NIGEL MURRAY RESPONDS

A letter from Murray’s lawyer Peter Cullen – of The Employment Law Firm – said he believed the investigation into him was ‘‘onesided’’ and ‘‘seriously flawed’’.

Cullen said he was ‘‘deeply concerned that the investigation has breached accepted standards of proper process’’ and that it fell below the requirements of natural justice, transparency and fairness.

‘‘Witnesses were allowed to give evidence in secret, and basic steps such as providing the complete statements of witnesses were not taken,’’ Cullen wrote.

‘‘Dr Murray still has no real idea what the witnesses have said about him apart from a limited number of extracts, some of which he has only very recently seen.

‘‘How can he be expected to respond in those circumstances?

‘‘If he had been given that right of reply the outcomes of this inquiry would most likely be quite different.’’

Cullen also said it was unfair for the investigator to insist that this inquiry should proceed while the Serious Fraud Office was conducting its own investigation into the same issues.

While Cullen said they found the report ‘‘one-sided and flawed’’, he did say Murray wanted to publicly express his regret and apologise for mistakes made over his expenses.

‘‘Some expense forms were completed in a way that the justification was not fully obvious. Some expenses were not processed in a timely manner.

‘‘He takes accountability for these errors.

‘‘Dr Murray has agreed to pay the remaining amounts of $20,493.85 claimed by the Board which were in dispute.

‘‘Dr Murray does this despite legal advice that he has a good defence for not paying these amounts. Dr Murray does this with a denial of liability.

‘‘He does so as an act of goodwill and to resolve matters with his old employer, the Waikato DHB.’’