High Court bars Jami-Lee Ross from publishing SFO documents

Ex National and now Independent MP Jami-Lee Ross, who is being prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office over donations made to National that Ross went public about to try to damage National, has now been barred from publishing documents provided to him by the SFO as part of the prosecution proceedings.

RNZ: High Court blocks Jami-Lee Ross from publishing sensitive documents

The SFO said the material was sent to all the defendants as part of its disclosure obligations and Ross then expressed an interest in publishing it.

“The agency believes any publication of the material would have breached the SFO’s secrecy provisions and been contrary to requirements of confidentiality applying to the use of material obtained through court proceedings.

“However, the SFO sought a court order to ensure there was no doubt that the material remained confidential,” the agency said in a statement.

Ross said he had no intention of breaching people’s privacy but wanted to expose the nature of the documents.

After his attempt to expose National backfired on him badly Ross should have been cautious about publicising court documents.

Perhaps he thought that any publicity was good publicity heading into an election he looks likely to lose.

It is more common for politicians to insist on their own silence on matters ‘before the courts’.

Ross maintained that he was a whistleblower, but the SFO seems to think differently.

In February Ross made a statement to the court that there was “No basis for such a concern” that Ross ” may make a statement to Parliament regarding the matter”.

RNZ – National Party donations case: Jami-Lee Ross named as suppressions lifted

Former National MP, and now independent, Jami-Lee Ross, has been named today as one of the four people facing Serious Fraud Office (SFO) charges in relation to two $100,000 donations made to the National Party.

Today the application filed for Ross said he “has not and does not seek interim name suppression and is happy if such orders are discharged or lapse”.

His application also said the other three had applied to have name suppression lifted “due to an apparent concern that Mr Ross, as a sitting Member of Parliament may make a statement to Parliament regarding the matter”.

“No basis for such a concern has been provided, and there is none,” it said.

“Parliament has been sitting for a week. During that time, Mr Ross has at no time indicated an intention to make a statement in Parliament or to the public regarding this matter in breach of the current orders, nor has he done so. He has complied fully with the interim orders, notwithstanding these were never sought by him.”

But a week ago Ross did want to reveal details in Parliament.

NZ Herald: National’s President Peter Goodfellow addresses threats from Jami-Lee Ross to release leaked donor info

National’s president is playing down threats by ex-National MP Jami-Lee Ross to make public the party’s 2017 donation records in the House tomorrow.

On Sunday, the sitting Botany MP claimed to have been leaked National’s 2017 donor list…

He said he planned to table evidence of this in Parliament before Parliament adjourns for the campaign period.

Ross told the Herald that at this stage, he planned to table the documents during tomorrow’s general debate in the House.

He must have been blocked from tabling the documents.

And it doesn’t seem a coincidence that the SFO has obtained a bar on releasing documents – are these the same documents that Ross claimed were ‘leaked’?

Stuff: Serious Fraud Office accidentally leaked document to Jami-Lee Ross

On Thursday, the SFO welcomed a court decision confirming the confidentiality of material that was inadvertently disclosed by the agency to the defendants.

The material was disclosed during the course of the agency’s compliance with its normal disclosure obligations.

In a statement by the SFO on Thursday, it said it had acted with an abundance of care in seeking the court order as one of the parties had reportedly expressed an interest in publishing the material.

“The agency believes that any publication of the material would have breached the SFO’s secrecy provisions and been contrary to requirements of confidentiality applying to the use of material obtained through court proceedings.”

The SFO then sought a court order to ensure there was no doubt that the material remained confidential.

This doesn’t sound like a leak to me, despite their headline Stuff reports “inadvertently disclosed” and “the material was disclosed during the course of the agency’s compliance with its normal disclosure obligations”.

Government release of documents relating to Covid-19 decisions

The Government have done a Friday data dump of documents they call Proactive Release, despite having being asked for information that informed their Covid-19 decision making for weeks.

At least it’s out there now – or at least everything they haven’t withheld.


Details of this release

This release includes the papers, minutes, and key advice for the decisions the Government has made relating to COVID-19 up to 17 April. Where a final decision has been made after 17 April this will be released in a further update.

A small number of documents and some parts of the released documents would not be appropriate to release and, if requested, would be withheld under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act). Where this is the case, the relevant sections of the Act that would apply have been identified. Where information has been withheld, no public interest has been identified that would outweigh the reasons for withholding it.

Some information has been withheld in full, from this release in relation to the relevant section(s) of the Act:

  • Section 9(2)(f)(iv) — confidential advice
  • Section 9(2)(ba)(ii) — information provided to the Government under an obligation of confidence
  • Section 6(a) — international relations
  • Section 9(2)(j) — commercial negotiations.