Over the next few days I'll try to tease out some of the evidentiary elements of each of the "events" in the criminal course of conduct underlying The AWU Scandal.

We'll look at one "event" at a time, the Association, the Power of Attorney, the contract to buy Kerr Street, the conveyance, the mortgage, the Gillard renovations, the sale of Kerr Street and the like.

Today it's the incorporation of the AWU Workplace Reform Association.   First up though some background.

In a recent high profile civil case, Justice Rares set out the way that Australian courts prove guilt when several people engage together on a criminal enterprise.   Where there is agreement between a number of people to plan and to commit a serious crime(s), the law talks about a conspiracy (sometimes known as an unlawful combination).

You can read more about how Justice Rares described the steps in proving a conspiracy here.   These paragraphs should give you the idea, keep in mind we'll be applying these ideas to the things we can observe about The AWU Scandal.

Their Honours held in Ahern 165 CLR at 93-94 that evidence of the acts or declarations of one alleged conspirator ......can provide a basis from which to infer the fact of a combination.  That inference can be drawn because one person’s act or statement itself points to a common design that, when taken with other evidence, justifies a conclusion that there must have been a conspiracy or combination.  ..........when the individual acts or statements made by each of the alleged conspirators are considered with those made by each of the others, the Court can infer that the independent making of each act or statement by two or more persons points to them being party to a combination as alleged.  The Court then said in Ahern 165 CLR at 94:

“...though primarily each set of acts is attributable to the person whose acts they are, and to him alone, there may be such a concurrence of time, character, direction and result as naturally to lead to the inference that these separate acts were the outcome of pre-concert, or some mutual contemporaneous engagement, or that they were themselves the manifestations of mutual consent to carry out a common purpose, thus forming as well as evidencing a combination to effect the one object towards which the separate acts are found to converge.”

Importantly, evidence in a circumstantial case cannot be considered piecemeal.  That is because in such a case there will be evidence that, if taken alone or out of the context supplied by the whole of the evidence, would lead to an inference of innocence.  Sometimes it will be “the united force of all of the circumstances put together” that will be crucial.

I would suggest to you that The AWU Scandal and the courses of conduct by the criminals who did it is just such a case.

To facilitate a bit of discussion today, I've put together this chart.   It relates to events leading up to the incorporation of the AWU WRA.

You could look at one act in isolation and accept an innocent explanation, perhaps two.   But look at the whole sequence of events and tell me what you think!   Keep in mind this is just for the Association, more to come on her renovations, power of attorney etc.

So, over to you.   What do you think, a very unfortunate sequence of entirely innocent events in which Ms Gillard did nothing wrong?   Or do you see the actions of a crook acting in concert with others.