Home > Corruption, Human rights, Land, Papua New Guinea > Justice prevails with injunction on The Opposition rejected by court – however new legal threat looms

Justice prevails with injunction on The Opposition rejected by court – however new legal threat looms

carol kidu paga hill

Source: Media Stockade

The Supreme Court of New South Wales today released the full judgment of 8th July 2016, unequivocally dismissing former Papua New Guinean politician Dame Carol Kidu’s claim for a permanent injunction preventing filmmaker Hollie Fifer, Media Stockade and Beacon Films from screening the documentary The Opposition.

On 20 March 2016 Carol Kidu sought to exclude her appearance and dialogue in the film by seeking an injunction restraining the distribution of any visual or audio recording of herself or any summary, representation or description that has the effect of revealing that content. Her legal case was supported by the Paga Hill Development Company (PHDC).

The judgment reads:

When one views the extreme weaknesses of the Plaintiff’s (Dame Carol Kidu’s) claim that she did not know on and from 7 March 2012 that Ms Fifer was hoping to make a documentary for public exhibition rather than a student assignment (whatever it’s topic) the impression gained is that the Plaintiff is prepared, for her own benefit and that of PHDC to say anything to stop the footage taken of her by Ms Fifer being broadcast.

Download the full judgement (1.4MB) Kidu v Fifer

Director Hollie Fifer said, “we are relieved that justice has been served and that audiences around the world will be given the opportunity to see The Opposition and the important story of The Paga Hill Community.

“The Paga Hill Community is filing for damages in the PNG Courts for the loss of their homes and human rights violations. The Opposition is also their evidence base because most of their documents were destroyed during numerous demolition exercises that were carried out at Paga Hill,” said Ms. Fifer.

“This legal conflict has been an extremely stressful time and has disrupted release plans for The Opposition, nearly derailing the film and the important issues it speaks to,” said the film’s producer Rebecca Barry. “We are grateful that we now have the film back in its entirety.”

However, a new legal threat now looms in an attempt to further suppress the film. The court’s temporary injunction of footage featuring Carol Kidu, forced the filmmakers to screen a redacted version at Hot Docs International Film Festival in Toronto in May 2016. The redacted version of the film features narration over the censored footage by Australian actress Sarah Snook.

Just hours after the Hot Docs International Film Festival premiere of the film, independent production companies, Beacon Films and Media Stockade received further legal demands over the film.

Paga Hill Development Company (PHDC), CEO and Director Gudmundur Fridriksson, PHDC director Stanley Liria and former PHDC director George Hallit are demanding all further screenings of the film are immediately ceased due to claims of defamatory imputations.

This is the second legal action taken against the film. The new legal demands were issued within hours of the film’s first screening.

“It would seem that there are powerful forces who don’t want this film to be seen, but we believe that audiences should have the right to make up their own minds. This story is too important not to be told,” said Ms Barry.

Film Synopsis:

The Opposition tells the story of a David-and-Goliath battle over land in Papua New Guinea. It follows Joe Moses, one of the leaders of a four-generation strong settlement in Port Moresby who must save the community before they are evicted off their land. Battling it out in the courts, Joe may find their homes replaced with an international five-star hotel and marina being developed by the Paga Hill Development Company (PNG) Limited. The film highlights the massive gap between law and justice.

#TheOpposition #FreedomOfSpeech #LettheAudienceDecide

Visit the film website at: http://www.theoppositionfilm.com

Some key points from the Supreme Court of NSW Judgment:

The judge said that there were a number of factors which led him to have real concerns about the Plaintiff’s credibility including:

  • When faced with emails and SMS messages sent by Ms Fifer to the Plaintiff which contained material destructive of the Plaintiff’s contention that she thought Ms Fifer was only ever involved in a student assignment – the Plaintiff sought to assert that she had not properly read, or appreciated the content of those emails.
  • When conversations which were inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s case that she did not know that Ms Fifer was engaged in making a documentary and not simply making a student assignment were drawn to her attention – the Plaintiff asserted she said that she did not recall them.
  • The Plaintiff asserted in correspondence that she had never given written consent even though she had signed such a document (a release form) and had in July 2012 been reminded by Ms Fifer that she had.

Some of the findings of facts include:

  • That from 7 March 2012 the Plaintiff was fully aware that Ms Fifer would be taking footage for a documentary that Ms Fifer hoped she could broadcast to the public and that the Plaintiff was positive about that idea at least until July 2012 and as far as Ms Fifer knew until at least late 2013.
  • That by December 2013 the Plaintiff had in contemplation entering into a contract with PHDC using a company controlled by her and that in March 2014 her company entered into a contract with PHDC, by which it was to receive the equivalent of approximately $A178,000 (from which her company would need to make payments to subcontractors.)
  • That the Plaintiff invited Ms Fifer to film at Six Mile (the proposed resettlement site) and told her that PHDC would pay for that filming and that she offered to organize a UN Media award for Ms. Fifer.

Ms. Fifer, Media Stockade and Beacon Films were represented by Barrister Richard Potter, Junior Barrister Mark Maconachie and Solicitor Peter Bolam from legal firm Broadley Rees Hogan.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: