I will have to check this up. I would hope that an agreement is legal simply because all parties agree to conceal information from the police.

By that argument, if I witnessed you robbing a bank. And then you and I signed an agreement that I would not take my information to the police in exchange for a cash sum – that would be a legal agreement? If so there is a bank near to my work you could be interested in…

Just because it is difficult to prove surely doesn’t make something technically legal. At least I hope not.

There was an agreement between the parties. You may not like the nature or the terms of the agreement but there was nothing illegal about it. The only witnesses to what happened were Veitch and his partner at the time. She chose not to inform the police or lay a complaint and to protect him by claiming her injuries were the result of a fall. So there was no complainant. In these circumstances the police would have found it very difficult indeed to take a prosecution.

I don’t know this person. You may well be right. However, apologies can be dangerous, since they imply acceptance of what you are being accused of and can work against you if the other party takes legal action. I gather (we’re in Singapore) that the girl’s family are intending to take a private prosecution. We do a certain amount of crisis management. Our core advice remains: be straightforward, tell the truth, admit your mistakes. Large corporations are often unwilling to do this, on legal advice.

I’d say it was illegal, because I believe you can not have a legal contract that agrees on the parties doing something illegal.

In this case, not taking information on a case of serious assault to the police is an illegal action.

If there was an actual contract, that would suggest to me that there was a lawyer, and someone advising Veitch to get a lawyer (his agent, some exec at TVNZ?). The lawyer would have know that the agreement was illegal.

However, we don’t actually know what advice he was given and whether he took it.

Very good point.

The nails were truly hammered into Veitch’s coffin, after his ignoble TV announcement at the Crowne Plaza. He turned up prim-and-proper in a shiny, immaculate suit. The suit had a sheen, which reflected the harsh glare of the TV lights, which further clinicalised the delivery of his PR-prepared explanation. It was robotic, suggesting a huge disconnect between self-awareness and what the public were expecting/wanting to hear and see. His wife — who was standing behind him — and her “show of support”, by strategically placing her hand on his shoulder — was contrived, coy and cloying. It did nothing to humanise him; rather, it reinforced the public’s growing perception that he was self-serving, sullen and coldly calculating.

At the end of his delivery, his hasty no-questions retreat, was tantamount to giving the one-finger salute. That’s how damning it was. Well, rather, how bad his PR advice, was. Rotten!

The PR agent is supposed to function as a saviour; not stand graveside, shovel in-hand.

This certainly helps me sleep better at night. (warning, Merv, bit of irony here).

I’m not sure why you say the contract was illegal. It was a voluntary agreement between two people. It may not have been sensible or in both parties’ interests, but that does not make it illegal.

Veith was advised by PR woman Glenda Hughes. The advice appears to have been appalling. Your advice, in your last paragraph, is much better. However, we don’t actually know what advice he was given and whether he took it.