From the judgement:
"I bear in mind Mr Daniel's warning that I may be allowing myself to be diverted by a "smokescreen", but it simply illustrates why the facts need to be properly investigated after full pleadings have become available, disclosure of documents has taken place and witness statements have been exchanged. Only then will the smoke have cleared."
Mr. Daniels works for Watchtower. It's ironic that on one hand Watchtower complains judicially of a smokescreen yet simultaneously depends so heavily on smokescreen to keep the public from knowing what really happens inside its self-organized and managed shunning program.
Watchtower has done this before. In 1981 take a look at how Watchtower complained about lack of public view and review:
To this very day Watchtower disallows third-party viewing of its "judicial" activities even when requested by the accused. The very safeguards Watchtower admits as important the result of public review it rejects by disallowing third-party viewing (when it's requested).
Watchtower's tactics in the public arena are beyond contempt. The organization's leadership is overloaded with rot. It is beyond repair or reform.