The Veitch leaks
August 26th, 2008 at 1:18 pm by David FarrarQuite a bit of discussion regarding the ongoing media stories in the Veitch case. Bill Ralston wants an investigation:
What ever happened to the laws of sub judicae? The weekend’s Sunday Star Times and Herald on Sunday both reported at length on the nature and detail of the charges faced by Tony Veitch.
In theory the sub judicae rule bars any public comment on a matter before the courts that is likely to influence the case. Failure to observe this rule means the publisher and anyone else involved in publicising the material could face contempt of court charges.
The reason for the rule is simple: pre-trial publicity can potentially sway a jury.
The Sunday papers had far more information than was made public in Veitch’s first and only court appearance. They detailed the nature of the alleged assaults and the context in which they supposedly occurred.
Steven Price is less concerned:
Some defence lawyers have been getting their knickers in a knot about reporting on the Veitch case in yesterday’s Sunday Star-Times and Herald on Sunday.
Can’t say I share their concerns. Certainly, now that charges have been laid, publishing material that tends to create a real risk of prejudice to Veitch’s trial will be a contempt of court. But there doesn’t seem to be much in these stories to create such a risk.
They essentially summarise the police allegations. It looks like they came from the police summary of facts. The papers reported them as allegations. They note that Veitch denies them. They don’t get into assessing the evidence. They have reported no more than is almost certain to come out in depositions. Any trial is a good long way away, so any possible effect on jurors is almost sure to dissipate.
Russell Brown also thinks the leaks are getting too much:
That’s three weeks by my count. Three weeks of stories being placed with the Sunday newspapers by persons unknown, but — at the least in the case of the last lot — very likely to be playing for Team Tony Veitch. Because, frankly, there aren’t many other people it could be. …
Perhaps I’m being unfair to all three reporters. Perhaps they all came up with the same information through their own initiative and contacts. Maybe both sides are working them (and it may well be that the first media outreach in this sorry business came from the Dunne-Powell side). But it looks a lot more like they’re now allowing themselves to be used in a methodical public relations campaign by one side: that of the celebrity accused. And they, and their editors, should think about that.
I do wonder if this court case will see higher bills from the lawyers or the PR teams 
August 26th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I reckon this is going to be a very difficult case as there has been a lot of press coverage and drama played out already, with the claims of sabotage and runing reputations etc.
Vote:Many have already aligned themselves to either one of the party – the Victim or the Agressor and it would take some compelling evidence otherwise, to change opinions.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
There’s a clear PR strategy to paint the ex as a looney. I’m still a firm believer in karma, nonetheless…
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
It’s a fascinating case, made even more so because Tony Veitch’s career is totally on the line ( you could argue it’s toast already, but a not guilty verdict gives him some possibility of returning to broadcasting ). The penalty for guilty might be out of proportion with the crime, being a total loss of career, but with the career profile does come responsibility.
Vote:An interesting adjunct to that is it makes it plainly obvious just how severely restricted the threat of penalties is as a tool to reducing crime, by hitting his partner Veitch was always going to struggle to retain his career if caught, yet with 6 charges of assault & an admission of “losing it” it’s patently obvious potential consequences were never considered.
August 26th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Frankly I cant see the case proceeding Any good brief should by now be able to paint a picture of his client being unable to get a fair trial in NZ and demand the case be thrown out.
Of course one could suggest thats its a great strategy for the defence to leak so much detail.
Maybe the case needs another case to uncover whose leaked what Was it the Police Was it the defence Was it the ‘other side”
Im afraid that unless these questions are answered then one has to ask is the system robust and rigorous or a farce
Vote:August 26th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
If Veitch wins, some very large damages claims may follow.
Vote:August 27th, 2008 at 10:29 am
The criticism of Tony Veitch’s professional group containing PR is interesting. Seeing that right from the outset Dunne-Powell engaged Malcolm Boyle and Alan McDonald from Starpr who appear to have ben liaising both with the Police and the media through out. Was it StarPR that was behind the leak to John Campbell as to the execution of a search warrant on Veitch’s home. The only people who would have been aware of this would be Dunne-Powell or the Police Officer’s in charge of the case or was it just an unusual coincidence that Campbell Live cars were parked outside the police station prior to the execution of the search warrant. And John just got up early because he couldn’sleep that night.
It is also quite puzzling that the Police feel that the publication of the story that they claim has come from the Police Caption sheet is discrediting the complainant I always thought Police Caption sheets were taken from the complainants story. Whose discrediting who here?
Vote:September 8th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Why has that Court Worker not been sacked, I should wonder as our files safe
Vote: