Direct evidence linking GILLARD to WILSON'S corruptly obtained money - cheques, account numbers, handwriting - it's all here

This is a forensic accountant's analysis of transactions on Bruce Wilson's private bank account - over and above salary and rental income.

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 7.37.13 am

On 22 March, 1993 Slater and Gordon settled the purchase of a house for Bruce Wilson at 85 Kerr Street Fitzroy, funded in part by $90K+ from the GILLARD/WILSON slush fund.

On 24 March 1993 renovations commenced on Gillard's property at 36 St Philips St Abbotsford.  Here's one of her first quotes.

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 6.50.30 am

The Trade Union Royal Commission found that Athol James's evidence that Wilson provided the money to pay for Gillard's renovations was wholly truthful.  

Gillard has been at pains to distance herself from the AWU-WRA's operations/funding/bank accounts.  While Athol recalls Bruce dealing in cash, apparently that idea hadn't come to Bruce and Julia until after their first transaction - which involved this cheque from Bruce to his lover.

Here now is the unequivocal evidence of Wilson funding Gillard.

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 7.31.57 am

The financial relationship went way beyond the renovations.

Here are two cheques totalling almost $1,000 from Bruce to Myer in Melbourne.  

How can we know these purchases were for Gillard?  Her address is written on the back of the cheques.

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 8.52.08 am

On 10 September 2014 Gillard gave sworn evidence to the Trade Union Royal Commission, denying she received money from Bruce Wilson for her renovations.

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 9.13.03 am

There's plenty more evidence where that came from too.  It wasn't just Mr James funded by Bruce.

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 9.19.23 am

And I haven't started reporting to you on the destination of many of the cash cheques - nor cheques written directly from Wilson's various slush funds rather than his personal account.

It's much better to confess you know Ms GILLARD.  Might save you a bit of time in the slammer.

Every touch leaves its trace.

 

 


In June 1995 Bruce Wilson paid GILLARD's builder Con Spyridis $2,180 with a personal cheque we publish today

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 3.26.56 am

Here's Wilson's cheque - note the distinctive non-Wilson handwriting, the cheque was written out by Bill Telikostiglou.

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 2.32.15 am

Here's the statement showing the cheque was presented on 5 June, 1995 and was met on presentation.

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 2.36.28 am

Nine entries above cheque 181 for $2,180 in the statement is a 17 May 1995 deposit of $2,000.00.

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 2.48.18 am

The deposit slip is in Wayne Hem's handwriting - and where'd the money come from?


Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 2.54.05 am
Now here's

  1. Telikostiglou's cheque for $2,000
  2. screen grab from his CBA statement showing where the $2K came from -  a $10K deposit 3 days earlier
  3. details of the $10,000 cheque which came from the phantom AWU employee Ms Debbie Lawn.

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 3.14.36 am

Here's what GILLARD told Peter Gordon about paying Spyridis.

an account from Con was put in my letter box last week, so that's the first account that I've had from him. It is an account dated June directed towards me, yeah, I think that's right, directed towards me, dated June and it's got a letter on it, some of which is not decipherable but talks about finishing off the tiles. The account is for $3780. I've paid $2000 of it already and I'm making arrangements to get the $1780 together to pay the rest of it. 

Gillard also told the Royal Commission, the parliament, Martin Ferguson in her pre-selection interview, the Australian people and anyone else who'd listen that she'd paid for her own renovations.

Athol James said she did not - and the Trade Union Royal Commission believed him, not her.

Wayne Hem said she did not - he made a deposit of $5,000 into her account and he saw Telikostiglou pay builders on her behalf.

Ralph Blewitt says he paid $7,000 to builders to pay for some of Gillard's renovations.

And now the evidence from Bruce Wilson's cheque book - including our trace on the money right back to a dubious $10,000 cheque which apparently was comprised of funds that originated with the AWU itself (more on that soon).

When will the authorities act to bring GILLARD to heel?

Every touch leaves its trace.

77b06bb647ab58ed1be9005c980a83d0ee49c07e

PS - further to our post on Debbie Lawn and Bill Telikostiglou a couple of days ago.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/10/gillards-greek-bullshit-artist-bill-telikostiglou-had-a-bigger-role-in-the-awu-scandal-than-we-thoug.html

Here's another AWU payroll deposit sheet - note the Telikostiglou/Debbie Lawn line entry!

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 3.49.09 am


NEW - Bill the Greek's bank statements from the time he was running Gillard's home renovations

On Monday, 25 September 1995 then AWU Joint National Secretary Ian Cambridge made this record in his diary.

Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 1.01.00 pm

He retained these notes taken during the conversation - and dictated the above more comprehensive record of the conversation shortly after it was completed.
Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 1.01.00 pm

Bill the Greek's role in The AWU Scandal has been a bit overlooked - until now.

What's brought it to life for me is his bank statements.

I've been sitting on them for a while now - hesitant to publish because they'd be highly damaging to Bill's reputation if he was a man of good repute.

In the end I've decided to publish because as the statements show, Bill the Greek is a fraudster and I don't think he has any sort of reputation to protect.

Wilson's modus operandi was to try to employ an underling to do the dirty work - running money through accounts, having their name put forward for sham roles etc.

In Telikostiglou Wilson had a crooked fraudster as his willing - if unreliable - accomplice.

And here is the news - Bill's tragic bank statements.

I have seldom seen so serially dishonest a person.  Bill bounced many more cheques than were honoured.  He was in fine company with Gillard and Wilson.

Download Bill the Greek

Download Bill the Greek Two

GILLARD knew Bill the Greek quite well - this is an extract from her Exit Interview at Slater and Gordon.

PG: Right. And, when Bruce came to Victoria, did he come alone or were there other Western Australian people who came with him?

JG: No, he came alone. Yes, at that stage I think he came alone. He was subsequently joined by an organiser from Western Australia called, his proper name (was) Vassilis Telikostoglou. He is known as either Bill Telikostoglou or simply Bill the Greek.

 

Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 11.21.26 am

Bill the Greek was Wilson's right hand man in Melbourne.

He shared the same address with his boss - as his licence details on the back of these cheques show.Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 amScreen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am

He also helped out with slush fund duties.

 

This file note from Brendan Murphy's Bruce Wilson criminal prosecution file records the court challenge and then the April 1995 election in which Bruce formally moved into his National Construction Branch job and away from the Victoria branch Secretary's role.  At the same time Wilson's man Ralph Blewitt made way for a new and curious team in WA.

Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 3.39.25 pm

On 21 April 1995 WILSON closed the AWU Workplace Reform Association bank accounts.

(Around this time WILSON had good cause to believe that at least some AWU officials were on to him.  There's a paper trail that suggests the Woodside slush fund deal had come to the notice of the new AWU WA branch team - more on that in another post.)

From this point on WILSON was much more cautious.

On 27 April, 1995 without the AWU WRA Inc cash Wilson wrote out this cheque for $15,000 on the AWU Members Welfare Association account for cash - the rear of the cheque show $10K went to Kon Spyridis and $5K to cash.   

Screen Shot 2015-11-24 at 3.41.58 am

 

 

Spyridis was the builder engaged by Bill the Greek on Gillard's renovations which were pressing ahead during 1995. 

Here's an extract from Gillard's Exit Interview:

Peter Gordon,

"....it's been put to a partner of Slater & Gordon in the last week that there exists a receipt with respect to renovation work conducted at your home which is in some way connected with funds from the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association account.

Gillard explained that she'd heard the rumour then launched into Bill the Greek's role.

I have spoken to David Feeney. I spoke to him on Friday afternoon. What I believe to have happened is this. This year I had additional work done on my place to try and do something about the outside, the outside is still not painted the right colour, and needed, needed further work done on it. Bill the Greek recommended to me a friend of his called Con, the last name I believe to (be) Spiri, Spiridis or Spiritis or a word to that effect. Con organised for me, or Con came and did the following things.

She then described some of Con's work - she wasn't happy with it.

When I came home and saw the posts and the windows which got done in, done in one day I raised it immediately with Bill the Greek in fairly vociferous tones and said this has just totally buggered up this job. This is just hideous, you know, you need to talk to Con about it. Bill had been the link to Con. Bill said he would speak to Con about it. Con came back subsequently and did the fence and I raised it with Con. Con said he would get, he knew he had made an error with the windows. He would get the windows replaced with wood windows. He didn't think the posts were his fault because that was the sort of posts that were described to him so there was an ongoing debate about whose fault it was that the posts were the wrong posts. He basically half finished, did most of the fence though bits of it are uncompleted and then he didn't return. I periodically raised with Bill what on earth is happening with Con and these windows and these posts and the tiling's uncompleted and the fence is uncompleted. Bill would say I'll fix it, I'll fix it but it never got fixed.

Life got a little bit more crazy than it had been and I ceased to sort of pay much regard to it or think about it but there was this uncompleted work at the property or to the extent it was completed large bits of it were done wrong. I don't know what transactions Con and Bill have had about the account for that work, but I believe what has happened is Con has gone to the AWU looking for Bill or looking for payment for the account.

Obviously, it accords with what David Feeney has told me that he was sent away by the AWU and without explanation an account from Con was put in my letter box last week, so that's the first account that I've had from him. It is an account dated June directed towards me, yeah, I think that's right, directed towards me, dated June and it's got a letter on it, some of which is not decipherable but talks about finishing off the tiles. The account is for $3780. I've paid $2000 of it already and I'm making arrangements to get the $1780 together to pay the rest of it. I have suggested to David Feeney that I think the way forward in relation to this is for me to simply meet with Bob Smith at FIME and say someone came here looking for payment of an account. That's nothing that I have caused, nothing to do with me, if it is this account then I've paid it, even though it hurt me to do so given the quality of the job. If there is anything else then I will pay it.

JG: Sorry, I'm getting confused, the, Geoff when we were not on tape asked me a series of questions about things that I have had done to the house that I don't recall getting invoiced for. It occurred to me that one of those things is, and Geoff has actually seen this with his own eyes. Bill the Greek, whilst I was at work one day, built for me a low level brick fence. I didn't ask him to do that. The result was truly hideous and I think Geoff saw it when he dropped me off one night and everybody else who's passed my house has commented on it. In order to try and make it look less hideous, part of the work that Con was to do was to mortar it and put pickets on it that goes like that to try and stop it looking quite as Greek, dare one say.

I didn't, I've never, I didn't pay for the bricks, I didn't pay for the bricks. I've never had an account in relation to the fence. Now, I don't, I don't know what that means about where Bill got the bricks from, and I don't know whether that means anybody worked with him on the fence, that I haven't paid. He, you know, he pleased as punch sort of said he had built it for me. That he had built it for me. Whether that means he himself did it, given Bill's obvious difficulties with the truth I no longer know.

PG: What are Bill's obvious difficulties with the truth?

JG: He's just a big Greek bullshit artist.

And a fraudster.  A serial passer of bad cheques.  And the man in charge of much of Gillard's renovations.

Here's Bill's bank statement in the weeks leading up to Gillard's record of interview.  It's not hard to imagine cheques to Con the builder amongst the pile of cheques his bank has bounced.

Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.42.27 am

Just about all of Bill's outgoing cheques were made out to Cash.  Of course.  Like this April 1995 one which ended up in a Mr Dimopoulos's pocket - one of the few that didn't bounce.

Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am

Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am

Recall that one of the central allegations against GILLARD/WILSON in her home renovations was the charge that AWU money had somehow been used to pay the builder.

Note the cheques that flowed from this 15 May 1995 deposit of $10,000 into the perpetually overdrawn Big Greek Bullshit Artist's account.

Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 4.01.00 pm

 

You'll recall from a couple of days ago that one Debbie Lawn was the drawer that $10,000 cheque which Wayne Hem deposited into Bill's bank account.

 



Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.20.30 am

And Debbie was also somehow on the AWU Payroll at the time.


Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.20.30 am


Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am


Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am

Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am

Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 10.26.13 am

No wonder Gillard couldn't rule out her home renovations being funded by the AWU or the AWU WRA Inc.

With Bill the Greek running the show and supervising the payments on her behalf - anything was possible.

 


Compare Thiess's AWU maintenance workers EBA with Serco's - Thiess workers sold because of the GILLARD/WILSON slush fund

In early 1993 the Kennett Government let tenders to outsource Melbourne Water maintenance work.

The process was competitive and amongst other requirements, tenderers had to demonstrate their plans to reform work practices.

Thiess was one of the successful tenderers along with Serco (each for a geographic region of Melbourne).

The AWU covered workers for each company.  Robyn McLeod was the AWU's organiser for both organisations.

Each company was building an enterprise agreement based on existing award conditions.

Theiss paid into Wilson's slush fund.

Serco apparently did not.

On 9 July 1993 Robyn McLeod made a statutory declaration certifying the conditions in Theiss's Enterprise Agreement.

Serco's was not made until 8 December - 5 months later.

 

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 12.17.42 pm

Serco told the Commission of the difficult negotiations it had with the AWU, referring to intractable disputes. 

Five months earlier, Thiess had told the Commission they had "a very good agreement.

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 12.26.28 pm

And why wouldn't Thiess think it had a "very good agreement"?

Thiess got away with paying its workers much less than Serco was forced to.

Each organisation had 5 grades of maintenance worker.

Thiess showed the rates as weekly and in reverse order - Serco's were published as annual rates.  I've calculated Thiess's rates as the weekly rate shown, times 52.

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 12.41.17 pm

When Thiess called in casuals, they paid the normal rates plus 20%. Serco was slugged 25%.

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 12.48.18 pm

Serco's agreement included prohibitions against Unfair Dismissal.  Thiess's did not.

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 1.00.36 pm

Thiess could do what it liked with contractors, use them to their hearts content - Serco had no such accommodation.

The list of major differences goes on an on and on.

And all because Thiess paid secret commissions in a secret deal to the GILLARD/WILSON slush fund.

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 1.09.08 pm

 

 


Robyn McLEOD - you forgot to tell the IR Commission about the slush fund when you sold Melb Water workers out

Remember Robyn McLeod - Julia Gillard's bestie?

6a0177444b0c2e970d01b7c6dc5877970b

In 1993, Robyn got a job working for Julia's guy Bruce as an organiser in the AWU.

On paper, Robyn's job was to act in the interests of the workers.

In reality, Robyn was in charge of helping Thiess.  

In August 1993 Robyn McLeod appeared before the Industrial Relations Commission alongside Mr Richardson from Thiess.

Thiess was there to make profits for its shareholders.

Robyn was there to sell the workers out.

Here's an extract from the transcript:

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 9.31.19 am

 

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 7.51.50 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 7.51.50 am

There was one very, very big problem for Robyn on that day.

Robyn was supposed to tell all about the industrial agreement.

But she forgot to mention the stinky side deal her bestie's boy-friend Bruce had done with Thiess.

The "consultancy" agreement to conceal that Thiess was paying secret commissions into the slush fund her bestie GILLARD had set up.

Here's a "consultancy" invoice from the GILLARD/WILSON slush fund to Thiess.  

 

 

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 8.51.15 am

This one's very special for Robyn.  

It's the last one and by the time it was issued she was employed directly by Thiess - Robyn even had the honour of putting her initials on this invoice as approved for payment.

Here's a transcript from Robyn's day at the Commission.

  

Robyn McLeod at the IR Commission for Melbourne Water/Thiess outsourcing by Michael Smith on Scribd

No mention of the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association there Robyn.

Shortly after that appearance Robyn joined bestie Bruce Wilson as a director of the board of a Thiess superannuation company.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/08/robyn-mcleod-and-bruce-wilson-were-directors-of-the-thiess-superannuation-fund.html

Thiess and the bosses were so happy with Robyn and Bruce that when the agreement came up for re-certification in early August 1995, Robyn appeared before the Commission again.  For Thiess.

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 9.18.37 am

Thiess got a lot of those deals.

They had several months head start on their competitors like SERCO - competitors whose workers were also covered by the AWU.

In the next post I'll publish a side by side comparison of the Thiess/AWU agreement with the SERCO/AWU deal.

Prepare to be disgusted.

Screen Shot 2017-10-17 at 9.26.17 am WINFPJa

 

 


The 1998 search warrant on Slater and Gordon that was pulled before police could execute it

I'll start with the bad news first.

The 1998 WA Extra-Territorial Search Warrants referred to in the Affidavit and letter below were apparently not executed.

Just days before the issuing of the writs for the 1998 Federal Election (that saw Julia Gillard elected to the seat of Lalor) the WA DPP advised that this matter was going nowhere.

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 am

Dave McAlpine had done his homework.

Note the hitherto phantom lawyers who were apparently acting for Ralph Blewitt.

Any and all information on any of the matters below most welcome!

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 amScreen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 amScreen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 amScreen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 am

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 amScreen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 am


Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 am

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 am





Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 5.15.18 am


IN August 2012 WA Police reactivated their files on The AWU Scandal after Gillard's role made front page news

WA Police were exceptionally attuned to media coverage of The AWU Scandal when it made headlines in August 2012.

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 3.48.28 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 3.48.28 am

Note the blacked out lines in this briefing note:

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.42.29 am

Elsewhere in the file I located the original version of that note - such was the extreme sensitivity to GILLARD's name getting a run that police had blacked it out, even in a file note!
Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.42.29 am

And here are copies of the article that triggered the renewed WA Police interest - as filed by police.

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.45.59 am

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.45.59 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.45.59 amScreen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.45.59 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.45.59 am
Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 4.45.59 am



Part 2 - Slater and Gordon's confidential legal advice from Geoff Masel of Philips Fox on $67,000 cheque from slush fund

This is a Slater and Gordon file note written by the late Geoff Shaw

Screen Shot 2017-10-14 at 11.51.54 am

Shaw reveals Masel's legal advice in this paragraph:

Screen Shot 2017-10-14 at 12.46.32 pm

The requirements of a Solicitor's Trust Account Receipt at the time were clear - Slater and Gordon was required to report "from whom the money was received" (which it could using the Masel/Shaw protocol have said was the Commonwealth Bank) - and it was required to report the drawer of any cheque.

No one can now argue that Ralph Blewitt was the source of the money.

The money came from this cheque.

Ralph's cheque

Slater and Gordon might not have known at the instant the cheque's proceeds hit their account who the drawer of the cheque was.

But by the time this all became controversial - they certainly did.

There are three choices - either Ralph Blewitt was committing some type of fraud in putting himself forward as the source of the funds when the money really came from the AWU Workplace Reform Association - and that prospect should have demanded diligent and swift action from the solicitors for the AWU.

Or else Blewitt was a Trustee in name only for the purchase in which the lawyers Slater and Gordon acted.

The 3rd possibility is they were all crooks in it together.

The Trust Account Rules that applied to Slater and Gordon in Victoria in 1993

Thanks to reader Ken for so many tips on this blog including this very important post.  Ken, the community owes you.

This is a link to the Victorian Government Gazette that promulgated the Solicitors (Audit and Practicing Certificates) Rules, 1990.   The Rules were proclaimed on 15 August, 1990 and have the effect of provisions of the Legal Profession Practice Act, 1958.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/vic_gazette/1990/32.html

Here is the requirement on Solicitors Trust Accounts for recording the receipt of money.

Trust records one
Trust records two
Just for completeness, the 1990 rules were in force from August, 1990 until repealed and replaced by these rules on 1st April 1998 by The Victorian RPA Ltd Trust Account Practice Rules made under the Legal Practice Act 1996. 

These Trust Account Rules 1998 commenced on 1 April 1998 and address the receipt of moneys received to  a Trust Account by “Direct Deposit.” 

See the State Library of Victoria –

Available State Library of Victoria Request from onsite storage  SLTF 346.945059 P88V (1998) (updating...) 

 

Here is an extract – 

Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd

TRUST ACCOUNT PRACTICE RULES

These practice rules are made by Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd. under section 72 of the Legal

Practice Act 1996.

Part I - Preliminary and Definitions

l. Commencement Date

These practice rules, except for rule 24, come into operation on 1 April 1998 and Rule 24

comes into operation on I April 1999.

2. Repeal of Previous Rules

The Solicitors' (Audit and Practising Certificates) Rules 1990 and the Mortgage Register and

Nominee Company Rules 1977 are repealed.

Part 4 Accounting Records

5. Receipting of Trust Money .... 

(5) Receipts are to be made out as soon as practicable following receipt of the trust

money or in the case of a direct deposit, as soon as practicable after the legal practitioner

becomes aware of the deposit. 

The key requirement of solicitors is to record “from whom the money is received” not who deposited the funds, since this latter person may just have been an employee, agent, friend or relative doing a postal or banking errand. In the case of a cheque or draft, the name of the drawer must be recorded on the receipt.

ENDS

So, we have now the reference to the Rules (forming part of the Act, the law) that applied to Slater and Gordon's Trust Account in 1993 when the AWU-WRA money came in.

The Rules had been in operation for some years when the 1993 deposit was made.   There was a duty on both the Commonwealth Bank to furnish the drawer information where deposits to a Solicitors Trust Account were made by cheque, and a positive obligation on Slater and Gordon to find out and record the drawer of the cheque on the Trust Account Receipt.  Section 32 (d) - in the case of a cheque, a solicitor shall specify the drawer.   No if known, no if but or maybe, shall.

You may recall that on 4 September, 2012, James Higgins wrote to Galbally Rolfe, the solicitors acting for Ralph Blewitt.   Mr Higgins described both the Trust Account Receipt and the Trust Ledger which he says recorded Mr Blewitt himself as paying in the $67,772.30 payment (paragraph 4).   Mr Higgins quotes details from and refers to the Trust Account Receipt itself from which I infer that Slater and Gordon had a copy of the Receipt as late as September, 2012.   With fresh investigations afoot, one hopes that the Receipt has not been destroyed. 

Slater and gordon letter one_001
Slater and gordon letter two_001

This email from James Higgins dated 8 April 2013 goes further in stating that the money paid to Slater and Gordon was money that was presented to Slater and Gordon and recorded by it as money belonging to Mr Blewitt, ie "there is no reference concerning where you sourced these funds".   

From: James Higgins
To: Ralph Blewitt
CC: Sharon Judd, Slater and Gordon
Subject: Your recent request.
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 02:52:43 +0000

Dear Mr Blewitt.
 
I write in response to the request for Trust Account receipts associated with your conveyancing file for your purchase of a property in 1993. I am assuming for this purpose that you are no longer represented by Galbally Rolfe and I can communicate directly with you in this regard. For the avoidance of doubt, and as we have previously advised you should continue to seek independent legal advice concerning these matters.
 
Your request was to our Managing Director Mr Andrew Grech. Mr Grech is on leave and has asked me to respond on his behalf.
 
Under the rules and laws applying to Trust Account receipts they must be kept for 7 years. Nevertheless we requested our Matter Accounts group search for receipts from 1993 related to this matter. Unfortunately it appears the firm largely no longer holds trust account receipts for the early 1990's given the expiration of time. We do enclose a copy of our Trust Account ledgers which we have previously provided to your lawyers. You will note that the ledger reflects that the transactions you have inquired about involved a Direct Deposit in your name. You are aware you deposited those funds at a Commonwealth Bank Branch in Western Australia. As previously advised to your lawyers there is no reference in your conveyance or mortgage file concerning where you sourced those funds. The other transaction you inquire about concerned a personal cheque in the name of R E & J A Blewitt.
 
You will note that these ledgers are in fact copies of the actual ledger that was printed off for the file on 13 July 1994 prior to any controversy concerning this conveyance. I am informed that this was likely to be for the purposes of archiving the file.
 
Yours faithfully
 
James Higgins
General Manager - Commercial and Project Litigation
SLATER & GORDON LAWYERS
485 La Trobe St, Melbourne VIC 3000
T:  (03) 9602 6888  |  F:  (03) 9600 0290
 
 
Download Img-4081046-0001  Download Img-4081047-0001

On 8 May 2013 I wrote to Slater and Gordon and you can read a copy of my email here.   I have spoken to the addressee twice, the email has been received, but Slater and Gordon has not replied.

Slater and Gordon's record of the source of the money is wrong.   The money came from a sham entity, the AWU Workplace Reform Association, which was set up by one of Slater and Gordon's partners. The financial accounting for this transaction covers up facts which could give rise to a report to police or money laundering authorities.

There being no response from Slater and Gordon, I will escalate the reporting of this irregularity in a Solicitor's Trust Account.

Slater and Gordon and the Trust Account Receipt for the money from the AWU Workplace Reform Association

We posted quite a bit about the Trust Account Receipt for this money just before Anzac Day.

The AWU Workplace Reform Association cheque for $67,722.30 was deposited at a WA branch of the CBA on 18 March, 1993.   The cheque wasn't made out to the CBA for conversion into a bank cheque, it's a cheque from the account of the AWU-WRA to the Trust Account of Slater and Gordon.

By April, 1996 it was clear that the cheque and the statements of account that showed the cheque being deposited into Slater and Gordon's Trust Account were important pieces of evidence in the Industrial Relations Court of Australia and its investigations into The AWU Scandal.   Ian Cambridge  expressed incredulity at Slater and Gordon permitting the use of funds from the AWU-WRA in the purchase of real estate by an individual.  So what Slater and Gordon's bank told the firm, and what the firm recorded in its Trust Account to describe the deposit in its bank account are important matters.   

The Slater and Gordon conveyance and mortgage files were subpoenaed by the Industrial Relations Court (and on the basis that Ian Cambridge's affidavit exhibited all relevant material returned with the subpoena) it can be inferred that no copies of the Trust Account Receipts were sent by Slater and Gordon with the conveyance file to the court.

Ralph's cheque

Here is Slater and Gordon's letter in response to Ralph Blewitt's recent written request for a copy of the Trust Account Receipt:

Dear Mr Blewitt.
I write in response to the request for Trust Account receipts associated with your conveyancing file for your purchase of a property in 1993. I am assuming for this purpose that you are no longer represented by Galbally Rolfe and I can communicate directly with you in this regard. For the avoidance of doubt, and as we have previously advised you should continue to seek independent legal advice concerning these matters.
Your request was to our Managing Director Mr Andrew Grech. Mr Grech is on leave and has asked me to respond on his behalf.
Under the rules and laws applying to Trust Account receipts they must be kept for 7 years. Nevertheless we requested our Matter Accounts group search for receipts from 1993 related to this matter. Unfortunately it appears the firm largely no longer holds trust account receipts for the early 1990's given the expiration of time. We do enclose a copy of our Trust Account ledgers which we have previously provided to your lawyers. You will note that the ledger reflects that the transactions you have inquired about involved a Direct Deposit in your name. You are aware you deposited those funds at a Commonwealth Bank Branch in Western Australia. As previously advised to your lawyers there is no reference in your conveyance or mortgage file concerning where you sourced those funds. The other transaction you inquire about concerned a personal cheque in the name of R E & J A Blewitt.
You will note that these ledgers are in fact copies of the actual ledger that was printed off for the file on 13 July 1994 prior to any controversy concerning this conveyance. I am informed that this was likely to be for the purposes of archiving the file.
Yours faithfully
James Higgins

You will note that Mr Higgins doesn't state that the firm has no copies of the relevant Trust Account Receipts, rather that "it appears the firm largely no longer holds trust account receipts for the early 1990's".  It appears - the firm - largely - no longer holds.....

Maybe the firm might like to have a closer and better look.   

Spin Baby, Spin goes on to make these observations

An interesting response from James Higgins of Slater and Gordon.  I’d like to ask Mr Higgins where they filed their original Receipt Requisition and duplicate trust account receipt, and where the original trust account receipt was kept as it wasn’t sent to the client.  In my experience the duplicate and original trust account receipt should be on the conveyancing file.  A search in the Matter Accounts Group would of course fail to turn up the receipt.  DOH!  Do these guys think we’re idiots or something?  Have they looked on the conveyance file?  Perhaps Slater and Gordon operates in a different manner than all the firms I’ve worked at and doesn’t file Cheque and Receipt requisitions and the corresponding cheque remittance advice and duplicate receipts on the relevant files?  Somehow I doubt it.  My bulldust detector is going beep, beep, beep. 

It doesn’t surprise me that their Matter Accounts Group search results showed nothing.  They’d need to access archive file boxes of their accounts department to access the correct records.  He doesn’t say Slater and Gordon have searched for those file boxes and they have been destroyed.  He doesn’t say they’ve looked on the conveyance file as well.  He just implies they’ve looked in their “system” (that’d be the current one) and there’s nothing to be found, which is exactly what I’d expect if that’s the only place they looked.    

Would they be willing to access their old Accounts Boxes from the relevant period to see what their Trust Account Bank Statements from that time show the entry from their bank to be?  It’s that entry that should be on the trust account receipt, not what was written by the conveyancing clerk who “takes a stab in the dark on who the recipient might be” for a direct deposit.  If I were the Police I’d be subpoenaing that bank statement from Slater and Gordon from that archived accounts department box.  I know it’ll be there if they haven’t destroyed the relevant box and that destruction or otherwise can be confirmed by the company that’s been hired by Slater and Gordon to hold their archived files (someone like Recall or Brambles).  Every touch leaves its trace and every story can be background checked if it doesn’t sound right.  If Slater and Gordon want to pretend that their bank records no longer exist in their archive boxes, what would there be to stop the Police going down to the archive company and accessing the relevant boxes to get it?  Nothing.  This is a fraud case and the Police are quite capable of going and getting that statement if they think it relevant.  I reckon I could find it myself within ½ a day with the right access to the archival storage system. 

Personally I think that response from Higgins is a complete fob-off and I’d be going back to them asking them to clarify exactly where they searched, and where they expect the original and duplicate copy of their receipts would have ended up prior to their “destruction”.  Perhaps they don’t file them on their files like the firms I’ve worked for.  If they don’t want to answer in a timely manner, maybe Mr Styant-Browne would be willing to comment on normal practice at Slater and Gordon at that time on where the trust account receipts issued by the Accounts Department would have been filed if they weren’t sent to the client/depositor?  Every touch leaves its trace and I bet Mr Styant-Browne or indeed anyone who worked at Slater and Gordon at that time can confirm in a statutory declaration exactly where receipts issued by the Accounts Department in relation to client matters were filed at Slater and Gordon.  I bet the answer will be:  on the relevant file.  

If the current partners want to play games in relation to a simple request for a trust account receipt that should have been filed on the conveyance file and is easily accessed because they’ve already handed most of the client-portion of the file over to Blewitt – we know they’ve got that file, then I’m willing to play games too and give some good leads for a story.  Any journalist worth their salt out there prepared to start approaching partners who were at Slater and Gordon at the time for comment on where the Blewitt receipt should be?  Personally I hope Ralph is not prepared to lie down on this and writes back to Slater and Gordon seeking clarification of exactly where they have searched – and where they haven’t searched…

ENDS

This blog post sets out the Trust Account and other practice rules that were relevant at the time.

And this from a learned fellow who's written in the past couple of days.

Mr Higgins of Slater and Gordon writes:

We do enclose a copy of our Trust Account ledgers which we have previously provided to your lawyers. You will note that the ledger reflects that the transactions you have inquired about involved a Direct Deposit in your name. You are aware you deposited those funds at a Commonwealth Bank Branch in Western Australia. 

As previously advised to your lawyers there is no reference in your conveyance or mortgage file concerning where you sourced those funds. 

Learned fellow goes on to observe:

The Ledger is incorrect. 

Trust Account receipts (and subsequently Trust Ledgers) must show the drawerof cheques received. 

It is misleading to say the S & G trust ledger reflects a “direct deposit” in Blewitt’s name and he deposited those funds. 

Blewitt deposited an AWU-WRA cheque with the Commonwealth Bank in Perth to be transferred by telegraphic transfer by the bank to the credit of Slater & Gordon’s trust account for the benefit of Ralph Blewitt. 

The bank was required and would have shown in their statement of the Slater & Gordon Trust account a receipt of a cheque from AWU-WRA to be credited to the Trust Account of Slater & Gordon for the benefit of Ralph Blewitt. 

Slater & Gordon incorrectly recorded in their Trust Account ledger that the cheque was drawn by Ralph Blewitt. It was not. 

Trust ledgers are required to accurately reflect the issued Trust Account receipt for funds received. 

Assuming the Trust ledger reflected the issued Trust Account Receipt then the receipt is also incorrect if it did not show the funds were received from the AWU-WRA, being the drawer of the cheque.. 

Trust Account receipts and subsequently, Trust Account Ledgers are required to detail the drawer of the cheque, as well as the details of the beneficiary and the matter/file it relates to. 

The correct wording of the receipt and then the Trust Account ledger should have been something along the lines – 

“Received on the  ___day ____of 1993 the sum of $67,000 from the AWU-WRA on account of Ralph Blewitt re the purchase of 1/85 Kerr Street, Fitzroy, (File number _____)”

In relation to Slater and Gordon's statement: 'As previously advised to your lawyers there is no reference in your conveyance or mortgage file concerning where you sourced those funds", Learned Fellow says:

Sophistry! What is in or not in the client files is not entirely relevant.

However, the Slater & Gordon Trust Account copy Receipt Book , their CBA Trust Account Statements and the Client Trust Ledger are relevant.

The CBA Trust Account for Slater & Gordon issued statements should have and I expect would have shown the drawer of the cheque deposited to the account was the AWU-WRA for the benefit of Ralph Blewitt. 

The Trust Account Receipt and Trust Account ledger issued by Slater & Gordon should have reflected this. If not ,then Salter & Gordon breached their legal obligations. 

ENDS

 


Revealed - Slater and Gordon's confidential legal advice from Geoff Masel of Philips Fox on $67,000 cheque from slush fund

Slater and Gordon - you missed one, you'll find it published here in Part Two of this post.

First the background and context.

11 October 2012 - Ralph Blewitt, publicly disclosed serious indictable offence re power of attorney - transcript here

12 October 2012 - PM Gillard asked for her side of the story, she did not respond.

17 October 2012 - Formal crime report to the Chief Commissioner of Police in Victoria, the report was actioned that day and and action confirmed in writing.

Over the next few months extensive discussions with police and potential witnesses.

23 November 2012 - Ralph Blewitt made 3 statements to Victoria Police under the penalties of perjury and without any immunity from prosecution.  

16 January 2013 - Victoria Police detective attended at Kawana Waters police station in Queensland and interviewed Olivia Palmer (nee Brosnahan, the paralegal executive from Slater and Gordon)

January 2013 Victoria Police command approved Operation Tendement and allocated about 8 detectives to it.  Detective Sergeant Ross Mitchell was appointed to head the team and to investigate the offences disclosed in the AWU Scandal.

May 2013 Ross and his team had tracked down most of the witnesses, taken dozens of new statements and collected a heap of evidence.

15 May 2013 Magistrate Martin directed police pursuant to this warrant:

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 4.46.30 am

 

5 Jun 2013 police were satisfied that Slater and Gordon had complied to the extent possible with the terms of the warrant.

 

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 4.47.23 am

This is the Result of Search report for return to the Magistrate who issued the warrant.

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 4.46.43 am

5 June 2013, the Wilson box and the Slater and Gordon envelope were sitting in the Magistrates' Court chambers pending resolution of the claim of client legal privilege.

19 June 2013 Ralph Blewitt formally waived any privilege he may have been able to claim.

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 4.56.21 am

July 2013 Bruce Wilson engaged the Public Interest Legal Clearing House to fund expensive legal representation for himself.

July 2013 the PILCH referred and funded Wilson to engage the firm of Lewenberg and Lewenberg to pursue a claim of privilege for Wilson as Slater and Gordon's client.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/09/bruce-wilsons-defence-organised-by-tax-deductible-gifts.html

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/09/wonder-who-put-bruce-wilson-and-pilch-together.html

6 August 2013 Slater and Gordon served a Writ in the Supreme Court seeking orders for the return of all the Slater and Gordon documents over which it had made a claim of client (itself, the partnership) legal professional privilege.

On 26 August 2013 the Supreme Court heard Slater and Gordon's application.   It was not contested by police.   Here are the orders.

 

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 5.08.11 amScreen Shot 2015-11-20 at 5.08.18 amScreen Shot 2015-11-20 at 5.08.27 am

28 August 2013 Ross Mitchell applied to the Melbourne Magistrates' Court for this order in relation to the Wilson material:

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 5.11.49 am

 

September 2013 Federal Labor Attorney General Mark Dreyfus QC announced $4M in extra funding for the PILCH.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/09/smack-bang-in-the-middle-of-it-all-mark-dreyfuss-qc-comes-up-with-some-money.html

9 December 2013 Chief Magistrate Peter Lauritsen handed down this written judgement:

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/12/09/1226779/285443-131210-aus-file-wilson.pdf

He said any claim of privilege over any of the hundreds of documents in the Wilson file was extinguished 

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 5.18.08 am

Ross Mitchell should have been quicker off the mark.  He had the right to take the box then and there, but he's a lovely bloke and a gentleman.

19 December 2013 Wilson and his legal team lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court using other people's money.

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 5.20.42 amScreen Shot 2015-11-20 at 5.20.53 amScreen Shot 2015-11-20 at 5.21.31 am

On 13 June 2014 the Supreme Court heard Wilson's appeal.

On 14 June 2014 that same day the Supreme Court ruled against Wilson in relation to the suppression of Mitchell and others affidavits. 

http://resources.news.com.au/files/500/537/184192-aus-file-awu-1.pdf

Police affidavits build fraud, conspiracy case against Bruce Wilson et alRoyal Commission

VICTORIAN detectives believe former AWU boss Bruce Wilson was involved in fraud and conspiracy when he created a secret slush fund with legal assistance provided by his then girlfriend, Julia Gillard.

 

On 8 July 2014 Wilson got up on his appeal.   The matter was sent back to the Magistrate to be re-heard.

Wilson v Mitchell (No 2) [2014] VSC 332 (8 July 2014)

Last Updated: 14 July 2014

   
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

No. 6594 of 2013

BRUCE WILSON
Appellant
   
v  
   
DETECTIVE SERGEANT ROSS MITCHELL
Respondent

---

JUDGE: T. FORREST J
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 13 June 2014
DATE OF RULING: 8 July 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: Wilson v Mitchell (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2014] VSC 332  

---

EVIDENCE – Appeal from Magistrates’ Court decision to release documents – Client legal privilege – Exceptions for documents produced in the furtherance of a fraud – Hearsay – Whether open to conclude that it would result in undue expense or delay to call author of hearsay evidence on bar table assertion that author lived in Malaysia – Admissions - Evidence Act 2008 ss, 64, 75, 118 and 125.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Appellant Mr D. Aghion with

Ms A. Haban-Beer

Lewenberg & Lewenberg
     
For the Respondent Mr R. Gipp Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office
     
 

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1 In May 2013, a search warrant was issued by a Magistrate[1] which authorised police to search and obtain documents at the offices of Slater & Gordon solicitors (‘S & G’). A file known as the Bruce Wilson file was produced under the warrant, sealed and placed in the custody of the Court Registrar.

2 Detective Sergeant Mitchell, the respondent to this appeal, applied to the Magistrates’ Court for the file to be released to police investigators. Mr Wilson, a client of S & G, maintained a claim of client legal privilege over the file. The Magistrate hearing the matter determined that, to the extent that the contents of the file were properly the subject of client legal privilege, the privilege was lost because the relevant documents had been prepared in furtherance of the commission of a fraud.[2] His Honour ordered that the file be provided to police. Mr Wilson seeks to appeal that order under s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989.

3 Section 109 provides that a party to a civil proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court may appeal to this Court on a question of law if the order appealed from is a ‘final order in that proceeding.’ The appeal is not a rehearing – it is a stricto sensu appeal.[3] For the appeal to succeed, it will be necessary for the appellant ‘to identify a relevant error of law made by the Magistrate before he is entitled to relief from this Court.’[4] The appeal must be determined on the basis of the materials before the Magistrate and the law as it existed at the time when the original order was made.[5]

4 It is not disputed that the original hearing was a ‘civil proceeding’ within the meaning of s 109. It is also clear that the Magistrate’s order is a final order within the meaning of that section.[6]

This Appeal

5 The appellant raises two questions of law:

(1) Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law by admitting into evidence three hearsay statements of Ralph Blewitt made 23 November 2012 (‘the Blewitt statements’). There are three bases upon which error under this head is said to be made out –

(a) Failure to serve a hearsay notice under s 67 of the Evidence Act 2008 (‘The Act’);

(b) Failure to comply with s 64(2) of the Act. It was not open to his Honour to conclude that calling Mr Blewitt would cause undue expense, delay or be reasonably impracticable; and

(c) Failure to exclude the Blewitt statements under s 135 of the Act.

(2) Whether the learned Magistrate erred in law by admitting into evidence, or if not admitted, by relying upon in his reasons, transcript of an interview between the appellant and an ABC news reporter.

6 I shall set out a brief factual background to this appeal. In 1991, Bruce Wilson was the Secretary of the Western Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union (‘AWU’). Ralph Blewitt was his assistant secretary. The police allege that Blewitt and Wilson engaged in a fraud practised upon the AWU and Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (‘Thiess’), a large engineering contractor. In short compass, it is alleged that Wilson and Blewitt, ostensibly acting on behalf of the AWU, negotiated a site agreement with Thiess over the life of the very large Dawesville Construction Project. Thiess agreed to pay and did pay for a ‘Workplace Reform’ adviser. This person was to be an AWU member paid $35.00 per hour for a maximum of 56 hours per week. Thiess also agreed to pay an additional $2.00 per hour to AWU workers in return for a ‘no extra claims’ agreement from the Union.

7 The allegation is that monies paid by Thiess for these purposes were appropriated by Wilson and Blewitt. It is alleged that a body known as the Australian Workers Union – Workplace Reform Association Inc (AWUWRA) was established by Wilson for the purpose of receiving the Thiess payments. The payments were kept secret from the AWU and the funds were ultimately appropriated by Wilson and, to a lesser extent, Blewitt.

8 The substance of these allegations was put before the Magistrate at the initial hearing of this application in September 2013. At that hearing, Mr Wilson maintained his claim of client legal privilege over the file. The applicant sought to prove that the relevant documents had been prepared in furtherance of the fraud by filing an affidavit sworn by Detective Sergeant Mitchell in which he outlined the progress of the investigation including representations said to have been made by various witnesses. This material was clearly hearsay, objected to by Mr Wilson, and ultimately not acted upon by his Honour.

9 The matter was adjourned to enable the applicant to assemble admissible evidence in support of its fraud allegation. On 2 December 2013, the hearing resumed. The applicant tendered affidavits from the following witnesses:

(a) Detective Sergeant James McDonald which exhibited three statements made by Ralph Blewitt on 23 November 2012;

(b) Detective Sergeant Mitchell exhibiting a transcript of an interview between Bruce Wilson and a reporter from the 7.30 Report;

(c) Mr Nicholas Jukes;

(d) Mr Joseph Trio;

(e) Mr Ian Cambridge; and

(f) Mr Michael Smith, which exhibited a USB memory stick on which was a recording of a conversation between Ralph Blewitt and Mr Smith.

The exhibits to (a) and (b) above are the subject of the appeal grounds.

10 Counsel for Mr Wilson objected to reception of the Smith, McDonald and further Mitchell affidavits on the basis that the representations contained within the exhibits to those affidavits were hearsay. Counsel for the police, Mr Gipp, did not dispute that the representations were hearsay, but contended that hearsay was permissible in this type of proceeding or that exceptions to the hearsay rule permitted the Court to receive the evidence.

Appeal Ground 1 - Did his Honour err in admitting into evidence the three statements of Ralph Blewitt?

11 Client legal privilege is a fundamental principle of the common law. It enhances the administration of justice by facilitating the representation of clients by their legal advisors.[7] Clients can only consult their lawyers with ‘freedom and candour’ within the protection afforded by the privilege.[8] The privilege ought not readily be set aside, and if it is to be set aside, then only on the basis of admissible evidence.[9]

12 If the Blewitt statements were properly admitted into evidence on the application, then on their face they prove the fraud and thus client legal privilege attaching to the relevant documents will be lost. Mr Gipp argued to his Honour that these hearsay statements were admissible in this type of proceeding and any weight to be given them was a matter for his Honour. No authority was advanced for this proposition and, in my view, his Honour correctly rejected it. The proceedings were not interlocutory in nature and s 75 of the Act was not engaged. As I have said, the removal of client legal privilege is a final determination of a fundamental legal right.

13 Mr Gipp’s fall-back position was ultimately accepted by his Honour. He submitted that the Blewitt statements, whilst hearsay, were admissible under s 64(2) of the Act, that there were reasonable grounds for finding that a fraud had taken place, the relevant privileged documents were prepared in furtherance of that fraud and thus client legal privilege attaching to those documents had been lost.

14 His Honour reasoned as follows:

(a) some of the documents within the file were properly the subject of client legal privilege;[10]

(b) the Blewitt statements were hearsay but admitted through the s 64(2) exception to the hearsay rule;

(c) there were reasonable grounds for finding that a fraud had taken place;

(d) the relevant documents were prepared in furtherance of the commission of that fraud; and

(e) any client legal privilege attaching to those documents is lost and the whole file should be released.

15 His Honour’s reasons demonstrate that he relied heavily on the Blewitt statements in proof of the fraud. The statements proved the background to the fraud, the setting up of the AWUWRA its ostensible objects and its true purpose, Thiess payments to the AWUWRA and the appropriation of those funds by Wilson and Blewitt. His Honour concluded:

(t)he evidence of Blewitt establishes that Thiess was deceived. It believed it was paying for a particular service. The Association provided no such service. Wilson bought a home with some of the Thiess[11] payments. Only he knows what happened to the rest.

16 As I have said, his Honour admitted the three hearsay Blewitt statements through the evidentiary gateway of s 64(2) of the Act. It is common ground that the three statements contained previous representations about asserted facts made by Ralph Blewitt, who was available to give evidence about those facts.[12] Section 64(2) provides:

The hearsay rule does not apply to:

(a) ...

(b) a document so far as it contains the representation, or another representation to which it is reasonably necessary to refer in order to understand the representation;

if it would cause undue expense or undue delay, or would not reasonably be practicable, to call the person who made the representation to give evidence. It ought be noted that the party seeking to adduce the hearsay evidence is required to give notice to other parties in accordance with s 67 of the Act.

17 The only evidence about Mr Blewitt’s availability and whereabouts came from the first Mitchell affidavit:

Blewitt, who resides in Malaysia, wished to come forward and make a ‘full and frank’ statement ...[13]

Mr Gipp at both the Magistrates Court hearing and on this appeal contended that this was sufficient to engage s 64(2) of the Act. His Honour agreed with this submission and ruled as follows:

...it would seem to me to involve undue delay if such a (notice) requirement was made and secondly undue expense in the context of what we are dealing with.

His Honour ruled that he would admit the statements ‘in the absence of the maker ... [and in] ... the absence of notice under s 67.’

18 Mr Aghion who appeared with Ms Haban-Beer for Mr Wilson submitted to this court that it was not open to his Honour to make these findings. 

19 Any consideration of whether expense or delay is undue requires consideration of the significance of the impugned asserted facts said to be proved by the representations and the nature of the proceedings.[14] In Caterpillar Inc v John Deere Ltd (No 2), Heerey J, while considering ‘undue expense’, considered these matters relevant:

  • the actual cost of securing the attendance of the witness;
  • a comparison of that cost to the value of what is at stake in the litigation; and
  • an assessment of the importance of the evidence the witness might give.

Whether a delay is undue will depend not just on the delay itself but also upon what is at stake in the litigation.

20 In my view on the material before him, it was not open to his Honour to conclude that to call Blewitt as a witness would involve undue cost, delay or be reasonably impracticable. The issue at stake was far from trivial and the Blewitt evidence was central to the application. I consider that the mere assertion by a party that a witness resided in Malaysia is insufficient to establish this exception. Audio-visual links are a fact of modern litigation.[15] Had the police served a s 67 notice of its intention to rely on s 64(2), it may well have been a simple matter to secure Mr Blewitt’s attendance for cross-examination via an audio-visual link.

21 It follows that I consider that s 64(2) was not engaged as an exception to the hearsay rule and thus the Blewitt statements, on the material before the Magistrates’ Court, ought not to have been admitted into evidence on the application.

22 It is unnecessary to consider the failure to serve a s 67 notice as a separate ground. It is also unnecessary to determine the s 135 discretionary argument mounted by the appellant. It was not argued at all in the Magistrates’ Court and pursued with little enthusiasm before me.

Appeal Ground 2 – Was the transcript of an interview between the appellant and an ABC news reporter wrongly admitted?

23 The short answer to this question is no. The appellant gave an interview to the ABC’s 7.30 Report on 27 November 2012. It is clear that his Honour relied on certain aspects of this interview as providing admissions against the appellant’s interests:

Then there is the remarkable interview ... (given) ... to the 7.30 Report. There Wilson admits the Association’s purpose was to fund election campaigns. There is no mention of “Workplace reform”. He even ponders whether he used the expression “slush fund” when speaking to solicitors. He then admits using its moneys to buy the property, justifying its use by saying it was not union money.

24 The term ‘admission’ is defined in the dictionary to the Act. Relevantly, an admission is a representation made by a party to the proceedings and adverse to the maker’s interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Although his Honour did not explain the basis upon which he admitted the transcript of the interview, it is abundantly clear that it was admitted pursuant to s 81 of the Act. The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of an admission. It did not apply to the transcript which was correctly admitted as an admission and thus as an exception to the general hearsay rule.

Conclusion

25 In discussion Mr Gipp urged upon me that even if I were to find the Blewitt statements ought not to have been admitted on the application, the balance of admissible evidence including the ABC interview was sufficient for a finding of fraud in the terms of s 125 of the Act.

26 Whilst there is a pragmatic attraction to this course, as I have observed earlier in these reasons, this is an appeal stricto sensu and not a rehearing. The Blewitt statements were inadmissible and I am unable to say whether, but for those statements, his Honour would have been satisfied as to the existence of the fraud. 

27 In my view it is appropriate to remit the matter to the Magistrates Court for rehearing on the evidence that was properly before the Court on 2 December 2013. It is also appropriate that the matter be heard by the Magistrate who determined the matter originally as his Honour is well acquainted with the material and arguments. I can see nothing in either the transcripts of the hearing or in his reasons that ought preclude his Honour from rehearing the matter in this way.

28 I will hear the parties as to the proposed form of orders.

ENDS

By this time all concerned were thoroughly pissed off with the whole process.

On 23 September 2014 Chief Magistrate Lauritsen reheard Mitchell's application

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/09/wilsongillardmurphy-legal-professional-privilege-hearing-in-melbourne-follow-this-thread-today.html

By consent, the police and Wilson's representatives agreed that orders should be entered so that 290 documents would be handed to police.

72 documents, which related to the interactions between Wilson and Slater and Gordon once he got sprung with his hand in the till in Jun/July 1995 were allowed to be marked as privileged and were given back to Slater and Gordon.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/09/290-documents-to-be-released-to-victoria-police-after-wilson-privilege-hearing.html

So now you know.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/09/290-documents-to-be-released-to-victoria-police-after-wilson-privilege-hearing.html

 

I have spent the past couple of days making diligent and I believe complete enquiries about the law in this matter.

In Part Two of this post I'll publish the document Slater and Gordon missed.