A Crime & Corruption Commission rerun of the 1990’s ? In the Crime and Corruption Commission's current shenanigans, the Desert Rat can see some parallels with the 1990’s when a tall-poppy politician was charged with stealing $20 000 from his own re-election account. He received $120 000 in donations and spent $140 000 on his campaign. His nett financial contribution was $20 000.
Because the two women signatories to the account were leaving Perth (one to Canberra and one to Bunbury), the re-election account was closed shortly after the election and the remaining $20 000 was transferred to the personal electorate account, where $40 000 of outstanding election accounts were paid. All election funds had to be accounted for tax purposes.
The politician was charged with stealing, after a police fishing expedition had seized all his files and records from his home and held them for 16 months, combing through them searching for some justification for the raid - which occurred while he was at Eucla on an electorate matter. [The raid frightened the daylights out of his daughter and she called another politician to come to the home, who made the busybody cops hand back all the correspondence between the politician and his lawyer that they had seized. They were covered by legal professional privilege but they had grabbed them anyway.]
Well, back to the charge. The Magistrate, although she expressed some doubts over the accused guilt, showed no courage at the committal hearing and in the hysteria at the time said he had a case to answer. The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed that decision and granted an order nisi on the finding. At the same time, the DPP finally had a proper look at the evidence and decided to withdraw the charge. The cost was over three years of intense scrutiny on many fronts, questioning all donors, accountants, etc. and $500 000 in legal fees the accused had to pay by selling his home. The cost to the State and taxpayer of this keystone cops and the DDP lawyers charade was also obscene.
After the acquittal the police accountants asked his wife why she didn’t tell them that they had spent $20 000 over and above the donations?” She said “I told you that at the start, three years ago and you had all the invoices and receipts, which you had seized". The Desert Rat doubts if they went through the accounts. Maybe because of the presumption of guilt; maybe they did not want him acquitted sooner, which would have reduced the financial loss and damage to his personal reputation?
The DPP when interviewed on TV after the acquittal, announced that the case had been dropped and said "We didn’t have enough evidence to prosecute."! There was not a shred of evidence!
One has to understand the modus operandi of some of these clowns. A conviction doesn’t really matter; the technique is:
- Ruin their public reputation with accusation and charges (where there is smoke there is fire)
- Bankrupt them with legal cost if they want to defend those charges against the unlimited resources of the State.
- If after ruining your reputation and ruining you financially, they get a conviction – then, that just icing on the cake!
That's what happens when there is public hysteria and guilt is assumed. Today’s events with the Crime and Corruption Commission look to the Desert Rat like a re-run of the 1990’s.
How will McGinty’s Bill of Rights stop these politically inspired excesses and abuses of civil liberties?
No comments:
Post a Comment