Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

 

Politics Media Law Society


The rotten fruit issue ... Corruption busters busted for bias, concealment, and conflicts … Mistress of the office couch more damaged than the rape victim … Next round for Linda Reynolds … Reputation damaged by former attorney general … Miranda Devine smooches Trump ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

From the cutting room floor...Handsy Heydon goes to Perth ... Celebrity tour ... Conferenceville ... Dicey's job application speech from 2002 ... Other High Court judges mocked as "vegetables" ... Mason CJ ridiculed ... Speech bowdlerised for public consumption ... Courage of conviction MIA ... From our National Affairs Correspondent ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


Pinning the tail on the jellyfish ... Auditor General to probe the shifting expenditure on Federal Court legal services ... AFR ... More >>

Justinian's Bloggers

Letter from London ... Weather report ... Starmer sinking ... Farage rising ... Fake law firm ... Fake cases ...  NHS employee cleans up with woke case for hurt feelings ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"And I want to just thank everybody and in particular, God, I want to just say we love you, God, and we love our great military, protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel, and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you." 

Donald Trump at the White House announcing the bombing of Iran ... June 21, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Holding onto Hope ... Gina Rinehart's Bleak House ... Seeking chunks of the huge iron ore pit, Hope Downs ... Tracing the tangled Wright, Hancock, Rinehart litigation ... Allegations of fraud against the family trust ...Manoeuvring ... Tax "advice" ... Shifting vesting date ... Money, the root of unhappiness ... Anthony-James Kanaan reports ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

The High Court of Queensland ... Where to now for Bookshelves Brandis? ... Banana Benders in charge ... Eleven names scratched by CJ from Sunshine silks list ... Prosecutors dominate NSW Dizzo appointments ... Farewell to Equity Queen ... What life looked like nine years ago ... From Justinian's Archive, December 2, 2016 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Dire consequences | Main | Visigoths invade the temple »
Tuesday
Nov112014

No breach of the fortress 

Calls for ICAC to be closed down or for its hearings it be held in secret found no support in the NSW Supreme Court ... The anti-corruption body is looking stronger than ever ... Round One in Cunneen v ICAC 

Sophia Tilley: fake chest pains at the centre of the allegations

ICAC survived Justice Cliff Hoeben's judgment in the Cunneen case without having any of its teeth knocked out or even getting a fat lip. 

That was round one. Round two is in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday (Nov. 18). 

In fact, on the basis of yesterday's findings (Nov. 10) ICAC's powers and process have never looked more impregnable and it will take some dextrous work by the appeal judges to unpick Hoeben's thinking. 

Here's what ICAC alleges against crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, her son Stephen Wyllie and her son's girlfriend, Sophia Tilley - see here

Essentially, the judge found that the ICAC Act is as broad as it's wide. Here are the main issues considered in the judgment ... 

ICAC can investigate anyone, whether a public official or not 

Section 8(2)(a) covers corrupt conduct by any person, including a public official. People who might be public officials are not excluded from investigation merely because the conduct under examination relates to their private life. 

"This is particularly the case where Ms Cunneen holds senior office with the Director of Public Prosecutions, being an important role in the administration of justice." 

In this instance the allegation involved hindering the police in pursuit of their duty, which can amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice. "It is fundamental to ICAC's role that it investigate criminal offences." 

ICAC can trample on fundamental rights 

Even though the ICAC Act infringes fundamental rights (right to silence, privilege against self-incrimination), provisions defining corrupt conduct should not be unnecessarily read down. 

Here the allegations could satisfy both limbs of the definition of corrupt conduct in the ICAC Act - section 8(2)

"The abrogation of fundamental rights is within the power of the legislature. That is how the Act is expressed." 

ICAC can hold a public hearing

The plaintiffs had this issue a bit both ways. On the one hand they complained that ICAC's interpretation of the legislation was such as to give itself wide powers to create "a secret crime body to investigate any alleged attempt to pervert the course of justice".

At the same time they said that the allegations against the plaintiffs should be heard in secret, because in making a decision to hold public hearings ICAC had failed to take into account the risk of undue prejudice to a person's reputation and whether the public interest in exposing the matter is outweighed by preserving the privacy of those concerned, see s.31 

Hoeben said the plaintiffs had the onus of showing that there was no basis for ICAC's satisfaction about those considerations, however here it cannot be said that no rational or reasonable decision maker could reach the view that no public hearing should be held. 

"Given the seriousness of the facts asserted in the allegations, there is an obvious benefit in exposing the conduct to the public." 

This is a matter for the police - not ICAC 

Hoeben dismissed the idea that there is "some kind of fundamental principle of law that crimes are only to be investigated by the police". 

All sorts of organisations can investigate crimes, including the RSPCA - so there's nothing special about ICAC having this role - after all, it is an investigatory body, see s.13 

ICAC does not have to supply documents or reasons 

The plaintiffs sought copies of documents relating to its decisions to investigate and to hold a public inquiry and its reasons. 

This was sought under rule 59.9 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.  

The court refused to make the order sought by Cunneen. Section 111 of the ICAC Act provides that ICAC officers are not obliged to produce documents or divulge information in court in relation to their investigatory functions.  

The judge said an order to produce would be ineffective as ICAC was not obliged to comply with it. 

Chest pains 

There are all sorts of issues to be resolved if the investigation ever makes it to a public hearing. 

Did Sophia Tilley really have chest pains, and if so why was it perverting the course of justice to tell the police that she had? 

As @Kaptain_Kaos Tweeted yesterday:  

 

 

There is also the issue of trying to avoid a breath test, when in the circumstances of the car accident Cunneen would have known that Ms Tilley would be taken to hospital for a blood sample. 

That is exactly what happened. She did go to hospital and her blood sample showed zero blood alcohol. 

No doubt there's more to learn. 

See: Cunneen v ICAC - hold tight

See: Mother love 

See: nifty court summary of the judgment 

See: judgment in full

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.