Did the SST name a source?
April 30th, 2005 at 6:35 am by David FarrarAudrey Young in the NZ Herald says “The fact that a newspaper named a source of one of its stories about former Police Commissioner Peter Doone was a shock to the industry this week”.
However it is not clear to me, that they did. Later in the story we read that she was not subpoenaed, and in fact chose to give evidence to avoid Margaret Wilson having to testify, and also “to avoid the possibility of having her own involvement revealed by someone else giving evidence during the case”.
So I am unsure how that can be construed as the SST naming a source.
Later in the article, we read that the PM had the two official reports into Doone, and neither of them stated thet he said “That won
No tag for this post.
April 30th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Five times, if correct, looks like a vendetta, though the PMs information is only heresay and what the ex Commissioner actually said has not been tested yet. This does not do Helen Clark any credit at all and none of the basic facts have been denied. Funny how something shitty always happens when she is away, I bet she must have mixed feelings about all those trips. The best time to raise something is when she is out of the country and cannot micromanage it. Good tactics.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 11:40 am
This naming the source issue is quite simple in my view.
The convention that sources should be protected at all costs is designed to encourage people to bring TRUE ISSUES out into the open. For example, if you know of some secret that someone is hiding, you can get this in the media without getting your own name in the media. For example, you might know your boss is stealing money from the company and you let the Dominion know so that this becomes public, but you are not at risk of being shunned at work.
In such a case, the convention must apply.
But the PM/Doone case appears not to be such a case. This is one when the information was false. It seems to me the source should be named in such a case. Otherwise, a convention designed to deliver more and better information for the public becomes one used to slander others. You can’t say “my boss is stealing money from the company” when he is not, and expect protection. Nor should you receive such protection.
It seems the PM’s conduct is in this second category – or is in fact worse: she was the boss in the position of greater relative power making up things about her subordinate.
So I don’t think the SST has done anything wrong in this case. The wrongdoing is the constant swallowing by the media of things Clark says “off the record” and their dependence on her for information so that she is becoming, in practice, chief censor of information she doesn’t like, and chief reporter of information she does like. I suspect we are seeing this in the Dover Samuels incident.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
This nzpa story suggests Peter Doone doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
DOONE AGREED NOT TO MAKE CLAIMS AGAINST GOVT — REPORT
COURT-DOONE-N/L 641 words
Apr 29th 2005 8:14pm Politics/Politics
Wellington, April 29 – Former police commissioner Peter Doone agreed not to sue the Government over his forced resignation five years ago, court documents reportedly show.
Mr Doone is preparing to sue Prime Minister Helen Clark for defamation.
But media law expert John McKay has told TV One the wording of an agreement Mr Doone reached poses a real problem for the former commissioner. TV One tonight said that under an agreement with the Government, Mr Doone retired early as commissioner and worked on a special Maori crime project for six months.
In the deal, he had to “agree not to make any further claims against the Government, any division or servant of it” for actions taken in the course of their duties leading to his retirement.
A letter from Mr Doone’s lawyer accepted the proposal, TV One said.
Mr McKay said the wording of the agreement did present a real problem for Mr Doone.
“It’s very broad, and I think he’ll have real difficulty getting past it and getting his claim off the ground,” he told TV One.
The Doones have told NZPA they plan to file papers as soon as they get leave to do so from the High Court. That would be within days rather than weeks, they have said.
Miss Clark has said she will vigorously defend any case against her.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
But the Herald story from the 28th says she was subpoenaed:
“The Herald understands Helen Clark did not volunteer a statement, but was subpoenaed to do so by the newspaper’s lawyers.”
http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/04/clark-subpoenaed-for-doone-statement.html
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
AL – I think the Herald had it wrong the first time. She wasn’t subpoenaed since it would have interferred with her trip, and instead she agreed to provide the court with a written statement. Presumaby if she’d refused they would have subpoenaed her.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
David:
The article says “The Doones discovered last month that Helen Clark had a role in the news report after the parties exchanged files of evidence of witnesses they planned to call.”
So they didn’t name her via subpoena, but they did name her via the files of evidence.
rightkiwi: I agree in principle about naming sources who feed misinformation, but you seem to be starting with the assumption that Clark knowingly lied about something. In practice, we don’t even know what it was that she confirmed, and what she knew, or any details really, and I’m inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. (Innocent until presumed guilty, and all that.)
I think everyone involved in this story exercised poor judgement: Doone, Clark, and the SST. At least one (the SST), and possibly all three, exercised poor ethics, but we’ll probably never know the truth for sure.
Here’s an exercise: Rank the overall conduct of Peter Doone, Helen Clark, and the SST for their overall part in the Doone incident and it’s fallout, in order from worst to best.
I’d have to say SST, then Doone, then Clark. IMO, the SST made two bad calls (the retracted artice, and revealing a source), so they’re the worst. Clark Vs. Doone is tricky, but I’m giivng Doone the edge because I think his legal action is generally ill-advised, and because thus far the consequences have been worse for him. It’s not over yet though, so I may change my mind.
Gordon
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
OK dim. Will have to make a note of that.
Vote:April 30th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
Dim -
Well, I think the validity or otherwise of that ‘agreement’ should be left up to the courts because the question isn’t quite as clear cut as you’re suggesting. Apart from the question of legality, I’d find it rather *ahem* pungent if I was being asked to sign such a broad indemnity on leaving a job.
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 12:38 pm
It’s election year. Dunn doesn’t expect to win anything, he just blames Clark for his fall from grace and wants to take her down.
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 12:47 pm
How can that be the case when he only found out a few weeks ago it was her? And I doubt he has that much money to spend $500,000 just to embarass her.
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Craig – it doesn’t matter how pungent you – or Doone – found the contract he signed. He signed it, and it’s a contract.
IANAL – so I don’t know if this merely leaves Peter Doone vulnerable to a court case for breach of contract or if it means his case against the PM can be thrown out because it’s based on an illegal act. Anyone care to volunteer an opinion?
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Dim (IAAL),
Happy to help… the agreement not to sue could be used to stop the claim itself (I emphasise could, as I’m far from convinced that it’s not as clear cut as various experts spoken to by the media sugest), but it could NOT be the basis for a claim for breach of contract.
Essentially this is because legal proceedings (like parliamentary ones) are subject to an absolute privilege – you can’t sue someone for defaming you in court/parliament and you can’t sue someone for suing you.
Also, the contract not to sue the Government will be between the Crown and Mr Doone, so Clark couldn’t sue anyway…
On a slightly more practical level, you’ve got to ask what the point in the Crown’s suing him would for breach of contract would be – it would be entitled to damages, but how would these be measured? What damage would the Crown have suffered? It would have gone to the expense of defending proceedings, but since they’d already be entitled to costs in the substantive proceedings (because the Crown will be paying Clark’s way) there’s not all that much left to compensate…
Vote:May 1st, 2005 at 7:13 pm
David,
This incident doesn’t change my opinion of Clark much as it is well in keeping with previous behaviour, but in todays Herald article Doone comes across as economical with the truth to put it politely.
This getting out of the car to chat with the constable as he always does not realising there was any issue, line reeks of bovine excrement.
It’s good that Clarks behaviour is outed, but Doone deserves little sympathy
Vote:May 2nd, 2005 at 12:27 am
just curious dim. when did defamation become part of the duties of a Prime Minister. that clause is so full of holes you could drive a police car through it. In the same way that negligent acts are not covered by such clauses nor would defamation. Clark knowingly repeated a falsehood. that is lying.
Vote:the fact that Doone signed that contract then spent $500,000 of his own money pursuing someone else without knowing her part in his downfall just adds to the likelihood clark is going down in a big way – personally.
May 14th, 2005 at 6:31 am
I’m a middle-aged, politically progressive Jewish heritage woman (my parents are both Holocaust survivors). I’ve come across your blog on several occasions. Also, I see that you are the campaign manager for National Party candidate Mark Blumsky. I’ll be honest with you — it’s VERY OBVIOUS that you’re a paid public relations shill for Israel, that Israel wants to gain more influence in the Parliament & Kiwi affairs, and that your blog and political machinations are just lobbying on behalf of Israel & Neocon policies.
Additionally, you’ve previously tried to whitewash and “pretty up” the Mossad spying / criminally fraudulent passport incident. I recommend that motivated Kiwis research the behind-the-scenes funding sources for your blog & political campaigning and also who/what you’re fronting for.
Vote:May 14th, 2005 at 6:32 am
I’m a middle-aged, politically progressive Jewish heritage woman (my parents are both Holocaust survivors). I’ve come across your blog on several occasions. Also, I see that you are the campaign manager for National Party candidate Mark Blumsky. I’ll be honest with you — it’s VERY OBVIOUS that you’re a paid public relations shill for Israel, that Israel wants to gain more influence in the Parliament & Kiwi affairs, and that your blog and political machinations are just lobbying on behalf of Israel & Neocon policies.
Additionally, you’ve previously tried to whitewash and “pretty up” the Mossad spying / criminally fraudulent passport incident. I recommend that motivated Kiwis research the behind-the-scenes funding sources for your blog & political campaigning and also who/what you’re fronting for.
Vote: