Sledging lawyers put Cairns trial on hold

A heated argument between two lawyers has delayed the Chris Cairns perjury trial with the judge forced to intercede.

The trial of Chris Cairns has been marred by bickering between the Crown Prosecutor, Sasha Wass QC, and Cairns’ co-accused Andrew Fitch-Holland who is also a lawyer.
 

Wass opened her cross-examination by asking if Fitch-Holland had a “chequered” legal career.
 
“Is there some kind of implied moral criticism by the word chequered?” Fitch-Holland asked.
 
The heated exchange then continued, including a moment where Wass called Fitch-Holland a “cricket groupie” who saw Cairns as a means to change his career path. Fitch-Holland also sought to clarify or object to Wass’ questions on a number of occasions.
 
Justice Nigel Sweeney had to break up the simmering sledging match 10 minutes before lunch break.
 
“There will be no more tendentious arguments,” he ordered. “Each choose their words carefully and don't nit-pick, which means proper questions and proper answers.”
 
The matter could not be resolved in a prompt manner however, and the jury was sent home two hours early.
 
Fitch-Holland will now have to return to complete giving his evidence. He is the last witness before the judge sums up the case and the jury determines the verdict. The trial is expected to conclude sometime next week.
 

Recent articles & video

NZ Law Awards 2024 to honour firms of varying sizes and specialisations

Government aims to introduce Public Works Act Amendment Bill in mid-2025

Consultation is open on revised broadband marketing guidelines

Pitfalls to avoid when adopting Legal AI

Hogan Lovells welcomes former Federal Trade Commission deputy chief trial counsel Jennifer Fleury

New Georgian law sparks fears in LGBTQ+ community ahead of Parliamentary elections

Most Read Articles

Lawset, an association of medium-sized firms in New Zealand, has launched

Final week to nominate for Future Legal Leaders 2025

Pitfalls to avoid when adopting Legal AI

Court of Appeal affirms producer statements can lead to liability under Building Act