Disgraced NSW MP Daryl Maguire's stunning string of admissions to the state's corruption investigator this week gives the watchdog much to mull over — but history says a legal prosecution is no certainty.
Key points:
The former member for Wagga Wagga has been frank about his involvement in a "cash-for-visa" scam for Chinese nationals, failing to disclose business interests in line with MPs' obligations and "monetising" his office to benefit both himself and associates.
The inquiry has also heard Mr Maguire discussing property deals with Gladys Berejiklian during 2017, when they were in a secret relationship, and facilitating a "drop-in" meeting between the Premier and a property developer.
But what unfolds after an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) inquiry is often more of political consequence than legal significance.
The Premier has faced what she describes as a "personal nightmare" as her secret five-year relationship with Mr Maguire was publicly revealed. She also copped a grilling in Question Time over what she did or didn't know about his conduct.
But it remains to be seen whether Mr Maguire will face prosecution over his evidence to the corruption watchdog.
How does ICAC work?
The theatrics of an ICAC public inquiry give Australians a taste of an American-style court hearing, where cases are filmed on a much more frequent basis.
Lines of questioning at the commission routinely follow a similar path: a witness suffers memory loss before being "helped" by a counsel assisting via tapped phone calls, email trails or invoices.
When Mr Maguire's time in the witness box is over, there will be a period of submissions by the counsel assisting, Scott Robertson, along with other parties.
The commission will then privately consider the evidence and prepare a report, including any recommendations and findings.
There is no timeframe for how long this could take, and every inquiry is different — factors including its duration, subject and complexity all contribute.
In general, the ICAC is open to make findings of serious corrupt conduct and refer evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider prosecution, disciplinary action, or further investigation.
In the past, it has also referred matters to the AFP, ASIO, the Australian Taxation Office, Border Force and other states' police forces.
The commission's annual reports provide an insight into where past investigations have landed.
ICAC's high-profile casualties
In 2018-19, it made 57 findings of serious corrupt conduct and asked for the Director of Public Prosecutions' advice on eight people.
But past inquiries tell us the process of investigation and public hearing can cause more waves than the outcome itself.
Arguably the most high-profile result was the 2014 resignation of former premier Barry O'Farrell over the now-infamous $3,000 bottle of Penfolds Grange.
During his evidence to ICAC, Mr O'Farrell denied receiving the gift from Australian Water Holdings executive Nick Di Girolamo, but when the commission uncovered a handwritten thankyou note he resigned citing a "massive memory fail".
However, when the ICAC report was published three years later, no adverse findings were made against Mr O'Farrell.
Instead, former Labor ministers Eddie Obeid Snr, Joe Tripodi and Tony Kelly, along with political staffer Gilbert Brown, were found to have engaged in serious corrupt conduct.
Another former premier, and ironically the "father" of the ICAC, Nick Greiner, also fell victim to the corruption watchdog,
It shone the spotlight on his decision to give a job to former education minister Terry Metherell, which would encourage him to leave Parliament and make way for the Liberals to win his seat in a byelection.
While findings against Mr Greiner were later overturned by the Court of Appeal, he was forced to resign after it was clear he had lost the support of key independents.
Spotlight turned on ICAC
The watchdog has previously faced criticism for airing evidence in public hearings that would not be admissible in court.
Probes have unravelled on appeal, including an attempted public hearing into then-prosecutor Margaret Cunneen SC over allegations related to a drink-driving test conducted on her son's girlfriend.
Ms Cunneen had her name cleared in the High Court, which ruled the ICAC exceeded its authority by misinterpreting its own governing act.
But weighing up the number of convictions secured as a result of ICAC probes has been described as an "imperfect indicator" of the commission's performance because of its investigative nature.
In a 2015 review of the ICAC, barrister Bruce McClintock SC wrote that the proportion of corrupt conduct findings ultimately reflected in criminal convictions was "relatively low".
"The discrepancy between convictions and findings of corrupt conduct, in fact, provides an eloquent demonstration of the fundamental distinction between an ICAC investigation and its function and the criminal justice system and its purpose and that of the criminal trial," he wrote.
The public spectacle created by Mr Maguire's case may be drawing to a close, but the process is far from over.
https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiamh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFiYy5uZXQuYXUvbmV3cy8yMDIwLTEwLTE2L2ljYWMtY2FzZS1hbG1vc3Qtb3Zlci1idXQtc3RpbGwtbG9uZy13YXktZm9yLWRhcnlsLW1hZ3VpcmUvMTI3NzIwNTLSASdodHRwczovL2FtcC5hYmMubmV0LmF1L2FydGljbGUvMTI3NzIwNTI?oc=5
2020-10-15 18:18:00Z
CAIiEFyo4QhjIgi-cqHZrrB69TAqFwgEKg4IACoGCAow3vI9MPeaCDD6kIkG
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "ICAC case almost over but still a long way to go for Daryl Maguire - ABC News"
Post a Comment