From The Press of Christchurch, New Zealand:
On January 25, 2007, this newspaper published an article referring to prominent QC Gerard McCoy’s involvement in the Fiji Law Reform Commission’s review of the Fiji Penal Code.
Regrettably, there was a serious error in the article which gave the wrong impression that Mr McCoy’s involvement in Fiji was improper and he had rorted the Fiji Law Reform Commission and/or the NZAID programme.
The facts are as follows: The project was to rewrite the Penal Code of Fiji and the Criminal Procedure Code. The project was put out to tender by the commission, and a three-person team from Canterbury University (comprising Mr McCoy, who was and is an adjunct Professor of Law at Canterbury, and two other academics) was selected from a number of Australasian universities to conduct the rewrite.
The price of the entire contract was $F80,000 and not $F200,000 as reported. Further, this sum was to cover all expenses, such as travel to Fiji to interview judges, lawyers, Government officials as well as the retention of specialist overseas lawyers and draftsmen with the requisite experience and expertise.
Accordingly, any remuneration Mr McCoy would have ultimately received would have been considerably less than $F25,000. It was certainly not $F426,845 (about $NZ492,500), as the newspaper wrongly reported.
In fact, Mr McCoy did not receive any payment from the commission. There was a disagreement between the Canterbury University team and the commission as to how the project was to be run, which led to Mr McCoy (with the approval of the University) terminating the contract.
Mr McCoy also consulted NZAID officials at the time. At the time of termination, the commission had made only one payment to the university of $F26,845. From that sum, a small amount was properly disbursed by the university to one of the other academics. The university sent back the entire balance, together with interest and a payment to cover foreign exchange movement, which was refunded to the commission in full. As stated, no payment whatsoever was received by Mr McCoy.
The same article wrongly stated that Mr McCoy was working closely with the military coup government. In fact, Mr McCoy has provided legal assistance to the Interim Civilian Government of Fiji on a no-fee basis on the drafting of anti-corruption legislation. He tells us, and we unreservedly accept, that his motive was to benefit the Fijian people in an effort to stabilise the political situation.
The newspaper regrets the errors contained in the article and sincerely apologises to Mr McCoy, his wife and his children for any embarrassment or damage those errors may have caused.
The newspaper is discussing an appropriate remedy for the errors with Mr McCoy.
