Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s ex boyfriend Bruce Wilson had a win in court last week and his appeal was upheld which sees the Victoria police AWU fraud investigation head back to the magistrates court. The appeal was in regards to a judgement of Chief Magistrate Lauritsen who allowed the Victoria police access to hundreds of documents at Slater and Gordon lawyers when Julia Gillard worked there in the 1990’s.
It is suspected by many (including me and a lot of the readers of this site) that the documents incriminate Bruce Wilson, Julia Gillard and Ralph Blewitt and maybe others for crimes such as fraud. Mr Blewitt has already admitted his involvement in the fraud.
The Supreme Court judge hearing the appeal was Justice Forrest and he “said on Tuesday the magistrate had erred when he decided not to call Mr Blewitt to give evidence because it would involve undue expense and delay.”
“The judge said Mr Blewitt’s statements tendered to the court were hearsay and should not have been admitted.” (Click here to read more)
I have to wonder how did Chief Magistrate Lauritsen make such a simple mistake.
Chief Magistrate Lauritsen
This is where it starts to get tricky for the police and also potentially is where Bruce Wilson and Julia Gillard could get off. Chief Magistrate Lauritsen is a known Labor Party appointment and as I wrote last year “Mr Lauritsen is a good Labor Party boy who has a direct personal interest in the case via John Cain and should be nowhere near the matter. That’s the same Peter Lauritsen that was identified as being corrupt by former ACT Chief Magistrate Ron Cahill in 2009.” (Click here to read more)
Now that this will be heard again before Magistrate Lauritsen a number of issues will be raised such as the credibility of Ralph Blewitt especially given his admissions at the Trade Union Royal Commission. I wrote the below after he gave his evidence:
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. (Click here to read more)
What happened at the Royal Commission was always on the cards and I wrote about this scenario in March last year and said this about Nowicki:
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)
Catching Julia Gillard
People raise the point that there is a lot more evidence against Julia Gillard than just Ralph Blewitt which is true. But once you can raise suspicion about the credibility of some evidence then it damages the credibility of all the evidence at least to some degree in the eyes of any impartial jury. There is a lot of mud that Bruce Wilson’s legal team can throw at Ralph Blewitt when he is in the witness stand at the magistrate’s court and even more now given the evidence that came out at the Royal Commission.
The unanswered questions
The key question for the Victoria police will be is do they now call Ralph Blewitt as a witness and if they do will he come from Malaysia and who will pay for it. And if Blewitt does attend the court to give evidence how much damage will it do to their case. This is where it gets tougher. Bruce Wilson and his lawyers do not have to prove that any of Wilson’s lies are true. They just have to throw enough doubt into a jury’s mind so they do not find him guilty.
Admin: I am a little bit slow this week with posts but should be back on track now.
Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and promote this post.
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 button below 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.