Judge says controversial witness telling the truth

The evidence of a controversial New Zealander dubbed a "fantasist" when he appeared as a witness in a Hong Kong court case, was truthful, says the judge.

Aaron Nattrass was a prosecution witness in the trial of two criminal lawyers charged with revealing the identity of a witness in a protection programme.

Kevin Egan, 59, was convicted of disclosing the name of the witness and jailed for two years.

His co-accused, Andrew Lam, was found guilty of the same charge and also of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and jailed for four years.

During cross-examination, Mr Nattrass was described by Lam's counsel Graham Harris as a fantasist who liked to play at being a president's personal lawyer and the arresting officer of terror suspects in the Rainbow Warrior bombing.

Chief District Court Judge Barnabus Fung Wa said Mr Nattrass had been labelled as "barmy, a Walter Mitty, a resident in cloud cuckoo land, no doubt in an attempt to slight his evidence as beneath contempt".

He stopped short of saying Mr Nattrass was credible: "The credibility of Aaron Nattrass is a matter for jury function," he said.

However, he added that Mr Nattrass "had nothing to gain but everything to lose in giving evidence in this case".

And the judge said he was "left in no doubt that Nattrass has been telling the truth about the conversations" with the accused. "I did not have any doubt as to his reliability to recount the events."

Mr Nattrass was well-known in New Zealand after he hit the headlines in 1986 as one of two Otahuhu Borough Council traffic officers who claimed a superior had been falsely endorsing traffic notices. He was back in the news within a year as an immigration consultant helping Hong Kong businesspeople come to New Zealand at $10,000 a case.