Veitch used Dame Susan Devoy's character reference in court without permission

Email
Print

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:00a.m.

Dame Susan Devoy says her testimonial for broadcaster Tony Veitch -- splashed across newspapers today -- was for an application to return his passport, not to support him in a court sentencing.

"I feel misled," the squash legend said this morning.

In her testimonial presented to the court at Veitch's sentencing yesterday for injuring his former partner with reckless regard, Dame Susan said he deserved a chance to get his life back and have the opportunity to work again.

She had been asked to provide a testimonial on Monday, but did not know then that he would be appearing in court this week, and was taken aback when he did, she said.

"I honestly wrote my testimonial in the belief it was to support an application from Tony to get his passport back for the possibility of a job opportunity," she told Radio Live.

She had written it because she believed Veitch, whom she knew and whose stepmother was a close friend, deserved a chance to work again.

"I mean we can't ostracise him for the rest of his life. But it is a different kettle of fish when you are writing a letter of support of someone coming up for sentencing.

"And I know that because I have written a letter recently for someone who is actually serving 10 years and six months for something probably a lot less than what Tony has done."

She said she would not necessarily have refused to provide a testimonial for his sentencing.

She had no qualms about Veitch working again and had written her testimonial on the basis that he should be allowed his passport back and that society was a place which gave people a chance to work and move on from their mistakes.

Dame Susan said she had told her own four sons there was never an excuse for violence.

"At the end of the day whether we like it or not people like Tony are role models. My kids might make mistakes and I might need the support of friends myself when that happens and I'm certainly not perfect myself."

Dame Susan would not reveal who had asked her for the testimonial, other than it was a private individual.

She said she had received a "barrage" of emails and phone calls questioning her character supporting someone who had pleaded guilty of violence abuse.

"So I have to live with that one. It is just one of those things, unfortunately...probably one of those things I can do without."

She had written in her testimonial that she hated Game Of Two Halves, the sports quiz show Veitch had hosted, and some of the things he was involved in, "because to me they were just chauvinistic crap".

"But I said that is not to deny he is a professional, and his career, and he has a wife and he has to move on and work again and that was basically the basis of my testimonial."

NZPA

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

18 Apr 2009 03:12p.m.

Gerald wrote:

The rants from vitriolic woman here may me wonder just what resides between their earlobes. None of us know exactly what went on that night and probably many other nights before that. Was there provocation? We don't know but I do know that some woman use their tongues as weapons, and know exactly what buttons to push to provoke others. The holier than Vietch utterances here reek with hypocrisy. He did more than most who have been guilty of violence toward others, both male and female. Hypocrite Helen in her post at 5:18 of the 17th claims if he had hit her he would now be a cripple. Who's preaching violence now? DeVoy and the others gave a "character reference" which is their consideration of his character. The use it is put to is irrelevant. Either they meant what they said of Vietch or they were lying. The women posting here seem to be of the view that women are never violent. The number of murders committed by women even of their own offspring are evidence of the violence of women. Vietch addmitted his guilt. How many others, demonstrably guilty, never do, both men and women. The truth of this whole matter will probably never be known, but he was sentenced according to the law as it humanly and imperfectly is administered in NZ, and on this occasion by a woman judge. Yet like the hags who waited for the guillotine to fall, they still bay for his blood. And hypocritically complain of male violence. Obviously they live in houses devoid of mirrors.

17 Apr 2009 06:20p.m.

Venus wrote:

Yes Helen. Colourful language and all - I totally agree with you. He got off light. As you quite rightly point out, any woman who has suffered abuse such as this would be thinking the same as you and I. I wouldnt necessarily want his head on a plate, (it aint that cute) but I would want recompense and I would also want a show of remorse. He doesnt appear to have given the latter. What amazes me is that Veitch hasnt yet clicked how lucky he is not to have been given jail time. He seems oblivious of that fact. He is cocky enough to think that he can sue the Media. Quite frankly that is oh so typical of the attitude of violent men. Especially those who are violent toward women. I saw the interview with Dunne-Powell on Campbell live and she said, 'Tony is more remorseful about what has happened to him,' rather than remorseful about what he did. Quite true methinks. I think the real issue for Veitch is getting a job in the profession he loves the best, and as many have said, he is good at. Then therefore he should stop being so cocky and show some humility otherwise no body who is in any right mind in the Media will ever hire him again. He pleaded guilty because it was more expediant, not because he truely believes he should have pleaded guilty. I saw the interview with him on Campbell live. JC asked 'why did you plead guilty?' and TV's answer was 'his lawyer had worked so hard to get the truth' out there .... that is no show of remorse at all nor is it an admission of guilt but it is a desparate bid to gain back a professional reptutation. and that is what TV's real punishment will be..... no one will hire him.



17 Apr 2009 05:30p.m.

Venus wrote:

He broke her back for goodness sake. His attack was just a half a click away from killing her. And if one gives a character reference it needs to be used in an honest way. People just dont hand out references to anyone. When I ask for a reference, it is to enable me to get a job, or a house, loan, etc,. not to get me off from any wrong doing that I have committed. I dont believe that these high profile people are fickle at all. They like most people take the view that their word is their bond, therefore it is only right that they should object to how 'their word' is being used. As for Mr Veitch considering who his friends are, at the rate he is going, he might not have too many left. Except of course for the bloggers who have lost sight of the real wrong doing that has taken place and like Veitch, want to duck shove responsibility to every one else but himself. Media beat up my foot. Just check out how many assaults take place each year against women in this country and if these 'big tough blokes' can quite readily assault women, they can do it to kids too. And they do ! And that is what this issue is really about. Wake up . The Media is all over this because of the number of assaults against women and children. And those brave people that have to deal with dead kids and their dead mothers would feel that Mr Veitch got off light.

17 Apr 2009 05:18p.m.

Helen wrote:

Oh Pleeeeeeeeeeeeze, Any woman that has been abused by a snivling, wincing coward like this will be wanting his head on a plate . He abused this woman and has left her with permanent injuries and he stands up there and says he will sue the media. He should have kept his hands to himself and regardless as to whether it is a witch hunt or not. Who gives a rats butt as to what he has to go through. He lifted his hands to this woman and so he should suffer for it instead of playing the victim. We woman are sick of cowards like this bashing the crap out of us. Get them off the streets. If he had hit me he would be crippled now. I hope that she has got help to never have a man like this in her life again.
Stop sticking up for him , if you do then you condone abuse of all kinds.

17 Apr 2009 03:59p.m.

james wrote:

FRom what i have read and seen on the news he DID ADMIT GUILT so Zee you got what you wanted or are you like so many others who want this guy to break down and cry. what more do you want from him.I take it that you are the i want blood from a stone type.what he did was wrong but he has now paid his debt in a court of law. how would you like it if your boss fired you if you went to court for something and the press then pulled your life apart at every chance they got.and there is always to sides to every story but no one wants to belive tony because he is the man.

17 Apr 2009 02:57p.m.

zee wrote:

The context in which a reference is used matters a great deal. Perhaps, the people giving reference were led to believe that their references were to be used for getting a second chance in his career. In the context of a law-suit or sentencing, the references imply that the people giving them believe he does not deserve to be held fully accountable for his action, or not deserve to be punished to the full extent carried by the charges, which still implies that they don't think he's THAT guilty.

Tony Veitch has been so vocal about his suffering - the ordeal dealt out by the media, the loss of job, the depression, the 7 alleged suicide attempts - that for a comparatively subdued public 'whining' from his ex-partner, we may think the he's the true victim here. A second chance in his career is irrelevant. Even the victim said that she only wanted him to take responsibility and admit guilt, not for him to lose his career and future. I challenge anyone to point out one emotion he displayed during his speech outside the court that indicated NOT resentment for his own suffering, but remorse for his action. Did his emotions married up with his sorry words? Not shying away from admitting what you've done, with a staunch self-fortifying attitude, is very different from taking responsibility and sincerely remorseful for what you've done. Meanwhile, the victim is a victim for a second round. She said that the money she took was compensation for physiotherapy treatments and counseling, not as hush money, and it fell on deaf ears. Time and time again, women victim of violence coming forward would receive public scrutiny and further victimization, which actually disparage them from standing up to fight for all women. The voices, influential and otherwise, supporting him nearly drown out any supporting voices for the victim. It's a sad social commentary of the current New Zealand society.



17 Apr 2009 01:46p.m.

Ngaire wrote:

This is getting to be a total witch hunt. The media beat up on this has been appalling. Lets hope Tony has the guts now to go and sue both TV and newsmedia for false reporting. The NZ Herald, Dom Post and TV3 today look like they are trying to justify all the crap they have written.

17 Apr 2009 12:49p.m.

james wrote:

So they gave a reference and now say it was used without permission. as for susan's remark that is so stupid what good is a character reference if you are not going to use it and please don't come out and say you did not know it was going to be used in court that was the idea now it has been used she what to distance herself from him and now not show support in public but from behind closed doors.

17 Apr 2009 12:48p.m.

Jo wrote:

Oh for goodness sake, people gave character references because of their dealings with Tony and their opinions of him on a personal basis, so stop bleating about how those references were used, you either a give a reference or you don't. Amazing how fickle some people become when under the glare of the media when its not to their advantage. Tony himself may want to reconsider just who he believes are his friends.