A Crikey investigation has revealed that the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) fought Paul Hogan and his financial advisor, Tony Stewart, in a two-year protracted court battle over access to legal professional privileged (LPP) documents, even though ACC investigators had formed the view the documents were “irrelevant”.
The revelation was disclosed in an affidavit by ACC plod Ian Andrew to the court on 4 July, 2008 that they had formed the view in March 2006 that the 35 documents in question were irrelevant. It’s hard to believe they would spend taxpayers’ money on a two year legal fight over documents they say were useless to them and gives weight to the belief that Operation Wickenby is a waste of taxpayers’ funds as the project is currently running $95 million dollars in the red. The ACC have also been ordered to pay Hogan’s legal bills.
Where is the accountability from Messrs D’Ascenzo and ACC boss Alistair Milroy? Let’s hope both leaders get a grilling from Senate Estimates or the Public Accounts and Audit Committee over this one next year.
Ian Andrew is the same copper who gave evidence last week to the Federal Court where he made the extraordinary claim that it would take a new officer up to one year to get on top of the Hogan brief if someone was replaced on the investigation team.
Compounding this fiasco I can also reveal the ACC has no policies and procedures in place to deal with LPP in their complex investigations. It’s astonishing for a crime fighting body to be obtaining thousands of documents under coercive circumstances under an Act which they agree preserves LPP.
In the MM/DD (code for Hogan and his financial advisor, Tony Stewart) proceedings at paragraph 23, Federal Court Justice Arthur Emmett said:
The Commission did not at any relevant time have any written or other documented policy in place in relation to the question of how the Commission would deal with, or treat, legal professional privilege in the event that documents were produced to it containing communications that were subject to legal professional privilege or if claims were made by the recipient of a notice in relation to legal professional privilege.
If you had been following my articles you would not be so confused.
Wickenby has been granted special funding by the government of $305M over seven years.
The project has now completed its 4th year, therefore they have spent 4/7ths of their budget which is $174M.
In the four years they have advised the government they have only collected $79M from their investigations.
They have spent $174M to collect $79M.
That puts them $95M in the red of taxpayers money.
Not only that but in the recent ACC V Hogan Federal Court battle Justice Emmett has ordered the ACC to pay Hogan’s million dollar legal bill.
You might be happy with that but I’m sure the majority of taxpayers are not happy that their money is being wasted.
If you want to read about Wickenby and get fed the crap from press releases from the ATO/AFP/ACC then go and buy those papers. At Crikey I’ve tried to show readers the other side of the coin and I get behind the scenes and tell them what really is happening.
See here for tax expert Peter Hill’s comments on Wickenby funding http://uat.crikey.com.au/Your-Say/20070926-Comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups.html?CurrentDate=02+%2F+06+%2F+2008
who is john garnaut? I would rather the likes of mr hogan and mr wheatley paid their taxes and shut up so others could pay less. The idea of a compliance investigation being ‘in the red’ is laughable as it implies balancing a budget.
I’m a taxpayer and I represent taxpayers. I don’t like my taxes being wasted on unprofessional witch hunts. Wickenby is $95M in the red. If you’re happy with that then you’re a nong. Or are you really John Garnaut using an alias?
i have folowed your columns and their increasing hysteria. the point i am making is the revenue take isnot the sole reason for compliance there is the deterrent why the French shot the Admiral to encourage the others. What can be described as declaratory function of the law. You don’t pay we hit you. Other examples of this is the admittedly slow progress on tax shelters. but i’m alawyer not an auditor.
will google john garnaut
nice debating. gotta go to work. dermot.
spare us the martyrdom of saint hoges and saint wheatley! t
points:
the investigator may have formed the opinion but until discovery occurred who would know what was in the documents
i find the wasting taxpayers money line ironic to say the least
is this tosh opinion or are you representing someone?