Loose lips could hurt cops

Tony Veitch's lawyers were angered by the release of information. Photo / Herald on Sunday

Police could be told off for releasing too much information into the public domain in two high-profile cases - the Tony Veitch saga and one involving a drink-driving flight attendant.

The Office of the Ombudsmen and the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) have been working on high-level inquiries involving the two controversial cases. There have been two complaints on whether police had the power to release as much information as they did.

The Herald on Sunday understands the inquiries could lead to a more rigorous policy on when police can and cannot release information.

A spokesman from the Office of the Ombudsmen said the police complaints authority would "soon" release a report which would look at whether police acted fairly in releasing information over the Veitch case. Then the Ombudsmen's Office reports on the Veitch and flight attendant cases could be released.

In May last year Veitch's lawyers Chapman Tripp were reported as having criticised police over releasing a file under the Official Information Act. The lawyers said they were "disappointed" the released information went to media before going to them - which is the usual. Veitch's QC Stuart Grieve at the time called it "totally irresponsible". Police had said they would be in touch when they decided what could be released. That didn't happen.

It is almost a year and a half since Veitch pleaded guilty to injuring his former partner Kristin Dunne-Powell with reckless disregard.

Meanwhile, the Office of the Ombudsmen has helped clarify the "principles that should be applied" when any high-level organisation releases information in the future. Deputy Ombudsman Leo Donnelly said a different test on releasing information publicly should be applied if charges were withdrawn from the court and "there's been no opportunity by a person to rebut allegations".

He said even though some organisations might have a legal authority to release some information, there was an expectation they must also act "reasonably". "There has got to be real public interest," he said.

Donnelly said sometimes a party might make "malicious" or "untested allegations" to police and these should only be released "if there is a strong reason to do so". For example, it might be justifiable if a child was at risk and it was in the public interest to put information out.

In the flight attendant case - the attendant was sacked for drink-driving and there were allegations of a drinking and drug culture at a major airline - the information released to TV3 under the Official Information Act had been called into question.

Meanwhile, police have already changed policy in the wake of the Veitch case to ensure potential conflicts of interest are declared. There had been criticism over Detective Keitha Lally having worked on the case, given she had personally known Dunne-Powell.

Assistant Commissioner Viv Rickard said a year ago: "Criticism related to some aspects of potential or perceived conflicts of interest in the case". Police had a new policy.