A beautiful day in Melbourne!

We had one almost as good last year, too.

Jenstar & I rolled up at the Magistrate’s Court at 9am, & went through security, only to have a very helpful staff member advise Jen that due to overcrowding, as happened last time, the matter would be heard over in the County Court. Jen went over there to wait while I hung around for a couple of extra observers & when they arrived, we were about to cross the road when I saw Greg James QC approaching. I asked him if was aware of the change of venue & he countered: ‘Who are you?’ I said I was a member of the public gallery for CT’s matter & he responded that he knew nothing about the change & walked off. We thought he’d been a bit brusque but concluded that it was probably fair, given that he didn’t know me from a bar of soap. 

We went across to the County Court, went through security again & another very helpful staff member checked a listing & advised us to go to court 2.1. The very helpful clerk in court 2.1 checked her list & said her records showed the case would be heard in court 23 back at the Magistrate’s Court. Fortunately, the very helpful screener at MC security agreed to skip the cavity search this time, as he recognised us all from before & he apparently didn’t want to go through THAT again….

Court 23 got underway at about 10:15 & we sat through a couple of preliminary matters, including a guy who was representing himself in a committal that had been abandoned yesterday & was today put off until March next year. The guy remonstrated with Magistrate Rozencwajg that he was getting mighty tired of all this – as the case had been going on for around 3 years, off & on.

Lesley Taylor (LT), for VicPol, opened the bowling, reporting that the parties have been talking to each other. She referred to an outline submission, which had been lodged this morning, while Greg (GJ) said he’d lodged a submission some time ago. LT said the prosecution has now proposed additional charges relating to ‘duplicity’ & GT said he felt that further discussions with LT might resolve them, or Mag R might have to rule. There was discussion over what the charges represented. LT said there had been a total of 66 ‘events’, each of which might have involved a number of separate transactions. Mag R observed that a single act can ‘found’ multiple charges. LT has prepared a chart which reflects the number of matters & the period of time. Mag R asked GJ for comment & he referred to a High Court case – Pierce/Pearce??? – which apparently involved the issue of ‘double jeopardy’. Mag R observed that at least the language at the bar table appeared to now be more friendly than before.

LT said they have now increased the number of charges from 172 to 224. There was some discussion of the definition of ‘duplicity’. Mag R referred to the example of an assault on a person in one room & another assault on the same person in a different room, which would give rise to 1 charge for assault. GJ suggested that the prosecution seemed to be arguing a series of alternative charges & referred to the recent Patel case (presumably the recent failed prosecution in Qld). Mention was also made of ‘Johnson & Miller’ (??) & ‘John L’ (??) – the latter involving seeking to identify the relevant deception, which had occurred.

LT submitted that CT wasn’t authorised to meet ANY non-union expenses of any kind at any time. The charges relate to occasions when an HSU credit card was handed over to a ‘provider’ of goods/services, for which CT did not have to pay. CT was making a false representation that he was authorized to do so. Handing over the card was a representation. GJ argued whether the service provider BELIEVED the HSU allowed the incurring of such expenses. He felt the prosecution case is doomed to fail because the service provider doesn’t know what the HSU’s policies are. ‘If the transaction was via cash, instead of card, the service provider doesn’t care where the cash came from. GJ suggested an example of a man who promises his wife that he won’t use his credit card to buy flowers for another woman but goes ahead & does it anyway. The florist doesn’t care what representations the man made to his wife.

LT maintained that the relevant matters involved obtaining property by deception.

The subject of ‘foundation’ arose.

LT submitted that the deception was that CT represented to the HSU that the transactions were all valid when he later approved payment of the monthly card balances. The HSU was the victim of the deception, being the entity which paid relevant sums to the bank. GJ submitted that the prosecution appeared to be arguing that offences occurred when the credit card was USED & again when the transactions were approved & paid to the bank.

LT said she & GJ were talking to each other with purpose & in good intent. Charges haven’t been amended yet but they are proposing to do so. Mag R observed that this is now a summary trial & all matters can be heard. GJ said that the problem relating to admissibility is NOT what’s admissible, but what issues might arise if things are ruled inadmissible.

Mag R observed that there had been a media request for a copy of the latest defence submission, however, he denied it, due partly to the fact that the prosecution case is still in flux.

The was reference to the matter of ‘forum’ and/or ‘venue’. Mag R said there is often a tension as to the ‘location’ of an offence. GJ submitted that relevant acts which occurred in Brisbane were not actionable in Victoria but Mag R observed that the harmful effects occurred to victims in Victoria. He referred to the Commonwealth Crimes Act as having extra-territorial effect, however, it appears that this may not be the case in Victorian law.

Mag R remanded CT on bail to appear again on 2 December.

As we were leaving, GJ approached one of our group & apologised for his somewhat abrupt comment to me previously (see above), as he had only just arrived at court & had no idea that there were some last minute rearrangements occurring. Very generous of him, I thought.

We then adjourned to a local coffee shop, where we the benefit of additional background from a person with intimate knowledge of relevant events.

Cheers,

Bill, Jenstar & friends

And to add to the citizen journalism ground-breaking stuff - here's reader BBPD interviewing Jenstar!