Barry Soper: If Jami-Lee Ross didn't want name suppression why did he threaten me?

Author
Barry Soper,
Publish Date
Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 3:45PM
Photo / NZME
Photo / NZME

Barry Soper: If Jami-Lee Ross didn't want name suppression why did he threaten me?

Author
Barry Soper,
Publish Date
Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 3:45PM

COMMENT:

Surely this came from a man who was muzzled against his will, from a person who blew the whistle that's now rendered him deaf.

That's what Jami-Lee Ross, one of the four defendants to the Serious Fraud Office charges which go before the Auckland District Court next week, would have us believe.

The other three, Chinese businessmen who donated two hundred grand to the National Party over two years when Ross was the bagman, made an urgent application for name suppression when the charges were laid, he tells us in a statement where he's painted himself as very much the victim.

And just to reinforce his muzzled state because of their actions, he says he was unaware an application for suppression was being made and his lawyers didn't make one for him. He goes on, he had no intention of hiding away but he couldn't speak up because of the actions his three co-defendants had taken.

The court suppressed his name despite the fact that he didn't want it, he claims. Furthermore, Ross said the public could be rightly outraged if he didn't respect the court's decision, or if he sought to abuse his freedom of speech in Parliament to circumvent the decision.

Then he went on to protest his innocence, vowing to fight the charges just as the three donors have.

For an accused who so desperately wanted to speak out it's a little difficult to gel that with his lawyers' reaction to my publicly naming him as one of the defendants on the day the Serious Fraud Office said it was laying charges.

In a text exchange they were blunt to say the least, telling me I was in contempt - the matter is before the court. They told me action would be taken the following day unless his name was taken down from our website: "You are on notice," they warned.

It was pointed out to them the matter hadn't been to court yet and maybe they should have been quicker off the mark if they wanted suppression of their client's name.

"Charges are laid, it's before the court - we can't seek suppression till then. The SFO will be in contact. They are also very angry as it now risks the case.

"This contempt is actionable and worse for you, now admitted by you as intentional - ring your lawyers."

And just to add a final threatening slap, after I said Ross had been named in the public interest, the text read: "I don't want any crap Barry - but this was silly."

Does that sound like Ross didn't want suppression - my case rests?

The court case promises to be the best show in town, a show National wouldn't want a bar of in the run-up to the election.