Letters warrant investigation

Legal experts say letters altered and presented at Tony Veitch's court hearing and sentencing should be investigated.

Nigel Hampton QC said changing the references could be considered forgery under the Crimes Act, an offence which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. "Altering a document and putting it forward as a genuine document is forgery," he said.

Dame Susan Devoy and Olympic guru Dave Currie told the Weekend Herald letters supporting Tony Veitch were obtained to get his passport returned. They said that the letters were altered before being presented to the court, with references to the passport application removed.

Judge Jan Doogue referred to the 20 "glowing references" presented by Veitch before sentencing him to nine months supervision and a $10,000 fine for his assault on former partner Kristin Dunne-Powell.

Hampton said altering a document was not an offence - but handing it over as if it were genuine could be.

He didn't believe the two letters would have "materially altered" Veitch's sentence.

"But it's unsatisfactory, and the judge would be feeling, I would have thought, a bit grumpy about it."

Jonathan Krebs, New Zealand Law Society criminal law subcommittee convenor, said the Ministry of Justice could investigate the letters if it thought it important enough.

"This is potentially technical fraud. Given the public profile of the case the situation needs to be addressed somewhere."

Krebs believes the alteration was "unsavoury but not illegal" and would not have been sanctioned by the defence team.

"I don't know if Veitch can be called back to decide possible contempt," Krebs said.



A former high-ranking police officer said there was enough information for the police to investigate the letters. "There is a host of possibilities that need to be investigated to see if there was wrongdoing. I would be surprised if they are not looking at it.

"It could be considered forgery when altering the document to mislead the court."

He said the prosecution could appeal the sentence if they felt the judge was purposely misled.

Justice campaigner Louise Nicholas - who met Dunne-Powell a week ago - agreed. "That was so wrong and so unethical on their part," said Nicholas. "I hope there is some course of action against whoever altered the letters."

She said if someone is found to have purposely altered the letters to mislead the court that person should be punished.

Crown Prosecutor Simon Moore said he would not be drawn into the debate over the letters except to defend Veitch's lawyer, Stuart Grieve. "I am absolutely certain and utterly confident Stuart Grieve would not know anything of the letters being altered."

Defence lawyer Karen Harding said the two letters would not have made a difference to the sentencing.

"Any other [domestic violence] client would not have lost his home and his job and would not have been fined $10,000 if they had no previous convictions and were remorseful."

Peter Williams QC says the law society's ethics committee should look into the concerns raised by Devoy.

"There is something there that should be looked at carefully. There must have been some purpose to altering a document otherwise why would you change it? If anyone hands in a document to the courts we must be certain that document has integrity."