Kiwiblog

The HoS reports:

Broadcaster Tony Veitch is under fire after he accused disgraced golfer Tiger Woods of trying to stage-manage his way out of trouble.

During an interview with agent and former All Black Andy Hayden on Radio Sport, Veitch criticised Woods for avoiding direct questions from the media. …

Speaking about Woods before the golfer’s public apology, Veitch said: “The world wants answers. “He’s going to be surrounded by good friends and family for this announcement tomorrow morning. This is simply going to be a pre-orchestrated, pre-read statement and he is not going to front up to the questions.”

Veitch was forced to resign high-profile radio and television roles after reports surfaced that he had assaulted his former partner Kristin Dunne-Powell.

His first public response to these charges was a press conference at Auckland’s Hyatt hotel where he delivered a prepared statement and apology but answered no questions.

Tony, Tony, Tony. You were doing so well back on air. But really – what is that old saying about stones and glasshouses.

In the Sunday News we read:

A TVNZ in-house legal adviser helped shape the confidentiality agreement between Tony Veitch and ex-girlfriend Kristin Dunne-Powell over what was later publicly revealed as a domestic violence incident, a source close to the case has revealed.

When the scandal broke in July last year, TVNZ said they told Veitch it was a private matter for him and they would help him fi nd his own lawyer.

But Sunday News has been told the state-owned network’s legal adviser Helen Wild was involved in framing the agreement “on behalf of TVNZ’’, working alongside Veitch’s lawyers to “finalise the best possible terms for Tony’’.

The source said Wild met the then-sports presenter’s lawyers Richard Burrell and Willie Akel in the days leading up to the signing of Veitch’s $150,000 payout, and offered them written advice on the agreement’s wording.

Yet in the Herald on Sunday we read:

TVNZ is fuming over reports questioning some of its executives’ roles in the Tony Veitch saga and has reiterated its full confidence in them and chief executive Rick Ellis.

A report in another publication this week raised allegations that suggested TVNZ executives may have originally been more fully aware of the Veitch assault allegations than publicly acknowledged.

This included an allegation that Veitch signed the Kristin Dunne-Powell confidentiality agreement in a second-floor TVNZ office – well before the case ever became public – and that this took place in front of company representatives.

Last night TVNZ spokeswoman Megan Richards said the confidentiality agreement was not signed in the TVNZ lawyer’s second-floor office. “Nobody at TVNZ had any part in the negotiations concerning the confidentiality agreement.”

So how do you reconcile that? Let’s go back to the Sunday News article:

TVNZ spokeswoman Megan Richards said yesterday: “Nobody at TVNZ was involved in any of the negotiations between them (Veitch and Dunne-Powell).

“The only statements we made at the time remain true, accurate and very careful statements of TVNZ’s understanding at the time.”

My reading of this is TVNZ is using near Clintonian definitions to cover up. They are interpreting negotiations as being only between Veitch and Dunne-Powell’s teams.

But if a TVNZ lawyer was sitting in the back room advising the Veitch team as to what to agree to, then that means they are effectively part of the negotiations – just behind the scenes.

TVNZ’s denial is missing the point. The public don’t care about the difference between advising the negotiating team and being part of it. The core issue is were TVNZ staff involved in the confidentially agreement in any way, despite the public statements it was a private matter for Veitch and did not involve his employer.

Two interesting stories in the HoS.

The first is an in depth look at the Veitch media circus.

The second is a column by former Dominion Post Editor Tim Pankhurst, who broke the story.

The HoS report that Veitch has tried to take his life for the third time.

Another HoS story reports on the latest exchanges between the camps. And a third covers the debate on the altered references, and whether they have broken the law.

A fourth HoS story (yes four!) covers the end of the relationship and some e-mails showing friendly relations after the attack. A fifth HoS story has the text of an e-mail. And Kerre Woodham wants people to move on.  And finally in their seveneth online story, the HoS Editorial says Veitch should remove himself from the public spotlight. The editorial is right, but I note the newspaper is very happy to devote half the newspaper to him, if he doesn’t!

The SST is slightly more restrained. They report a psychologist saying both Veitch and Dunne-Powell need to move on and stop the pot shots. A second SST story looks at how Veitch courted the press. Michael Laws has his say. A fifth SST story covers the latest suicide attempt. And their sixth story has Rosemary McLeod telling Veitch to shut up now.

So 13 stories in our two main Sunday papers on Veitch. Please let it be zero next weekend.

Arrgh. I thought the trial would be the end of the Veitch affair. But no all the headlines again today.

First of all very stupid that Veitch used character references in support of him getting his passport back, in sentencing mitigation to the Judge. The Herald quotes an angry Dame Susan Devoy:

“To take those letters of support and use them for a different purpose is, in my opinion, a disgrace,” said Dame Susan.

“I was happy to write to get his passport back, I thought the trial would be in 2010 or later. It’s totally totally different to writing a character reference for someone who’s pleaded guilty to beating up their girlfriend. We’ve been used and manipulated.

Veitch has only himself to blame for the negative headlines in this case.

The Herald also has a Q&A with Kristin Dunne-Powell. Hopefully this will be the end of it, now that they both have “told their stories” but somehow I suspect the Sunday papers will be all over it.

The Herald reports:

Broadcaster Tony Veitch is to appear in court this morning for a hearing expected to resolve allegations that he beat up his former partner.

It is understood he will make a guilty plea, but it is not clear to which charge or charges.

Thank God. I could not handle another 18 months of Sunday newspaper stories about him or Kristin.

Obviously some sort of deal has been done. I expect he will avoid any jail time as part of the plea bargain.

Further comments when details known.

UPDATE: Veitch has pleaded guilty to one charge of “injuring with reckless disregard”. The maximum penalty is five years jail, but for a first offence a jail term would be surprising I would say. Not sure when he will be sentenced, but am glad this brings the media battle to an end.

UPDATE2: Veitch has been given nine months supervision, 300 hours of community service and a $10,000 fine.

I hope Kristin is able to go on with her life now, and can put this behind her. Being kicked in the back while on the floor sounds horrifying, and something that should never have happened to her. It doesn’t matter what provocation there may have been.

Veitch has an opportunity to move on with his life, but will always be known as someone who kicked a woman in her back, while on the floor.  It is good for both parties that the trial by media has ended. From where I stand, it risked destroying both their lives, and maybe the lesson in all this is the assault should have been reported to the Police at the time.

The HoS report that Tony Veitch will be back on TV shortly – on Murray Deaker’s show on Sky.

If the trial was in the near future, I would disapprove. In an ideal world it would be better for the assault allegations to have been resolved, before decisions are made on appropriateness of broadcasting roles.

But with the trial unlikely until the end of 2010, that is far too long a period to expect someone to be out of work. So I can understand the decision. It is of course not without risks, especially if Veitch is convicted. But that is for a jury to decide.

Both men are in the news over job offers.

Clint Rickards is negotiating with the Waipareira Trust over a job to reduce the crime rate among Maori youth. I think this is an worthy initiative. Rickards was unsuited to continue in the Police, and his behaviour 20 years ago was shameful. But why would you have him sitting on the dole, when he might be able to make a difference with some at risk youth. People can put their past behind them.

With Tony Veitch, he is discussing a role with Radioworks on B-Sport. I think this is very risky for Radioworks. Veitch has been charged with criminal offences and is yet to face trial. We don’t know what will come out at trial. It could be very damaging to Radioworks to hire him without knowing what may emerge at trial. Some people might see that as an attitude of not caring what comes out at trial. And what if he is convicted and sent to prison? Do you want to explain that someone is off the air because they are in prison?

Now it is quite possible Veitch may not be found guilty, and that what emerges in trial, will not paint him in as black a light as some media leaks have suggested. And it is tough not to be working while awaiting trial. But the answer is to get the trial to court as soon as possible. Let the facts of the case emerge, tested through a trial process.

Quite 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

The Herald reports Tony Veitch has been arrested on seven charges:

Broadcaster Tony Veitch has been arrested on six charges of assault between 2002 and 2006 and one count of injuring with reckless disregard. …

The charge of male assaults female carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment for each count, while injuring with reckless disregard carries five years.

He will appear in Auckland District Court today.

I think it is good he has been charged, because issues of alleged domestic violence are criminal issues. This is the forum it should have gone to originally – a judicial one. I say that without indicating any belief in guilt, innocence or mitigating factors.

Martin Hirst at Ethical Martini blogged on the growing PR war between the affected parties. I am not surprised Veitch’s wife and family have started to hit back through the media, as they almost had no choice considering the campaign against Veitch that had dominated for weeks and months.

While I am not surprised, and understand why they are fighting back in public, I remain very uncomfortable at how the whole thing has played out in public. This is why it is good there will be a court process to determine the facts.

The conduct of the Police is also becoming an issue. First there was the apparent tip off to TV3 of the search on Veitch’s house, and then the accidentially recorded message from an officer who seemed to be taking an unprofessional enjoyment in bringing Veitch down.

If Veitch assaulted Dunne-Powell, he should be found guilty of the appropriate charges. However the punishment should take into account the wider picture, which is still very murky.

It was inevitable – Tony Veitch has resigned from both TVNZ and the Radio Sport network.

Regardless of the debate about what he did and didn’t do, the reality was he would be commercially unviable on air and shows featuring him would lose viewers/listeners and advertisers.

The next issue of course is what will the Police do. This is at the end of the day an issue about alleged criminal offending.

I wondered how The Standard would find a way to blame John Key for the Tony Veitch affair. I thought it wouldn’t be possible – but no even they found a way. This was too much for Maia.

Next we await how John Key was indirectly responsible for the death of the Police Officer at the weekend. And for the high inflation out tomorrow. And for the crap weather last week.

What I have found most amusing is that they are upset John Key hasn’t responded to their requests for an interview. This is like the Mongrel Mob complaining that the Police Commissioner won’t answer their questions!

There are around 20 stories and columns on Veitch today, and frankly it is getting overkill. I’m not even going to attempt to summarise them, except I do want to quote from Ralston a bit:

A hosed-off One News reporter covering the story appeared in a “live cross” in the 6pm bulletin, denouncing Flannery for failing to respond to her questions and dismissing Rick Ellis’ short press statement on the affair as “bland”. In a wonderfully timed act of rebellion the newsroom then served its TVNZ masters with an Official Information Act request for details of the company’s involvement in the matter and comment from Flannery and Ellis.

This was Lisa Owen and if there is a journalism award for sheer guts, she should get it.  Filing an OIA on your own employer and dissing your own Head of News and Current Affairs plus the CEO is just priceless. In one sense Owen is just treating TVNZ no different to any other organisation – as she should – but still there were ways in which she could be more subtle and she chose not to.

The story has got murkier today. We now know that now only did TVNZ and Radio Sport know for over a year, so have the Police. And also the $170,000 or so wasn’t negotiated at the time but asked for some months later.

By coincidence the three major dailies have all done their editorials today on Tony Veitch.

Before I summarise them, I’ll give my 2c. I don’t think the two broadcasters are the decision makers here. I think the decision will be made for them by their staff and public. When even Matthew Ridge is saying he may not want to appear on TV with him, you have a problem. How many female TVNZ employees would be willing to help produce shows for Veitch? How many sporting stars will want to appear on a show with him joking about? Regardless of what is fair, a return to television anyway is impossible for some time. The public won’t want to watch, and their own staff won’t want to produce.

Anyway we’ll start with the Dom Post which takes the hardest line:TVNZ has only one option over sports broadcaster and woman-beater Tony Veitch. It must terminate his contract and say he will never work for the state broadcaster again, writes The Dominion Post.

No beating around the bush there.

Quite apart from TVNZ’s hypocrisy in employing him while airing advertisements that say it is not okay, ever, to beat up a partner or family member, having Veitch in living rooms nightly and fronting its Olympics team is unacceptable. His TVNZ career should be over.

Questions of what TVNZ knew may become the bigger issue if it emerges they did know in advance.

The Press looks at the victim:

The Tony Veitch case is a tragedy not for Veitch but for the woman he assaulted, writes The Press in an editorial.

She suffered severe physical injuries from his attack and had her career disrupted; her mental anguish must have been intense. He has maintained his lucrative work and still holds his positions with Television New Zealand and The Radio Network.

One can only have sympathy for her – not only having to cope with the trauma of the assault at the time – but now having to cope with most of NZ discussing it.

There are those who will remain loyal to Veitch that is the nature of friendship but the public should not. The severity of the assault and his attempt to close the case and protect his career by way of a $100,000 cheque are brazen. The loss of public acceptance will surely be too much for the broadcasters to ignore. …

TVNZ presents itself as the expression of New Zealand values, and campaigns against violence towards women. Veitch now represents the opposite. His continued fronting of sports programmes which includes being anchorman of the Olympics broadcasts would be a disaster for the channel’s reputation.

I think there is no question he is off the air until after the Olympics. The question is when or if he will return after that?

The Herald takes a different tack, saying leave it to the Police:

Little good would be served if two broadcasting companies permanently remove the sports presenter Tony Veitch from their programmes to try to bring an end to controversy over his assault on a woman. …

A premature move to dismiss him, though, would be seen as being for one reason only: to help the broadcasting companies’ images, not the welfare of the victim or their audiences. It could never represent the closure they might seek and should not in any case be the last word when the police have begun inquiring into what could yet be a case of causing grievous bodily harm.

I disagree somewhat. The criminal issues are different to the employment issues.

If sacking him now is the answer then someone is asking the wrong question. Veitch’s case needs resolution by an authority far higher than the employer. His former partner reportedly suffered breaks to her back from being kicked on the ground, was temporarily confined to a wheelchair and off work for a considerable period. Veitch has admitted “breaking” and “lashing out” on the night of the incident. Rightly, the police have now appointed an officer to review the matter and consider his admissions. They should make every effort to interview the victim – who this year was party to a confidentiality agreement involving payment to her by Veitch of as much as $170,000 – to reassess her decision not to report the matter to the police when it occurred two years ago.

They make the point that as the publicity has now happened anyway, the rationale for not reporting it has lessened.

NZPA Images has been taking photos.

From the Radio Sport website:

Tony Veitch kicks off the working day with his highly entertaining breakfast show between 6.00am-9.00am.

This post was done at 11.32 a.m. Let’s see how long until it is changed!

The Dom Post is stating the the alleged assault by Tony Veitch on former partner Kristin Dunne-Powell was so bad,it broke her back.

*If* this is true, I can’t see how he could work in broadcasting alone. I couldn’t bring myself to watch a programme with him.

However, he has not confirmed whether this is true or not, and no charges have been laid – so one can’t totally pre-judge.

What I can not work out, if the Dom Post story is accurate, is why the hell Dunne-Powell didn’t call the cops. $100,000 isn’t enough I’d say.

Within a few hours Tony Veitch has been taken off both TVNZ and Radio Network, due to allegations of assault against his former partner.

I am not surprised the broadcasters have made this call. I suspect many of their own staff would have been uncomfortable with just pretending nothing had happened.

Now of course we still don’t know how correct the allegations are, but just ignoring them isn’t viable. What I think sticks in most people’s craws is the possibility that a serious domestic assault did happen, and that there is no contrition or consequences over what happened – just a hush money settlement.

One has to avoid a lynch mob mentality, but there is a recognition that as a prominent TV and radio personality one can’t just avoid allegations that directly affect your credibility, when it involves alleged criminal behaviour.

I have been a fan of his onscreen persona, but I have to say I’m pretty sickened by the reports that Tony Veitch assaulted his former partner so badly she was temporarily in a wheelchair.

I know there may be two sides to the story, but this is why Police should be involved – to determine the facts.

If the assault was as serious as it sounds (and any domestic violence is unacceptable), I am surprised the broadcasters are treating it is a private matter. Domestic violence is a criminal matter, not just a private affair.