News: The Court reveals a legal scandal

EF’s actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF’s obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF’s duties to the court. Likewise, Victoria Police were guilty of reprehensible conduct in knowingly encouraging EF to do as she did and were involved in sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. As a result, the prosecution of each Convicted Person was corrupted in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system

This week, the High Court published its reasons for judgment inĀ AB (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym); EF (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym) [2018] HCA 58, among the first official words on the public record on a shocking Victorian legal scandal. While the central events of the scandal played out from 2005 to 2009, the High Court’s involvement arises from one of its aftermaths, concerning the question of whether the ‘Convicted Persons’ (Tony Mokbel and six of his associates) can be told about the findings of a suppressed 2013 report by Victoria’s anti-corruption commission. The main legal dispute before the Court was between CD (Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions), who wanted to tell Mokbel et al what the commission had found as part of its duty of prosecutorial disclosure and AB (the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police), who didn’t want them told, because of the extreme danger the revelation would pose to both EF (simultaneously a barrister for Mokbel et al and an informer for Victoria Police) and to the future use of informers. In a separate action, EF also sought to stop the DPP from revealing her identity on the ground that doing so would be a breach of confidence. Also in the mix were the Commonwealth DPP (who would also have duties of disclosure to Mokbel and others), Victoria’s human rights commission (intervening to address the role of the state’s rights statute) and an amicus curiae, who was appointed to represent the interests of Mokbel et al (who in theory knew nothing of the proceedings until today.)

Aside from an interlocutory hearing before Nettle J and the announcement of two grants of special leave without an oral hearing, the High Court has revealed absolutely nothing about this case until now. Continue reading