now the Free Speech Union is involved.   It appears that the legal issues are not yet settled.

In a 16 minute podcast on 2 April 2026, lawyer Stephen Franks noted:

“There are many bodies now that make the process the punishment… they’ll put people through the process because it’s so expensive and scary…” (at 11.40)

The “process” Franks refers to is a SLAPP.   And unlike the majority of American States, New Zealand does not have anti-SLAPP legislation.

The link to the podcast is here.   Check it out before the BSA, now fighting for survival and some kind of legacy, sends the Free Speech Union a takedown notice (and maybe Leighton Associates as well).

Tristam Price, Editor