Independent Commission Against Corruption Investigations

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. F. Pangallo (resumed on motion).

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (20:43): I shall continue with an accurate chronology of events in the investigation of Mr John Hanlon, which paints a true picture of what ICAC knew and what it did and did not do. Before the break, I had been speaking about the failure of ICAC to abide by international law in getting witness statements under the MAR process, but what was worse was the fact that there was a vital document containing phone data—the original document with information about where Mr Hanlon was, where his family was. It was a critical document that had not been discovered and later, in an affidavit, an entirely different document was discovered and those two vital columns were removed. This is quite a serious matter, and I will go into that a little bit later on.

I want to go to some time around September 2021. There is a matter of R v Clarke and it actually deals with international witnesses and the requirement of an MAR where the DPP became aware that there is a prohibition against direct contact with overseas witnesses. This issue was agitated before the court from December 2021 to January 2022, as the application for the MAR was in the hands of the Italian central police directorate, who were reviewing the MAR. This represents a clear occasion when the DPP is acutely aware of MAR requirements for overseas witnesses. This is DPP corporate knowledge of the MAR process. On 8 January 2022, the trial is adjourned on a DPP application, due to process of MAR having not been finalised.

On 25 November 2021, the Deputy Director of the DPP, Ms Sandi McDonald, who had oversight of the ex-officio, was appointed to the bench and DPP admitted that there were other related volumes of turnover and thus knowledge of the case was lost. Sometime in November, a solicitor with full conduct was appointed to the Hanlon prosecution. That is outlined in a document that is noted as JH10, which I will table afterwards.

It is interesting that on 17 January 2022 an email is circulated to all DPP staff of MAR for overseas witnesses. An internal email was sent out to all professional DPP staff to the effect that an MAR is required for any overseas witnesses. The email attached a schedule of the requirements of individual countries, including Germany.

This works against the DPP submission in October 2022 to the court that the solicitor with conduct was only made aware of an MAR, despite it being apparently circulated within the DPP in January 2022, some nine months earlier, meaning the DPP had corporate knowledge of MAR such that filing one in January would have given them an opportunity to have a MAR in place with Germany prior to trial date, or at least within a reasonable time frame.

I will go to 23 March 2022 and Bell v The Queen in the High Court of Australia. Special leave was granted to the appellant of the Full Court of the Supreme Court decision from December 2020. Here it was successfully argued that the tasks of ICAC investigators and SAPOL are distinguished when it comes to their practical function in the prosecution process. His Honour Gordon Jay, in response to DPP Hinton QC, as he was at the time, put to the High Court that the role of both ICAC and SAPOL as investigating officers for a prosecution are the same, and said:

They do, but they do it through a different lens because they recognise that they have to prosecute a case or provide assistance to prosecute a case to the DPP at trial. Their purpose is different.

That is, ICAC's purpose. It continues:

Their object is different. Their skills are different. The tools they have available to them are different.

His Honour Edelman J said:

…but I just for the moment cannot understand what the practical benefit or purpose of the DPP continuing to use ICAC investigators in relation to the future progress of some of these eight matters purely for the convenience that you describe in circumstances in which, as Mr Doyle has submitted, there may be very large questions about the extent and scope of sections such as section 43. What advantage is there to the DPP in exposing all of its ongoing prosecutions to potential appeals merely for the sake of this minor convenience that you refer to?

The DPP make an undertaking to not make any further requests to the commission, ICAC, for assistance in the prosecution of any other matter. Mr Hinton says, 'If I understand it correctly, the effect of it is that, going forward, I use the South Australia Police,' and Justice King says, 'That is right.'

I note that in April 2022, after this decision, the commissioner for ICAC, Ann Vanstone, wrote to the Queensland CCC in a submission identifying her knowledge of this High Court decision and how it affects ICAC in South Australia. Yet, on 17 August, Ann Vanstone, as the ICAC commissioner, was on radio making public statements that she had no idea why her right to refer to the DPP was being taken away from her. She had no idea who did it. It is quite clear who did it. It was the DPP himself, and it was an undertaking given to the High Court. I am sure the commissioner would have read that crucial judgement.

I now want to go to the first directions hearing for Mr Hanlon on 26 July 2022. There was an application by defence to subpoena the DPP for further material relating to the following:

1. Documents relating to communications between certain officers of the DPP from the time of committal until the date of the filing of the ex officio information.

2. Documents relating to communications between the DPP and the Attorney-General or her office about the filing of the ex officio information.

This application was dismissed by His Honour Judge Heffernan. Then, on 14 October 2022, things may have started to look somewhat fragile in the Office of the DPP and ICAC. They would have probably pored over the files, and there is a likelihood there was some nervous discussion about the MAR and the unlawfully obtained witness statements. A letter was sent by the DPP requesting defence to agree to a set of facts in lieu of the Germany evidence being made available by the time of the trial some few weeks away at this point.

According to the letter I have seen, Mr Hinton describes being only made aware by the ICCCA in August 2022 that Germany considers it a breach of their sovereign authority to contact witnesses within their own state, despite knowing the requirements of MAR in January 2022 and having obtained ICCCA advice at that time.

So in January 2022 there is an email that is circulating throughout the DPP that is saying 'You better be mindful in these matters. MARs are required if you are to approach witnesses in a foreign land.' That is going throughout the Office of the DPP, yet here we are. The DPP himself describes being only made aware by the ICCCA in August 2022 that Germany considers it a breach of their sovereign authority to contact witnesses.

This is less than 10 days from the start of the trial, which Mr Hanlon was ready for, but which clearly the DPP was not, despite being aware of MAR requirements in January 2022 in that memo that was circulated in his office. Judge Heffernan points this out in paragraph 20 of his reasons that were published this week. Mr Hinton notes that:

In making various arrangements of overseas witnesses, we have been advised by the ICCCA that as of August 2022, Germany now considers it a breach of their sovereignty to contact witnesses and make arrangements for their travel to Australia in order to give evidence. Consequently, MAR, governed by the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, is required in all circumstances.

Mr Hinton goes on to say:

In light of the prosecution recently becoming aware that we are unable to make such arrangements, we began taking steps towards MAR. Regrettably, the ICCCA have advised that an MAR of this kind would not be able to be facilitated in time for the trial of this matter to begin.

But let's go all the way back. ICAC actually knew, before they even went overseas, that they needed an MAR but just plodded on. What took so long when they knew about it? ICAC knew, too, as I have just pointed out, but has left the Director of Public Prosecutions with a foul-smelling mess he had to deal with.

On 24 October 2022, in R v Hanlon SADC 128, the defence files an application for a stay of proceedings for an abuse of process. Defence counsel question the DPP's own use and apparent aversion of its own prosecuting guidelines in lodging the ex officio by emphasising that this was not a case in which new evidence had come to light and that the charges were based on the same factual background. I want to briefly go through some of the ex officio guidelines:

Guideline Number 4: Ex Officio Information

A decision to indict in the absence of prior committal proceedings will only be justified if any disadvantage to the accused that may thereby ensue will nevertheless not be such as to deny the accused a fair trial.

It goes on:

…if there are strong and powerful grounds for so doing. An ex officio information should not be presented in the absence of committal proceedings unless the evidentiary and public interest considerations outlined in the prosecution policy are satisfied…that the prosecution will present at the trial and any other material in accordance with disclosure principles.

On the other hand, a decision to indict, notwithstanding the accused was discharged at the committal proceedings, will not constitute as great a departure from accepted practice…An ex officio information should not be presented in such cases unless it can be confidently asserted that the Magistrate erred in declining to commit, or fresh evidence has since become available and it can be confidently asserted that, if the evidence had been available at the time of the committal proceedings, the Magistrate would have committed the accused for trial.

In summary, the solicitor for the conduct of this ex officio, now Judge Sandi McDonald, had to have regard that the decision to prosecute guideline was followed, given that most of the evidence known in the brief did not satisfy the reasonable requirements of a public interest and evidentiary standard.

This is one of the serious questions: should there be a special commission of inquiry, that Judge McDonald needs to answer. Why did she go to call an ex officio? Was she aware of the apparent flaws and deficiencies in the case that had been presented by ICAC or that was present in their files? We also know that an ex officio is a very rare move: should one have been called in this case? That needs to be answered.

On 26 October 2022, the DPP solicitor with conduct of the Hanlon files has a response from the ICCCA on the MAR advice. It is the ICCCA MAR advice to a Kirby Draper:

…and despite there being corporate knowledge within the DPP since January 2022 of the MAR, and at this time and the fact that ICAC knew of the MAR process but failed to disclose it in their brief rendering the evidence inadmissible.

On 27 October 2022, the DPP solicitor with conduct of the Hanlon file—with the affidavit of Kirby Draper. This is the DPP's admission of the fact that they have made an error in the case. Draper admits that at the time, in August, she did not specifically consider the need for an MAR for the six German witnesses listed, despite an internal email going out to all DPP staff of the MAR process in January 2022. I will tender the Draper affidavit as document JH25 later on.

On 28 October, Judge Heffernan is to make an order to subpoena the ICAC. So Judge Heffernan has ordered that the ICAC investigators who travelled to Germany be subpoenaed for all their related evidence for investigations into Germany. This is relevant as the investigating officers were no longer ICAC due to the R v Bell ruling by the High Court.

On 2 November 2022, in affidavits by Mr Baker and Ms Bridge, and again on 4 November, when Mr Baker and Ms Bridge are cross-examined, at the cross-examination of their evidence Ms Bridge made several admissions as to her knowledge of MAR and the correct processes as well as her failure to put any of that into the DPP brief.

Essentially, Ms Bridge made admissions to knowing about the legal process of MAR while in Germany gathering witness evidence and that she knew that the witness affidavits were not admissible documents. She signed as a witness to the affidavit herself despite being aware of the domestic German law and being advised by the Australian Consular-General of the proper processes.

Both Bridge and Baker had received legal advice from the ICAC solicitors Helen Liu and Greenslade about these matters, when entirely it would seem it was ignored. Baker said he formed a different interpretation of that legal advice whereby he was obtaining witness statements himself and not requiring the need for Germany assistance to do so, so that they did not need a MAR.

On 4 November 2022, there is a letter from the defence to the DPP outlining a request for the DPP to discontinue the prosecution, but late on this date, as part of disclosing evidence to be compliant with the subpoena, the original copy of the raw CCR or cell phone data which supports Mr Hanlon's version of events was finally produced. It materialises and shows that the data tracking Mr Hanlon's mobile phone and his wife Jenny's mobile phone was removed from the copy of this evidence that was sent to the DPP in the brief in 2020.

The DPP's case was now in its death throes. Not getting the MAR is serious, but the failure to disclose the original document, the phone data, that we now know had been doctored and put in another affidavit to suit ICAC's agenda, is in my view their biggest sin. It is a grave departure from the rule of law, the rules of evidence, and could constitute a serious abuse of office—an act of criminality that needs to be investigated. It must be referred to the police commissioner as a matter of urgency.

Again, I will refer the honourable members to the affidavit by Ms Bridge dated 28 November 2019, where she makes reference to a matrix of text messages but leaves out that important GPS data that is only found out on 4 November this year. We know that it does not correspond, in her affidavit—what was presented—with the original matrix that had been produced from the raw data, which I have seen.

On 8 November 2022, there is a defence letter to the DPP requesting the case be dropped. This is directly related to the matrix which was put together by Ms Bridge resulting from the cell phone data, which captures both the movements of Mr Hanlon and his wife in Germany in September 2017. This data in its original, raw form supported Mr Hanlon's statement and evidence of his movements, given on record in June 2018.

This data was reviewed by Ms Bridge on 6 August 2019, one month before travelling to Germany. At this time she must have known and understood that the evidence of movement, which was consistent with John Hanlon's statement, would provide reasonable doubt to Mr Hanlon's case. Despite this, a memo was forwarded to Mr Baker, the head of investigations, and the commission, compelling him to allow them to travel to Germany to carry out inquiries. It was at this time that Mr Baker, in his memo, supporting the suggestion by Ms Bridge, made statements I will quote:

Having reviewed that memorandum—

Ms Bridge's—

I agree that inquiries suggested by Amanda are appropriate and required for the successful prosecution of Mr Hanlon. The matter is significant in respect of the position that Mr Hanlon held, and given the media publicity and attention that has been given to this matter in parliament, particularly by Tom Koutsantonis MP, it is important that it result in a successful prosecution.

I mean, what is going on here? What is that suggestion implying? The only way you are going to get a successful prosecution, keeping in mind that Bridge was aware of the data, which did not support such inquiries.

Mr Baker and Ms Bridge then travelled to Germany to the tune of $20,000 to investigate an alleged crime, where $15,000 of public funds was alleged to have been spent by Mr Hanlon. I will point out here that I have seen the schedule of that two-week trip. In the second half there is little work done by the two investigators, and in fact they then asked Mr Lander to approve an excursion to Hamburg, which was paid for by ICAC. It was a private trip. Why would taxpayers have to pay for private trip? Why would those two investigators not have to pay that out of their own pocket? Here is the utter hypocrisy of what they were doing.

The sheer irony here should not be lost upon us. They call themselves a commission against corruption. So who is going to be accountable for this deplorable travesty of justice, which was done to others as well? Must we tolerate an integrity body caught lacking integrity? I wonder whether people now would really believe that parliament should not have acted to pull up an organisation that had been conducting its operations in such an appalling fashion. As I said earlier, who guards the guards?

Who guards the guards? Well, it is parliament. Parliament guards the guards, which is why the legislation was drawn up, and the new act is one that accords fairness to individuals. So here we have it: another failed, bungled ICAC investigation that has exposed the state yet again to millions of taxpayers' dollars wasted in legal costs and on likely and totally justified compensation.

I want to compare what happened to Mr Hanlon with what happened to another reputable and distinguished public servant, Dr Jurgen Michaelis, who ran a successful investment agency, BioSA, that was approved by the Weatherill government. The comparisons are eerily similar, including the fact that both were led by ICAC's bumbling director of investigations, Andrew Baker—some of his own SAPOL colleagues may well have questioned his investigative skills, experience and ability.

Here are some examples between Mr Hanlon and Mr Michaelis. Disgruntled former employees made an unsubstantiated allegation to ICAC, and ICAC took them as is, without probing whether they were correct or valid. In Michaelis, whistleblower former employees interviewed by Commissioner Lander personally were granted immunity from future prosecution. In Hanlon and Michaelis, ICAC raids the home and seizes random items, including computers and storage drives, with no explanation given for raiding the home and for personal items taken.

In Michaelis, simultaneously offices of BioSA were raided, as well as other premises—lawyers, accountants. With few exceptions, items, including personal items, were never returned to Michaelis, even after the not-guilty verdict. Mr Michaelis was arrested and on bail for three years and four months, Mr Hanlon over three years. Hanlon and Michaelis both lost their jobs. Technically, the contract expired, but they obviously had no chance of reapplying.

For Mr Hanlon, investigators travelled to Germany as part of collecting evidence. In Mr Michaelis's case, investigators travel all over Australia to interview people—Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra and likely Perth—and obtain tens of thousands of pages of account statements for at least 10 companies. All information gathering was irrelevant to the initial accusations by the whistleblowers, and all information contained no information that was ever presented as part of the prosecution. It was a fishing expedition, starting an investigation without a relevant basis, simply to probe into Mr Michaelis's transactions.

ICAC's forensic accountants were looking through all aspects of Michaelis's life—income and expenditure, 10 years of tax returns, all his accounts, all 100 or so grants that BioSA provided to companies, the $100 million that Terra Rossa Capital invested or facilitated investment in 11 companies, all travel claims, entertainment, parking targets, stationery usage—and they could not find any funds being misappropriated, not one single cent.

In Mr Michaelis's case, he was charged with attempting to gain a benefit, as ICAC and the DPP stated in court that Michaelis never gained a benefit. Mr Hanlon is accused of gaining a benefit to the value of $15,000. In Michaelis's case, ICAC interviewed over 50 witnesses all over Australia and, in almost all cases, ICAC drafted the witness statements for the witnesses. ICAC edited and twisted the statements in various revisions to strengthen the language towards a suspicion of wrongdoing. No witness made a substantial accusation or the statement was proven to be false in cross-examination in court.

To Mr Hanlon's case: ICAC had evidence, phone data, that he was not in the place where they accused him to be, that in fact he was where he said he was. Mr Michaelis faced the Magistrates Court for the first time more than three months after his arrest, only to be told by the DPP in court that his office was not across the file as it had only been received the day before the court appearance.

There is a common thread here. The files have not been made available—all the files have not been made available to the DPP. He cannot prepare himself or themselves for the first court appearance. In the meantime, Mr Michaelis's life has been on hold for years. He has lost his job, his income. All that is taken away from him, and yet they go to court bare.

The DPP, as I said, apparently had not even read the file. They did not know the charges or why he was arrested. The DPP requested an extended period to the next court hearing, as it appears there was a vast amount of material to go through. Michaelis was charged by the DPP even though the DPP did not know or had not reviewed any of the allegations made by ICAC.

I just want to go back to why we changed the legislation to refer these matters to the South Australian police because clearly in Mr Michaelis's case, and as we have seen in Mr Hanlon's case, the files, the investigation by ICAC was so appallingly bad that incomplete material was being made available to the DPP, and it happened in Mr Michaelis's case. The DPP did not know or had reviewed any allegations made by ICAC. That is why we have now put the police in place, because I would not believe that the police would act in such a manner if they were responsible for preparing the brief.

It indicates to me that, with what we have seen in Mr Hanlon's case, the shoddy conduct there in trying to bring him to trial and then the farce that ensued over the last days of it, there must be something wrong within the Office of the DPP itself—there must be. There must be issues in there. I know the DPP has been complaining that his resources are being stretched to the limit because of other high-profile cases and complex cases that are currently before the courts, but that is no excuse. That is no excuse to sacrifice the legal rights of people coming before the courts. It is as simple as that.

Mr Michaelis had to sell his house to fund his defence, while Mr Hanlon had to mortgage his house to fund his defence. In Mr Michaelis's case, the charge had two counts. The first count was dismissed during committal, as it was clear that on the day of the alleged offence Mr Michaelis was not in Adelaide, hence it could not have happened.

ICAC had that evidence and withheld it from the defence team and the DPP. It needed to be subpoenaed in court to obtain it from the ICAC. So again, this common thread is going through here of evidence being withheld from either the DPP or the defence. This is an ongoing concern that I am sure the DPP has probably had but also defence counsel when they are handling ICAC matters. Are they going to get files and evidence discovered in a timely manner?

Again in Mr Michaelis's case, ICAC did not comply with subpoenas to provide information to the DPP and the defence until the magistrate stepped in with warnings to hand over the information. Even then, the information provided were not the copies of originals. They were images of documents that could not be electronically searched. I just want to remind you of what the current commissioner said, that they do not behave like cowboys.

The courts granted Mr Michaelis permission to travel overseas to visit his gravely ill sister and ordered that ICAC hand over his passports to him. ICAC refused to hand over the passports until Commissioner Lander had personally approved them, so in the following days. The commissioner had no jurisdiction over Mr Michaelis and ignored court orders. He ignored court orders. How can you explain that type of arrogance? How can you explain not abiding by court orders?

In the days leading up to Mr Michaelis's trial, the prosecutor attempted to tender no evidence in the District Court. However, he was overruled by the DPP at the time. In court, the judge asked the prosecutor, 'Why do you charge the defendant?' The answer, 'Because I am instructed to do so.' Because they were instructed to do so. You would think you would charge the defendant because you have compelling evidence for him to stand trial, that perhaps there is a prima facie case. You do not go telling a judge that you are charging the defendant because you are instructed to charge him. What kind of a legal system have we got here?

Mr Michaelis was in court 28 times and was found not guilty on the one count of attempting to gain a benefit. When his Australian passport expired more than a year after he was found not guilty, he was informed by the Australian federal government that he was not entitled to an Australian passport as the South Australian DPP had put a stop notice in the system. It took months to get the stop notice revoked. Mr Michaelis is also barred from travelling to the US under the visa waiver system as a result of having been charged with a criminal offence even though he was found to be not guilty. But, again, as we heard from the current commissioner, just being found not guilty does not mean you have not done anything.

With Mr Michaelis, South Australia missed out on a new investment fund, all private money, which he was about to secure—approximately $400 million for investment in high-tech companies. Apart from all the other reputational damage, the costs incurred in Mr Michaelis's case being dragged through the court system for so long, they had no evidence—nothing—the costs would have mounted up for him significantly, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, who knows how much ICAC spent on their wild goose chase of Mr Michaelis around the country and then dragging the matter to court to justify what they had done?

We now know that on top of that it cost South Australian taxpayers $400 million in investment in high-tech companies. That is the sum of just that failed case. That is how much it has cost South Australians—close to half a billion dollars from another failed, bungled case—and we get criticised for trying to pull them in line, for what we did.

Of course, sections of the media have not bothered to look at these serious matters that would vindicate our actions last year. They just would not, but this gives you an indication of the rogue nature of some of these investigations that were going on. We would not have known, had people not come forward with their stories. It would have just kept going on.

I did a check of Wikipedia on Sunday 30 November on the Independent Commission Against Corruption (South Australia), which gives an outline of their investigations. It looks like nobody has bothered to edit it or bring it up to date with relevant outcomes, particularly 'not guilty' verdicts, in cases like Operation Bandicoot, which is incorrectly referred to as Operation Mantle, and also in Dr Michaelis's matter. Dr Michaelis's matter reads like this:

In August 2015, an unnamed Chief Executive from a South Australian government agency was charged with two counts of abuse of public office. Attorney-General John Rau told the media that 'the commissioner has made it clear on many occasions that he has not encountered in his investigations any evidence of systemic or institutional corruption in South Australia.' In October 2015, it was revealed to be BioSA chief executive, Dr Jurgen Michaelis. In April 2016 it was announced that he would face corruption charges. It was alleged that he 'improperly exercised a power of influence' on two occasions in 2012 while working on the development of the biotechnology sector within South Australia. No proof or charges had been made public at that time. In December 2016, Dr Michaelis pleaded 'not guilty' to the charges.

What happened to the 'not guilty' verdict? ICAC have a media person in there. They have people who trawl through all the media files, Hansards and whatever. Why would they not go into Wikipedia and try to edit it and update it to give us a more accurate picture of the outcome of Dr Michaelis's case?

It goes without saying that Dr Michaelis is still trying to restore his reputation and land a job that is commensurate with what he had in South Australia, four years after being cleared. Of course, the state is out of pocket for that $400 million he was ready to bring in. In the meantime, as I said, Wikipedia has failed to update the Michaelis case or that of others. You would have thought, in the interests of justice and fairness, that someone from ICAC would have made the appropriate edits.

In 2021, the DPP, Mr Hinton, gave undertakings to the High Court about following the intentions of parliament whereby ICAC must refer to SAPOL to consider preparing briefs to the DPP for prosecution. It appears that ICAC has been attempting to find ways to get around that. It does have police officers who are on secondment.

Jurists by the nature of their work and legal responsibilities cannot say anything publicly, but privately they are supportive of my calls for a special commission of inquiry into ICAC's chequered history that has wide ranging powers. That may well require special legislation, much like the legislation introduced in Victoria for a special investigator looking into the lawyer X matter, with powers, strong coercive powers, that enable the special investigator to access documents, to seize equipment, all sorts of powers that can be done in order to satisfy their requirements, as well as give notice for the disclosure of notices, documents.

The cover-ups must stop. Heads must roll. Commissioner Vanstone's position is now untenable, along with that of the ICAC Director of Investigations, Andrew Baker, who, incredibly, was promoted during this fiasco.

There are serious questions for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Martin Hinton KC; former ICAC Commissioner, Bruce Lander KC; and his former deputy Michael Riches, now the head of the Northern Territory ICAC. There are questions for now Supreme Court Judge Sandi McDonald, who as acting DPP Director had Mr Hanlon charged ex officio, and that was under Ms Vanstone's and former Attorney-General Vickie Chapman's watch, after Judge McDonald had earlier endorsed a no case to answer in the Magistrate's Court. So an inquiry also needs to examine Ms Chapman's role, if any, in this.

Any investigation has to follow the trail of misconduct, wherever it may lead. Why and how did all this happen? That is what the special investigator, the special commissioner, will need to interrogate. What roles did all the players have in this witch-hunt? I will just point out that I have seen a statement made by the Hon. Ann Vanstone after all this emerged last week. There were many comments in there that can be challenged, in particular that she indicated all of this was happening before she came in as commissioner. It appears others are about to be thrown under the bus. The ex officio happened under her watch.

I would have thought that Ms Vanstone at that time would have certainly had a look at the file that had been prepared for the DPP, such was the high-profile nature of this matter. It was talked about in parliament and it was all over the media. Surely, Ms Vanstone had to be across what was in that file?

In June 2021, as a member of the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, myself and my fellow members were hosted by Ms Vanstone at the ICAC and she gave us a tour, gave us an explanation of what was going on. We saw the operations room where at the time there were about 30 staff in there that took all the calls. We met the person who is involved in the surveillance operations of ICAC, and then Ms Vanstone sat us in her office and spoke to us about what she intended to do and it seemed to me that it was going to be a breath of fresh air from what we had heard before.

She made it quite clear, and this still resonates with me, she said that there were still eight matters that were going through the prosecution process. Those matters of course would have included Mr Hanlon's case and that of Ms Vasilevski. Ms Vanstone then said that because of her experience as a prosecutor in the Office of the DPP and also that she had been a judge, she would now take oversight and she would look over those files and briefs and hand them to the DPP.

My interpretation of that comment was that she had just come into the new job, there were eight matters that ICAC had handled, that they were about to be handed to the DPP, but she was going to look over them, look over the files. Surely, if she did that she would have seen the alarm bells go off in the evidence that had been collected in Mr Hanlon's case, so why not? So that needs to be answered. With that, I intend to conclude my remarks this evening and I will endorse this motion to the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, at the start of your contribution you talked about tabling documents.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes; can I do that now?

The PRESIDENT: You can seek leave.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table the documents I referred to in my speech.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, can you identify them as you are tabling them?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Absolutely I can do that.

The PRESIDENT: I think you were assuring us that they are on the public record, these particular documents, so we do not need to be concerned about privilege.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, they are on the public record.

The PRESIDENT: Okay; please move through that.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table the article I referred to in the Australian Financial Review that was published on 21 April 2022.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document JH1, which is a statement by Mr Hanlon dated 28 June 2019.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document JH2, Amanda Bridge affidavit AFP notation from 23 July 2019. The affidavit is dated 2 November 2022.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document JH4, Bridge memo to the commissioner to travel to Germany, dated 13 August 2019, and Baker memo to commissioner to travel to Germany, dated 15 August 2019.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document JH5 and this is Alice Grindhammer, witness correspondence to ICAC, dated 31 August 2019.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table JH7, Andrew Baker affidavit on the Germany trip, taken on 2 November 2022 relating to Germany dates 7 to 19 September 2019.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table JH3. This relates to Hanlon cell phone data CCR, phone tracking, Germany, 7 August 2019.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document JH8. This is ICAC's Germany itinerary and German witness statements, the German dates from 7 to 19 September 2019.

Leave granted.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, when you were making your speech, did you refer to those documents as J1, J2, etc.?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I do in some cases.

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps you might just like to document J1, J2, and we can seek leave to table them rather than going through the—

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In some cases, if I have not referred to the code—

The PRESIDENT: And if you have not, that is fine.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: —at least people will know that I have referred to that document and it will be easy to find. I seek leave to table JH9, ICAC's request for ICCCA legal advice on mutual legal request, MAR, dated 27 September 2019.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table JH10, R v Hanlon No. 3, 8 November 2022. This is the reasons for rulings of His Honour Judge Heffernan.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table JH11, R v Bell 2020 SADC 107, judgement on application for a stay of proceedings, 7 August 2020.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table JH12, the second reading speech of the ICAC bill, 2012, on 2 May 2012.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I have made references to that. I seek leave to table JH13. This is Bell v The Queen, ICAC v Bell, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, 2020, the court's judgement dated 3 December 2020, which I have referred to.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document JH14, the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee, the transcript from 10 December 2020.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document marked JH15, the Magistrate's Court charge of John Hanlon and the outline of the prosecution case, dated 5 February 2021.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table the document noted as JH16. These are news articles relating to Mr Hanlon and the current Treasurer, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan, in giving evidence in support of Mr Hanlon on his trip to Germany in 2017, dated 5 February 2021. It is the ABC news article.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table the document noted JH17. These are news articles again on Mr Mullighan and evidence in support of Mr Hanlon's trip to Germany in 2017. It was published on 5 February 2021 in InDaily.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document JH18. This is the ex officio filing against Mr Hanlon in the District Court of South Australia on 7 September 2021.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document JH19. These are DPP prosecution guidelines. One is a decision to prosecute and the other is the ex officio considerations, which I referred to in my speech.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table the document noted as JH20, Bell v The Queen, High Court of Australia transcript, 23 March 2022.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document JH21, R v Hanlon No. 1, application to subpoena the DPP, 26 July 2022.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table document JH23, R v Hanlon No. 2. These are the reasons for the ruling of His Honour Judge Heffernan, on 24 October 2022, for a stay of proceedings.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I seek leave to table the document noted as JH25, the affidavit of Kirby Draper from the Office of the DPP, dated 27 October 2022.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I commend the motion to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.