[Photo: LITIA CAVA]

King’s Counsel Martin Daubney has sharpened his challenge to the Commission of Inquiry, arguing the process broke down despite clear warnings about the harm its findings could cause.

Speaking in the High Court, Martin Daubney says the Commissioner knew adverse findings could damage careers. He pointed to several moments in the transcript where that risk was acknowledged.

He says awareness demanded strict fairness.

Daubney told the court the Commissioner repeatedly pledged to follow natural justice. That included a written assurance on procedural fairness. But he argued the inquiry did not meet that standard.

He highlighted a key exchange during oral evidence. The Commissioner described Wylie Clarke and Laurel Vaurasi as “honourable, upright, decent people.” No warning followed. There was no hint that serious findings were being considered.

Those findings, when released, were severe. They included allegations of intimidation, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Daubney says the applicants were never told they faced such claims. They were not given a chance to respond.

He says the material given to them before testifying did not flag the allegations. Some extracts were incomplete. None pointed to the conduct later relied on.

He also challenged the evidence behind the findings. He says the report does not clearly show what material supports its conclusions. It does not assess competing accounts. In key areas, he argued, there is no evidence.

That absence, he says, makes the findings legally flawed.

The challenge also targets the report’s publication. Daubney argued the Prime Minister had a duty to ensure fairness before release. He said that step was taken without giving the applicants a chance to respond.

On bias, he pointed to passages in the report and exchanges during the hearing. He says the criticism raised by Clarke about counsel assisting was turned into alleged misconduct. In the report, it was framed as unethical and obstructive.

He argued that the shift was not grounded in evidence. It reflected a broader hostility.

He also referred to comments made after the report was delivered. He said those remarks suggest a fixed view.

The applicants are not seeking to overturn the entire report. They want declarations that the findings against them are unlawful and have no effect. They also seek the removal of the report from official platforms and damages for reputational harm.

Daubney says the language used strikes at professional integrity. For senior lawyers, he said, the impact was lasting.

The hearing on this matter will resume this morning before High Court judge Justice Dane Tuiqereqere in the Suva High Court.