Five SA public servants tell court ICAC corruption case levelled against them is a ‘stir-fry’ of injustice and absurdity

CORRUPTION charges against five Department of Transport workers are “a stir-fry” of absurdity and fanciful claims that lack common sense and mock justice, a court has heard.

Peter Braddock outside the Adelaide Magistrates Court.

Editor’s Note: On July 28, 2016, prosecutors withdrew the allegations made against both Trent Rusby and Joe Rositano, resulting in the charges against them being dropped. At all times they denied the allegations. We have been informed by Mr Rusby that the South Australian Attorney General’s Department paid compensation for legal expenses.

 

CORRUPTION charges against five Department of Transport workers are “a stir-fry” of absurdity and fanciful claims that lack common sense and mock justice, a court has heard.

On Tuesday, two of five men accused of buying a wealth of luxury goods on government credit cards asked the Adelaide Magistrates Court to quash their client’s cases prior to trial.

Counsel for Trent Rusby and Peter Braddock said it was unfair their clients were being linked to the alleged crimes of regional co-ordinator of marine compliance Michael King.

Michael Woods, for Braddock, said the duo were at risk of facing District Court trials for what should be, at most, summary offences punishable with bonds or fines.

“Thankfully these courts are evolved above cooking shows and don’t accept stir-fry, because that’s what the prosecution is trying to do in this matter,” he said.

“There is an absurdity to this situation ... it is fanciful ... it makes an absolute mockery of the justice system.

“This cannot accord with common sense or justice.”

King, 44, of Parkside, Rusby, 48, of Wistow and Braddock, 44, of Pooraka, have yet to enter pleas following a year-long ICAC investigation.

Michael Fahy, 57, of Coonamia in the Mid-North and Joe Rositano, 52, of Smithfield, are also facing charges.

Trent Rusby outside the Adelaide Magistrates Court.

As exclusively revealed by The Advertiser, all charges relate to the alleged use of government credit cards to buy and misappropriate electrical and consumer goods.

In May, four of the men — who face between one and three charges each — said they wanted to be tried separately from King, who faces 22 counts.

On Tuesday, Mr Woods said the case against Braddock amounted to allegations he had delivered a trailer to a worksite prior to it going missing.

He said it would be “absurd” for that to be considered theft — and, even if it were, it should not be set for trial before a District Court jury alongside King’s case.

Luke Officer, for Rusby, agreed, saying his client’s alleged thefts totalled $2149.22 — below the statute-mandated $2500 needed to prosecute at trial.

“How can all of King’s charges, with which my client has not been jointly charged, form the basis for elevating summary matters to major indictable matters?” he said.

Mr Woods asked the court to sever the cases if it was not prepared to quash the allegations, but Magistrate Ian White declined.

“I shouldn’t rule on severance if this court is not going to be the ultimate trier of fact ... that would be seen, by members of the public, as a strange thing,” he said.

He remanded the men on continuing bail for a ruling on the quash applications in three weeks.

Follow @SeanFewster