How the Doones learned of Clark link

The country's former top policeman who alleges he was pushed from his job realised Helen Clark would give evidence in his defamation suit against the Sunday Star-Times only late last month.

It was when the Fairfax newspaper group filed its evidence with the High Court at Wellington on April 15 that former Police Commissioner Peter Doone found out the extent of the Prime Minister's involvement.

Yesterday his lawyer ended the legal action against the newspaper.

John Upton, QC, told the High Court Mr Doone and his wife Robyn Doone would be suing a third party instead - quickly identified outside court as Helen Clark.

The Prime Minister has already been named in associated documents from both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

She has also given written evidence to the original Fairfax action, but that has not been released by the courts.

The Herald understands Helen Clark may not have volunteered her statement, but was subpoenaed by lawyers for the newspaper.

Mr Upton had told the High Court "significant" new evidence had emerged in the case.

He said that evidence identified the third person as the "source" of the claims against Mr Doone.

His clients intended to commence defamation action against that third person.

Fairfax lawyer Peter McKnight disputed any claim the person was the principal source for the story. Instead he said the person was part of the verification process used by the newspaper before it published the article.

He told the court the source was a confidential person within the police.

Fairfax is to seek costs from the Doones, which Mr McKnight indicated outside court would be significant.

Mr Upton would not tell the Herald why the Doones had chosen to discontinue their action against the newspaper, for two articles published in January 2000.

However, the Doones last Friday applied to the High Court for an adjournment of the case so they could seek leave to sue Helen Clark.

In his written minute, Justice Forrest Miller said Mr Upton had been told on March 30 the Prime Minister would file a brief of evidence.

"I am told that she confirms that the editor and the reporter checked with her before including in the article published the words 'that won't be necessary', and that she confirmed her understanding that Mr Doone had uttered those words.

"She is not the ultimate source; that has not been disclosed."

However, he said he did not think the Doones' intentions to seek leave to now sue Helen Clark justified adjourning the Fairfax trial because it would delay proceedings for more than a year.

Justice Miller said the significance of the Prime Minister's involvement was that she was a person in a position to assure the reporter and editor that what they intended to publish was accurate.

He declined an adjournment and that decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.