Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.
The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.
Yahoo! Search
Preceding Posts
- Mallard L'orange on the menu
- Latest Russian Spin
- Hide has PDF's of Clark and SST employees statemen...
- Fun With Political Definitions
- Canadian Liberals say they will ignore a successfu...
- Since when does 'accurate' mean 'wrong'?
- Linking 'policy'
- Good word? Fraid Not
- Wananga Woes
- Zen quote of the day
Archives
SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved
Monday, May 09, 2005
Oskar Alley's brief of evidence relating to the original SST story
This text is taken from Oskar Alley's brief of evidence. As far as I know it is complete and correct, though I only include the paragraphs here directly relating to the first SST story.
Sources
The originals were grabbed off Rodney Hide's blog.
Compressed versions of all three released briefs are available as PDF's here:
SST Reporter Oskar Alley (4.5Mb)
SST Editor Sue Chetwin (0.9Mb)
Prime Minister Helen Clark (0.8Mb)
Main points
(Please credit this post if you use this text elsewhere.)
58. The first information I received about Peter Doone allegedly using the words "that won't be necessary" came from an anonymous phone call to me at The Sunday Star-Times in Wellington. An anonymous individual telephoned me on about Tuesday 10 or Wednesday 11 January 2000 and said something along the following lines: "You're Oskar Alley, you're doing the stories on Peter Doone. I know the Constable involved. Are you aware that Peter Doone said to that Constable 'That won'd be necessary' on the night in question."
59. I took this information on board. Of course an anonymous phone call on its own is not a reliable enough source.
- A Senior Government Advisor source
60. So, that week, I contacted a Senior Government Advisor in the Police Sector with whom I had had dealings previously. Once again, I am not prepared to disclose the identity of that source in this my brief of evidence or for that matter at trial.
61. The Senior Government Advisor in the Police Sector told me that they had spoken to several Senior Ranked Officers in the Wellington Police. My understanding is that it was the Wellington Police who were investigating what happened in the driving incidence on election night on behalf of the then Deputy Police Commissoner, Rob Robinson.
62. The Senior Government Advisor in the Police Sector confirmed that he was told that our information and the words "that won't be necessary" were correct and were being discussed by Senior Ranked Officers he contacted on my behalf. He also told me, which was something I did not know at the time, that the Constable who spoke to Peter Doone the night in question was holding a sniffer device, which I understood was the device Police use for doing initial breath tests on drivers they suspect have been drinking.
- The Senior Police Source
63. I then approached a current Senior Police source in Wellington. Once again, I do not propose to disclose his identity in this my brief of evidence, or at trial.
64. I asked the current Senior Police source to confirm that it was alleged that Peter Doone had used the words "that won't be necessary" and the information in relation to the sniffer device.
65. The source told me that I was correct that the Constable was holding a sniffer device when he approached Peter Doone's car in an attempt to speak to Robyn Johnstone, the driver. However, the source said that he had not been involved in the inquiry and could not comment on the alleged use of the words "that won't be necessasry" by Peter Doone.
66. The corroboration of the fresh information gave me some confidence in the information that I had been given.
- Wellington Central Police sources
67. While I was making these inquiries I was also aware of a groundswell of dissatisfaction amongst Wellington Central Police Station employees about Mr Doone's public comments/explanation. Wellington Central was conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner, Rob Robinson. In particular, from the outset Mr Doone had claimed that he had "exchanged pleasantries" with Constable Main and there was an awareness that Constable Main's version of events differed significantly from Mr Doone's. This message emerged from a range of Wellington Central Police Station sources, albeit that they were not prepared to go "on the record".
- Attempts to contact the constable through his lawyer
68. At that time, I did not have the names of the constables involved in the incident so I could not contact them. But I know that Mike Antunovic, a Wellington lawyer, acted for one of them.
69. I located a mobile telephone number for Mike Antunovic and on Friday 15 January 2000 I called his mobile to try to get in touch with him so that, either through him or directly, I could check the accuracy of my story. My call was answered by Mr Antunovic's (female) partner who explained that they were on holiday in Taupo and that My Antunovic did not have his cell phone with him.
70. I left my contact details, both office and personal numbers, and asked that he call me as soon as possible. Mr Antunovic's partner explained that he was not due back until late that night and agreed to give Mr Antunovic my message. He did not return my call.
- First contact with the Prime Minister
71. I then approached the Prime Minister.
72. By the time I approached the Prime Minister, both the Robinson and the PCA reports into the matter would have been completed, signed off and handed to appropriate Government Members. The Prime Minister made it clear that she had seen both reports (as noted later in the brief).
73. My intention was to check that the Constable had been holding a sniffer device in his hand and whether the "that won't be necessary" words had been used in the context of any attempt to breath test the driver. I wanted to ascertain that this was the Constable's account and that it had been included in the report.
74. The Prime Minister confirmed that I was correct that:
74.1 The Constable had a sniffer device in his hand as he approached the car to test for alcohol; and
74.2 Included in the comments Peter Doone made to the Constable, with regards to the breat test, Peter Doone said "that won't be necessary".
75. The Prime Minister specifically said, "... you're not wrong".
76. The Prime Minister also provided more information as to the stage of the Government's handling of the matter, and confirmed receipt of the Robinson Report.
77. Suffice to say, I was by this stage very confident as to the accuracy of both the allegations that there was a sniffer device held and that the allegation that the words "that won't be necessary" were used and were being commented upon. Both had been corroborated by reliable, independent sources.
- Attempts to contact Peter Doone
78. The following day. on Saturday 15 January 2000, I tried to contact Peter Doone at the home that he shared with Robyn Johnstone in Tinakori Road in Wellington. I rang him at 11:45am. The answer phone clicked on and I left a message that I was writing a story which included part of the Constable's evidence and that I had information to which I feld he needed to be given the chance to respond.
79. In the answer phone message I did not ask him to respond to the suggestion that he told the Constable "that won't be necessary" because I wanted Mr Doone to contact me directly so that I could hear his immediate response to that allegation first hand. This is a standard interviewing technique. I did not want to hear a scripted answer and so I simply invited Mr Doone to return my call.
- Contact with John Upton QC
80. At 3:00pm that same day, Peter Doone's lawyer, John Upton QC, telephoned me at my office at The Sundar Star-Times to say that Peter Doone had just cleared my message and that we would be provided with a statement later that day.
81. At 6:00pm John Upton telephone to say that he was reading for me a prepared statement from Peter Doone, the full text of which was published in the 16 January 2000 story the following day.
82. When Mr Upton finished reading the statement I tried to put more information to him with the express purpose of repeating in full the information we intended to publish. I specifically recall saying that there were more matters that I needed to put to him.
83. Mr Upton interrupted me and said, in an abrupt and frosty tone, that there would be no further comment saying "end of statement, end of questions". He then hung up on me.
84. Mr Upton;s position was absolutely clear. There would be no further comment on any further allegations. That was Mr Upton's choice, on behalf of his client, not mine.
- Further contact with the Prime Minister
85. In any event, very shortly after my conversation with Mr Upton, on Saturday 15 January 2000 (immediately before we went to publish the story), I had a further telephone discussion with the Prime Minister in which I again obtained an assurance that the information we had discussed earlier was accurate. The Prime Minister referred to aspects of both the Robinson and PCA reports.
- Attempts to clarify via the Police National Headquarters
86. In addition, that evening I endeavoured to clarify the story through the Police National Headquarters.
- Further attempts to contact John Upton QC
87. I also tried to contact Mr Upton again, following discussions with Shayne Currie, to whom I reported at the time. In the circumstances, I gave Mr Upton 15 or 20 minutes or so to calm down before calling him again on the "06" number. I rang several times and there was no answer. Since there was no answer machine, I did not leave a message.
- Mr Upton's response in context
88. I now understand that, after hearing the answer phone message I left earlier in the day, Peter Doone had assumed that I had the full written text of the Constable's evidence as it appeared in the Police Report. In fact I did not have that transcript at that time. I did not intend to give him the impression in my telephone message. Nor do I believe that I did. I believe he was simply mistaken.
89. With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that Peter Doone's statement that was issued to us by his lawyer, Mr Upton, may have been intended to show that his account of events different from that of the Constable's full written evidence (as opposed to the information which we intended to and did report). But as I have already noted, Mr Upton was not prepared to discuss the matter any further other than to provide the scripted statement on behalf of his client. I had attempted to run that information past Mr Upton to test it with him too (on behalf of his client) but he simply refused to continue the conversation by hanging up on me.
90. In any event, as it happens, it appears that Peter Doone's account of events did differ from the statements relating to the sniffer device and the "that won't be necessary" comments which appeared in the 16 January 2000 article. So Peter Doone's position was accurately reported in the article.
91. Mr Doone's press statement, which was faithfully reported in the 16 January 2003 article, accurately recorded all that Peter Doone was prepared to say in relation to the matter.
- Other checks by Sue Chetwin
92. Finally, my recollection is that, while I was trying to again make contact with Mr Upton QC, Sue Chetwin (The Sunday Star-Times' editor) also had a conversation with the Prime Minister to double check the information, just to be certain that we were correct before the story was published. Ms Chetwin will separately give evidence covering that conversation.
- Conclusion re corroboration
93. I do not see what more I could have done. Various credible independent sources corroborated the key facts that appeared in the story. I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the story or the information provided by my sources.
94. Mr Upton had interceded between Peter Doone and me, so we reported precisely the statement Mr Upton provided to me. It was made very clear to me that Mr Upton and his client simply had nothing further to say.
[AL - story then published in the Sunday Star-Times of 16th January]
[+/-] Show/hide Oskar Alley's brief of evidence paragraphs 58-94
Sources
The originals were grabbed off Rodney Hide's blog.
Compressed versions of all three released briefs are available as PDF's here:
SST Reporter Oskar Alley (4.5Mb)
SST Editor Sue Chetwin (0.9Mb)
Prime Minister Helen Clark (0.8Mb)
Main points
- Alley was initially introduced to the 'That won't be necessary' line via an anonymous caller
- Alley confirmed the line with a "Senior Government Advisor in the Police Sector", whom Alley refuses to name.
- The SGA also told Alley that the Constable was holding a breath tester when he approached Doones car
- Alley then confirmed the line 'That won't be necessary' and that the Constable was holding a breath tester, with Prime Minister Helen Clark
- Clark definitely had the Robinson report by the time of the first phone interview
- Alley tried to run the allegation past Doone, but instead got stuck with a press release addressing the Constables evidential statements as published in the Robinson Report. The Robinson Report did not mention the 'That won't be necessary' line, so the press release did not address it either.
- After failing to confirm the line with Doone, Alley either contacted or was contacted by Prime Minister Clark again, whom again confirmed the story as accurate, and also mentioned both the Police Complains Authority Report and the Robinson Report.
- The SST editor Sue Chetwin then contacted the Prime Minister and confirmed the story again.
- Sunday Star-Times ran the story anyway, and published Doone's press release without saying it did not address the 'That won't be necessary' line.
- Overall, Oskar Alley tries to convey the impression he did everything he could, but he still published something that wasn't confirmed by people much closer to the evidence, nor did he ensure it was run by Peter Doone.
- All of this happened over a period of maximum 6 days, from 10th January (anonymous tip) to 16th January (publication date)
- What exactly did the Constable say - ie someone please send me a copy of either or both Police reports :-)
- What is a "Senior Government Advisor in the Police Sector" - a Labour Party hack or a civilian employee of the Police Commissioners Office?
(Please credit this post if you use this text elsewhere.)
58. The first information I received about Peter Doone allegedly using the words "that won't be necessary" came from an anonymous phone call to me at The Sunday Star-Times in Wellington. An anonymous individual telephoned me on about Tuesday 10 or Wednesday 11 January 2000 and said something along the following lines: "You're Oskar Alley, you're doing the stories on Peter Doone. I know the Constable involved. Are you aware that Peter Doone said to that Constable 'That won'd be necessary' on the night in question."
59. I took this information on board. Of course an anonymous phone call on its own is not a reliable enough source.
- A Senior Government Advisor source
60. So, that week, I contacted a Senior Government Advisor in the Police Sector with whom I had had dealings previously. Once again, I am not prepared to disclose the identity of that source in this my brief of evidence or for that matter at trial.
61. The Senior Government Advisor in the Police Sector told me that they had spoken to several Senior Ranked Officers in the Wellington Police. My understanding is that it was the Wellington Police who were investigating what happened in the driving incidence on election night on behalf of the then Deputy Police Commissoner, Rob Robinson.
62. The Senior Government Advisor in the Police Sector confirmed that he was told that our information and the words "that won't be necessary" were correct and were being discussed by Senior Ranked Officers he contacted on my behalf. He also told me, which was something I did not know at the time, that the Constable who spoke to Peter Doone the night in question was holding a sniffer device, which I understood was the device Police use for doing initial breath tests on drivers they suspect have been drinking.
- The Senior Police Source
63. I then approached a current Senior Police source in Wellington. Once again, I do not propose to disclose his identity in this my brief of evidence, or at trial.
64. I asked the current Senior Police source to confirm that it was alleged that Peter Doone had used the words "that won't be necessary" and the information in relation to the sniffer device.
65. The source told me that I was correct that the Constable was holding a sniffer device when he approached Peter Doone's car in an attempt to speak to Robyn Johnstone, the driver. However, the source said that he had not been involved in the inquiry and could not comment on the alleged use of the words "that won't be necessasry" by Peter Doone.
66. The corroboration of the fresh information gave me some confidence in the information that I had been given.
- Wellington Central Police sources
67. While I was making these inquiries I was also aware of a groundswell of dissatisfaction amongst Wellington Central Police Station employees about Mr Doone's public comments/explanation. Wellington Central was conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner, Rob Robinson. In particular, from the outset Mr Doone had claimed that he had "exchanged pleasantries" with Constable Main and there was an awareness that Constable Main's version of events differed significantly from Mr Doone's. This message emerged from a range of Wellington Central Police Station sources, albeit that they were not prepared to go "on the record".
- Attempts to contact the constable through his lawyer
68. At that time, I did not have the names of the constables involved in the incident so I could not contact them. But I know that Mike Antunovic, a Wellington lawyer, acted for one of them.
69. I located a mobile telephone number for Mike Antunovic and on Friday 15 January 2000 I called his mobile to try to get in touch with him so that, either through him or directly, I could check the accuracy of my story. My call was answered by Mr Antunovic's (female) partner who explained that they were on holiday in Taupo and that My Antunovic did not have his cell phone with him.
70. I left my contact details, both office and personal numbers, and asked that he call me as soon as possible. Mr Antunovic's partner explained that he was not due back until late that night and agreed to give Mr Antunovic my message. He did not return my call.
- First contact with the Prime Minister
71. I then approached the Prime Minister.
72. By the time I approached the Prime Minister, both the Robinson and the PCA reports into the matter would have been completed, signed off and handed to appropriate Government Members. The Prime Minister made it clear that she had seen both reports (as noted later in the brief).
73. My intention was to check that the Constable had been holding a sniffer device in his hand and whether the "that won't be necessary" words had been used in the context of any attempt to breath test the driver. I wanted to ascertain that this was the Constable's account and that it had been included in the report.
74. The Prime Minister confirmed that I was correct that:
74.1 The Constable had a sniffer device in his hand as he approached the car to test for alcohol; and
74.2 Included in the comments Peter Doone made to the Constable, with regards to the breat test, Peter Doone said "that won't be necessary".
75. The Prime Minister specifically said, "... you're not wrong".
76. The Prime Minister also provided more information as to the stage of the Government's handling of the matter, and confirmed receipt of the Robinson Report.
77. Suffice to say, I was by this stage very confident as to the accuracy of both the allegations that there was a sniffer device held and that the allegation that the words "that won't be necessary" were used and were being commented upon. Both had been corroborated by reliable, independent sources.
- Attempts to contact Peter Doone
78. The following day. on Saturday 15 January 2000, I tried to contact Peter Doone at the home that he shared with Robyn Johnstone in Tinakori Road in Wellington. I rang him at 11:45am. The answer phone clicked on and I left a message that I was writing a story which included part of the Constable's evidence and that I had information to which I feld he needed to be given the chance to respond.
79. In the answer phone message I did not ask him to respond to the suggestion that he told the Constable "that won't be necessary" because I wanted Mr Doone to contact me directly so that I could hear his immediate response to that allegation first hand. This is a standard interviewing technique. I did not want to hear a scripted answer and so I simply invited Mr Doone to return my call.
- Contact with John Upton QC
80. At 3:00pm that same day, Peter Doone's lawyer, John Upton QC, telephoned me at my office at The Sundar Star-Times to say that Peter Doone had just cleared my message and that we would be provided with a statement later that day.
81. At 6:00pm John Upton telephone to say that he was reading for me a prepared statement from Peter Doone, the full text of which was published in the 16 January 2000 story the following day.
82. When Mr Upton finished reading the statement I tried to put more information to him with the express purpose of repeating in full the information we intended to publish. I specifically recall saying that there were more matters that I needed to put to him.
83. Mr Upton interrupted me and said, in an abrupt and frosty tone, that there would be no further comment saying "end of statement, end of questions". He then hung up on me.
84. Mr Upton;s position was absolutely clear. There would be no further comment on any further allegations. That was Mr Upton's choice, on behalf of his client, not mine.
- Further contact with the Prime Minister
85. In any event, very shortly after my conversation with Mr Upton, on Saturday 15 January 2000 (immediately before we went to publish the story), I had a further telephone discussion with the Prime Minister in which I again obtained an assurance that the information we had discussed earlier was accurate. The Prime Minister referred to aspects of both the Robinson and PCA reports.
- Attempts to clarify via the Police National Headquarters
86. In addition, that evening I endeavoured to clarify the story through the Police National Headquarters.
- Further attempts to contact John Upton QC
87. I also tried to contact Mr Upton again, following discussions with Shayne Currie, to whom I reported at the time. In the circumstances, I gave Mr Upton 15 or 20 minutes or so to calm down before calling him again on the "06" number. I rang several times and there was no answer. Since there was no answer machine, I did not leave a message.
- Mr Upton's response in context
88. I now understand that, after hearing the answer phone message I left earlier in the day, Peter Doone had assumed that I had the full written text of the Constable's evidence as it appeared in the Police Report. In fact I did not have that transcript at that time. I did not intend to give him the impression in my telephone message. Nor do I believe that I did. I believe he was simply mistaken.
89. With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that Peter Doone's statement that was issued to us by his lawyer, Mr Upton, may have been intended to show that his account of events different from that of the Constable's full written evidence (as opposed to the information which we intended to and did report). But as I have already noted, Mr Upton was not prepared to discuss the matter any further other than to provide the scripted statement on behalf of his client. I had attempted to run that information past Mr Upton to test it with him too (on behalf of his client) but he simply refused to continue the conversation by hanging up on me.
90. In any event, as it happens, it appears that Peter Doone's account of events did differ from the statements relating to the sniffer device and the "that won't be necessary" comments which appeared in the 16 January 2000 article. So Peter Doone's position was accurately reported in the article.
91. Mr Doone's press statement, which was faithfully reported in the 16 January 2003 article, accurately recorded all that Peter Doone was prepared to say in relation to the matter.
- Other checks by Sue Chetwin
92. Finally, my recollection is that, while I was trying to again make contact with Mr Upton QC, Sue Chetwin (The Sunday Star-Times' editor) also had a conversation with the Prime Minister to double check the information, just to be certain that we were correct before the story was published. Ms Chetwin will separately give evidence covering that conversation.
- Conclusion re corroboration
93. I do not see what more I could have done. Various credible independent sources corroborated the key facts that appeared in the story. I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the story or the information provided by my sources.
94. Mr Upton had interceded between Peter Doone and me, so we reported precisely the statement Mr Upton provided to me. It was made very clear to me that Mr Upton and his client simply had nothing further to say.
[AL - story then published in the Sunday Star-Times of 16th January]
[+/-] Show/hide Oskar Alley's brief of evidence paragraphs 58-94
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home