From: Dr Joel Hayward
To: Mr Alan Hayward
University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800
Dear Mr Hayward
Tuesday 25 July 2000 (all morning and afternoon interviews and any other discussions with the interviewed persons, as well as any discussions that day held between the members of the Joel Hayward Working Party);
Wednesday 26 July 2000 (interview with Dame Phyllis Guthardt, Chancellor, as well as any discussions that day held between the members of the Joel Hayward Working Party);
Tuesday 10 October 2000 (all morning and afternoon interviews and any other discussions with the interviewed persons, as well as any discussions that day held between the members of the Joel Hayward Working Party);
Friday 13 October 2000 (interview and any other discussions with Professor Daryl LeGrew and Professor John Burrows, as well as any discussions that day held between the members of the Joel Hayward Working Party).
These interviews are outlined in Appendix D of the Report by the Joel Hayward Working Party (
I also request under the Official Information Act 1982 all emails, telephone diary notes, other diary notes, documents, audiotapes, minutes and other records relating to discussions, conversations or meetings between:
the University of Canterbury Chancellor and/or the Vice Chancellor and/or any members of the Council and/or the Registrar
The Joel Hayward Working Party
that are not specified as having occurred in the timetable called Appendix D of the Report by the Joel Hayward Working Party (
Prompt compliance with my request will be very greatly appreciated.
Dr. Joel Stuart Andrew Hayward
Dr Joel Hayward
Office of the Ombudsman
70 The Terrace
Re. Investigation and Review of refusal by
I am hereby seeking an investigation and review—pursuant to section 28(3) of the Official Information Act 1982—of the refusal by
I enclose a copy of my original letter of request to Mr Alan Hayward, Registrar,
I enclose a copy of the letter of refusal I received from Mr Alan Hayward, Registrar,
In my view a person cannot have certainty that he or she has been treated with "due process" if he or she cannot see, and be given opportunities to understand, let alone contest, the process itself.
Unfortunately I still know remarkably little about the undisclosed proceedings of the so-called Joel Hayward Working Party, established by the
The only information I possess or have possessed are: a few documents that the Joel Hayward Working Party formally invited me to respond to, my formal responses, a few papers supplied to me informally by Dr Vincent Orange, my memories of my appearances before the Working Party, and the final, published Report issued by the Joel Hayward Working Party in December 2000.
That Report is certainly not a record of the proceedings themselves, as a reading will reveal. The entire report can be found on the
Thus I do not know what specific allegations were made about me, or even what statements were said in my support, by anyone else who was asked or permitted to appear before the Working Party or was asked or permitted to submit documents.
I do not even know what discussions took place
BETWEEN the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar or any other office holder
OR academic employed by the
AND the Working Party.
I sincerely believe that, as the Working Party bore my name (thus placing an additional and unnecessary and severe public focus upon me) and made my 1991 MA thesis its focus of investigation, I have a right to access and review this information, all the more so because the purported and widely publicised reason for the formation of the Working Party in the first place was "public accountability". (see http://www.newsroom.canterbury.ac.nz/stories/00122001.html)
I regret that my recent efforts to obtain information on the proceedings of the so-called Joel Hayward Working Party, expressed to the
That is, I asked for a range of items that would help me, as the "accused" in what I consider a pre-determined and unfair "trial" that was widely publicised as an independent investigation, to understand the unfortunate events to which I was obliged to submit.
The resulting fallout, I should note, has ruined my emotional health and ended my promising academic career. I was a Senior Lecturer at
It has not even make available to me the verbatim record of my own appearance before the Joel Hayward Working Party.
I think this is an unprofessional, secretive and entirely unsatisfactory response given that the proceedings were focused almost solely on me; that this focus was evident in the title of the investigative team carrying my name; and that I was found not guilt of the charge of dishonesty but still, unfairly given the Working Party’s terms of reference, castigated by the Working Party.
Even a convicted criminal has the right to see all evidence and testimony presented by both prosecution and defence in his or her case.
As it stands, I believe the Working Party tried me almost entirely "in absentia," and that the
I am thus, sir or ma’am, applying to the Ombudsman pursuant to Section 289(3) of the Official Information Act 1982 for an investigation and review of
Dr Joel Hayward