Accusations that Victoria’s director of public prosecutions (DPP) ought to have approved criminal charges in connection with the Lawyer X incident have been denied.
According to Kerri Judd, KC, there was little likelihood of prosecuting anyone connected to the protracted investigation into how Victoria Police investigators tricked attorney Nicola Gobbo into turning informant and betraying her clients.
The former High Court judge charged with determining whether Ms. Gobbo or her police handlers should be prosecuted claimed in a damning report given to parliament yesterday that he had presented Ms. Judd with compelling evidence of criminal wrongdoing but had been rejected by the DPP.
The head of the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI), Justice Geoffrey Nettle, attacked Ms. Judd, calling her arguments against bringing charges against Ms. Gobbo or the officers who hired and oversaw her “offensive,” “displeasing,” and “disappointing.”
But in response to Justice Nettle’s remarks, Ms. Judd claimed that successful prosecutions faced tremendous challenges. One prospective witness, according to her, demanded compensation from the prosecution and a promise that their testimony wouldn’t be used against them in exchange for their testimony. Ms. Judd claimed she was hesitant to make those promises.
Ms. Judd emphasized that she and two other crown prosecutors, together with the chief crown prosecutor, had carefully considered Justice Nettle’s advice before deciding not to press charges.
“I ultimately came to the conclusion that no charges should be brought against any of the OSI’s nominees. According to the admissible evidence that was available, it was determined that none of the five people who were the focus of the investigation had a reasonable chance of being found guilty, Ms. Judd said.
Any successful prosecution, according to the DPP, would depend on the testimony of a convicted felon who was represented by Ms. Gobbo but who had exhibited reluctance to testify and whose testimony before the royal commission that looked into the Lawyer X affair would have been inadmissible in a criminal case.
In addition, Ms. Judd emphasized that while she had not ruled out potential future prosecutions, she was still awaiting an updated brief of evidence from the OSI.
At no point did I rule out the possibility of authorizing any further prosecution, and I would evaluate any new briefs on their merits while taking the Director’s Policy into consideration, according to Ms. Judd.
“I appreciate the OSI’s dedicated efforts in completing these extremely difficult investigations.
“My decisions in relation to these matters should only be seen as the outcome of careful and realistic evaluations of the evidence,” the statement reads.
According to the premier, politicians should keep their distance from investigations
Premier Daniel Andrews argued that government interference in who was charged was inappropriate.
Because that is not how our democracy operates, he continued, “you don’t want a situation where elected members of parliament are choosing who gets charged and with what.”
“It’s not a matter of being disappointed; it’s maybe a level of disappointment that Kerri Judd’s judgment lacked sufficient support for it.”
He claimed that the DPP has taken decisions that not everyone supported in the past.
We don’t want a situation where members of parliament decide who gets prosecuted and with what, since that would compromise the independence of those independent prosecutorial agencies, he said. “The evidence should be the only factor,” he added.
“I observed some, to put it bluntly, extremely absurd criticism to alter the special investigator’s authority. That is not what the royal committee recommended; we have adhered strictly to their advice.
