Private investigator cleared after client used AI to challenge his report

James Kelly was facing criminal charges, when he paid a private investigator $2000 to provide an "honest assessment" of the police case against him.

When he didn't like the advice he was given, he consulted an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to check what it thought a PI should do for him.

He then complained to the private investigator's licensing body and tried to get his money back.

One of his complaints was that the private eye was biased, because he told Kelly, "in my view, the evidence is overwhelming".

Details of the dispute between Kelly and the private investigator, named as David Brown, are included in a recent decision on Kelly's complaint to the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority.

These are not their real names. The authority called them Brown and Kelly, after it chose to anonymise the people involved.

Two criminal charges laid

Kelly hired Brown, after he was charged with two criminal offences, one in a Waikato court and one in Nelson. The details of the charges were also not specified in the authority's decision.

It said Brown agreed to review the court files and give Kelly an "honest opinion as to where you stand, no punches pulled".

Kelly paid Brown a retainer of $2000 to cover 10 hours of investigative work and produce a report.

Brown's initial review found some key documents were missing from the files. There ended up being hundreds of pages of documents and CCTV footage to review.

In the meantime, Kelly began to ask Brown's opinion on various complaints he was planning to make to the Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Privacy Commissioner, which were not part of the contract.

"The hours of work covered by the retainer were exhausted, before Mr Brown completed his report," authority chairwoman Trish McConnell said.

"Mr Brown's evidence is that Mr Kelly was happy with his work and complimented him on his thoroughness, until the question of additional funding was broached."

Kelly consulted AI

Kelly then turned to AI, asking it to summarise what a private investigator's responsibilities ought to be.

AI told him that a PI should identify potential suspects, uncover evidence that may have been overlooked and provide expert testimony.

On that basis, Kelly complained to the licensing authority that Brown's work was "not fit for purpose" and he didn't do all the things AI said he should.

Kelly asked the authority to undertake a "full review" of Brown's conduct and order him to refund the fee he had been paid.

He also asked for guidance on what further recourse was available, if Brown's service had "impeded his criminal defence".

McConnell dismissed his complaint.

"Mr Brown did what he was contracted to do," she said. "He reviewed the criminal files and wrote a report in which he gave his honest opinion in relation to gaps in the evidence, and the strength and weaknesses of the cases against Mr Kelly.

"Mr Brown spent more time on assessing the evidence supporting the charges against Mr Kelly and completing his report than was covered by the retainer paid."

McConnell said there was no reliable evidence that Brown contravened the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010, or that he was guilty of misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct.

"Mr Kelly's complaint against Mr Brown is dismissed."

* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.