Judge Jock: Leaky Emails, Saucy Goings-On, Can Jimbo Pull It Off

Judicial Emails Leaked
Questions surround details of a lengthy email exchange between the Chief Justice and Our Man At The Bar.

Judge Jock has been called in to manage slavering media fallout and apply the Hot Poker to rabid hacks demanding instant response.

A confidential source at the Ladies & Escorts Lounge said OMATB had “gone up north for a bit”, would deny everything anyway and blamed the other guy.

Details so far are sketchy but The Judicial Leaker has given an absolute assurance the innocent have nothing to fear. (“So long as they can prove their innocence… ,” said The Scunner.)

A senior judicial communications adviser declined to say if there was, or wasn’t, a perfectly innocent explanation which would put an end to vile media speculation, innuendo and widespread nudge-nudge.

“Some heads will have to roll, of course, that goes without saying – but it’s worth saying lest folk forget… ,” said The Leaker.

“While OMATB remains tight-lipped on the true nature and intent of some of his remarks to the Chief Justice there is no evidence the conduct and actions he suggested went any further than mere suggestions – however bold they may be interpreted.”

“Yes, the cyber relationship – which, because of the couple’s use of agrarian vernacular, some folk may consider somewhat ribald – certainly has gone on for some time, contributing to what might be seen as a mutual intimacy… ,” The Leaker confided.

“Yes, OMATB is said to be a bit of a Jack the Lad and she is an bonny lass, after all… (additional comments in this vein have been excised in the interests of retaining confidence in the Judiciary) and this, of course, is easily misinterpreted by those quick to lay blame… ”

“Yes, the pair have been seen together in Vulcan Lane on more than one occasion – as the accompanying surprisingly clear cellphone photographs confirm – but only to discuss pressing matters of judicial import… ”

(“The taxpayer-funded Christmas knees-up, I’ll bet… ,” twattered The Scunner.)

“Yes, in certain lights the friendly sentiments expressed in emails numbered from 18 to 295 might be considered personally embarrassing by those with unhappy lives bent on making mischief… ”

“Yes, there is a view the emails contain examples of suggestive language which some folk might regard as verging on bare-b*mmed naughtiness… ”

“But then again, what’s in a word??? Guilty or Not Guilty??? They’re only a word apart, after all… ,” said the Leaker.

“If this sort of stuff fell into the wrong hands there’s no telling who might get pokered,” cried The Scunner, with a deft flick of the Poor Box into his pocket.

A senior judicial communications adviser declined to comment on whether a cloak of secrecy is in place.

Footnote: The above item remains open to approved embellishment until such time as undisputed evidence is deposited at the Ladies & Escorts Lounge…

Judicial Rumpy Pumpy
Good to see Judge Jock’s old Dunedin mate Stephen O’Driscoll keeping his spirits up. (The earlier ending to this sentence has been amended to nip salacious sniggering in the bud...)

But why did chief district court judge Jan-Marie Doogue banish Judge O’Driscoll from Dunedin to “civil jurisdiction elsewhere” just because he is in a “relationship” with an unidentified Dunedin-based justice ministry employee.

His banishment has been severely cricised by lawyers, some of whom wonder if Judge Doogue would have treated a female judge so harshly.

But it may not be all bad news – a promotion may be in the offing.

Think back to May 2001, when district court judge Tony Christiansen suddenly quit the Napier Court. He admitted making inappropriate sexual advances to a female probation officer in a Gisborne motel after engaging in a “night on the town”.

Tony, who said then he planned to take a break, have an overseas holiday with his wife and wander among his 600 olive trees, pulled his head in and passed the time at the Legal Services Agency.

In 2003, then Labour Attorney-General Margaret Wilson promoted Tony to Master of the High Court – proclaiming under Parliamentary questioning in 2004 he was “worth a second chance”.

His elevation to the High Court did not come with a pay rise but he enjoyed a bit of time off on full pay while police investigated an indecent assault allegation.

In 2004, and after much publicity, the police decided not to charge Tony, and he returned to work as an Associate Judge of the High Court, where he remains today on a $293,000 salary plus expenses.

Meanwhile, Judge O’Driscoll, who is regarded as an excellent, strong, hardworking and effective judge who previously did sterling work to keep the Legal Services Agency on a fiscally responsible course, is shunted to a civil desert “elsewhere”.

Where is his second chance???

What’s It All About, Jimbo???
A puzzled down-country source shares Judge Jock’s view that any further attempts by the Lombard Four to establish their innocence looks slim.

The Court of Appeal, in what our astute friend agreed was a comprehensive and sound judgment backing an equally comprehensive and sound High Court judgment, tossed out their appeals against conviction and non-custodial sentences for misleading investors.

The Court of Appeal, which reckoned the High Court let the Four off far too lightly, asked about addresses suitable for home detention and community work sentences – which are unlikely to include the Wellington or Wellesley clubs.

Obviously not short of a bob or two – and before they serve any sentence – the Four now want pricey QC Jim Farmer to convince the Supreme Court all the other judges are out of step and don’t know their law.

Our heartland friend is puzzled that a legal luminary such as Mr Farmer could be of the opinion that leave to appeal in this case is even likely to be granted.

Watch this space.

Completely Irrelevant Staff of Little Use to Anyone
A worthy legal publication raises, and answers, a question which has flummoxed Their Honours for centuries.

Is it illegal to stand within 100 yards of a reigning monarch without wearing socks?

No.

Henry V111 and Elizabeth 1 both passed sumptuary laws, which regulated clothing styles.

For example, the 1562 Articles for the Execution of the Statutes of Apparel prohibited anyone from appearing at the royal court wearing shirts with “outrageous double ruffs” or hose of “monstrous and outrageous greatness”.

(Just as well… Some of the outrageous tailoring flaunted by chaps at a recent judicial funeral would in earlier times have resulted in a beheading or three.)

Such laws were generally repealed by James 1 (and Sixth of Scotland), but, according to a 1313 statute, it is still illegal to enter the UK Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour.

You don’t get this sort of useful stuff on legal aid rates…

Next Time: Why Justice Terence Arnold for the Supreme Court – is there an email trail???

janderson@nbr.co.nz