Doesn’t confidentiality apply both ways?

I, along with many others, have been critical of Roger Sutton for breaching the confidentiality around the complaints against him by a CERA staffer. The press conference was a very bad idea, as it allowed him to spin his side of what happened.

But if one is to criticise Sutton for breaching the agreed upon confidentiality, doesn’t that apply both ways? A number of stories make it very clear that either the complainant is anonymously briefing media, or someone is on their behalf.

Now don’t get me wrong – the complainant is the wronged party. But if one is to criticise Sutton for talking publicly, then doesn’t the same apply to the other party?

As an example of the obvious briefings to the media.

The Herald:

The woman, who is bound by a confidentiality clause, said she was driven to take a stand because of what she says was similar treatment of other women at the organisation.

Another Herald story:

Meanwhile, other sources say there were problems with measures the commission put in place to keep Mr Sutton and the complainant at a distance while the allegations were being investigated.

These meant that he occasionally worked from Cera branch offices in the city, allowing the woman to work at the organisation’s HSBC Tower headquarters. The arrangement meant the complainant was told where Mr Sutton would be, so the two could avoid running into each other.

However, NZME News Service has been told Mr Sutton allegedly didn’t always stick to the arrangements and there were times the complainant believed they were both in the same building at the same time.

While their paths never crossed, the complainant raised concerns with the commission that Mr Sutton’s actions meant it was a very real possibility, the source said.

And today in the SST:

I’m told Sutton’s victim feels unable to walk down the street in her home city.

Now the complainant herself may not be talking to the media, but she is obviously talking to people who are talking to the media on her behalf. All these stories relay information only known to the complainant.

Now again Sutton is the one who has done wrong, and the SSC also stuffed up majorly with their press conference. But I think the ongoing anonymous briefings to the media on behalf of the complainant is not appropriate either.  Having this issue become an extended campaign of anonymous briefings to the media from one side, may encourage the other “side” to respond. I don’t think that would be a good outcome for anyone.

And once again so no one misrepresents me, I think both Sutton and the SSC are the ones who stuffed up and were in the wrong. But that doesn’t mean that one can’t be critical of what appears to be an ongoing release of information through anonymous sources.