The following information however relates to my contempt of court proceedings which was finalised a year ago when the Court of Appeal quashed all High Court orders, including an order to destroy all copies of my book entitled Broken Silence.
FACT. David Collins disclosed an occupation subject to a court suppression order when he phoned me on 18 June 2001 to ask if I would be prepared to write a book on a case he had taken to the Privy Council. The note taken of this phone call was amongst the evidence set aside by Justice John Wild in the Wellington High Court.
FACT After notifying David Collins that I was no longer prepared to publish his book, he wrote to me acknowledging my instructions to destroy the manuscript I’d sent him, expressing concern that the project appears to have become grounded on some rocky shores and asking if I would mind if we met to talk through some of these issues. This letter dated 22 January 2003 was amongst the evidence set aside by Justice John Wild.
FACT I had delivered a manuscript to David iCollins n his Chambers on 21 February 2003 and collected this manuscript from David in his Chambers on 3 March 2003. This manuscript, with annotations on a total of 41 pages including those relevant to the litigation, was amongst the evidence set aside by Justice John Wild.
FACT Following an appearance in court I wrote to David Collins to find out about orders the plaintiff’s lawyer Hugh Rennie QC had referred to in court. David sent me a letter on 3 March 2004 stating that he did not know what orders Mr Rennie QC refers to. In my letter I had referred to an assessment o the manuscript. David wrote: “If by that you mean an assessment of the suitability for publication of the manuscript which became Broken Silence, I have not undertaken any such assessment”.
The Court of Appeal accepts that Dr Collins undoubtedly made quite extensive notations on the manuscript.
Although David Collins had volunteered information about the existence of a settlement in the litigation which was the subject of my book, I did not discover until the terms of settlement were disclosed to me, that he had failed to warn me that one of the confidential terms of settlement was that the settlement itself was confidential.
I am adamant that if I had known that the existence of the settlement was confidential, I would not have agreed to publish this book, because there would have been no point covering seven years of litigation involving the Privy Council without recording an outcome.
FACT On 27 April 2007 Steven Price, as my lawyer for the appeal, wrote to David’s lawyer regarding the possibility of an affidavit to help clarify David’s role with respect to my book. “Of course I have seen the various documents (including the preliminary draft brief) in which Dr Collins denies that he played any significant roles in assessing the manuscript, as the appellant claims. That puts us in a rather awkward position, as Dr Collin’s recollection of events is inconsistent with the appellant’s, and, with respect, with some of the contemporaneous documentation.”
I will refer no further to the sworn affidavit Dr Collins QC signed on 11 May 2007, when he was Solicitor-General, because it is the subject of an investigation by a senior police officer delegated I understand by the Police Commissioner to handle my complaint in relation to S111 of the Crimes Act 1961.
This police officer has stated, as reported in last week’s edition of the Truth, that: “Despite Mrs Hunt’s desire that the complaint not be pursued, as a matter of public interest the investigation has continued.” This information was first published on kiwisfirst.
Phil Kitchin is amongst those who have viewed the documents mentioned in this e-mail. The manuscript was uplifted by the police from the office of the Editor of the Dominion Post, where it had been kept in safe custody following my videotaped interview by Phil Kitchin six days before the “police terrorism raids”.
If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me via the contact form on this website. Anne Hunt