The then-MP lied because he was determined to ‘bring Simon Bridges down’ and indifferent to the consequences owing to being ‘acutely unwell’, said Ross’s lawyer.

The Urban Dictionary was invoked in the Auckland High Court this morning, in defence of Jami-Lee Ross. While the word “kamikaze” might literally translate as “divine wind”, said the former National MP’s lawyer, Ron Mansfield QC, the online Urban Dictionary “describes kamikaze, by way of action, as ‘complete and utter disregard to logic or rational thinking’.”

This, he contended, was the more common understanding of the term, and one which captured the behaviour of his client when he launched an attack accusing his then party leader of corruption – a mindset, said Mansfield, that might equally be described as “burning Bridges”. 

Those explosive days, in which Ross accused Simon Bridges of complicity in a plan to divide up donations to avoid the need for declaration, set in motion police and Serious Fraud Office investigations that ultimately led to seven defendants facing criminal charges around what the crown describes as “sham donations”. The trial of seven defendants, in relation to three donations – two to the National Party and another to the Labour Party that is unlinked to Ross – concluded today, towards the end of the seventh of 10 available weeks. 

Ross’s was the last of the seven defence cases to close, and it differed from the others insofar as it rested on an argument that his admissions almost four years ago, in October 2018, “are unreliable”, said Mansfield. That was no 11th hour defence, he stressed, but had been Ross’s position for the duration of the SFO investigation. 

“It is unusual for any counsel to stand before the court and describe their client as someone who has lied,” he said, as Ross watched on impassively. “But I so do. And that is because it’s readily apparent that Mr Ross lied. The very statements that the SFO rely on against him can be described simply as lies.”

Among the evidence laid out during the trial was a text message to a constituency office administrator in March 2018, in which Ross bemoaned Bridges not rewarding him, as the “numbers guy” for his leadership challenge, by giving him the job he believed he had been promised – shadow leader of the house. “So I got fucked over pretty big time by a guy who thought I was a mate and helped a lot,” wrote Ross – who was ranked eighth in caucus by Bridges – at the time. 

When Bridges refused to budge from his decision, Ross wrote to him: “My head says suck it up. My heart says kamikaze. Head wins, I’ll suck it up.” That, said Mansfield, was “the first lie … because the head didn’t win. The heart won.”

Ross also acknowledged via his lawyer that his repeated denials that he was responsible for leaking Bridges’ travel expenses to Tova O’Brien, then of Newshub, were untrue. It was one of a “series of lies told by Mr Ross”.

The leaks prompted inquiries by both the speaker’s office and the National Party, with the former halted after text messages were sent to the speaker, Trevor Mallard, as well as Simon Bridges and media from someone claiming to be a National MP, asking for the probes to be ended for reasons of his mental health. The National inquiry found that Ross was highly likely to be the leaker. 

Of the leaks, Ross “didn’t think it would go too far” and hoped only to “create media interest and be an embarrassment for Bridges”, providing a “distraction” from the leader’s tour of the country. When the inquiries were launched, that “frightened politically Mr Ross”, and “using a burner phone, he sent a message indicating that the individual within caucus who had released this information was suffering from poor mental health. There we have the truth being told, at least,” said Mansfield. The goal was to get both to “back off [their] investigations”.

When the National inquiry pointed the finger at Ross, the MP “went kamikaze”, his lawyer told the court. His mental health was such that he was “critically unwell”, rendering him indifferent to the consequences of his actions – a succession of lies, said Mansfield, which falsely accused both Bridges and Ross himself of committing fraud in relation to political donations.

In levelling accusations – and self-incriminating – in 2018, Ross identified as the donor Yikun Zhang, the Chinese businessman who in recent weeks appeared in court on the charges brought by the SFO. That could be explained, argued Mansfield, because Ross had been aware of questions raised internally about Yikun Zhang donations, and that was what prompted him to wrap him into his “lie”. He further argued that “the complete absence of Mr Ross” in the communications captured by investigators in relation to the other defendants supported the contention that he was not involved “in any fraudulent scheme”.

Concluding his closing statement, Mansfield said: “When you look at the evidence, while at first glance it might appear that Mr Ross has achieved the own goal that people laugh and joke about, and have until this day done so in public and in private, in reality he wasn’t achieving an own goal, because, sadly the truth is more tragic. The tragic reality is that this man was desperate, and acutely unwell, and simply didn’t care what he said or the damage he caused for some.”

Justice Ian Gault, who is hearing the case alone, hopes to deliver a verdict by September 30.

Follow our politics podcast Gone By Lunchtime on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your favourite podcast provider.