REVEALED: Chapman was ICAC whistleblower | New ‘conflict of interest’ claims

Questions concerning the function performed by the then-Deputy Premier had been raised in parliament for a number of months final yr, with former Impartial Commissioner In opposition to Corruption Bruce Lander confirming below privilege that Chapman was an informant within the matter that noticed Hanlon, then chief government of the city renewal authority, and senior government Georgina Vasilevski stood down, investigated and later charged.

InDaily has been unable to report any references to the matter – regardless of them being protected by parliamentary privilege – on authorized recommendation due to the best way the unique ICAC laws was framed.

However the amended legal guidelines that got here into impact late final yr have prompted contemporary recommendation that “an individual who has made a criticism or report below the Act” could be recognized, whether it is topic to parliamentary privilege.

The case in opposition to each executives collapsed final yr within the Adelaide Magistrates Court docket, when prosecutor Peter Longson conceded the DPP’s workplace didn’t have ample proof to show their guilt.

However the DPP later filed an ‘ex officio’ motion within the District Court docket, in search of to pursue prices in opposition to Hanlon alone, of abuse of public workplace and dishonestly coping with paperwork, referring to a 2017 work journey to Berlin.

In a parliamentary committee final yr, Lander was requested whether or not Chapman had made “a criticism to ICAC about Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski on behalf of disgruntled whistleblowers” in 2018 – a declare beforehand aired in a speech by SA Finest MLC Frank Pangallo.

“She supplied info to OPI,” Lander replied.

“I don’t suppose she supplied a criticism. She handed on info from a constituent.”

He advised the Legal professional was not the primary individual to refer the matter to his workplace, saying “she was not the preliminary complainant”.

The revelation is important as a result of Chapman was later investigated – although no prices had been laid – for her personal potential breach of the ICAC Act, when she issued a public assertion showing to attach Hanlon’s mysterious absence from his Renewal SA function with the ICAC.

“In respect of questions on Renewal SA Executives that the Authorities has acquired from each the media and the Opposition, I verify that I’ve enquired of the Impartial Commissioner In opposition to Corruption, Mr Bruce Lander QC, as as to whether there may be any additional info that may be made accessible on this matter,” her assertion mentioned on the time.

“He confirmed that there’s not.

“The Commissioner at this stage is not going to be making a public assertion on the matter.”

Lander later authorised media to publish Chapman’s assertion however rebuked her for making it, saying: “The ICAC Act is designed in such a approach that an individual [who is] the topic of a corruption investigation ought not undergo reputational hurt till such time the individual is charged.”

“The very goal of an investigation is to gather proof,” he mentioned on the time.

“The actual fact of an investigation just isn’t proof that corruption has occurred. Corruption investigations should be carried out in personal. I feel that’s acceptable.”

He additionally revealed on the time that his “recollection” of his dialog with Chapman was that “any assertion made by the Legal professional wouldn’t embrace reference to the ICAC and that the Legal professional would say publicly that neither she nor the federal government may remark”.

In parliament final yr Chapman declined to reply instantly when requested by Labor frontbencher Tom Koutsantonis if she made a criticism to the Workplace for Public Integrity “relating to the alleged conduct of Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski at Renewal SA that was the topic of an ICAC investigation, and did she inform SAPOL investigators [investigating her later public statement] that she had made a referral”.

“These issues had been all canvassed again in 2018 and there was full exoneration in relation to the scurrilous allegations,” Chapman mentioned on the time.

“In relation to any allegation referring to the Workplace for Public Integrity, it will be completely improper for me to even present that info.”

Chapman additionally informed parliament in June final yr – after the Magistrates Court docket prosecution collapsed – that she had sought a briefing from the DPP “as to what motion he’s proposing in relation to this matter”.

“The truth that a matter could have concluded within the Magistrates Court docket doesn’t prohibit the DPP – unbiased because the DPP is – from taking another motion in one other courtroom,” Chapman informed parliament.

“So they’re issues which, I’m suggested, at this level he’s contemplating.”

Hanlon made a declare for the State Authorities to repay authorized prices totalling greater than $250,000 simply days earlier than prosecutors ultimately confirmed he would face contemporary prices within the District Court docket.

Hanlon’s case continued this week, with the previous CEO in search of – by means of his lawyer David Edwardson QC – to subpoena correspondence between Chapman’s workplace and that of the DPP, submitting her function was central to his software to remain the prosecution.

Edwardson advised Chapman had a possible battle in in search of a briefing on whether or not additional prices may very well be laid.

It comes simply weeks after an Ombudsman’s report discovered she didn’t have an actual or perceived battle of curiosity in relation to an unrelated determination to veto a $40 million port on her native Kangaroo Island, a problem over which she had already acquired a parliamentary censure.

Edwardson argued this week that Chapman’s assertion in parliament implied “she clearly needed to know” whether or not additional prices could be laid.

“We are saying the irresistible inference was that the Legal professional’s choice was for the director to put an ex officio info in opposition to the defendant,” he mentioned.

“The previous Legal professional was influential within the determination to put the ex officio indictment, and that as a consequence the laying of the ex officio info was an abuse of strategy of this courtroom,” he mentioned.

“The Legal professional just isn’t getting authorized recommendation as as to whether or not an ex officio info needs to be laid – that’s a dedication that’s made independently of the Legal professional.

“The Legal professional has expressly disavowed the notion that there was any course, for instance Nemer-style [a 2003 case in which then-acting-AG Paul Holloway directed the DPP to appeal a sentence] to the director to carry out a selected process…

“However she clearly needed to know whether or not an ex officio info was prone to be laid.”

Edwardson mentioned “amongst many causes… we are saying that of itself ought to have put her ready the place she shouldn’t instantly have engaged in the best way that she did”.

“We go on to say the proof is equivalent to to provide rise to greater than an affordable inference that the previous Legal professional, whether or not instantly or not directly, had prior information if not involvement within the determination to put the ex officio info, and that the previous Legal professional had a battle of curiosity in so doing, provided that she had been liable for the unique criticism concerning the defendant Hanlon to the Workplace of Public Integrity.”

He added that she had additional “impermissibly uncovered the defendant Hanlon as [being] topic to the ICAC investigation” and “successfully outed him” together with her public assertion in 2018, whereas “her division was in receipt of a considerable declare for reimbursement of authorized prices”.

Hanlon is pushing for a everlasting keep of proceedings to be granted, with that case to be argued subsequent month.

“That is plainly a posh matter – it’s received a posh historical past,” Edwardson mentioned.

“The related members and the timing and decision-making course of… are all intertwined and can essentially give rise to a collection of arguments as to why we are saying the intense treatment of a everlasting keep is warranted on this case.”

However decide Tim Heffernan questioned the suggestion that Chapman’s request for a briefing implied that she needed additional motion taken, noting there have been “any variety of correct explanation why an Legal professional-Common would possibly wish to know reply to that query”.

“It was a matter of excessive public curiosity, it was lately within the media and an Legal professional-Common would possibly suppose ‘I may very well be requested questions in parliament about this’ – and, lo and behold, it occurred,” he mentioned.

Heffernan advised “a kind of legit causes is likely to be a want to know if there was a direct affect on a choice to make an ex gratia cost for the [prior collapse of the] felony side of the proceedings”.

“I’m not saying I’m drawing that inference,” he added.

Prosecutor Ryan Williams mentioned the “context during which these questions had been requested” associated as a substitute to questions round “whether or not there had been a course given below DPP act [and] whether or not there could be some evaluation of ICAC processes” – with the Act subsequently amended considerably.

Williams conceded the DPP’s workplace “now has recast the particulars and has proceeded on an identical however barely completely different formulation” of the unique cost – arguing there was now no onus on the prosecution to show that Hanlon did no Renewal SA work whereas on the taxpayer-funded journey.

Nonetheless he mentioned any suggestion that the unique prosecutor Longson “went rogue and made a submission with out directions” was “not the place the Director is taking up this software”.

“It’s not the prosecution’s case on this courtroom that no work  in any respect having been accomplished is important for the proof of the cost,” he mentioned.

“There will likely be an argument sooner or later concerning the shifting of the goal-posts [but] that’s not a query for at this time.”

Edwardson countered that the query of “recasting” the cost was “necessary as a result of it’s the primary time there was a suggestion that the Director has – by, we are saying, sleight of hand – instantly disavowed the notion that they must show that my consumer by no means supposed to do Renewal SA work when he travelled abroad”.

He says this “recasting is basically fairly frankly, we are saying, disingenuous”.

“It’s on the playing cards in our submission that this subpoena will uncover and unravel exactly these points which we’re entitled to agitate for no matter class we are saying is out there to us on the notion of a everlasting keep,” he mentioned.

Requested for remark by InDaily at this time on whether or not she referred info on the matter to ICAC and whether or not her subsequent involvement constituted a possible battle of curiosity, Chapman mentioned: “That’s a novel interpretation, even for you… this can be a matter for the DPP, as you effectively know.”

The Bragg MP is retiring this month and made a farewell deal with to parliament yesterday.

Heffernan will make a ruling on the subpoena subsequent week.