Court of Appeal rejects Narungga MP Fraser Ellis’ claim of parliamentary privilege

The trial of an MP on deceit charges will go ahead after the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal that could have knocked out the majority of the evidence against him.

The trial of an MP on deceit charges will go ahead after the Court of Appeal rejected his claims crucial evidence against him was covered by parliamentary privilege.

Member for Narungga Fraser Ellis is facing 23 charges of deceit stemming from his allegedly fraudulent claims of the Country Member’s allowance.

On Thursday, President of the Court of Appeal Mark Livesey, Appeals Justice Chris Bleby and Associate Appeals Justice Kevin Nicholson unanimously dismissed an appeal launched by Mr Ellis.

Mr Ellis had unsuccessfully tried to argue in the Magistrates Court hundreds of documents that showed he had claimed the allowance were covered by parliamentary privilege and unable to be used against him in court.

Member for Narungga Fraser Ellis. Picture: NCA NewsWire

If the documents were excluded, it was acknowledged the prosecution case would likely be discontinued.

Magistrate Simon Smart ruled against Mr Ellis, concluding the scope of the privilege did not automatically render all the documents inadmissable.

The trial was stayed as Mr Ellis appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.

During the Magistrates Court hearings Ryan Williams, prosecuting, told Mr Smart the forms filled out by Mr Ellis and other government staff were created for an administrative purpose.

“Parliamentary privilege should not dazzle the court,” he said.

“It’s not a cloak, it’s not a magic wand, you cannot wave the wand of parliamentary privilege so it attracts to these thousands of claim forms so they could not be admissible in any proceedings – that is to misunderstand the scope of the privilege.”

Tom Duggan KC, for Mr Ellis, argued then-opposition leader Peter Malinauskas had forced the hand of the then-Liberal Government to table the allowance documents, bringing them under the scope of the privilege.

The Court of Appeal held the documents had been first produced for an administrative purpose and were never intended to be tabled in parliament.

They ruled just because the documents were later produced to parliament, it did not retrospectively cloak the documents in privilege.

Further, the court held the copied documents tabled did not automatically shroud the original documents, which remain in the custody of parliament’s administrative wing, in privilege.