Police deny timing of 'teapot tape' findings delayed until PM's absence

Police are denying they waited until Prime Minster John Key was out of the country before issuing their findings on the 'teapot tape' affair.

This afternoon ‪police assistant commissioner Malcolm Burgess said freelance photographer Bradley Ambrose, who taped Mr Key and Act Party candidate John Banks at an Epsom café would be let off with a warning.

Mr Key complained to the police about the taping after it was revealed the Herald on Sunday, and other media, had a copy of the tape from Mr Ambrose.

The tape was not published at the time, but after New Zealand First leader Winston Peters made allegations about its contents the incident had a major effect on the 2011 election campaign.

Mr Peters said this afternoon the police investigation over the ‘teapot tapes’ was a waste of time and money and should never have gone ahead.

“Prime Minister John Key made a cynical complaint to the police merely to shut the issue down at election time. The whole affair was a debacle in a tea cup,” Mr Peters said.

Mr Peters asked if it "was a sheer coincidence" that the Prime Minister happened to be overseas when the police released their decision not to charge the cameraman.

“In the past 24 hours Mr Key has said he is unconcerned that the cameraman was not charged. If this is the case, why did he lay the complaint in the first place?

“Why has the cameraman been taken to all this trouble and expense, including legal advice, when it was a political jack-up to start with.’’

The Prime Ministers' overseas trip "played no part in the timing" of today's announcement, Mr Burgess told a press conference at police headquarters this afternoon.

"We did take it seriously, we conducted a thorough investigation. Not everything we investigate leads to a prosecution," he says. The inquiry was only completed today, he says.

The decision not to prosecute was in line with the solicitor-general's guidelines, he says.

"Our clear advice and our own view was there was prima facie evidence for a prosecution" but once the solicitor general's guidelines were taken into account, along with "public interest issues, I reached a view prosecution was not required."

He was not prepared to reveal how much the inquiry cost, saying that if reporters wanted that information they would have to lodge inquiries under the Official Information Act.

"It would help if you put that inquiry in writing," was his only response when asked the cost of the investigation.

The main focus of the investigation had been Mr Ambrose's activity, he says, rather than other media – or Mr Peters – who may have held copies of the tape or a transcript of its contents.

"We focused our inquiry on Mr Ambrose and his actions…we focused very much on the circumstances leading to the making of the tape."

A major issue of debate after the row blew up was whether or not the conversation – which came straight after a photo opportunity during the election campaign, and was in a public place – was public or private.

Mr Burgess says the Police "reached a view the conversation was private."