Peter Gibbons and Graeme Scott believe recent attacks on them in the media and in court are part of an orchestrated smear campaign using "disaffected" ACC recipients as front people.
They say the campaign has gained traction through under-researched media coverage and gross abuses of legal processes by their accusers.
Until Tuesday, they believed their opportunity to publicly disprove those claims and clear their names would have come at a public hearing of objections to the annual renewal of their private investigators' licences before the registrar for security guards and private investigators, Gary Harrison.
However, the objectors abruptly withdrew from proceedings halfway through the second day, citing concerns about the aggressive cross-examination of lead objector Bruce Van Essen, and concerns that ACC staff, who they felt were there in support of the licence applicants, were in and around the court room.
The past 16 months have been a difficult time for the investigators, their company Mainland Information Consultants (MIC), their families and staff, the two men say.
Publicity about Mr Van Essen's fight with them and ACC has "seriously maligned" their business and professional reputation but missed its target, Mr Gibbons says.
Through it all the two former Dunedin senior detectives have remained fully employed as private investigators, despite their main client, ACC, stopping referrals for investigations to MIC in June last year, after Mr Van Essen laid complaints to the Independent Police Conduct Authority, ACC, the Privacy Commission and the Ombudsman among others, about search warrants related to his private activities executed in 2006.
The fallout also caused several other clients to stop referring new work, to avoid, Gibbons believes, exposure to reputational risk.
Several clients put new referrals on hold last week, after publicity around the release of the IPCA's final report, but the men hope those clients will begin sending in work again.
One client started back with them again only yesterday.
MIC's staff had suffered, Mr Gibbons said, with one laid off.
Others had their contracts "severely curtailed".
The PIs say they have been harassed, followed and photographed.
Some of the material has been posted on websites.
Mr Scott has laid a harassment complaint with police, saying that one of the objectors camped outside his house, took photos of him and followed him.
That sort of behaviour stresses their families as well, the men say.
All along, the biggest question on their minds has been `Why?' They have some ideas.
"This is an orchestrated campaign that has others behind Van Essen, who appears to be a front man.
If he had outside help, and it was not from the other objectors as he gave us in sworn testimony, then what forces remain at play behind the scenes?" Mr Gibbons said.
Their primary goal is to claw back their reputations.
Mr Gibbons - Mr Scott joined MIC as a partner at a later date - maintains MIC made no mistakes in the issuing of a search warrant at Mr Van Essen's house from the District Court in August, 2006.
An independent police conduct authority report released last week found incorrect information did appear in the police affidavit used to get the search warrant and accepted the mistake was a police typographical error.
Mr Van Essen alleged Mr Gibbons supplied incorrect information directly to police.
The allegation that, by doing so, Mr Gibbons was not a fit person to be a private investigator made up the bulk of his objection and those of 15 others to the renewal of Mr Gibbons' private investigator's licence this year.
In fact, both ACC and later the IPCA concluded the mistake was the police's.
The affidavit later prepared by Constable Andrew Henderson included grounds for requiring a search warrant that were not included in ACC's request to police as per grounds laid out to ACC by Mr Gibbons.
The PI lays the blame for the mistake squarely at the door of police, even though the officer responsible for the mistake was his own son-in-law, Constable Henderson.
He has no qualms about that, saying there is no need to protect Const Henderson.
As for the issue of a potential conflict of interest arising from him working with his son-in-law, who was the officer with responsibility for requesting search warrants on behalf of ACC, Mr Gibbons says it was always clear.
He describes his response as "appalled" when he learned Const Henderson was assigned to do the ACC work in 2006.
As a former police officer with more than 20 years' experience, he recognised the potential conflict of interest immediately and brought it up with the constable.
"I advised him this wasn't a good look and he should talk with his boss."
Const Henderson subsequently brought it up with his superiors, but was told everything was all right.
Mr Gibbons says he did not formally raise the issue with police again because he believed he had, through his son-in-law.
"In my opinion, I had raised it with police and I knew he had followed through with my concerns. The assurances he received were sufficient to satisfy me."
In the 10 years he had worked with ACC, he was involved in search warrants for 10 homes, so did not expect to work with his son-in-law often and subsequently was only involved in two requests for search warrants while Const Henderson was on the ACC "desk".
In each case MIC was at least five steps removed from the writing of a police affidavit, as per normal procedure, he points out.
"This is a complete storm in a tea cup. I have nothing to hide."
In November 2006, when the typographical issue was resolved, Mr Van Essen's complaints about MIC's involvement in the search warrant affidavit should have ceased, Mr Gibbons says.
Instead Mr Van Essen, not accepting the explanations of ACC or the IPCA, continued to pursue Mr Gibbons, he says.
Specifically, Mr Van Essen continued with a hearing against MIC in which he and 15 others - only six of whom were investigated by MIC - objected to the annual renewal of the private investigator licences of MIC, Mr Scott and Mr Gibbons.
The bulk of the objections contained word-for-word phrasing.
In general terms, objectors said Mr Scott was working as an unlicensed private investigator for a period and was still a serving police officer for some of that time; that Mr Gibbons provided false information to the police that later made the basis of a police affidavit for a search warrant for Mr Van Essen's house; and that Mr Gibbons and Mr Scott intimidated, bullied and "oppressed" people they were investigating on behalf of ACC.
Specifics of the allegations, such as what took place, dates, times and places, were never provided to the registrar (despite requests from him to do so) or MIC before the hearing.
Indeed, the specifics were never heard because the objectors withdrew from the hearing.
Mr Gibbons believes the first two allegations were proven to be false on the first day of the hearing during cross-examination, that allegations relating to the search warrant were in the process of being dismantled, and that specifics or evidence of the remainder were never provided.
He contends that specifics, if provided, would never have been proven and wonders why, if MIC had bullied or intimidated people, none of the objectors ever laid any complaints with ACC, other clients of MIC's or the police.
"Surely all of those government agencies are not in conspiracy with each other?"Put up or shut up is what I say."
He says he views the objectors as disaffected ACC recipients who do not have a fond view of ACC and who are waging war on it.
Because they were able to get MIC into a public forum, it has been used as a tool in their campaign, he believes.
What he finds most concerning is the case went as far as it did without objectors backing up their claims publicly, Mr Gibbons says.
He said the original objections were vague, too similar and made by people MIC had never had anything to do with.
Objectors declined a request from the registrar to provide specifics - times, dates, events and places - and subsequently were "allowed to conduct a hearing whilst keeping their evidence secret from the defence".
"How can society let this happen?"
