Dr Peter Jansen, the issue over how he was

able to 'locate' his alleged defamer.

I don't think it matters. Most people would agree that a defamer, respondent, or defendant in any legal matter can't find shelter because of their belief that their real identity or whereabouts was secret, and was thereby acting as some sort of shield against the allegations raised against them. That won't do in the final wash up.

However, the defamer once named and identified to the Court is able to build a profile of the person they apparently defamed. Many people would think that the Doctor's determination for compensation against his alleged defamer might also be a measure of his 'prick' like nature, or his attitude or general feelings of his sovereignty over those his professional life has impacted upon. Jansen never owned or controlled his alleged defamer and if he has overstepped his role as a Government representative and employee by engaging in a campaign against someone currently or in the past, being in his care - all the characteristics of that campaign should be judged both in terms of him being called an incompetent prick, and whether he (a man probably worth millions, earned in part by contract with the Government) is able to 'step out' from his contracted role, and bring to task, a client who is not only dissatisfied with his performance but sees him as a paid employee and public figure associated with ACC.

If the NZ public, represented by a Jury, consider that Jansen benefited from his relationship in planing the 'pathways' to better performance by ACC, whom he was also to be employed by and seen as being spokesperson, director, and architect of ACC and that his performance, along with that of ACC, was incompetent, it is impossible for the Doctor to be extracted from that recognised role into one where he can allege that if in the public mind ACC are recongised as being incompetent, he stood alone as being competent and not a prick. Oh dear.