I have felt very disturbed by reports that Professor Stuart Macintyre, one of the three members of the Working Party, was before and during the year of my "trial" (2000) a friend of Professor Richard Evans, the Cambridge historian who provided the complainants with their strongest points of condemnation against me.

Perhaps this association between Professors Evans and Macintyre (never disclosed to me, otherwise I would have asked for Professor Macintyre's replacement on the Working Party) caused a conflict of interest, and predisposed Professor Macintyre to favouritism and bias.

A court of law might well disqualify evidence, a juror, an attorney, or a judge if such an association between persons contributing to legal proceedings were to be admitted or otherwise established. New Zealand courts are particularly careful with such matters.

I would like the relationship between one of my judges (who also acted as juror and executioner) and my primary academic opponent clarified, and have therefore written an email to Professor Macintyre, doubtless a fine fellow, in order to have my strong doubts about his objectivity confirmed or refuted.

My email, reproduced exactly below, is dated 1 October 2000. Professor Macintyre's eventual reply, without any alteration, is posted below that.

s.macintyre@unimelb.edu.au

Professor Stuart McIntyre

University of Melbourne

and former member of the

Canterbury University investigative panel

called the Joel Hayward Working Party

Dear Professor M[a]cIntyre

I am sure that my name, Dr Joel Hayward, will immediately place my person and circumstances in your mind.

Please understand that I am sending you this letter in a spirit of genuine good will.

I have obtained information that "friendship" is an appropriate word to describe your acquaintance with Professor Richard Evans of Cambridge University, who provided an extensive and (by consensus) very critical report on the thesis that you and your Working Party colleagues condemned in your December 2000 report.

Dr Vincent Orange also mentioned in his letter to the Working Party, dated 18 0ctober 2000, that you “know” Professor Evans.

I would like to ask you please for clarification on this matter, and will remain open-minded until your reply arrives and fair-minded in assessing your reply.

1. Will you please describe your personal and professional relationships with Professor Evans as they were before and during 2000?

2. Will you please clarify whether you made your association with Professor Evans known to the Registrar, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and/or any Council members of the University of Canterbury?

3. If you did, will you please share with me his or her or their responses and recommendations?

4. Will you please clarify whether you made your association with Professor Evans known to the complainants in the matters investigated by the Joel Hayward Working Party?

5. Will you please clarify whether you made your association with Professor Evans known to Dr Vincent Orange or any other persons who gave evidence in the matters investigated by the Joel Hayward Working Party?

6. Will you please clarify why you never made your association with Professor Evans known to me, the direct focus of your investigations (the Working Party bore my name, you’ll remember)?

7. Did you see, or do you now see, any grounds for allegations of conflict of interest, or lack of disclosure, or a presence of bias, being levelled at you and Professor Evans?

8. How did you assure yourself, and how can you assure me, that you treated Professor Evan's report without any favouritism based on your personal and professional relationships with him?

9. Is it true that you and your colleagues on the Working Party, in the presence of Dr Vincent Orange, made what the latter complained of in his letter to the Working Party, dated 18 October 2000, as "murmurs of amused head-shaking at his [Evans] extravagant language"?

10. If this is true, do you regret your mirth, given that the matters then at hand were anything but amusing, and that the fallout of the Working Party investigation has proven, for me, career ending?

I look forward to your reply, Professor, and guarantee you again that I will consider your responses with the utmost fairness and deliberation.

Yours sincerely

Dr Joel Hayward

>Subject: Re: Letter to Professor Stuart Macintyre
>Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:11:27 +1000
>
>Dear Joel,
>
>When I agreed to take part in the Working Party it was made clear
>that it would be inappropriate for members to discuss its work, 
>that any request for information should be directed to the University,
>and that our chair would exercise his judgement if such requests came to
>him from the University.
>
>It is in that spirit that I have refrained from commenting on any of
>the subsequent discussion of the Working Party's inquiry, even when
>that discussion has been inaccurate and tendentious.
>
>I think you will appreciate that I feel bound by that original
>understanding and accordingly that it would be best for you to make
>your request to the University.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>Stuart Macintyre

From: Dr Joel Hayward

Address: XXXXXXXX

17 October 2003

To: Mr Alan Hayward

Registrar

University of Canterbury

Private Bag 4800

Christchurch

Dear Mr Hayward

I am informed that "friendship" is an appropriate word to describe Professor Stuart Macintyre’s acquaintance with Professor Richard Evans of Cambridge University, who provided an extensive and (by consensus) very critical report on the thesis that the Working Party condemned in its December 2000 report.

Dr Vincent Orange also mentioned in his letter to the Working Party, dated 18 0ctober 2000, that Professor Macintyre knew Professor Evans.

By email I asked Professor Macintyre for clarification but, apparently because of an arrangement in place concerning Working Party matters, the Professor declined to comment. He recommended that I ask your senior management for the answers.

I would therefore, Sir, like to ask the University please for clarification on this matter, and will remain fair-minded in assessing its reply.

1. Will the University of Canterbury please describe what it understands about Professor Stuart Macintyre’s personal and professional relationships with Professor Evans as they were before and during 2000?

2. Will the University of Canterbury please clarify whether Professor Macintyre made his association with Professor Evans known to the Registrar, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and/or any Council members of the University of Canterbury?

3. If he did, will the University of Canterbury please share with me his/her/their responses and recommendations?

4. Will the University of Canterbury please clarify whether Professor Macintyre made his association with Professor Evans known to the complainants in the matters investigated by the Joel Hayward Working Party?

5. Will the University of Canterbury please clarify whether Professor Macintyre made his association with Professor Evans known to Dr Vincent Orange or any other persons who gave evidence in the matters investigated by the Joel Hayward Working Party?

6. Will the University of Canterbury please clarify why it never made an association between Professor Macintyre and Professor Evans known to me, the direct focus of Canterbury’s investigations (the Working Party bore my name, you’ll remember)?

7. Did the University of Canterbury see, or does it now see, any grounds for allegations of conflict of interest, or lack of disclosure, or a presence of bias, being levelled at Professor Macintyre or the University?

8. How did the University assure itself, and how can it assure me, that it treated Professor Evan's report without any favouritism despite any personal and professional relationships between Professors Macintyre and Evans?

9. Is it true that the Working Party, in the presence of Dr Vincent Orange, made what the latter complained of in his letter to the Working Party, dated 18 October 2000, as "murmurs of amused head-shaking at his [Evans’] extravagant language"?

10. If this is true, does the University of Canterbury regret this mirth, given that the matters then at hand were anything but amusing for the New Zealand Jewish Council, for my former examiners and for me, and that the fallout of the Working Party investigation has proven, for me, career ending?

I look forward to the University’s reply, Mr Hayward, and guarantee you again that I will consider its responses with the utmost fairness and deliberation.

Yours sincerely

Dr Joel Hayward