Sean Fewster: Digance case has echoes of controversy over Paul Habib Nemer plea bargain from July 2003

Revelations in the Digance v Malinauskas case are without precedent, but they remind me of another highly controversial case, writes Sean Fewster.

Two senior lawyers and the state’s top prosecutor walk into the Sir Samuel Way Building, while a Labor government is in power, and quietly negotiate an end to a high-profile case.

That outcome sparks broad controversy as the public questions the openness and transparency of justice in our state.

To quote the meme of our times: If I had a nickel for every time I’d seen that happen, I’d have two nickels – which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it’s happened twice.

As senior lawyers have said, ex-Labor MP Annabel Digance being found guilty of blackmailing Premier Peter Malinauskas, then having her charges dropped, is without precedent.

I am nonetheless taken back to July 2003, when then-DPP Paul Rofe QC and defence counsel wrapped up the case of gunman Paul Habib Nemer with a plea bargain.

Former Labor MP Annabel Digance.

Convicted gunman Paul Habib Nemer in 2003.

For shooting an innocent newsagent in the eye, Nemer – son of one of the state’s richest families – received a $100 bond.

The mass public outcry that followed prompted appeals, cost Mr Rofe his job and won then-Premier Mike Rann a second term by successfully campaigning to have Nemer jailed.

Back then, SA’s premier was a side-player in the drama – this time, our political leader is unwillingly in the thick of it as both alleged victim and lawsuit defendant.

Ms Digance’s $2.3 million lawsuit has swung the spotlight back on the controversial practice of plea bargaining, on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and on the courts.

The best scenario, here, is that a genuine mistake has been made – that the Digances were meant to be restrained without admission of guilt, and the record should be altered.

The worst is that a “super deal”, as one lawyer put it, has been struck in a case steeped in politics – which has the potential to tarnish everyone involved in its finalisation.