Broadcaster Tony Veitch could face prison if successfully prosecuted for attacking former partner Kristin Dunne-Powell, but there was probably nothing illegal about the couple concealing the crime.
A top lawyer and a former police prosecutor both believed Veitch could face a maximum term of around three years for
the 2006 assault of Ms Dunne-Powell, in which she is reported to have broken four vertebrae.
Both men believed - on the information made public this week - that a charge of injuring with intent to injure was the most likely charge should Veitch be prosecuted.
Auckland police said yesterday an investigator would look into the allegations against Veitch, and his admissions of an historical assault.
A former police prosecutor, who did not want to be named, said yesterday Veitch could be jailed for the assault, but getting a conviction would be problematic.
The prosecutor - still a serving police officer - said Veitch would probably automatically plead not guilty in the event he was charged.
Investigators would then require the evidence of his victim, who would need to be summonsed if she did not want to make a complaint voluntarily.
If Ms Dunne-Powell refused to give evidence, police would probably need evidence from a witness to the assault, or a third party to whom Veitch might have spoken of the assault.
The attack - reported to have ended with Ms Dunne-Powell being confined to a wheelchair for a time - would likely result in a charge such as wounding with intent to injure "at the very least".
"There's a reasonable show he could be looking at a period of imprisonment ... it's big league stuff, it's not just male versus female," the ex-prosecutor said.
Christchurch Queen's Counsel Nigel Hampton agreed, saying even a clean criminal history would be unlikely to save Veitch.
"At the very least, a prosecution would be looking at assault with intent to injure ... The odds would be in favour of a custodial [sentence]."
Whether Veitch ever served a day behind bars would come down to the length of the sentence, and the sentencing judge's view on the timing of a home detention application.
Neither Mr Hampton nor the prosecutor believed there was anything illegal about an agreement, reportedly drawn up between the two after the attack.
