Independent SA MP Fraser Ellis guilty of four deceit charges, not guilty of 19

The SA MP said his position in parliament was still tenable despite being surprised by a verdict he said he expected would clear his name.

Independent MP Fraser Ellis has been found guilty of four counts of deceit for rorting $2738 from the Country Members Allowance – but acquitted of a further 19 counts of the same offence.

On Monday, following several years of delay-plagued legal hearings, the Adelaide Magistrates Court handed down its verdict on the case against Mr Ellis.

Magistrate Simon Smart said many of the alleged frauds were innocent, explainable errors of memory or accounting, but four were “dishonest” and “deliberate falsehoods”.

Outside court, Mr Ellis said he could not answer questions about his case but conceded he had been surprised by the verdict.

“I did not expect the outcome … having sat through that trial, I showed up today and hoped to be fully acquitted,” he said.

“I need a chance to talk to my legal team, understand the judgment and to just dissect the reasoning behind the magistrate’s decision so that I can make an informed decision about whether I appeal, and what the next steps are.”

He stressed he remained proud of all his work in his Narungga electorate over the past six years.

“Today doesn’t change that … I’m proud to stand up for my record in Narungga,” he said.

“I will keep doing that for as long as I’m permitted by the community, and allowed to.

“I intend to continue to serve until I’m told otherwise.”

Asked if his position in parliament remained tenable, he replied: “I believe so.”

Mr Ellis will now face a sentencing submissions hearing – which may determine whether he keeps his job in parliament.

South Australian independent MP Fraser Ellis. Picture: NCA NewsWire

Under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, the offence of deceiving another to benefit one’s self or a third party carries a maximum 10-year prison term.

Under the Magistrates Court Act, that court can impose sentences of no more than five years for one offence, or 10 for multiple offences, even if the legislated maximum is higher.

The Constitution Act specifies individuals cannot hold public office if convicted of an indictable offence – one determined by a Supreme or District Court judge and a jury.

For MPs serving as ministers, there are additional considerations.

The Ministerial Code of Conduct states that, if a minister is charged with an offence, the premier “shall decide the course or action that should be taken”.

“A minister may, among other things, be asked to apologise, be reprimanded or be asked to stand aside or resign,” it says.

Mr Ellis pleaded not guilty to 23 charges of deceit arising from an ICAC investigation into alleged misuse of the Country Member’s Accommodation Allowance for MPs.

Initially, the anti-corruption watchdog alleged Mr Ellis had made 78 fraudulent claims of the allowance, totalling more than $18,000.

The path to Mr Ellis’ trial was long and fraught, with multiple adjournments over legal issues including a failed bid to have crucial evidence covered by parliamentary privilege.

At trial, prosecutors alleged Mr Ellis had repeatedly claimed reimbursement for overnight accommodation without staying in Adelaide as required.

They alleged that, when media reports about the allowance were public, Mr Ellis issued a public statement that “constituted partial admissions” of his actions.

However, the court also heard Mr Ellis had had repaid $42,130 since first being accused.

His counsel argued the case was not one of dishonesty but of personal error, with Mr Ellis displaying “certain inaccuracies or laxity” when filling out allowance forms.

Mr Ellis had, they said, claimed the allowance for nights he did not sleep in Adelaide and failed to do so on nights he did, meaning those “mistakes go both ways”.

In his written verdict, Mr Smart noted Mr Ellis did not give evidence – as is his right under state law – and is a person of good character with no prior criminal convictions.

He said prosecutors alleged the forms showed a trend of “brazenness” and “proof of a guilty intent”, while defence argued they displayed “complacency and a lack of care”.

Mr Smart said such alleged trends were “unclear”, but the forms “contain obvious errors” in “many instances”, and that the MP himself was “making errors” in that paperwork.

He said he agreed, with defence counsel, that those errors went both ways.

Mr Ellis pleaded not guilty to the charges. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Mark Brake

“The whole of the evidence therefore tends to suggest an explanation consistent with innocence,” he said.

“Namely that, when trying to reconstruct his movements, Mr Ellis … could have made mistakes when relying solely on his memory and his diary.

“I agree with (defence counsel)’s argument that these facts speak against any underlying fraudulent plan.”

Mr Smart said that, for the balance of the charges, it was “at least a possibility” Mr Ellis “made a number of errors” but “was not deliberately making false representations”.

He was “not persuaded” Mr Ellis’ entries “were deliberately false” and “made with an intention to deceive”.

Further, he found some of the errors were to Mr Ellis’ “financial detriment”, a fact which “sits awkwardly” with allegations he acted with “deliberate dishonesty”.

Mr Smart found Mr Ellis not guilty of 19 counts, but said the remaining four charges stood apart.

He said a $690 claim, for a November 2018 stay, was an “intentionally false representation” made to “obtain a benefit dishonestly”.

Mr Ellis, he said, attended a wedding and drinks with former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett during that time, meaning his travel would have been “memorable”.

Mr Smart said a $460 claim, for an August 2019 stay, was “a deliberate falsehood” and “not a mistake”, as was a $468 claim for a January 2020 stay.

He said Mr Ellis’ $1170 claim for a May 2020 stay was a “dishonest” and “intentional misrepresentation”, given the MP was on the Yorke Peninsula at the time.

The court will hear sentencing submissions in September.