Mr Bain's legal team today concluded their submissions applying to the High Court at Auckland for access to about 250 documents Ms Collins received over the compensation claim.
Yesterday, an email presented to the court showed Ms Collins' staff were seeking to stop Canada's Justice Ian Binnie from going "completely feral''.
An email sent from Ms Collins' press secretary Rachael Bowie to Ms Collins, her senior private secretary and senior adviser, said Justice Binnie needed to be kept "in the tent for as long as possible'' to avoid his "very damaging'' report from being released.
When approached for comment, Justice Binnie said: "Thanks for the opportunity, but as the Minister has thoroughly politicised the Bain issue I think I should refrain from any comment.
"What I have to say about the Bain case is in my report, submitted to the Minister almost a year ago.''
At the High Court today, lawyers representing the Justice Minister told Justice Patrick Keane the documents were protected by lawyer-client privilege, but
Mr Bain's team argued the privilege had been waived because the Minister's legal advisers acted improperly and unethically.
Yesterday, Mr Bain's lawyer Michael Reed QC, said Ms Collins should step aside and another minister be appointed due to her handling of the case, which he described as biased and prejudiced.
He said Ms Collins was acting as the Minister of Police, not the Minister of Justice, and was struggling to distinguish between the two.
The entire process had been hijacked by Crown Law and police, Mr Reed said.
This morning, he said the way the case was handled was "hopelessly compromised''.
Ms Collins' lawyer Kristy McDonald QC, responded by wholly rejecting these claims.
"It is important I say there is not a shred of evidence to support such serious allegations.''
This was not a substantive hearing and should not be an opportunity for "unprincipled rhetoric'' to be brought before the court, she said.
Mr Bain's lawyers have argued that Crown Law had a conflict of interest in advising the Minister on the compensation claim, as she was their employer.
Mr Reed said even if there were staff in the Crown Law office involved in the proceeding who may be independent, the majority were ``our adversarial opponents''.
Because of this, he argued, they were not upholding the standards required of the legal profession and therefore were not protected by lawyer-client privilege.
Ms McDonald said just because they were "in-house'' lawyers did not mean they lacked the ability to act independently and impartially.
"We're talking about 20 per cent of the legal profession ... who are employed in that capacity. It would be an extraordinary proposition to suggest that the advice that they provide does not attract privilege,'' she said.
"We do put on different hats all the time - it's part of the skill of being a legal advisor. It doesn't mean that you're necessarily conflicted. And Crown Law particularly do that.''
The Bain legal team's allegations had been taken to an "extraordinary'' level with suggestions of conspiracy and improper motive, which were "just nonsense", Ms McDonald said.
When approached for comment, Ms Collins declined, saying "it would be completely inappropriate for me to make any comment regarding this matter, at this stage''.
Mr Bain was not present at the proceedings.
Justice Keane has reserved his decision.
- By Brendan Manning and Matthew Theunissen of APNZ
