Doones: Why we're taking on Helen Clark

Peter and Robyn Doone are preparing to sue Prime Minister Helen Clark for defamation. Picture / Fotopress

For a couple who are taking on the Prime Minister, former Police Commissioner Peter Doone and his wife Robyn look more immersed in a romance play than an intense political drama.

They can't keep their hands off each other as they giggle, pat each other's legs and swoon their way to their position at stage centre after a five-year absence from the spotlight.

And what an entrance it was. One morning it is revealed they are suing a Sunday newspaper for defamation over events that led to Mr Doone's resignation as the country's top cop. And by that afternoon, the lawsuit, apparently five years in the planning, is all over and instead the Prime Minister is in their targets.

Mr Doone resigned as commissioner in January 2000, just weeks after Labour had been elected to power.

Labour had been critical of the 31-year police veteran while in opposition. But in an ironic twist it was the events of election night November 1999, that finally led to the end of his career.

Mr Doone stepped down as commissioner after a month of sustained publicity surrounding that night, when a rookie police officer pulled over his car which his then partner, Robyn Johnstone, was driving. It was raining and the lights were not on.

The Sunday Star-Times had reported Mr Doone got out of the passenger side and spoke to the officer, who was carrying an alcohol sniffer. The newspaper reported that Mr Doone told the officer: "that won't be necessary" - a comment that he never made and for which the newspaper later apologised.

Though two police reports would later criticise him for engaging with the officer, Mr Doone was never found to have tried to stop Johnstone from being breath-tested or to have said "that won't be necessary".

In fact, four-and-a-half months later, the newspaper retracted those offending words. But by then, Mr Doone says, his reputation was mud and he had already decided to sue.

Now, as a result of that court action, the couple believe they have discovered the Prime Minister helped to confirm "untrue" information to the newspaper.

Having abandoned action against the Star-Times, they plan to sue Helen Clark for defamation and will apply for leave from the court as early as this week to take the case.

The potential for scandal has opposition politicians salivating.

It has been, says Mrs Doone, "a rollercoaster ride" over the past five years, the only highlights being their wedding two years ago, and the birth of Mr Doone's first grandchild five weeks ago.

They have gotten on with life: They run two consultancy companies, an inbound tourism operation for wealthy visitors to New Zealand and another operation that takes Kiwis to Africa on safari tours.

But the public perception of him as a top cop who obstructed a constable trying to breath-test his girlfriend has been impossible to escape.

It's not true, he says, "and that's enormously damaging and we need to redress that. People say, 'Jeez, we believed that was true. I'm aghast that that could be published about you and it's not true, what are you going to do about it?"' Well, this is it.

Questions, however, have emerged about why they are doing it now. How can they afford to take such action? Five years of lawyer time doesn't come cheap and the Star-Times has already indicated it will seek costs that could reach $100,000. The Doones deny they have any backers, or that they are sharing information with or getting any help from opposition MPs, who stand to benefit from any ensuing scandal. It simply took a while to get the case together because they were often out of the country and it was difficult to find a court date that suited both sides, Mr Doone says. As for the costs - "What price your reputation?".

Doone is adamant that had the breath-testing allegations and the "that won't be necessary" comments not been published, he would not have been forced to retire.

Government documents, however, show that, putting those allegations aside, ministers were already losing confidence in the commissioner before he stepped down.

Based on a Police Complaints Authority investigation that found Mr Doone's interaction with the constable was "undesirable", ministers felt he had committed a serious failure of judgment that jeopardised the public's confidence in the police.

Had he not resigned first, papers show, Cabinet was poised to make its own decision on his future.

Then there was the more critical report prepared by Mr Doone's second in command, now the current police commissioner, Rob Robinson.

Though that review did not confirm the serious Star-Times allegations, Robinson nevertheless found Mr Doone had "intervened" in the work of the officer who was intimidated when he came across his top boss.

Mr Robinson found it was so routine for an officer to speak to the driver of a car stopped for something like not having the headlights on, that the Doone scenario was used as a training example of what not to do in the days following the incident.

Then, Mr Doone maintained, as he does today, that he thought the car was being pulled over as part of a "routine check" for no particular reason and he was waiting for the officer to take the lead if anything else needed to be pursued.

Mr Doone won't be drawn on what he thinks of Mr Robinson taking over his job, conceding there was some tension between them while the investigation was on, but that they no longer have anything to do with each other.

Likewise, the Doones won't go into details about their feelings about Clark. They have, they reckon, a very strong case against her, but it will be a year or so before it is finally over.

Clark has said she will defend the case.

Not that Mr Doone doesn't harbour regrets about that rainy election night. "In hindsight, I think I made an error of judgement getting out of the car, I followed my natural inclination when I met constables to say 'gidday' and find out what was going on. I didn't think it through what the perceptions might be from that ...

"Now, thinking back to all the perceptions that did arise, there is no way I would have done it and I can freely concede it was an error of judgment at the time."


- HERALD ON SUNDAY