Two high-level independent peer reviews of the case files of Dunedin private investigators Peter Gibbons and Graeme Scott found investigations they carried out for ACC's fraud unit were conducted professionally and ethically and provided enough evidence for prosecutions to be laid.
The reviews were commissioned by ACC last year after widespread complaints about the way search warrants were obtained and executed in Dunedin in 2006 were lodged by a Dunedin man being investigated for ACC fraud.
It is understood at least three of the case files selected by ACC for independent peer review were those of people who recently objected to the licence renewals of Messrs Gibbons and Scott and their Dunedin company Mainland Information Consultants (MIC) on the basis that their behaviour during investigations made them unfit persons to be private investigators.
All 16 objectors withdrew enmasse from a hearing before Private Investigator and Security Guards Registrar Gary Harrison on Tuesday in protest at the presence of ACC staff in and around the court and the style of cross-examination from MIC's lawyer, which they felt would intimidate some of the objectors.
Mr Gibbons and Mr Scott told the Otago Daily Times the reviews, which they had been aware of for some time, were to be produced by ACC witnesses they had summonsed to the hearing, but were never aired after objectors withdrew.
One of the reviews was completed by an international peer reviewer and the other is understood to have been carried out by a high-level New Zealand government organisation.
Both were conducted in 2007.
In his October 2007 report to ACC, the international peer reviewer noted ACC instructed him to focus on whether MIC's investigations progressed the objectives of the investigation and comment on the approach of the investigation.
From the files, it appeared MIC's investigations were undertaken appropriately, he said.
"No privacy issues were identified and the investigator involved as well as the PI firm appeared to act professionally and ethically using best practice."
It is understood the second peer reviewer was instructed by ACC to consider whether a case existed for prosecution, whether information provided by ACC for search warrants was appropriate and whether the entire investigations were appropriate.
He concluded in at least three of the cases that investigations were carried out in a thorough and methodical way and provided strong evidence for prosecutions to be brought against claimants.
Affidavits on file were appropriate and correctly sought.
It is understood he even went so far as to say the public interest in prosecuting some of the claimants was high, given that their apparent fraudulent activities while claiming ACC were deliberate, and a deterrent was required.
Mr Scott said he and Mr Gibbons were upset at the way the hearing ended as they had viewed the reviews as independent evidence that would be produced to clear their names.
Their personal and professional reputations and business had been severely affected by publicity before the hearing, they said.
"We await a decision, but see the inevitable outcome as a hollow victory [because] we have still not had a public hearing."
A spokesman from Mr Har-rison's office said he would release his decision on Monday.
He indicated at the hearing his likely course of action would be to dismiss the objections given he would not hear the evidence supporting them.
