Royal Commission

Ralph Blewitt says confessed perjurer and disgraced former lawyer Harry Nowicki wrote his police statement

Ralph Blewitt was never going to be a highly credible witness given he is a confessed fraudster but he went one step further yesterday and poured his last ounce of credibility down the drain.

Blewitt said he did not write his own statement that he gave to the Victorian Police. He said he did not even read it in full. He said that Harry Nowicki who is a former lawyer wrote it for him and he was relying on Nowicki to make sure it was correct. It is bad enough he did not even read his own statutory declaration, but it becomes a lot worse when you know that Harry Nowicki is a confessed perjurer who lied in an affidavit in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

What happened today was always on the cards and I wrote about this scenario in March last year and said this about Nowicki:

Harry Nowicki – The former lawyer, fraudster, thief and apparently unknowingly perjurer

Mr Nowicki is a key player and is the one who brought Ralph Blewitt to Australia.

In 2001 Mr Nowicki was found guilty of professional misconduct as a lawyer and fined $15,000 in a matter that related to him ripping off a personal injury client $20,000. From reading the judgement Mr Nowicki also perjured himself in an affidavit to the Supreme Court of Victoria although he apparently perjured himself unknowingly. It says in the judgement in relation to Mr Nowicki at paragraph 36 “Certainly, a failure to look at the file note or failure himself to carry out the sort of independent investigations which would have led him to the truth and revealed the falsity of the affidavit are the sort of matters that proper discharge of professional duty requires.” Not a good look for a lawyer and one who has helped Mr Blewitt with his police statements. (Click here to read the judgement)

Mr Nowicki’s background is important as Julia Gillard would without a doubt subpoena Mr Nowicki as a witness if she was charged. Julia Gillard would have numerous grounds to do so, the first being that Mr Nowicki has paid for Ralph Blewitt to come to Australia and I believe his legal fees. Then add the fact that Mr Nowicki helped Mr Blewitt with his police statements then that would be enough to subpoena him. (Click here to read the full post)

At the Royal Commission Tuesday the 13th May 2014

Blewitt was back in the witness-box starting at 2pm for a bit over 2 hours after spending the previous day in the stand. This was the first opportunity that Bruce Wilson’s barrister Dr Kristine Hanscombe QC had to question Blewitt and it went downhill fast for Blewitt.

Dr Hansconbe quickly asked Blewitt who had paid for his bills and who had he been talking to about the evidence with. The two names that came up were Harry Nowicki and Michael Smith. Harry Nowicki I have just dealt with but Mr Smith is no mystery to regular readers of this site as he is the former radio host who lost his job when Julia Gillard tried to close down the reporting of the AWU fraud in 2011.

Michael Smith it could be argued has a vendetta against Julia Gillard and was always going to get a mention in any defence of Wilson or Gillard in an attempt to undermine Blewitt’s credibility the same as Nowicki. (Click here to read more)

Blewitt had his foot in his mouth a number of times but some of the key issues Dr Hanscombe raised and the answers were:

1. Ralph Blewitt, Harry Nowicki and Michael Smith have discussed the evidence up to 100 times over last 2 years. That includes when there was all three and when there was just two of them.

2. On Monday (12/5/14) when Mr Blewitt first gave evidence Mr Blewitt, Mr Nowicki and Mr Smith discussed the evidence at least 4 times. This includes during the lunch break.

3. Harry Nowicki wrote the statutory declaration that Mr Blewitt gave the Victorian Police. And Mr Blewitt did not bother to read it in full. From memory I think he said in the witness stand he just “glanced at it”.

4. Harry Nowicki who says he is writing a book about the AWU has paid for the airfares and accommodation for 4 trips back to Australia for Ralph Blewitt over the last 2 years.

Where Dr Kristine Hanscombe QC is heading is very clear. She is moving towards an argument that Ralph Blewitt has been paid to give his evidence and has been coached by Harry Nowicki and Michael Smith who both have an agenda to get Bruce Wilson so they can get Julia Gillard.

When someone is accused of a crime and has no defence it is stock standard for them to attack the credibility of the witnesses giving evidence against them as that is their only way out. And that is why Bruce Wilson’s barrister is attacking the credibility of Ralph Blewitt. Harry Nowicki is a former lawyer and Michael Smith is a former policeman and should have known better and what was coming. There was no need to compromise their positions so badly. If the Royal Commission calls either of them as witnesses then they will end up highly embarrassed at the very least.

One thing that you have to give Blewitt is that he is the only person so far to stick his hand up and admit his crimes.

Ralph Blewitt 2

Left to Right: Bob Kernohan (sitting), Harry Nowicki, Ralph Blewitt, Bob Galbally SC (Blewitt’s barrister), Michael Smith (sitting)


The Good News

The good news for people who want to see Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson held to account is that Blewitt’s evidence is not what I would regard as being crucial in any conviction of Wilson or Gillard although it would be handy. Julie Gillard has too many questions that she can not answer and so does Bruce Wilson. So if the Royal Commission does do as expected and calls both Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson as witnesses then they are both in a lot of trouble.

The Royal Commission is adjourned until advised. Maybe a few weeks or maybe quite a few, I’ll keep you advised when I know. I have set up a specific page for the Royal Commission which you see up near the top called “Trade Union Royal Commission”.

Admin: I am currently working full-time on this site and would like to continue that way if possible. If you would like to help please read below and support.

This site is independent and reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation. Click on the below button to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options (Click here to go to the Donations page)


And make sure you follow this site by email which is at the top right of this page and about twice a week you be notified when there is a new post on this site.

Thank you for your support.

12 replies »

  1. It’s the paper trail that will get both Wilson and Gillard, Blewitt is just the catalyst to get it all rolling. And whilst I realise you have little time for Smith, I think his performance in the witness stand as an ex cop would give Gillard and Wilson nightmares. Interesting today that Wilson provided proof that Gillard did a lot more than just “provide advice and cut and pasted some rules from the socialist forum” to have the slush fund incorporated. The real cat amongst the pidgeons will be if Nic Styant Brown (not sure if got that right) provides the full transcript of her exit interview.

  2. It does not matter what anyone says, writes or does or whatever background, motive and/or credibility they are subjectively deemed to have by any person, in this Royal Commission and in any ongoing court proceedings such as that being undertaken by the Victorian Fraud Squad, liability, guilt or innocence will essentially be decided on the documentary evidence.

    If what any person alleges is not backed up by such documentary evidence, then their testimony will be rightfully discounted or completely disregarded.

    You do have this right:- “When someone is accused of a crime and has no defence it is stock standard for them to attack the credibility of the witnesses giving evidence against them as that is there only way out.”

    In his recent ruling, Chief Magistrate Lauritsen dealt with Blewitt’s credibility and said ‘there is a good deal of corroboration of Blewitt’s evidence”. After giving examples he wrote”:


    “The evidence of Blewitt establishes that Thiess was deceived. It believed it was paying for a particular service. The Association provided no such service. Wilson bought a home with some of Thiess’ payments. Only he knows what happened to the rest.

    For those documents answering the description in s.118, I am satisfied that, in each instance, the communication was made or the document prepared in furtherance of the commission of a fraud or an offence.

    I will make the order sought by Mitchell. ” (Det.Sgt. Ross Mitchell, Victorian Fraud squad).

  3. Having Nowicki prepare his statement does not in itself mean that Blewitt’s testimony and statement is false. It just allows the defense to attack its credibility. If there is other sworn evidence which backs up with what Blewitt said, the history of Nowicki is irrelevant.
    I’m waiting on Ian Cambridge’s testimony- then will come the real reveal.

  4. I always wait with bated breath, for the amazing information you supply us with, re the shenanigans our so called ‘pillars of society’ get up to!
    These people REALLY need to be made accountable for their criminal activities, that bring so much shame on us all!!
    If it were any one of us run of the mill people, we would be rotting in jail!!


  5. One has to wonder how much corruption was hidden before the Internet doors opened. Thankfully, much can be uncovered in today’s society involving political crime, et al, and fortunately, as we have seen by Shane’s good work, the perpetrators did very little in the way of encrypting their documents.

    This was probably due to their inability and understanding of how to perform the action.

  6. Dr Hanscombe seems to be heading us in the direction that AWU-WRA existed as an unincorporated association before it was incorporated. Thus she threw some names into the mix yesterday – all being friends of Wilson. They were Jim Collins, Glen Ivory, Bill the Greek and Mark Barnes. Add to that the names of Wilson and Blewitt, that would give the association the more than 5 members desiring incorporation under the WA Act. Now Hanscombe needs corroboration of the existence of this unincorporated association. Some signatures on unincorporated association paperwork might help, especially the amendment to Rule3A under resolution as was required by Mr Neale of WA CAC which never made it onto the WA CAC records according to Det Sgt David McAlpine’s searches in 1996. If no paperwork exists, then Hanscombe would have to rely on these four men mentioned taking the stand.

    I think if she had the paperwork, she would have flashed that in front of Blewitt on 13 May. Therefore relying on the verbal evidence of the supposed members might be her next tactic. However, she will have trouble with two of these men – Jim Collins died some time ago and Glen Ivory died on 4 January 2004. I think that Bill the Greek fled to Greece in the late 1990s to escape huge gambling debts. As Hillbilly 33 said above “guilt or innocence will essentially be decided on the documentary evidence”. I believe the documentary evidence proving the existence of AWU-WRA as an unincorporated association in 1992 or earlier would require the signatures of all of its six members to be shown thereon. Ms Gillard should know about this type of signed paperwork with members signatures – she had her Socialist Forum association as her precedent with its signed documentation.

  7. The bottom line is ,its all about misusing of the funds. It’s stretching all logic to say its a set up or about something different. At the end of it money was collected and it should be readily apparent where it went . It’s still going to be a story to sell no matter what.. My question who will be the next lawyer brokering the deal?

  8. ‘When someone is accused of a crime and has no defence it is stock standard for them to attack the credibility of the witnesses giving evidence against them as that is their only way out.’
    Sounds a bit like Question Time in the present Parliament.

Leave a Reply