I have just listened to the podcast made during the court lunch break on Monday of the proceedings against Auckland Council and Mayor Phil Goff for their de-platforming of two controversial speakers from Council-owned venues last year.
I was present for the proceedings which the podcast summarises well.
In a past life I have worked for a barrister so I am familiar with High Court protocols and procedures.
The following are my personal observations from a slightly different aspect.
First, my impressions of Mr Hodder QC were very favourable. Impressive, articulate and in full control of the facts he presented to the hearing. He appeared superbly prepared and was supported by at least one other barrister who also spoke to a specific matter. Mr Hodder began at 10am and concluded his remarks at 3.10pm.
Secondly, I offer my following impressions of His Honour.
From the beginning, the judge’s demeanour appeared to be one of barely controlled disdain toward the QC and the subject matter. I agree with the podcast’s description that Mr Hodder was questioned ‘stridently’.
Examples I specifically noted: the Judge disputed in a strident manner Mr Cumin’s affidavit’s descriptive use of the word ‘thug’ as it related to the protestors’ threatened action should the subsequently cancelled event proceed. Mr Hodder respectfully disagreed with His Honour’s ‘apprehensions’ and repeated related evidence produced earlier.
A further example occurred in relation to the Mayor. His Honour appeared to totally reject any criticism levelled at this person. He further added he ‘did not accept’ Mr Hodder’s argument regarding the Mayor’s actions/statements and commented ‘they were not relevant’. He further added some of Mr Hodder’s statements were ‘immaterial’. Counsel respectfully disagreed and clarified further; he also repeated previously stated ‘time-frame’ evidence regarding chronology from the massive ‘bundles’ of documents to back up this defence and stated that the mayor ‘does not have a monopoly on political wisdom he dislikes and cannot use his own views to suppress the views of others.’
Despite the Judge ‘throwing several curve-balls’, Mr Hodder was a model of control, in command of his information, and responded firmly/checked and reported later on raised issues/questions from His Honour.
I sensed an apparent lack of impartiality from His Honour which was disturbing and disappointing.
As an aside, three members of the media were present and they appeared bored with the proceedings. They strolled back five minutes late after the morning break was over and were reprimanded with a scathing rebuke from His Honour.
Throughout the day I considered that the Judge’s demeanour toward Mr Hodder and his representations appeared to be one of barely controlled disdain/animosity.
