Stuff has more detail on the outburst by Jordan Williams in court yesterday in his defamation case against Colin Craig.
The proceedings finished in the High Court at Auckland with Craig’s lawyers recalling Taxpayers Union founder Jordan Williams, who has taken the defamation action against Craig.
The tense final examination of Williams prompted him to tell Craig’s legal team that they had “s…” all over Craig’s former press secretary Rachel MacGregor and accused them of “coming after” Williams.
The terse stand off between Williams and Craig’s lawyer Stephen Mills QC was prompted after communications between Williams and Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater were unearthed a week into the trial.
I have a fair idea what that will be referring to. At this stage of proceedings I don’t want to give or hint at what it is.
Mills QC said it was evidence that Williams used people for his own political advantage.
Williams was adamant that the comments produced to the court, allegedly made by him, were falsified.
Where the communication originated and its contents can’t be reported due to legal reasons.
And that means can’t be mentioned here by anyone. I wonder if this is has something to do with “Lawyers will discuss trial matters on Monday”.
Williams said he was “embarrassed” by the communication and had apologised to the person who was the subject of the conversation.
He didn’t want to reveal what he’d actually said during the conversation because it was “yuck” and “personal”.
“I don’t want to say what the comment was because it’s really personal about [the person]. I don’t want to say it. The thing is I can’t produce the original. I can’t prove to you, but I know the circumstances. I wouldn’t have said that. I said something yuck. The opposite.”
Mills QC put to Williams he was “prepared to use people that are your friends for your wider political agendas”.
Williams then slammed his fist on the witness box.
“I supported [Rachel MacGregor] for eight months until that p… [Craig] started piddling on the [confidentiality] agreement.
“You guys have come after me. You’ve said I’m a blackmailer, you’ve said I smeared the Serious Fraud Office. I can wear stuff that’s [in the documents]. My whole life is out there, I’ve got everything of my life out there, and I wear some pretty embarrassing stuff. I can wear stuff that’s there but I can’t wear stuff that’s not true.
“You’ve s… on Rachel in this case. You can’t help yourself.”
Some of this is available in video here at One News: ‘You’ve shat on Rachel’: Tensions run high in Colin Craig defamation case
No matter how justified you think it may be, if you take someone to court exposing very embarrassing information, imposing legal costs of possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars on your opponent, claim I think $900,000 in damages, then there must be some expectation of a fairly robust defence.