Former councillor pushes to reopen trial over the 2022 Adelaide City Council election with new evidence

There’s been a huge turn in the battle over the Adelaide City Council election result – with a lawyer comparing it to a bombshell turn in the Bruce Lehrmann case.

Mr Hyde (right) has alleged in court that Mr Li (left) defeated him by using “illegal practices”, a claim Mr Li has denied. Picture: Brenton Edwards

A former councillor’s challenge to the Adelaide City Council election should be reopened due to newly-discovered documents, just like the Bruce Lehrmann trial restarted when a Channel 7 producer blew the whistle, a court has heard.

On Wednesday, Alexander Hyde’s legal team compared email’s authored by his opponent, councillor Jing Li, to Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach’s pivotal role in the high-profile defamation case.

Simon Ower KC, for Mr Hyde, said his client’s case – which had adjourned for verdict following a trial – must be reopened to permit tender of the emails.

He claimed the emails, though partially redacted, made it “clear” that Mr Li had “personally facilitated the enrolment of potentially 500 voters by taking possession” of ballots, despite his denials in court.

Mr Ower said they showed that “rather than being a simply passive matter”, there was “active involvement by Mr Li” in obtaining ballots – and he had “failed” to disclose them ahead of trial, as required by court rules.

Jing Li’s emails

Emails, allegedly between Adelaide City councillor Jing Li and council staff, regarding the enrolment of voters ahead of his win. Picture: Supplied.

Simon Ower KC, for Mr Hyde, said his client’s case – which had adjourned for verdict following a trial – must be reopened to permit tender of the emails.

That, he said, warranted further investigation and court time, as occurred in the Lehrmann case.

“In that matter, a witness came forward with documents, Channel 10 moved very quickly and it was subject to the accommodation of the court,” he said.

“(Any scheduling difficulties) are mitigated by dealing with the quite serious issue of whether there has been a delinquence in respect of discovery (of documents) in this matter.

The emails were obtained via an FOI request.

“It somewhat beggars belief that it could now be asserted that these documents were not directly relevant.”

Mr Hyde has alleged in court that Mr Li defeated him only because of “illegal practices” and those of his supporters that were captured in photos and covertrecordings.

Mr Li, who has not been charged with any criminal offence, has denied the allegations and labelled Mr Hyde’s bid to overturn the vote “speculative and embarrassing”.

Last year, the court heard the software entrusted with tallying the result had malfunctioned, wrongly inflating the margin between Mr Li and Mr Hyde.

The software ruled Mr Li had defeated Mr Hyde by 31 votes, when the actual margin was 24 – the results of other elections were also affected.

Last month, a Freedom of Information request resulted in the release of documents including 16 emails from Mr Li to council staff with the names, phone numbers, addresses and respective wards of potential voters.

On Wednesday, Mr Ower conceded it was “almost happenstance, an amazing coincidence” that “we now have these documents”.

He said his client should also be given further time to obtain unpredicted copies of the emails and any other material arising from or connected to them.

“This is an unusual application (but) it’s in the interests of justice for us to take these steps,” he said.

“We do say (these emails) will affect the outcome.”

Counsel for Mr Li argued there “was certainly no illegal practices revealed” by the emails, meaning they were “not directly relevant” to Mr Hyde’s claim.

However, they said they did not oppose the trial being reopened “for a limited purpose”, nor the court having the emails in unredacted form.

They said they had already made “informal discovery” by providing uncensored versions to Mr Hyde’s lawyers.

Mr Ower said that did not comply with the rules nor change the seriousness of the situation.

“We do not accept that... we say this was deliberate conduct to avoid Mr Li being cross-examined,” he said.

District Court Judge Michael Burnett ruled the emails were “clearly directly relevant” and therefore “ought to have been” discovered prior to the trial.

He ordered Mr Li provide a list of all his relevant communications “on oath”, by sworn affidavit, which could permit cross-examination if Mr Hyde’s lawyers are not satisfied by its contents.

He ordered the trial reopen for further hearing in two weeks’ time.