That’s all?
‘Well, what else can I rely on at the time? Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t have taken up this issue on the basis of the information available to me, that I should have waited some considerable time before I made any comment?’
If that were the question, what’s the answer?
‘When one is asked to comment on issues, one comments without full information. Everybody does that.’
Amazing. I asked him what he wrote in his letter to the solicitor-general.
‘I suggested the sentence was inadequate, and he should appeal.’
What kind of sentence did he think was more appropriate?
‘I’d need to think about that.’
Had he been thinking in terms of imprisonment?
After a long pause, he said, ‘I’d need to think about it.’
Did he think about it at the time?
‘Yes, I did.’
And what did he think?
‘Oh, look, I’m not prepared to be cross-examined about it. I’m not here to be cross-examined by you. I’ve got a day’s work to get on with. If you want to go into it in more detail, the weekend’s better for me.’
But it’s not a detailed question. Was he recommending that Hallwright go to jail?
‘I’d need to think about it. It was a year ago. Over a year ago. I’ve got to go, okay?’
The solicitor-general’s office refused to appeal the sentence. Crown Law spokesperson Jan Fulstow told The National Business Review that the sentence wasn’t ‘manifestly inadequate’. She said, ‘We can’t take appeals to the Court to Appeal that we know we shouldn’t be taking. It’s just wasting the court’s time.’
6
Hallwright, foolishly, hoped that the judge’s comments might help save his skin at Forsyth Barr. Neave had expressed dismay that the conviction could lead to Hallwright’s termination. But the train had already left the station. He was let go when the company’s managing director handed him an A4 envelope.
It gave two reasons. Forsyth Barr argued that Hallwright had committed ‘serious misconduct’. It also insisted that his crime had brought the company into disrepute. But the firm didn’t offer much proof at the Employment Court.
Asked to quantify what losses they might have suffered as a result of the scandal, Paviour-Smith gabbled, ‘You don’t know what you don’t know.’
He sat on one side of the court; Hallwright and his wife, Juliet, on the other. They didn’t make eye contact. Paviour-Smith gritted his teeth at having to confront him at all. ‘This is just the latest chapter,’ he said, exasperated, in cross-examination. ‘He always blames others, and never accepts responsibility.’
Before her husband’s termination, Juliet Hallwright wrote emails and left phone messages dumping on Paviour-Smith — he was ‘slippery’, ‘a pompous twat’, etc. In court, she wailed, ‘I’m sorry, Neil!’ It was a horrible, pained cry, but Paviour-Smith folded his arms, and turned his head. He’d plainly had it up to here with the pathetic Hallwrights.
Paviour-Smith fell apart in cross-examination. He talked too much, gulped, gasped for breath. In one exchange, he tried to dignify emails sent to Forsyth Barr by ‘nutters’, as Hallwright’s employment lawyer, Harry Waalkens, called them.
The emails were sent after Hallwright was found guilty.
‘Some of them were . . . uh . . . blatantly inappropriate,’ Paviour-Smith stumbled.
Waalkens: ‘There’s no need to be guarded. They’re plainly from nutters.’
Paviour-Smith: ‘I . . . um . . . I think that . . . These emails are indicative of a depth of feeling in the wider public domain.’
Sample email, from someone called Terry: ‘serves you right you talentless loser. what are you going to do? run me over? Bwahahahaha. kill yourself you moron.’
Other emails were read out in court. They all had the familiar, bitter tone of Stuff Comments, of trolls, of nutters. Lame of Forsyth Barr to grasp at such straws; lame, also, to call on the services of Bill Ralston, who brought the gobbledegook of media strategies to the courtroom.
The hearing opened with Waalkens objecting to Ralston appearing as a witness: ‘How is this ever going to help you determine?’ he shouted at Judge Inglis, who had a heavy cold, and held her head in her hands. Churchman dropped his voice and spoke to her soothingly. ‘Mr Rawls-ton,’ he drawled, ‘is an expert in reputation management, Your Honour.’
They described two Ralstons. Waalkens profiled him as one of the lower forms, a blathering media bullshitter and corporate lackey; Churchman presented the wise and venerable ‘Rawl-ston’ as a lord of the crisis management manor. ‘I accept he is qualified as an expert,’ ruled Inglis, and allowed him to appear.
But it didn’t make much difference. Ralston began by explaining the principles of a holy paradigm used extensively in crisis management known as CAP, which stands for Concern, Action and Perspective. This wonderful snake oil and hair restorative had worked wonders for many satisfied clients, he said. If only Hallwright had gone to Ralston, instead of wasting his money on Paul Davison QC! ‘He should have stated he was Concerned,’ said Ralston, sadly. ‘If he had demonstrated remorse, if he had apologised and taken responsibility, the media attention would have substantially decreased.’ He spelled out the rest of the advanced theorem of CAP — ‘Hallwright should have taken Action’, and done something or other about ‘Perspective’ — as the court enjoyed a free lesson in mod comms.
His central message in his prepared statement to the court was that Hallwright had caused Forsyth Barr reputational damage. Back up, said Waalkens. He wanted to know whether Ralston’s statement was an original work, or merely a photocopy of the statement given to the Employment Relations Authority by his close friend and Forsyth Barr director, Tina Symmans.
‘You’ve lifted great parts of Tina’s own statement,’ he said.
‘Some parts,’ said Ralston.
‘You’ve lifted whole paragraphs word for word. They are identical.’
‘Yes, they mostly are,’ said Ralston.
‘No, they’re not “mostly”, they’re identical.’
‘Some of it,’ said Ralston, ‘is because I’ve agreed with it.’
‘It’d be plagiarism if it were journalism.’
‘It would be if it were,’ said Ralston.
‘Do you think courts are less rigorous than journalism?’
‘No,’ said Ralston.
‘You’re not impartial at all, are
