Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts

Sunday 20 November 2016

Powerless to rein in diplomats' excesses the Australian Government decides to name and shame


News media have been reporting on the flagrant disregard of Australian law by members of the diplomatic community for decades and finally in the Australian Capital Territory they are trying a new approach to traffic violations by diplomats.

ABC News, 17 November 2016:

Foreign diplomats who disregard Australian law will be named and shamed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade amid a crack-down on reckless driving.

The department has struck a deal with the ACT Government to ensure diplomats are no longer immune to having their licences suspended for serious offences that endanger the public.

Freedom of Information documents reveal the crack-down was prompted by concerns about a litany of offences on Canberra roads involving excessive speed and, on occasion, drink-driving.

One Saudi diplomat received a $1,811 fine after being caught travelling at 135 kilometres per hour near Parliament House at 2:00am on a Tuesday.

Another told police he had not had anything to drink despite returning a blood alcohol reading of 0.15, triple the legal limit.

DFAT's chief of protocol briefed 90 diplomats on the new rules in August and "strongly reiterated the message of compliance with Australia's laws".

Internal documents showed the department would no longer be redacting the names of diplomats who broke the law and refused to pay fines.

"[It is] DFAT's view the embassies/high commissions should face the reputational consequences if their officers disrespect the road rules or drive recklessly," the document said.

"This is a fundamental issue of safety. We expect diplomats not only to obey the law, but also to pay fines without delay."

The department has battled to get foreign diplomats to pay their fines for years causing frustration for staff, the police and the ACT Government…..

The documents revealed the department would not disclose a small number of offences because they "had the potential to damage Australia's international relations with some countries".

"In addition, the information released on this occasion includes advice on the new demerit point system for diplomats to be implemented in the ACT under which diplomats will no longer be immune from having their licenses subject to suspension for three months if they incur a total of 12 demerit points or more within a three-year period," one document said.

In the case of serious traffic infringements, DFAT's chief of protocol can request that ambassadors or high commissioners "express concern" to their diplomats or ultimately, cancel a diplomatic visa…..

BACKGROUND

The Canberra Times, 16 November 2016:

A Russian diplomat in Canberra has agreed to apologise over an incident where he allegedly went into a road rage against a young female motorist in the capital last month.

The apology comes after MP Gai Brodtmann alleged two Russian diplomats threatened and bullied the motorist after one of the embassy staffers drove his car into hers at the Coles supermarket car park in Manuka.

The Labor MP says "consular staff from the Russian Embassy allegedly flouting local laws and threatening residents are the latest shocking example of diplomats putting the safety of the Canberra community at risk."

The diplomat in question Edward Shakirov said he and his colleagues found Ms Brodtmann's allegations "surprising" but he would try to resolve the matter with an apology to the other motorist.

Russian diplomats in Canberra have a well established record for racking up speeding and other traffic offences on the city's roads and then refusing to pay the fines, citing diplomatic immunity.

At the last count, the Embassy had more than 250 fines for speeding, illegal parking, running red lights and other offences around Canberra with local authorities powerless to to anything but send "courtesy letters".

In the latest incident diplomat Sergei Letiagin​ is alleged to have driven into the car belonging to young public servant Erika Bacon in a minor car park bingle.

According to Ms Brodtmann's letter of complaint to the Russian Ambassador, Mr Letiagin was unable to speak to Ms Bacon in English, so he summoned a colleague, Edward Shakirov, from the nearby Embassy.

Ms Bacon's account, backed up by witnesses at the scene, is that the two Russians then tried to bully her into accepting liability for the damage to her car.

Ms Bacon, a former employee of Fairfax Media, called police after, she alleges, the Russians became aggressive and threatening to her and to the passers-by who tried to help.

Canberra police and federal agents arrived to calm the situation down…..

Sydney Criminal Lawyers, excerpt, 7 October 2016:

Get Out of Gaol Free

One foreign official was caught driving at 135km/h at 2am, triggering a high speed police chase when he failed to pull over. After eventually stopping, the man failed to produce a driver licence of any description and blamed the incident on forgetting to take his antibiotics. A driver would ordinarily be charged with 'police pursuit' – or 'Skye's law' – a serious offence which can lead to full time imprisonment. However, he could not be charged due to his status as a diplomat.

Other examples include a diplomat who drove with a high range blood alcohol concentration of 0.15, and a Mexican Embassy staffer who refused to comply with a breath test, telling police:
"I don't want to, so I don't have to. I'm here with my family … I'll complain If I hear anything about this".

In another case, a Saudi Arabian diplomat was caught speeding through an intersection at 107km/h in an 80km/h zone. He refused to stop for police sparking a chase, which police ultimately discontinued due to safety concerns. Again, he could not be charged.

Diplomatic Relations and Immunity

Diplomatic immunity arises from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which was adopted into Australian law by section 7 of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act of 1967.

The section essentially protects diplomatic agents from being criminally prosecuted in foreign states. That immunity extends to family members, servants, administrative and technical staff.

The section is intended to promote relations between nations, but has in some cases had the opposite effect. Importantly, the immunity is not absolute as it can be waived by the diplomat's home country.

Waiving Immunity

A waiver of diplomatic immunity normally occurs when the government of the country where the alleged offence took place asks the diplomat's country of origin to waive immunity, and the latter agrees.

Cases of waiver are relatively rare. In the United States, a former Republic of Georgia diplomat who lost control of a car while driving drunk and killed a person resulted in such a waiver.

The diplomat was charged with one count of involuntary manslaughter and four counts of aggravated assault, and ultimately convicted and sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

In a case which occurred in Canada, senior Russian diplomat Andrei Knyazev lost control of his car, killing one person and seriously injuring another. He denied being intoxicated but refused a sobriety or breath test. In that case, Russia declined to waive immunity, instead prosecuting Knyazev when he returned home.

So while diplomatic immunity can enhance relations between countries, it should be used responsibly rather than as a licence to commit offences with impunity – which can result in animosity between sovereign states.

Tuesday 11 October 2016

On the basis of the Chilcot report an international law firm is attempting to sue former British prime minister Tony Blair for alleged war crimes & crimes against humanity


Despite the International Criminal Court (ICC) and at least one eminent silk reportedly ruling out the possibility of former British prime minister Tony Blair being prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, the law firm Nasser Hashem and Partners is preparing a case to be lodged in both British and international courts.

Gulf News, 5 October 2016:

Dubai: A Dubai-based lawyer has started legal action against former British prime minister Tony Blair, seeking his prosecution for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Advocate Nasser Hashem and his partners in London will register the criminal case against Blair this month at the International Criminal Court and British courts for breaching human rights and committing war crimes that killed thousands of Iraqis.

Hashem and his partners in Cairo, Dubai and London decided to take legal action against the former prime minister after the publication of Chilcot's report on the Iraq war in July. Former British prime minister Gordon Brown announced an inquiry in 2009 and the inquiry's chairman Sir John Chilcot announced his findings in a public statement in July.

Speaking to Gulf News, advocate Hashem said: "Since the results of the inquiry were announced earlier this summer, my partners [in Cairo, Dubai and London] and I have decided to take Blair to court for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that were committed in Iraq. We are taking this legal procedure against Blair since he took the decision [in his capacity as the British prime minister then] to participate with the United States in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without the permission of the UK's House of Commons. He produced unreasonable, bogus and wrong information to the House of Commons, according to Chilcot report, and based on that information, the UK participated in that war."

Hashem said Blair falsely and unfoundedly told the House of Commons that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons before the war was launched against Iraq.

According to the Chilcot report, Saddam Hussain did not pose an urgent threat to British interests and that the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty. Also, the report said UK and the US had undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council.

"Based on all the lies and allegations that Blair produced before the members of the House of Commons, the decision to go to war alongside with the US was taken. Thousands of Iraqis were killed, injured, displaced and/or shattered. Blair committed war crimes against the people of Iraq and violated human rights. He should be taken to court for the crimes he committed," said Hashem.

A media statement issued earlier by Hashem and his partners said: "Our office in London will take all the necessary legal procedures before the British courts to prove the violations and crimes against humanity that have been committed against human rights in Iraq and breaching the human rights that was settled by International Organisation for Human Rights and to prove the oppression of Blair against Iraq, that led to the destabilisation of the Arab countries, (and) for taking wilful decision and committing grave acts." Hashem and his legal team are expected to announce further details about their legal action against Blair soon.

Nasser Hashem & Partners, media release, 25 July 2016:

Submitting the British former Prime Minister for trial

In this respect, we are ensuring the achievement of the international justice and the enforcement of law. Accordingly, we held a press conference in Cairo in order to start taking legal procedures against the former British Prime Minister "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair" before the international Criminal Court for committing War Crimes and crimes against humanity by taking this decision to participate with the United States of America in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without the permission of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by presenting unreasonable information to the House of Commons, According to Chilcot report in 2016 before the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

We emphasize that our office in London will take all the necessary legal procedures before the British courts to prove the violations and crimes against humanity that have been committed against human rights in Iraq and breaching the human rights that was settled by International Organization for Human Rights, to prove the oppression of the former British prime Minister "Anthony Blair" against Iraq, that led to the destabilization of the Arab Countries for taking wilful decision and committing grave acts. We will submit all the documents which prove the conviction of the former Prime Minister "Anthony Charles Blair" specifically after his recognition of taking all responsibility of his decision

Since Egypt joined the Security Council, it has the authority to submit the case by the Security Council before the International Criminal Court. We are making investigations with the Egyptian Minister of foreign Affairs because of our dissatisfaction for violating the rights of Arab nation without any right.

It is important to mention that the United Kingdom claims for human rights and world peace, at the same time violating the respect of humanity. We consider that this is contradicting and this major evidence that led to the division of Iraqis, murdering of innocent children, displacement of families and classifying the Arab countries as a source of terrorism. Consequently, we can consider that what happened in Iraq is not an invasion but it is breaching the sovereignty of state without any right for the purpose of hidden aims and accordingly the former British Prime Mister will be convicted

Update​ 1/10/2016
Nasser Hashem & Partners is preparing all the documents regarding "Anthony Blair" Case to be submitted to the International Criminal Court and British Courts for committing war crimes against Iraqi citizens as a prelude to submitting a compensation case against United Kingdom and the United States of America for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Citizens. We are currently preparing a team which will travel to the United Kingdom to proceed to take legal action and there will be a press conference before the flight to brief journalists on the actions that will be taken in the UK.

Wednesday 31 August 2016

NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption 'Operation Spicer': you saw the telemovie now read the book


The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigation named Operation Spicer ran for approximately five months and claimed a number of political scalps including that of the then NSW Coalition Premier Barry O'Farrell.

Operation Spicer hearings were a feature of nightly news reports and journalists' live tweeting during this period.

Given the number of legal challenges mounted against ICAC since those hearings ended the final inquiry report has only now been released to the general public. 

In its media release of 30 August 2016 ICAC states:

Operation Spicer investigation has exposed prohibited donations, fund channelling and non-disclosures in the NSW Liberal Party’s 2011 state election campaign.

The Commission’s report, Investigation into NSW Liberal Party electoral funding for the 2011 state election campaign and other matters, was made public today. The ICAC’s findings include that Raymond Carter, Andrew Cornwell, Garry Edwards, the Hon Michael Gallacher MLC, Nabil Gazal Jnr, Nicholas Gazal, Hilton Grugeon, Christopher Hartcher, Timothy Koelma, Jeffrey McCloy, Timothy Owen, Christopher Spence, Hugh Thomson and Darren Williams acted with the intention of evading laws under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (the election funding laws) relating to the disclosure of political donations and the ban on donations from property developers.

Messrs Grugeon, Hartcher, Koelma, McCloy, Owen, Thomson and Williams were also found to have acted with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to caps on political donations. The Commission also found that Craig Baumann, Nicholas Di Girolamo, Troy Palmer and Darren Webber acted with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the disclosure of political donations and that Bart Bassett knowingly solicited a political donation from a property developer.

The ICAC found that during November and December 2010 the Free Enterprise Foundation was used to channel donations to the NSW Liberal Party for its 2011 state election campaign so that the identity of the true donors was disguised. A substantial portion of the $693,000 provided by the foundation and used by the NSW Liberal Party in the campaign originated from donors who were property developers and, therefore, prohibited donors under the election funding laws.

Undisclosed political donations were also channelled through a business, Eightbyfive, to benefit Liberal Party 2011 state election campaigns on the Central Coast. These donations included donations from property developers and donations in excess of the applicable caps on donations.

The ICAC also found that there were payments made by property developers, who were prohibited donors, to help fund NSW Liberal Party candidates’ campaigns in the Hunter. The true nature of these payments was disguised, for example, as consultancy services or funnelled through another company with the intention of evading the election funding laws.

The above are findings of fact, not findings of corrupt conduct. As explained in the Foreword to the report, the ICAC cannot make corrupt conduct findings in cases of failure to comply with the requirements of the election funding laws where, although those failures could have affected the exercise of official functions of the then Election Funding Authority of NSW, officers of that authority were not involved in any wrongdoing.

The ICAC makes a finding of serious corrupt conduct against Joseph Tripodi for, sometime prior to 16 February 2011, misusing his position as a member of Parliament to improperly provide an advantage to Buildev by providing to Darren Williams of that company a copy of the confidential 4 February 2011 NSW Treasury report, Review of Proposed Uses of Mayfield and Intertrade Lands at Newcastle Port.

The Commission’s report notes that at the relevant time proceedings for an offence under the election funding laws had to be commenced within three years from the time the offence was committed. As the Operation Spicer public inquiry did not conclude until September 2014, and the matters canvassed in the report occurred mostly from 2009 to 2011, a prosecution for relevant offences is now statute barred.


 Excerpt One:

Chapter 34 of this report contains statements made pursuant to s 74A(2) of the ICAC Act that the Commission is of the opinion that consideration should be given to obtaining the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) with respect to the prosecution of the following persons:

* Samantha Brookes for two offences of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act • Andrew Cornwell for two offences of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [Wife of former Liberal MP for Charlestown Andrew Cornwell]

* Timothy Gunasinghe for an offence of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [GM /Director at Commercialhq]

* Christopher Hartcher for an offence of larceny [former Liberal MP for Terrigal & NSW Minister for State, Minister for Resources and Energy, Minister for Central Coast]

* Timothy Koelma for three offences of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [Proprietor, Eightbyfive]

* William Saddington for an offence of giving false or misleading evidence under s 87 of the ICAC Act [Director, PW Saddington & Sons Pty Ltd]

* Joseph Tripodi for the common law offence of misconduct in public office. [former Labor MP for Fairfield] 
Note: My red annotations

Excerpt Two:

Set out below are some of the principal factual findings made by the Commission.
* Sometime shortly prior to 16 March 2011, Nathan Tinkler offered to make a political donation to Jodi McKay’s election campaign. In making this offer, Mr Tinkler was attempting to induce Ms McKay to accept a donation from a person she knew to be a prohibited donor and which would be falsely disclosed to the Election Funding Authority as coming from private individuals. Mr Tinkler knew at the time he made the offer that he was a prohibited donor and was not able to make a political donation and that Ms McKay was not able to accept a political donation from him (chapter 11).
* Each of Mr Williams, David Sharpe and Ann Wills of Buildev played an active part in the “Stop Jodi’s Trucks” mailout campaign, which was designed to damage Ms McKay’s prospects of re-election. Given its inherent political nature, the expenditure on the leaflets amounted to “electoral communication expenditure”, as defined by the Election Funding Act. This expenditure was incurred in the period between 1 January 2011 and the end of the polling day for the 2011 NSW state election and was therefore incurred within the “capped expenditure period” as defined in s 95H of the Election Funding Act. As the electoral communication expenditure exceeded $2,000 in a capped expenditure period, Buildev was operating as a “third-party campaigner” as defined in s 4 of the Election Funding Act. Buildev failed to register as a third-party campaigner as required by s 96AA of the Election Funding Act and failed to disclose to the Election Funding Authority its electoral communication expenditure as required by s 88(1A)(a) of the Election Funding Act (chapter 11).
* Mr Tripodi played a central role in the Stop Jodi’s Trucks campaign by nominating the printer for the mailout pamphlets and involving himself in the drafting and design process for the pamphlets (chapter 11).
* During November and December 2010, the Free Enterprise Foundation was used to channel donations to the NSW Liberal Party for its 2011 NSW state election campaign so that the identity of the true donors was disguised. A substantial portion of the $693,000 provided by the Free Enterprise Foundation and used by the NSW Liberal Party in its 2011 state election campaign originated from donors who were property developers and, therefore, prohibited under the Election Funding Act from making political donations (chapter 15).
* Each of Simon McInnes, Paul Nicolaou and Anthony Bandle knowingly used the Free Enterprise Foundation to channel political donations, including political donations from property developers, to the NSW Liberal Party to fund its 2011 state election campaign so that the identity of the true donors was disguised from the Election Funding Authority (chapter 15).
* Timothy Koelma used his business, Eightbyfive, to receive and channel political donations for the benefit of Christopher Hartcher, Christopher Spence, Darren Webber and the NSW Liberal Party for the 2011 Central Coast election campaign with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to disclosure of political donations, the ban on donations from property developers, which operated from 14 December 2009, and, in relation to payments made after 1 January 2011, the applicable cap on donations. The funds obtained and channelled in this way were used for the purposes of the NSW Liberal Party 2011 election campaigns in the seats of Terrigal, The Entrance and Wyong. Mr Koelma directly benefited from the donations through Eightbyfive, as he was able to draw from those funds to give himself a salary, thereby, enabling him to work for Mr Hartcher on the 2011 NSW state election campaign. Mr Koelma subsequently obtained full-time employment in Mr Hartcher’s ministerial office after the 2011 election (chapter 17).
* Mr Hartcher was involved in the establishment of Eightbyfive and took an active part in using Eightbyfive to channel political donations from Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd, Gazcorp Pty Ltd and Patinack Farm Pty Ltd for the benefit of the NSW Liberal Party, himself, Mr Spence and Mr Webber with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to disclosure of political donations, the ban on donations from property developers (in the case of Gazcorp) and, in relation to payments made after 1 January 2011, the applicable cap on donations. Mr Hartcher benefited from this arrangement because part of the funds channelled through Eightbyfive enabled Mr Koelma to work for him on the 2011 NSW state election campaign at no cost to Mr Hartcher, while other funds channelled through Eightbyfive ensured that Mr Hartcher’s likeminded political colleagues were funded to campaign for the Central Coast seats of Wyong and The Entrance (chapter 17).
* Mr Hartcher was a party to an arrangement with Nicholas Di Girolamo and Mr Koelma, whereby Mr Di Girolamo made regular payments through Australian Water Holdings to Eightbyfive. Under this arrangement, between April 2009 and May 2011, Eightbyfive received $183,342.50 from Australian Water Holdings. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Eightbyfive to Australian Water Holdings but were in fact political donations made to assist Mr Hartcher by providing funds to Mr Koelma so that Mr Koelma could work for Mr Hartcher in the lead up to the 2011 NSW state election. Mr Hartcher and the others involved in this arrangement intended to evade the election funding laws relating to the disclosure of political donations. The payments totalling $36,668.50, made after 1 January 2011, exceeded the applicable cap on political donations (chapter 18).
* Mr Hartcher, Nabil Gazal Junior, Nicholas Gazal, Mr Koelma and Mr Spence (the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of The Entrance) were parties to an arrangement whereby, between May 2010 and April 2011, Gazcorp made payments totalling $121,000 to Eightbyfive. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Eightbyfive to Gazcorp but were in fact political donations which were mainly used to help fund Mr Spence so that he could work on the Central Coast election campaign and on his campaign for the seat of The Entrance. Mr Hartcher, Nabil Gazal Jnr, Nicholas Gazal, Mr Koelma and Mr Spence intended by this arrangement to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act and the ban on the making and accepting of political donations from property developers. The payments totalling $33,000, made after 1 January 2011, exceeded the applicable cap on political donations (chapter 19).
* Mr Hartcher, Mr Koelma, the Hon Michael Gallacher MLC, Troy Palmer and Mr Williams were parties to an arrangement whereby, between July 2010 and March 2011, Patinack Farm made payments totalling $66,000 to Eightbyfive. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Eightbyfive to Patinack Farm but were in fact political donations to help fund the NSW Liberal Party 2011 Central Coast election campaign. The parties to this arrangement intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. The payments made after 1 January 2011, totalling $33,000, exceeded the applicable caps on political donations. Although the payments to Eightbyfive were made by Patinack Farm, the arrangement was organised through Buildev, a property developer (chapter 20).
* Mr Koelma and Mr Webber (the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Wyong) were parties to an arrangement whereby, between 2010 and 2011, Mr Koelma’s business, Eightbyfive, made payments totalling at least $34,650, and up to $49,500, to Mr Webber. These payments were ostensibly for the provision of services by Mr Webber to Eightbyfive but were in fact political donations to help fund Mr Webber’s 2011 election campaign for the seat of Wyong. The parties to this arrangement intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. The payments made after 1 January 2011 exceeded the applicable caps on political donations (chapter 20).
* Raymond Carter used the Free Enterprise Foundation to channel political donations to the NSW Liberal Party for its 2011 NSW state election campaign so that the identity of the true donor was disguised from the Election Funding Authority. A portion of this money was from property developers (chapter 21).
* Mr Carter and Mr Koelma entered into an arrangement to use Mr Koelma’s business, Eightbyfive, to channel political donations to the NSW Liberal Party for the 2011 Central Coast election campaign with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to disclosure to the Election Funding Authority of political donations and the ban on accepting political donations from property developers. The political donations obtained by Mr Carter under this scheme included $5,000 from each of LA Commercial Pty Ltd, Yeramba Estates Pty Ltd and Brentwood Village Pty Ltd, and $2,200 from Crown Consortium Pty Ltd (chapter 21).
* In March 2011, Mr Carter used a business, Mickey Tech, with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to disclosure of political donations by disguising from the Election Funding Authority political donations of $2,000 from INE Pty Ltd and $2,000 from Maggiotto Building Pty Ltd. In each case, the money was sought and received by Mr Carter as a political donation for the 2011 NSW state election campaign. Although at the time Mr Carter received the money he intended to apply all the money for the purposes of the election campaign, he eventually only applied $2,400 for this purpose, the balance being applied to private use (chapter 21).
* In March 2011, Mr Hartcher received three bank cheques payable to the NSW Liberal Party totalling $4,000. They were received by Mr Hartcher for the benefit of the NSW Liberal Party for the March 2011 state election campaign. In November 2011, some eight months after the election, Mr Hartcher arranged for the cheques to be paid into the trust account of Hartcher Reid, a legal firm, and for that firm to draw a cheque for $4,000 in favour of Mickey Tech, a business owned by Mr Carter’s partner. After the $4,000 was deposited into that account, it was withdrawn in cash by Mr Carter and given to Mr Hartcher. These steps are inconsistent with an intention on the part of Mr Hartcher to apply the $4,000 for the benefit of the NSW Liberal Party (chapter 23).
* In about November 2010, Mr Gallacher sought a political donation from Mr Sharpe of Buildev by inviting him to attend a New Year’s Eve political fundraising function for which Mr Sharpe or Buildev would make a payment. Mr Gallacher knew that they were property developers, and he sought the political donation with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the ban on property developers making political donations (chapter 25).
* In late 2010, Mr Gallacher, Mr Hartcher and Mr Williams of Buildev were involved in an arrangement whereby two political donations totalling $53,000 were provided to the NSW Liberal Party for use in its 2011 election campaigns for the seats of Newcastle and Londonderry. To facilitate this arrangement, on 13 December 2010, Mr Palmer, a director of Boardwalk Resources Limited, a company of which Mr Tinkler was the major shareholder, drew two cheques totalling $53,000 payable to the Free Enterprise Foundation. These were provided to Mr Hartcher who arranged for them to be sent to Mr Nicolaou. Mr Nicolaou sent the cheques to the Free Enterprise Foundation. The Free Enterprise Foundation subsequently sent money to the NSW Liberal Party, which included the $53,000. Of the $53,000, some $35,000 was used to help fund Timothy Owen’s 2011 election campaign in the seat of Newcastle and $18,000 was used towards the purchase of a key seats package for Bart Bassett’s 2011 election campaign in the seat of Londonderry. Although the cheques for the donations were drawn on the account of Boardwalk Resources, they were made for Buildev, a property developer. Each of Mr Gallacher, Mr Hartcher and Mr Williams entered into this arrangement with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the accurate disclosure to the Election Funding Authority of political donations (chapter 26).
* In about February 2011, Jeffrey McCloy gave HughThomson $10,000 in cash as a political donation to fund Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign for the seat of Newcastle with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. In accepting the political donation, Mr Thompson intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not ensuring the donation was disclosed, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* In early 2011, Mr McCloy gave Mr Owen $10,000 in cash as a political donation to fund Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign. In making the payment, Mr McCloy intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. In accepting the political donation, Mr Owen intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not ensuring the donation was disclosed, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* In early 2011, Hilton Grugeon gave Mr Thomson $10,000 in cash as a political donation to fund Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign. In making the payment, Mr Grugeon intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. In accepting the political donation, Mr Thompson intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not ensuring the donation was disclosed, he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Mezzanine Media Australia Pty Ltd for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for, in part, by a political donation of $5,000 made by Keith Stronach, a property developer. The payment evaded the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers. The political donation was not disclosed as required by the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware that Mr Stronach was a property developer and were aware that Mr Stronach paid money towards Mr Owen’s election campaign (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Mezzanine Media Australia for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for, in part, by a political donation of $14,190 organised by Mr Williams on behalf of Buildev, a property developer. In organising the payment, Mr  Williams intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the applicable cap on political donations. By not reporting the donation he intended to evade the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware that Buildev was a property developer and that it had paid money towards Mr Owen’s election campaign (chapter 27).
* Mr Gallacher was responsible for proposing to Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon an arrangement whereby each of them would contribute to the payment of Luke Grant for his work on Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign. He did so with the intention that the Election Funding Act laws in relation to the prohibition on political donations from property developers and the requirements for the disclosure of political donations to the Election Funding Authority would be evaded (chapter 27).
* Mr Owen, Mr Thompson, Mr Grugeon and Mr McCloy were parties to an arrangement whereby payments totalling $19,875 made to Mr Grant for his work on Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were falsely attributed to services allegedly provided to companies operated by Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon. Those involved in this arrangement intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws in relation to the prohibition on political donations from property developers and the requirements for the disclosure of political donations to the Election Funding Authority. The payments were also in excess of the caps imposed on individual donors (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Joshua Hodges for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for, in part, by a political donation of $3,998.50 made by William Saddington of PW Saddington & Sons Pty Ltd. The payment was disguised as being for consultancy services provided to that company. The payment had the effect of evading the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware that Mr Saddington was contributing to Mr Owen’s election campaign expenses by paying Mr Hodges. They did not ensure that the donation was disclosed as required by the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* Services provided by Australian Decal Sales and Manufacturing Co Pty Ltd for Mr Owen’s 2011 election campaign were paid for in August 2011 by a political donation of $3,198.80 organised by Mr Williams on behalf of Buildev, a property developer. By organising the payment, Mr Williams intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of political donations by property developers and the disclosure requirements of the Election Funding Act. Mr Owen and Mr Thomson were aware this political donation had been made by a property developer and participated in this arrangement with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers. They did not ensure the donation was disclosed as required by the Election Funding Act (chapter 27).
* During the 2011 NSW state election campaign, a third-party campaign known as “FedUp” was conducted by Rolly De With, Neil Slater and Paul Murphy using the name of a local business association, the Newcastle Alliance. The purpose of the campaign was to assist in defeating the sitting member for the seat of Newcastle, Ms McKay, in the 2011 NSW state election. In March 2011, a payment of $50,000 was arranged by Mr Williams of Buildev and authorised by Mr Tinkler to fund the campaign. The payment was ostensibly made by Serene Lodge Racing Pty Ltd but was in fact money from Mr Tinkler and was made for Buildev, a property developer. The $50,000 payment was a political donation and was in excess of the $2,000 cap on political donations made for the benefit of a third-party campaigner. The political donation was not disclosed to the Election Funding Authority by Buildev, Serene Lodge Racing or Mr Tinkler (chapter 28).
* On 6 October 2010, Mr McCloy paid $10,000 in cash to Andrew Cornwell, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Charlestown, as a political donation for Andrew Cornwell’s 2011 election campaign. By making the donation, Mr McCloy intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on property developers making political donations and the requirement for the disclosure of political donations. By accepting the donation Andrew Cornwell intended to evade the Election Funding Act requirement relating to the ban on property developers making political donations and the requirement for the accurate disclosure of political donations (chapter 29).
* Andrew Cornwell, his wife, Samantha Brookes, and Mr Grugeon were parties to an arrangement involving the pretence that a payment of $10,120 made in early 2011 by Mr Grugeon, a property developer, was for a painting. The $10,120 was in fact a political donation made by Mr Grugeon to fund Andrew Cornwell’s 2011 NSW state election campaign. In participating in this arrangement, Mr Grugeon intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on the making of donations by property developers and the requirement for disclosure of political donations. In participating in this arrangement, Andrew Cornwell intended to evade the Election Funding Act laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers, and the requirement for accurate disclosure of political donations received. The payment exceeded the applicable cap on political donations (chapter 29).
* During the 2011 NSW state election campaign, Garry Edwards, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Swansea, received a political donation by way of a cash payment of about $1,500 from Mr McCloy, a property developer. Mr Edwards accepted the donation with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the ban on accepting political donations from property developers and the requirements for disclosure of political donations. Mr McCloy knew he was making a political donation and that, as a property developer, he was prohibited from making such a donation (chapter 30).
* In 2007, Craig Baumann, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Port Stephens, entered into an arrangement with Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon to disguise from the Election Funding Authority the fact that companies associated with Mr McCloy and Mr Grugeon had donated $79,684 towards Mr Baumann’s 2007 NSW election campaign. As part of this arrangement, a company associated with Mr McCloy made a political donation of $32,604 and a company associated with Mr Grugeon made a political donation of $47,080. These political donations were paid to Mr Baumann’s company, Mambare Pty Ltd, which, in turn, paid the money to the Medowie branch of the NSW Liberal Party to be used for Mr Baumann’s 2007 election campaign. Mr Baumann caused Mambare to lodge a declaration with the Election Funding Authority that falsely claimed that it had donated the money to the NSW Liberal Party. Mr Baumann did so with the intention of evading the election funding laws relating to the accurate disclosure of political donations (chapter 31).
* In about November 2010, Mr Baumann entered into an arrangement with Vincent Heufel with the intention of evading the Election Funding Act laws relating to the truthful disclosure of political donations. Under this arrangement, Mr Heufel made a donation of $100,000 for Mr Baumann’s election campaign and Mr Baumann reduced the amount his company, Mambare, charged for building Mr Heufel’s house by that amount. This was done so that Mr Heufel could falsely represent that he was responsible for making the political donation, rather than Mr Baumann’s company and so that Mambare could evade disclosing that it had made a political donation for Mr Baumann’s 2011 NSW state election campaign (chapter 31).
* In 2010, for the purposes of his 2011 NSW state election campaign, Mr Bassett, the NSW Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Londonderry, solicited a political donation from Buildev, a property developer. This culminated in the drawing of a cheque, dated 13 December 2010, for $18,000 on the account of Boardwalk Resources, which was payable to the Free Enterprise Foundation. The Free Enterprise Foundation subsequently sent money to the NSW Liberal Party, which included the $18,000. The $18,000 was used towards the purchase of a key seats package for Mr Bassett’s 2011 election campaign in the seat of Londonderry. Although the cheque for $18,000 was drawn on the account of Boardwalk Resources, the donation was made for Buildev. Mr Bassett was aware at the time he solicited the political donation that Buildev was a property developer and knew it was not able to make a political donation and he was not able to accept a political donation from a property developer (chapter 32).

Full 172 page report here.

Thursday 11 August 2016

Only in the self-indulgent, damn democracy, political climate fostered by the Abbott & Turnbull governments.......


Only in the self-indulgent, damn democracy climate prevailing in the lead-up to the 2016 double dissolution federal election would a registered political party have considered endorsing a candidate with this legal history……

Rodney Culleton
Rod Culleton
Photograph: Channel Nine

The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 August 2016:

In Armidale Local Court on Monday afternoon, Magistrate Michael Holmes granted Culleton's application, and annulled the larceny conviction, which was made when he failed to appear in court in March.
Senator Culleton will fight the larceny charge, after pleading not guilty.
Mr Holmes adjourned the case to September 12 for mention to fix a hearing date.
He told the court if the matter "was short" he could deal with it on that day.
Mr Holmes told Culleton to keep in contact with his solicitor, and dispensed his bail, which was granted by police following his arrest.
Mr Holmes told the court he was happy to deal with the matter, and had read all the files.
He also referenced Senator Culleton's "colourful letter" which was sent to the court.
Fairfax Media understands the letter labelled the Armidale court as a "kangaroo court".
It's now expected Senator Culleton's district court challenge against the conviction, set down for next week in Armidale, will be withdrawn.

The Guardian, 8 August 2016:

New One Nation senator Rodney Culleton is in police custody after turning himself in over an outstanding warrant related to his failure to appear in a NSW court to answer larceny charges.
A NSW Police spokesman confirmed a man was being dealt with by police in Armidale and would be bailed to appear before the local court on Monday afternoon.
The West Australian senator was convicted in his absence earlier this year for stealing a tow truck key from a driver who was trying to repossess one of his company cars in 2014.
He's seeking to have that conviction annulled.
Larceny carries a maximum penalty of five years jail, which could deem him ineligible to be a senator.
The constitution says anyone convicted of crime that has a punishment of at least one year's jail can't be a member of parliament.
Senator Culleton is also awaiting trial in WA later this month - the week before parliament begins - after he was arrested and charged for allegedly stealing a car being used by receivers from RSM Bird Cameron as they began foreclosure proceedings at a friend's farm.
The senator won the 11th spot on the WA ballot.
He is expected to appear before Armidale Local Court again after 1400 (AEST) on Monday.

Financial Review, 7 August 2016:

For someone who apparently prides himself on being a defender of the nation's farmers, new One Nation Senator-Elect Rodney Culleton sure has a strange way of showing it.
ASIC documents show Culleton has appointed an administrator to his company, DEQMO Pty Ltd, which will have the effect of avoiding a wind-up application to be heard in the NSW Supreme Court today (Monday).
The petitioning party is Armidale farmer and mill owner, Jack Vivers, who says he is owed slightly more than $42,500 by Culleton, a former business associate. Money he will have much harder time getting back now that Culleton has put DEQMO into administration.
This is the same Rodney Culleton, it is worth noting, who took part in a 60 Minutes program last year called "Fighting Back" about his battle to retain his WA property and who describes himself on the One Nation website as a defender of Aussie farmers.
And the same Rod Culleton who may not finally be permitted to take his seat in the Senate pending the outcome of a larceny case, in which he is implicated.

Inside Story
, 3 August 2016:

In fact, the circumstances of his offence appear to have been relatively trivial: he was said to have stolen the key of a tow truck – a key worth $7.50 – in an effort to prevent the repossession of a vehicle he was leasing. Moreover, he was convicted in his absence because he failed to appear in court, and an appeal is now pending. Yet, at least until his appeal is heard, he is currently “subject to be sentenced” and is therefore “incapable of being chosen.”
It seems to have been assumed that, once it is recognised that Culleton is “incapable of being chosen,” section 15 of the Constitution will come into play. Under that provision, his Senate seat would be declared vacant. This would create a casual vacancy to be filled by the WA parliament, which would be required to nominate someone from the same political party – that is, another One Nation candidate. In the ballot paper on 2 July, the One Nation ticket listed Rodney Culleton first, his friend Peter Georgiou second, and his wife Ioanna Culleton third. So presumably one of these would be chosen.
But this assumption is wrong. As the authoritative explanation in Odgers’Australian Senate Practice makes clear, the mechanism in section 15 comes into play only when a senator who was validly elected “becomes disqualifiedafter the completion of the election process.” What happens when a senator “is found to have been disqualified at the time of election” is different. The election of that senator is totally void; the relevant seat in the Senate remains unfilled and the failure to fill it must be remedied by a recount.
Again, it seems to have been assumed that in this event, once Culleton was eliminated as “incapable of being chosen,” the votes that had been accumulated for him would simply be transferred down the line to the second candidate on the One Nation ticket, and if necessary to the third. But while this might be a realistic assessment of the probable result, it would not be so easy to achieve that result.
The distribution of preferences in Western Australia meant that the ballot papers had to be counted 539 times; and it was only on the 539th count that Culleton achieved his quota. The other two One Nation candidates had already been excluded much earlier – Ioanna Culleton by count 153, and Peter Georgiou by count 157. Thus, in order to ensure that Rodney Culleton’s votes could be transferred further down the ticket, it would be necessary to rework the entire distribution at least from count 153, and the outcome of such a redistribution could no longer be predicted with confidence.
It happens that Culleton is also awaiting trial in Western Australia on a more serious stealing charge (with a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment). If he were able to take his seat, and was later convicted on that charge, then the procedure in section 15 of the Constitution would come into play. But that is irrelevant to the fact that Culleton is now “incapable of being chosen.”
As it stands, the Australian Electoral Commission has declared a candidate to be elected who is in fact “incapable of being chosen.” Strictly speaking, that announcement is unconstitutional. Presumably it might be possible to avoid such an outcome if the AEC had some mechanism for checking, before the distribution of preferences begins, whether all the nominated candidates are “capable of being chosen.” But there seems to be no such mechanism.

Excerpt from Mills Oakley, Granting yourself a security interest: worthwhile or worthless?, October 2014:

In August 2008 Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd (Macquarie) entered into a chattel mortgage agreement with Elite Grains Pty Ltd (Elite) for the purchase of a Prime Mover (Truck).

In 2012 Elite defaulted under the agreement, and Macquarie demanded return of the Truck. Elite refused, so Macquarie commenced and was successful in proceedings against Elite and Rodney Culleton (Culleton), the sole shareholder and director of Elite.

On 7 August 2014 the Truck was sold at public auction, and simultaneously DEQMO Pty Ltd (DEQMO), of whom Culleton was the sole director and shareholder, registered a security interest in the Truck on the PPSR, with the effect that Macquarie could not pass clear title to the purchaser.

Macquarie then served an amendment demand on DEQMO pursuant to the PPSA demanding that DEQMO’s registration be removed. No response was received. Macquarie then initiated these proceedings seeking orders that:
DEQMO’s security interest was void;
DEQMO’s security interest be removed from the PPSR;
DEQMO be restrained from re-registering any interest on the PPSR; and
DEQMO and Culleton pay Macquarie’s costs.

Decision

Rein J granted the orders sought by Macquarie. The evidence put forward by DEQMO failed to establish the basis of the security interest, as Culleton was more concerned with the manner in which the Truck was repossessed and the conduct of its sale.

In light of this evidence (or lack of), Rein J found a number of reasons why DEQMO’s claimed interest was invalid. However, the key basis on which Rein J held the security interest was void was that the claimed interest was one given by DEQMO to DEQMO, as a person or company cannot give a security interest to itself, as per section 12 of the PPSA.

Conclusion

This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that any registration on the PPSR has a proper foundation to support it. The judgment of Rein J makes it clear that if a company or person purports to grant a security interest to itself, then such a registration will be invalid. If the security interest is in fact an ownership interest, such registrations do not secure “payment or performance of an obligation” as required by section 12, and can be removed under the provisions in Part 5.6 of the PPSA.

PERMANENT CUSTODIANS LTD -v- ELITE GRAINS PTY LTD [2014] WASC 495
In which a bankrupt Rodney Norman Culleton was involved as second defendant (bankruptcy declared October 2014).
Court transcript here.

Federal Court of Australia, Bankruptcy Guide:

What happens if you are made bankrupt?
If the Judge or Registrar makes a sequestration order a trustee will be appointed to manage your financial affairs. Your trustee will notify you of your bankruptcy in writing. The trustee will explain his or her role and your responsibilities as a bankrupt. The trustee will also give you a statement of affairs which you must complete and file with the Official Receiver (AFSA). Your period of bankruptcy runs for three years from the date you file your statement of affairs with AFSA.
There are several legal outcomes of your bankruptcy; for instance:
*You will be released from responsibility for most of your existing debts. However, the trustee can sell your assets or property to pay your creditors.
*Any house or your share of a house that you own may be sold to pay your creditors. 
*Any assets which you acquire while you are bankrupt may be sold by the trustee.
*You must not obtain credit from another person, or pay for goods or services by cheque for more than a specified amount without telling the person that you are bankrupt. The credit limit is updated quarterly, for an up-to-date figure contact AFSA.
*If you run a business while you are bankrupt you must keep all proper accounts showing your business transactions and financial position.
There are other consequences of becoming bankrupt. 

Disqualification
                   Any person who:…….
 (iii)  is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent;……
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.


NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR WINDING UP ORDER
Company details
Company:
Elite Grains Pty Ltd
ACN:
091 599 941
An application for the winding up of Elite Grains Pty Ltd was commenced by the plaintiff Jameson Farm Pty Ltd and continued by Komatsu Forklift Australia Pty Ltd on 03/05/2013 and will be heard as set out below.

Friday 1 July 2016

Australian Dept. of Immigration, Border Force and Federal Minister Peter Dutton damned by these findings


A ministerial portfolio, government department, contractor and officers medically negligent and/or corrupt…….

The Guardian, 28 June 2016:

Australia’s immigration department failed to appropriately oversee the multinational that provides healthcare for asylum seekers and was unable to cope with the “commercially aggressive practices” that led to numerous failures to meet medical benchmarks, a series of damning internal reviews have found.

The findings substantiated a number of key allegations published by Guardian Australia in July 2015 about the relationship between International Health and Medical Services and the immigration department.

Leaked documents showed IHMS failed to meet medical targetsdeliberately included incorrect data in reports and admitted it was “inevitable” fraud would occur as it tried to meet government standards. The documents also revealed that IHMS failed to undertake working with children checks and police checks on Manus Island.

Three reviews were commissioned by the immigration department to examine the allegations. Two were internal and one was to be conducted by KPMG.

IHMS, a subsidiary of the global healthcare giant International SOS, has received more than $1.6bn in government funding to provide asylum seeker healthcare in Australia and on Manus Island and Nauru.

The detention assurance review team report, released under freedom of information, which drew together findings from the KPMG audit and the first initial internal audit, said: “Through the review processes, both internal and external reviews agree that IHMS took an approach of seeking to maximise profits, including through actively reducing opportunities for the department to seek contract abatements.”

It later continued: “There is a fundamental conflict between contractual and clinical objectives where profit and cost dictate clinical operations.”

ABC News, 27 June 2016:

Australian Border Force staff have been referred for investigation over more than 100 cases of alleged corrupt activity in Australia's skilled and student visa program.

A 7.30-Fairfax Media investigation has discovered that in the last 12 months, Australian Border Force chief Michael Pezzullo has referred 132 cases of suspected corruption inside the department to the national corruption watchdog, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI).

It comes as a former immigration official claims that a focus on boat arrivals has allowed migration crime involving people arriving by plane to flourish unchecked.

"In the border security debate, it has been easy to deflect the public's attention to boat arrivals," said Joseph Petyanszki, who worked at the Department of Immigration for 27 years and was joint head of the Department's investigation office between 2007 and 2013.

"But this fear-mongering has totally ignored where the vast bulk of real fraud is, most significantly undermining our immigration programs."

 The man responsible for this shocking state of affairs.....

Peter Craig Dutton former police officer, current Liberal MP for Dickson and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.