Buller Mayor Jamie Cleine in defamation case aimed to 'name and shame', court hears

First published on

Buller Mayor Jamie Cleine was motivated by ill will when he accused Westport accountant Frank Dooley of physically assaulting the deputy mayor at a public meeting, the Westport District Court has been told.

Dooley is suing Cleine for defamation. The case hinges on whether Dooley raised a fist to then deputy mayor, Sharon Roche.

Dooley says he "flipped his lid" and swore, but did not raise his fist.

"Mr Dooley's case is that Mr Cleine deliberately and maliciously overstated the extent of his interaction with Ms Roche in order to damage Mr Dooley's reputation and thereby hold him up for ridicule by the community," Dooley's lawyer, Robert Stewart KC, told the court in his opening address on Tuesday.

"Mr Dooley says the principal purpose for Mr Cleine doing so was to detrimentally affect his (Mr Dooley's) chances of standing against Mr Cleine for the mayoralty at the local body elections being held later that year, and as 'pay back' for his vocal criticism of BDC…"

Dooley was not seeking financial damages if he won the case, Stewart said.

"If the court agrees he has been defamed, then he asks for a formal declaration that Mr Cleine defamed him and payment of his legal costs. Mr Dooley brings this case to clear his name and restore his reputation."

The plaintiff would call 15 witnesses.

Stewart said Dooley had lived in Buller almost all of his life and was well known Coast-wide. He had founded and been the principal of the accountancy firm F T Dooley Limited for over 30 years. He was a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.

He was currently chief executive of Buller Electricity, an elected West Coast Regional Council (WCRC) councillor, a director of Pioneer Energy Renewables and voluntary chair of the O'Conor Home Trust management committee.

Throughout his career Dooley had volunteered his time and energy to numerous not-for-profit and sporting organisations, as well as to individual members of the community, through his accounting practice.

"Mr Dooley is a passionate person with strong values, an admirable professional career and a reputation for effective advocacy and support of the local community," Stewart said. "If he sees a problem and believes he can help, he will try to do so. He is not afraid of communicating his views - particularly to elected officials and others whose job is to serve the community."

Dooley had been a vocal critic of the BDC's response to the devastating Westport floods of July 2021 and 2022, Stewart said. As a result Dooley had had several "run-ins" with Cleine and BDC.

"Mr Dooley's criticisms of BDC's policy on flood protection got under the mayor's skin."

Dooley had criticised Cleine and BDC in a letter to the editor published in the Westport News on 1 September 2021. Afterwards, Cleine had left Dooley a voice message, accusing him of stabbing him in the back and being the "most f**king ignorant man", Stewart said.

Dooley had continued his criticism of BDC's flood protection for Westport and the council's competence. His opposition to BDC's Finished Floor Heights (FFH) policy continued to this day.

Most recently Dooley's criticism of BDC's Project Management Office was validated by an independent report produced by KPMG. BDC continued to withhold the unredacted report from Dooley and ratepayers, Stewart said.

"By speaking truth to power, Mr Dooley is seen by BDC and Mr Cleine as a troublemaker and someone who should be ignored, criticised or ridiculed whenever possible."

Stewart said the defamation proceedings arose from comments Cleine made after a public meeting to discuss the draft Te Tai o Poutini Plan (TTPP).

Emotions were running high about flood protection before the 21 February 2022 meeting. Dooley had said publicly that BDC was following a flawed policy and had pre-determined the process. He believed the draft TTPP was focused on "managed retreat" of vast areas of Westport.

Dooley had acknowledged he "flipped his lid" at the public meeting when Roche asked him to keep his questions until the end of the presentation, Stewart said.

Dooley stood up and swore at Roche. When she moved towards him, he waved her away two times while telling her to "f*** off" before resuming his seat.

"The evidence will show that Mr Dooley immediately realised his impulsive reaction had been completely inappropriate and he apologised to Ms Roche and to those present at the meeting."

The meeting then carried on, Stewart said.

Stewart said Cleine told the Westport News the morning after the meeting there had been an altercation in which the deputy mayor was assaulted.

"It was extremely serious and outrageous to the point where a fist was raised at the deputy mayor whilst being sworn at and breasted up to," Cleine told the newspaper.

Cleine said expletives were used by the person, whom he did not name, and the incident was likely to become a police matter.

Stewart said Dooley and a number of witnesses who were present at the meeting would say no fist was raised.

"Mr Dooley acknowledges that he stood up, swore at the deputy mayor and, when she approached him, he waved her away with an open hand, twice, but he is adamant that he did not raise a fist to her."

The day after the meeting, Dooley sent the deputy mayor a written apology, Stewart said.

Almost an hour later, Cleine sent Dooley a letter, which he also emailed to the chief executives of BDC and WCRC and the chair of the TTPP committee.

Cleine's letter referred to Dooley's behaviour at the public meeting as "atrocious". It said "you used a disruptive and forceful tone, expletive laden language and were physically threatening to Deputy Mayor Roche, WCRC staff and members of the public".

Stewart said Cleine knew his statement Dooley had physically threatened anyone was untrue.

Although the Westport News' article did not name Dooley as the person concerned, by the time the newspaper was published there were people who knew who Cleine was referring to, Stewart said.

Stewart said Cleine's statements - which Cleine had not denied making - were clearly defamatory. Cleine's defences of truth and qualified privilege would fail.

Cleine was motivated by ill will and took improper advantage to "name and shame" Dooley.

The case continues.