Jock Anderson

Did Wellington Queen’s Counsel David Collins, named this month as the new Solicitor-General, approve publication of an explicit sexual violation book now banned following a contempt of court row?

Or did author and Horowhenua district councillor Anne Hunt read to much into her version of Mr Collins’ involvement as a means of trying to justify the book’s legitimacy?

Whatever the situation was Mr Collins can’t shake off his connection to a secretive contempt of court saga that still appears far from over.

Mr Collins, who takes up his position as Solicitor-General on September 1, was named in the Wellington High Court case as having allegedly checked and approved the contentious manuscript of a book about a woman’s sexual allegations against a senior health professional, copies of which Justice John Wild subsequently banned and ordered destroyed.

Mr Collins acted for the woman who made the sexual allegations.

Finding against Foxton author Mrs Hunt Justice Wild remarked that at another hearing relating to the contempt proceedings another judge made it clear to Mrs Hunt that evidence as to what, if any, legal advice Mr Collins had given her about publication of her manuscript must come from Mr Collins.

Justice Wild said it was pointed out to Mrs Hunt that evidence from her about Mr Collins’ advice was inadmissible hearsay.

Justice Wild said he put entirely to one side Mrs Hunt’s claim that Mr Collins gave her legal advice about her manuscript.

“In deference to Mr Collins, from whom I have not heard, I record that he is on record as disputing that he assessed the defendant’s [Mrs Hunt] manuscript and approved it for publication,” the judge said.

As recently as last week Mrs Hunt says she has “consistently corrected any claims that I stated Dr Collins QC approved the manuscript for publication.”

The contempt of court action against Mrs Hunt was brought privately by barrister Gary Turkington and not through the conventional channel of the Solicitor-General’s office.

The case, much of which has been shrouded by suppression orders, dealt with issues of identity suppression, access to and use of court records, confidentiality between parties to civil settlements and disclosure of certain details relating to a criminal trial.

Author Mrs Hunt, having been found by Justice Wild to be in contempt of court for publishing in her book details of a confidential settlement between a male health professional and a female patient alleging sexual violation, has filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal.

Effectively, Mrs Hunt used documents provided to her by the female patient, some of which the court ruled she was not entitled to have, including details of a confidential financial settlement reached between the woman and the health professional.

Mrs Hunt claimed there was an overriding public interest in her publishing the book, a claim rejected by Mr Turkington, who described the book as a cynical attempt by Mrs Hunt to retry the health professional – “or invite her readers to retry him in a project driven by commercial motives.”

Justice Wild’s judgment, made earlier this year, contains several suppression orders including the title of Mrs Hunt’s book, which, although the name of the book has previously been published, is now suppressed. Justice Wild ordered copies of the book, earlier withdraw from distribution, to be destroyed.

The health professional – identified in the case as “A” - cannot be named, nor any details that might identify him including his field of work and where he lives and practices.

The woman who made the allegations that “A” indecently assaulted and sexually violated her can be identified only as “W.”

Interestingly, while Justice Wild found Mrs Hunt in contempt of court, fined her $1,000 and awarded damages of $15,000 to “A”, he determined that her book did not  breach any orders suppressing “A’s” name or identification details, despite a number of “clues” in the book that tended to point to the man.

The story began in 1995 when “W,” represented by Mr Collins, complained to police that the male health professional –“A” - had indecently assaulted and sexually violated her while treating her.

“A” went to trial in 1996 on three charges of indecent assault and six of sexual violation. He was found not guilty on all charges and discharged, with full suppression of his name and identifying details, and subsequently allowed $60,000 costs against the Crown.

“W” also took her sexual violation complaint to “A’s” professional body. She also began a legal aid-funded High Court civil claim against “A” seeking exemplary damages, again alleging sexual violation.

“A’s” professional body decided to conduct a full disciplinary hearing against “A” because it considered there was sufficient evidence to charge him with professional misconduct.

A hearing was arranged but adjourned pending the outcome of the criminal trial.

Disciplinary action ended in 1998 when the High Court upheld “A’s” application for judicial review and quashed the evidence decision of the professional tribunal on the grounds of procedural irregularity.

In 2001 “W’s” exemplary damages claim was settled confidentially in the course of a judicial settlement conference

Mrs Hunt published her book about the criminal and civil proceedings against “A” in 2003.

A short time later “A’s” wife saw the book advertised, she leafed through it in a bookshop and immediately recognized is as being about the criminal and civil proceedings against her husband.

Proceedings against Mrs Hunt followed swiftly amid a shroud of court-imposed suppression orders to protect “A,” who claimed Mrs Hunt’s precise intention was to identify him by inviting readers to piece together clues in her book.

Mrs Hunt argued that she had not breached the suppression orders because there was no actual reference to “A’s” name, address, or occupation.

She maintained she took precautionary measures at a number of points to avoid identification of “A’s” profession and claimed that much of the potentially revealing information in her book was available in the public domain.

But Mrs Hunt’s best card in the name suppression argument came when she provided evidence that “A” was not the only person in his line of work practising in his home town.

She showed that “A” was not even listed in the “Yellow Pages” as practicing in his home town, an argument Justice Wild bought when finding she had not breached the suppression orders.

The same could not be said for breaching confidentiality and using material disclosed for a court proceeding.

Mrs Hunt described in her book the settlement process which took place between the parties to settle “W’s” exemplary damages claim.

She made reference to comments allegedly made by David Collins about the [unspecified] settlement figure being “well within the bounds of reasonable settlement and sitting comfortably within the range of awards made in New Zealand.”

According to Justice Wild Mrs Hunt obtained information about the confidential settlement from “without prejudice” correspondence exchanged between the parties’ lawyers, leaving him with only one conclusion: that Mrs Hunt’s breach of the confidentiality of the settlement agreement amounted to contempt.

That confidentiality attached to “A” and “W” and, according to the judge, it was arguable if Mrs Hunt should have even mentioned in her book that settlement had been reached.

The circumstances surrounding Mrs Hunt’s disclosure of details of  criminal proceedings were just as interesting.

“A” challenged Mrs Hunt’s use of large potions of verbatim extracts from the court transcript of the criminal case against him, claiming that she breached the Criminal Proceedings (Search of Court Records) Rules by not getting the court’s consent to acquire the material.

Mrs Hunt, who did not get her information for her book by attending “A’s” trial, or by application to the court, said she got all this material from “W,” uplifting it from “W’s” home.

That was an argument Justice Wild found “as unattractive as it is untenable.”

“Were it correct, any person could circumvent the Court’s controls and search rules in the same way, thus undermining the Court’s supervisory powers,” the judge said, finding another example of contempt.

But Justice Wild found that Mrs Hunt’s disclosure of a range of other details not on the court file, including details of “A’s” arrest, affidavits filed for the purposes of disciplinary action against “A,” statements by other potential witnesses to the police, “W’s” statement to the police and a letter from the police to the Crown Prosecutor recording allegations that five other patients had claimed to the ACC that they also had been sexually abused by “A” in the course of treatment, was not a misuse of the documents.

The judge also found that such disclosure did not amount to a breach of confidence or privacy.

Meanwhile, CaseLoad sent Dr Collins some questions in the hope of clarifying his position regarding Mrs Hunt’s book:

1. What involvement did you have in Mrs Hunt’s book?

2. Were you, as Mrs Hunt claimed, the source of information in footnote 5 of her book relating to awards for exemplary damages?

3. Were you the source of any information in her book?

4. Did you, as Mrs Hunt claimed, check her manuscript and approve it for publication from a legal viewpoint?

5. Justice Wild records that you are on record as disputing that you assessed the manuscript and approved its publication.

6. How specifically did you dispute this?

7. Whether you approved it or not did you see any of her manuscript?

8. How aware were you that Mrs Hunt was writing this book, what its content was and the level of assistance she got from your client W.?

9. Were you aware that W was providing the documentation she did to Mrs Hunt and if so what is your view of that?

10. If you knew, did you advise against it?

11. Why do you think Mrs Hunt told the court she wrote the book out of loyalty to you – “to do a favour for my lawyer.”?

12. Is she correct when she says she published the book because you contacted her?

13. Would you explain the nature of your contact with Mrs Hunt?

Mr Collins was out of the country and not expected back until August 16. CaseLoad looks forward to his response. For those interested the case reference is CIV 2003 485 2553, “A” v Anne Hunt, Wellington High Court.