You should read the affidavit of Detective Sergeant Ross Mitchell below - then read these comments from StephenJ.
From the desk of StephenJ
1.The Police have had all Gillards personnel records and S&G records dealing with her since June 2013.
Sciacca’s had become involved somehow in relation to a subpoena issued to the Commonwealth Bank in Perth. Police have S&G’s response to this. See the mention of Sciacca’s in relation to the documents on which S&G were successful in their LPP claim. Sciacca’s have acted on behalf of Ludwig.
2.The Documents for which S&G claimed privilege appear to relate to the Trust Account transactions on Kerr St.
S&G appear to have been concerned (probably sh*tting bricks actually) about the incorrect recording that had taken place. The documents include the instructions from the Commonwealth Bank on the depositing of the $67k recorded in the Slater and Gordon Trust Account Ledger as having come directly from Ralph Blewitt, when the actual drawer of the cheque was the AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc.
Their concern appears to have arising because some interference had occurred in the normal processes involved. The possible candidates for such interference are extremely limited.
None of the originals of these documents would have been subject to a claim for LPP. The copies were made specifically for the purpose of obtaining advice from Phillips Fox and therefore are subject to LPP on the basis of the decision in Propend.
However certain comments were made in that case about the situation that would apply if originals were destroyed. LPP may not apply to the copies on Public Policy/ abuse of court grounds. I can find the comments if you desire.
I don’t know whether these issues were dealt with in the argument before Digby.
Perhaps you could make some enquiries, however as I have been trying to make clear while the decision may restrict the Police it will not stop the RC under the powers it possess as a Victorian RC.
3. I wanted to add something to what I sent you a few days ago.
a) I can see no reason why the Police would not have interviewed Martin Albrecht, the managing director of Thiess at the relevant time.
The story of a separate entity to provide for training just wont wash.
Albrecht is in the gun and he would know it.
It is conceivable that Albrecht may have had recent discussions with Ludwig about this and likewise Ludwig with Wilson.
It may be that this is the reason for Wilson’s admission about the meeting at which the arrangement was discussed. Albrecht may have informed the Police about it.
b) If a Client came to an Accountant or Solicitor and said “I want to incorporate an Association” the first response would be to get them to state what they were trying to achieve. Whether the Professional was attempting to further illicit aims or not they would give some thought to how to best achieve the Clients objectives.
An Association is an unusual structure although one which is likely to avoid normal scrutiny by regulatory authorities eg the Tax Office.
Ludwig and Wilson controlled the Union. I can see no reason why Murphy wouldn’t have asked the right questions and I can see no reason why he wouldn’t have been told that the Association was required by and because of an arrangement with Theiss.
Assuming he was also told that the funds were to be used for Union related training there is no problem. Extracting funds from Employers to use for Union purposes does not raise the issue of secret commissions or fraud on some party. However the use of such funds for private purposes will bring such considerations into play and Gillard has stated numerous times that her understanding of the Associations purpose was as a slush fund for elections.
It is clear that such use is for private purposes.
If Murphy knew where the funds were coming from it is inconceivable Gillard did not.
If she knew the source of the funds her stated understanding of the proposed uses directly involves her in the offences committed.
This position is only reinforced by subsequent events where it appears she received personal benefits herself and may have been involved with Trust Account irregularities.
c) Murphy is the key and I can think of a lot of reasons why he would want to be very careful in what he says to the RC.
I say on the evidence that the RC has “Wilsons File”. It appears they are saving it for use against later witnesses.
Wilson is going down anyway.
I think we are getting very close to saying Gillard is too.
