2nd solomon star article today

Sumitomo lawyer apologises in high court for dissembling

http://www.solomonstarnews.com/news/national/20540-sumitomo-lawyer-apologises-in-high-court-for-dissembling

SUMITOMO’s principal counsel in the Japanese mining firm’s case against the Solomon Islands Government, Axiom KB and the Kolosori landowners of Isabel Province, John Sullivan QC of Sol-Law, has apologised in the High Court last week for dissembling.

The court requested the apology after Mr Sullivan ignored its ruling on the SMML counsel's application seeking leave to apply a schedule to a claimant witness after it appeared during cross-examination that certain phrases in his sworn statetment were new to the witness.

Presiding Judge, Justice Brown said Mr Sullivan had stated that the interpreter of the statements of that witness into English, a lawyer and officer of the court was impliedly impugned for he had sworn an oath in respect of each statement to the effect that the sworn statements were interpreted to the witness in pidgin and in language and that witness seemed to understand them and signed them in his presence.

The lawyer is understood to be an employee of Sumitomo.

The judge said however, when the witness was asked in language to explain his understanding of those phrases, it was evident he did not understand them.

He said yet later the witness stated, in relation to an option deed, that he understood when the lawyer explained them to him.

Justice Brown when explaining his refusal of the application to the court stated that the schedule was clearly a restatement of evidence and not an attempt at interpreting the phrases in the Cheke Holo language of the witness.

“The schedule could not be said to be explanatory but introduces fresh statements of a factual nature and they go well beyond the material in his (claimant’s) statements as I have shown.

“The schedule has been prepared in the absence of instructions and putting it to the witness now may be seen as an invitation to adopt it as factual truth,” he said.

Justice Brown said he was satisfied that it was made plain to Mr Sullivan that he would not accept further addresses but yet later in the day of his objection, the counsel made a further submission which was forwarded to the judge through email by his associate.

"This approach was in contravention of my comments and clear reservation on the application which had implicit the refusal to hear further argument without leave,” he said.

The presiding judge added that Mr Sullivan’s attitude also was embarrassing to the court and he was satisfied that it was in breach of the convention and propriety of court conduct.

“It is frankly unnecessary, for it is an unacceptable expression of self-control which in a court situation reflects on the individual and the dignity of the court,” he said.

Justice Brown said Mr Lilley had addressed him about Mr Sullivan’s contravention of his comments and clear reservation on the application which had implicit the refusal to hear further argument without leave.

Mr Sullivan in his apology to the court stated that he accepted what Justice Brown said about him.

“You say I have dissembled, well then I must accept that you say that. I cannot say that I agree but that said, your Lordship, I wholeheartedly apologise and I am embarrassed by your finding.”