There is enough evidence to charge Julia Gillard for concealing a serious indictable offence which carries a jail term of 2 years. Julia Gillard has dared anyone to make allegations against her, I have before and will again, in this post I make out the prima facie case against Julia Gillard.
There are two key elements
1. Does Julia Gillard know about the fraud. and
2. Did she conceal the fraud.
If you are new to this story please go to the Julia Gillard / Bruce Wilson – AWU Fraud Page at the top in the menu bar for previous posts with all the history. (Click here to go to the page)
Evidence that Julia Gillard knew that there was a fraud.
Everyone knows that her former boyfriend ripped off the AWU and Julia Gillard knows this as well. Gillard helped him but says she did not do it knowingly. The evidence that Julia Gillard knew about the fraud is a mile long but let’s have a look at just some of it.
1. Her excuses that she was “young and naive” and “I was in a relationship, which I ended, and obviously it was all very distressing. I am by no means the first person to find out that someone close turns out to be different to what you had believed them to be. It’s an ordinary human error.” (Click here to read the article)
2. She said in her press conference the on Thursday that as soon as she found out what Bruce Wilson had been up to she ended the relationship.
3. She was left Slater and Gordon not long after as a direct result of the AWU fraud. Although in the press conference on Thursday she seemed to be claiming there were other reasons as well.
4. Slater and Gordon interviewed her and taped the interview which clearly suggests wrong doing or knowledge of it. In the press conference on Thursday Gillard tried to make out this was not unusual.
I could keep going but if Julia Gillard wants to deny knowing about the fraud it would be a bad joke.
Did Julia Gillard conceal the fraud.
All of the media attention on Julia Gillard in relation to this matter could have been cleared up by her by simply releasing the statements and/or affidavits she gave to the police in 1995/96. There does not seem to be any. Why not?
She could also have released the statements she gave to the AWU in this matter in 1995/96. As we will see she did not give them any and must have refused to. Why?
In the Ian Cambridge affidavit dated 19th September 1996 on page 19 he says in relation to the purchase of the house by Bruce Wilson in Melbourne “I am unable to understand how Slater & Gordon, who were then acting for the Victorian branch of the union, could have permitted the use of funds which where obviously taken from the union, in the purchase of private property of this nature, without seeking and obtaining proper authority from the union for such use of its funds” (Click here to read the affidavit)
That is a statement that Ian Cambridge should not have needed to make. Julia Gillard and/or Slater and Gordon should have told Ian Cambridge how it happened. At the time Ian Cambridge wrote the affidavit the AWU account had been transferred to Maurice and Blackburn lawyers because of the AWU fraud. But this alone should not have stopped Julia Gillard and Slater and Gordon from helping the AWU investigate.
Did she refuse to help because of the police investigations that were afoot at the time? If this is the case it is not a good look to say the least.
At the press conference on Thursday Julia Gillard was asked:
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you have any information which you are prevented from giving by lawyer-client privilege that could assist the authorities in relation to the funds, you know, that Mr Wilson-
Then why did she not give a statement to the police.
The reason there is no lawyer-client privilege stopping her is because of what is called the fraud exception or also known as the crime exception. Lawyer-client privilege means that a lawyer does not have to disclose any communication with the client and they are protected by the law. But if a lawyer helps a client commit a crime then they can and have to disclose the communication which is covered by the fraud exception
I believe that her admission that there is no “information which you are prevented from giving by lawyer-client privilege” says she knew there was a crime and her communication with Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt was not covered by the lawyer-client privilege. It also asks the question why Julia Gillard did not give any statements to the police or if she did why she has not released them.
At the time of th fraud back in 1995/96 the Western Australia police, Victorian Police and Federal police where all investigating. Bob Kernohan gave a statement to the Federal police in relation to $6,500 he had received from Bruce Wilson which shows up on the Victorian Parliament Hansard website. Kernohan was cleared of any wrong doing. (Click here to read)
If Bob Kernohan gave a statement, why did Julia Gillard also not give a statement to the police? She now says that she believed the accounts where to be used for a re-election slush fund which turned out to be a lie. So who lied to her? Was it Bruce Wilson or Ralph Blewitt or both. What did they say exactly? This at the very least would clearly be relevent information that would have helped the police in their investigations and most likely would have helped in a prosecution of Bruce Wilson and/or Ralph Blewitt.
CRIMES ACT 1900 – SECT 316
Concealing serious indictable offence
316 Concealing serious indictable offence
(1) If a person has committed a serious indictable offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.
(2) A person who solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit for himself or herself or any other person in consideration for doing anything that would be an offence under subsection (1) is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.
(3) It is not an offence against subsection (2) merely to solicit, accept or agree to accept the making good of loss or injury caused by an offence or the making of reasonable compensation for that loss or injury.
(4) A prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) is not to be commenced against a person without the approval of the Attorney General if the knowledge or belief that an offence has been committed was formed or the information referred to in the subsection was obtained by the person in the course of practising or following a profession, calling or vocation prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
(5) The regulations may prescribe a profession, calling or vocation as referred to in subsection (4).
Some of the questions that Julia Gillard has to answer are:
1. Why did you not give a statement / affidavit to the police? If you did why have you not released it as it would clear the air on the whole matter.
2. If you did give a police statement is the story in the statement different to the one the one you have made publicly?
3. Why did you not assist the AWU in their investigations given they were the client?
4. If you did not give a police statement did you refuse on the grounds that you might incriminate yourself?
5. Did you also refuse to help the AWU on the grounds that you might incriminate yourself?
6. Did you claim legal privilege in refusing to help the police? If you did, why did you say on Thursday that legal privilege was not a factor that covered your information in this matter.
7. In 2007 Glenn Milne reported “she has strenuously denied ever knowing what the association’s bank accounts were used for.” (Click here to read more) But you now say they were meant to be used for a slush fund. Have you told this to the police?
That will do for starters and I will have follow-up questions once you have answered them.
If you appeal a judgment in court on the grounds of bias by the judge you do not have to show actual bias, you only have to show perceived bias and you will win the appeal. The point is in this matter the media are totally focused on showing Julia Gillard was party to the crime which should be applauded, but they also need to question her role in the concealment of the crime.
Showing Gillard was a party to the crime will be hard to prove unless at least two people spill the beans on Julia Gillard and that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. But what can be proved now is his her involvement in the concealment of the crime unless she has some brilliant answers to the issues and questions that I have raised above.
It would be greatly appreciated if you spend a minute using Twitter, Facebook and email etc and promote this post. Just click on the icons below.
And make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site.
This site is fully funded by myself, both time wise and monetary wise. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation, buy a t-shirt, coffee mug or a copy of my book. The links are below.
If you would like to buy a t-shirt or coffee mug visit my online shop (Click here to visit the shop)
Thank you for your support.
Categories: Julia Gillard