Legal struggle over conduct of ex
Swimming NZ fears David Wright will ‘weaponise’ findings of its probe, writes Dana Johannsen.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal has heard a former Olympic swim coach seeking $250,000 in damages from Swimming NZ over a privacy dispute was denied access to a report on him in part out of concern he would ‘‘weaponise’’ the findings.
The long-running saga of David Wright v Swimming NZ, which dates back to an investigation into allegations of bullying, sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct made against Wright in late 2015, came before a three-member Tribunal panel in Auckland this week.
It followed a ruling from the Privacy Commissioner in April last year, which found the national body had interfered with Wright’s privacy.
Wright was seeking damages of a shade under $250,000 for loss of job opportunities, book sales, and hurt and humiliation, but later adjusted his claim to $75,000 on the final day of the hearing after being advised by the Tribunal’s deputy chair, Katherine Anderson, that only alleged losses and personal injury suffered from the date of his original request under the Privacy Act could be considered as part of any financial remedy.
While the hearing, held under the yellowing ceiling tiles of the Auckland District Court’s hearing room 8.1, threatened to veer off- piste at times as historic issues were traversed, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is very narrow.
The case hinges on the central point of whether Swimming NZ had sufficient grounds to refuse Wright’s request for a copy of the report made under the provisions of the Privacy Act in August 2018.
Wright’s postings on his longrunning website swimwatch.net formed one of the planks in the national body’s argument for not giving the coach access to an unredacted report.
The tribunal heard Swimming NZ did not want to provide Wright with a full copy of the report as it contained ‘‘sensitive and confidential personal information’’ about the participants in the investigation, and there were fears that information would be used to attack the complainants on his swimming website.
The tribunal heard evidence from both the investigator, Michael Marris, and former Swimming NZ chairman Bruce Cotterill, that they were determined that Wright would not be given the opportunity to ‘‘weaponise’’ the report.
‘‘The swimwatch website and the way Mr Wright chooses to use it, formed the context in which Swimming NZ initially refused his request for an unredacted copy of Mr Marris’ report,’’ Cotterill said in his brief of evidence. ‘‘Put simply, we did not want the report being made publicly available online, available for a Google search, and used as an instrument to malign and attack those in the report.’’
Marris told the tribunal he considered the complainant to be ‘‘ vulnerable’’ and had already been subjected to ‘‘intense criticism’’ on the swimwatch website. He said the full report was always intended to remain confidential to the Swimming NZ board.
‘‘To have provided unfettered access to the report would have breached the assurance of confidentiality given to the participants,’’ he said.
Marris added it was his strong view that Wright should be granted access to his personal information in the report. He told the tribunal he made several attempts to contact Wright once the investigation was concluded to share his findings, but was unable to do so and later learned
Wright had left the country and was coaching in Saudi Arabia. Marris instead met with Wright’s lawyer, John Munro, and outlined his recommendations.
Wright, who represented himself at the hearing, maintained he has only ever sought access to the findings in the report as they pertained to him, rather than the document in its entirety.
He said that by being refused access to the findings, he has been denied the opportunity to clear his name.
‘‘ It’s people I interact with around swimming pools that need to see that information and know what I have been accused of doing is not true,’’ Wright said in his opening submission.