By Ethan Griffiths, Open Justice journalist of 
Colin Craig was the former leader of the Conservative Party. Photo: RNZ / Dan Cook
In the final installment of a years-long legal battle, former Conservative Party leader Colin Craig's defamation claim against former party board member John Stringer has been dismissed.
The High Court has found Craig did sexually harass his former press secretary Rachel MacGregor, ruling that statements made by Stringer were truthful and dismissing Craig's claim of defamation.
It's the third time a court has found Craig sexually harassed his employee, through inappropriate letters.
Craig today confirmed to the Herald it marked the end of an eight-year legal stoush in which he took numerous defamation proceedings against individuals connected to the implosion of the Conservative Party that began with MacGregor's resignation two days before the 2014 general election.
Previous courts heard how the pair displayed affection toward each other through text messages, with Craig, a married Christian man, describing his desire for MacGregor including wanting to kiss her.
Eventually, MacGregor resigned and confided her allegations of sexual harassment to Taxpayer's Union founder Jordan Williams, who shared some of the statements with Stringer.
Craig claimed Stringer then embellished the allegations when he spoke with media and tipped off Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater, who Craig also later sued.
In the latest proceeding, Craig claimed 17 publications by Stringer, made in interviews with mainstream media as well as in his own blog posts, alleged he had sexually harassed MacGregor and that the harassment was of such a serious nature he paid MacGregor a large sum.
Craig claimed he suffered damage to his reputation as a result of what he said were false statements. He said the comments were part of a determined campaign against him.
Stringer used the defence of truth, saying the comments were true and his honest opinion, and responsible communication on a matter of public interest.
The case went to trial last year, and in a judgment released this week, Justice Neil Campbell ruled the only part of Craig's case he could advance was his claim the sexual harassment allegations were defamatory.
In statements of 11 of the 17 publications, Justice Campbell ruled Stringer conveyed Craig had sexually harassed MacGregor.
The judge then turned to whether or not the statements were defamatory, which he concluded they were.
The legal test of defamation is met if the comments could "lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society".
However, while a statement can be defamatory, it can also be true and therefore lawful.
Former Conservative Party board member John Stringer. Photo: Facebook
Stringer held the firm view his comments were the truth - something he was required to prove, although this was already proven during a previous proceeding in the Court of Appeal.
He referred to an intimate interaction between MacGregor and Craig on election night in 2011, and letters written in 2012 and 2013.
The High Court previously ruled it was not proven the election night interaction was unwelcome, but that the letters were "unwelcome, unwanted or offensive" to MacGregor.
It was previously ruled in a judgment from a separate but related proceeding that Craig did sexually harass MacGregor.
"The High Court is bound by the Court of Appeal's decisions. This means I am bound to reach the same decision as the Court of Appeal on the issue of whether Mr Craig's sexual language in his letters ... was unwelcome," Campbell ruled.
For the High Court to take a different view, new evidence would be required.
He considered the relevant text messages and letters, "of which there were a vast number".
One 2011 letter, which Stringer alleged amounted to sexual harassment, was not proven as such. The 2011 election night incident also did not amount to sexual harassment, Campbell ruled.
But Campbell upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling that the 2012 and 2013 letters amounted to sexual harassment.
While acknowledging inconsistencies with MacGregor's previous evidence (which previous rulings had also acknowledged), Campbell found the new evidence, which Craig said had "shifted the dial", had not done so.
"I am bound to conclude that Mr Craig's sexual language in his letters of February 2012 and December 2013 was not welcomed by Ms MacGregor."
* This story was originally published in the New Zealand Herald.
