Independent Commission Against Corruption report on its investigation into the conduct of Ian Macdonald, Ronald Medich and others. 2014 In accordance with section 74 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 I am pleased to present the Commission’s report on its investigation into the conduct of Ian Macdonald, Ronald Medich and others. This publication is available on the Commission’s website icac.nsw.gov.au and is available in other formats for the vision-impaired upon request. Please advise of format needed, for example large print or as an ASCII file. The commission is investigating whether those involved for the last 4 years it was done with the intention to pervert the course of justice. images.smh.au/file/2013/07/31/4617209/Jasper_Investigation_Report_%28July_2013%29%2520%281%29.pdf?rand=1375242670837 Nimages.smh.au/file/2013/07/31/4617205/Indus_Investigation_Report_%28July_2013%29.pdf?rand=1375242662605 images.smh.au/file/2013/07/31/4617204/Jarilo_Investigation_Report_%28July_2013%29.pdf?rand=1375242659875 ALD MEDICH AND OTHERSATION INTO TONDUCOF IAN MACDONALD Making corrupt conduct findings: Corrupt conduct is defined in section 7 of the ICAC Act as any conduct which falls within the description of corrupt conduct in either or both sections 8(1) or 8(2) and which is not excluded by section 9 of the ICAC Act. Section 8 defines the general nature of corrupt conduct. Subsection 8(1) provides that corrupt conduct is: a. any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority, or b. any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions, or c. any conduct of a public official or former public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust, or d. any conduct of a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of information or material that he or she has acquired in the course of his or her official functions, whether or not for his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other person. Subsection 8(2) specifies conduct, including the conduct of any person (whether or not a public official), that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority, and which, in addition, could involve a number of specific offences which are set out in that subsection. Subsection 9(1) provides that, despite section 8, conduct does not amount to corrupt conduct unless it could constitute or involve: a. a criminal offence, or b. a disciplinary offence, or c. reasonable grounds for dismissing, dispensing with the services of or otherwise terminating the services of a public official, or d. in the case of conduct of a Minister of the Crown or a Member of a House of Parliament – a substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct. Section 13(3A) of the ICAC Act provides that the Commission may make a finding that a person has engaged or is engaged in corrupt conduct of a kind described in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 9(1) only if satisfied that a person has engaged or is engaging in conduct that constitutes or involves an offence or thing of the kind described in that paragraph. Subsection 9(4) of the ICAC Act provides that, subject to subsection 9(5), the conduct of a Minister of the Crown or a member of a House of Parliament which falls within the description of corrupt conduct in section 8 is not excluded by section 9 from being corrupt if it is conduct that would cause a reasonable person to believe that it would bring the integrity of the office concerned or of Parliament into serious disrepute. Subsection 9(5) of the ICAC Act provides that the Commission is not authorised to include in a report a finding or opinion that a specified person has, by engaging in conduct of a kind referred to in subsection 9(4), engaged in corrupt conduct, unless the Commission is satisfied that the conduct constitutes a breach of a law (apart from the ICAC Act) and the Commission identifies that law in the report. The Commission adopts the following approach in determining whether corrupt conduct has occurred. First, the Commission makes findings of relevant facts on the balance of probabilities. The Commission then determines whether those facts come within the terms of sections 8(1) or 8(2) of the ICAC Act. If they do, the Commission then considers section 9 and the 42 ICAC REPORT Investigation into the conduct of Ian Macdonald, Ronald Medich and others the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters ‘reasonable satisfaction’ should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences. This formulation is, as the High Court pointed out in Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170 at 171, to be understood: ...as merely reflecting a conventional perception that members of our society do not ordinarily engage in fraudulent or criminal conduct and a judicial approach that a court should not lightly make a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, a party to civil litigation has been guilty of such conduct. See also Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517, the Report of the Royal Commission of inquiry into matters in relation to electoral redistribution, Queensland, 1977 (McGregor J) and the Report of the Royal Commission into An Attempt to Bribe a Member of the House of Assembly, and Other Matters (Hon W Carter QC, Tasmania, 1991). Findings of fact and corrupt conduct set out in this report have been made applying the principles detailed in this Appendix. . jurisdictional requirements of section 13(3A) and, in the case of a Minister of the Crown or a member of a House of Parliament, the jurisdictional requirements of subsection 9(5). In the case of subsection 9(1)(a) and subsection 9(5) the Commission considers whether, if the facts as found were to be proved on admissible evidence to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt and accepted by an appropriate tribunal, they would be grounds on which such a tribunal would find that the person has committed a particular criminal offence. In the case of subsections 9(1) (b), 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(d) the Commission considers whether, if the facts as found were to be proved on admissible evidence to the requisite standard of on the balance of probabilities and accepted by an appropriate tribunal, they would be grounds on which such a tribunal would find that the person has engaged in conduct that constitutes or involves a thing of the kind described in those sections. A finding of corrupt conduct against an individual is a serious matter. It may affect the individual personally, professionally or in employment, as well as in family and social relationships. In addition, there are limited instances where judicial review will be available. These are generally limited to grounds for prerogative relief based upon jurisdictional error, denial of procedural fairness, failing to take into account a relevant consideration or taking into account an irrelevant consideration and acting in breach of the ordinary principles governing the exercise of discretion. This situation highlights the need to exercise care in making findings of corrupt conduct. In Australia there are only two standards of proof: one relating to criminal matters, the other to civil matters. Commission investigations, including hearings, are not criminal in their nature. Hearings are neither trials nor committals. Rather, the Commission is similar in standing to a Royal Commission and its investigations and hearings have most of the characteristics associated with a Royal Commission. The standard of proof in Royal Commissions is the civil standard, that is, on the balance of probabilities. This requires only reasonable satisfaction as opposed to satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal matters. The civil standard is the standard which has been applied consistently in the Commission when making factual findings. However, because of the seriousness of the findings which may be made, it is important to bear in mind what was said by Dixon J in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 362: …reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or fact to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect. The role of the Commission: The role of the Commission is to act as an agent for changing the situation which has been revealed. Its work involves identifying and bringing to attention conduct which is corrupt. Having done so, or better still in the course of so doing, the Commission can prompt the relevant public authority to recognise the need for reform or change, and then assist that public authority (and others with similar vulnerabilities) to bring about the necessary changes or reforms in procedures and systems, and, importantly, promote an ethical culture, an ethos of probity. The principal functions of the Commission, as specified in section 13 of the ICAC Act, include investigating any circumstances which in the Commission’s opinion imply that corrupt conduct, or conduct liable to allow or encourage corrupt conduct, or conduct connected with corrupt conduct, may have occurred, and cooperating with public authorities and public officials in reviewing practices and procedures to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of corrupt conduct. The Commission may form and express an opinion as to whether consideration should or should not be given to obtaining the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions with respect to the prosecution of a person for a specified criminal offence. It may also state whether it is of the opinion that consideration should be given to the taking of action against a person for a specified disciplinary offence or the taking of action against a public official on specified grounds with a view to dismissing, dispensing with the services of, or otherwise terminating the services of the public official. The ICAC Act is concerned with the honest and impartial exercise of official powers and functions in, and in connection with, the public sector of NSW, and the protection of information or material acquired in the course of performing official functions. It provides mechanisms which are designed to expose and prevent the dishonest or partial exercise of such official powers and functions and the misuse of information or material. In furtherance of the objectives of the ICAC Act, the Commission may investigate allegations or complaints of corrupt conduct, or conduct liable to encourage or cause the occurrence of corrupt conduct. It may then report on the investigation and, when appropriate, make recommendations as to any action which the Commission believes should be taken or considered. The Commission can also investigate the conduct of persons who are not public officials but whose conduct adversely affects or could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority. The Commission may make findings of fact and form opinions based on those facts as to whether any particular person, even though not a public official, has engaged in corrupt conduct. The ICAC Act applies to public authorities and public officials as defined in section 3 of the ICAC Act. The Commission was created in response to community and Parliamentary concerns about corruption which had been revealed in, inter alia, various parts of the public service, causing a consequent downturn in community confidence in the integrity of that service. It is recognised that corruption in the public service not only undermines confidence in the bureaucracy but also has a detrimental effect on the confidence of the community in the processes of democratic government, at least at the level of government in which that corruption occurs. It is also recognised that corruption commonly indicates and promotes inefficiency, produces waste and could lead to loss of revenue. Lawsuit-Court Class Action, Compensation Claims 2014-2015 : An informal Private detective Investigation has taken place the last few months and is nearly completed . Soon you will be notified officially by the local Sherriffs department at the last Australian Electoral Commition address of yours with the Summons and other related documents. When you will be called for the formalities, The Judge will ask the question: “How do you plead…? Guilty or Not Guilty “…? In all TAFE NSW working related businesses relationships: Strive to Listen, Create mutually beneficial Outcomes, Communicate often and with Clarity Motivate and Inspire people using every Tool available to our TAFE NSW -DET organization-corporation Action s line Up with what we say. Be Decisive and Clear in both Popular and Unpopular decisions. Be remorseful. Have empathy, Sorrow and /or Regret May be you Suffering from the “Asperger syndrome disorder”, and consequently you are Incapable to manage staff and remained a threat to the community. Work place accidents, assessed lately , and we have not felt like a Human beings. FEELS LIKE COLLAPSING, AND GETS DIZZY SPELLS, ANXIETY, AND DEPRESSION. Chronic post-Traumatic Stress disorder among other Ailments. CPTS as well as other Intellectual functioning who is not normal. Permanent health Conditions. Profound Implications. The sentencing proceedings will take place later on this year Admit –Confess or with the ICAC Formal Investigations all of the Allegations –Accusations will be followed by Charges laid. Court lawsuit class actions and Compensation claims as well, to individuals and the Corporation collectively. You are one of those persons of Interest . australiancriminallawyers.au/web/page/nsw_perjury_offences Perjury Offences | NSW Criminal Offences | Australian Defence Lawyers Alliance Articles and Information about those allegations-Accusations and View Information · Concealing serious offence · False accusations · Hindering an investigation · Perjury · Pervert the course of justice · Tampering with evidence · Threatening witnesses Concealing serious offence False accusations Hindering an investigation Perjury Pervert the course of justice Tampering with evidence
Posted on: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:38:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015