Ex-Labor MP Annabel Digance’s Peter Malinauskas blackmail guilty court transcripts don’t match
The Premier has told a court he was “not a party” to negotiations with a former MP who was secretly found guilty of blackmailing him – as it’s revealed court transcripts don’t match up.
SA News
Don't miss out on the headlines from SA News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Sealed court orders finding ex-Labor MP Annabel Digance guilty of blackmailing Premier Peter Malinauskas do not match the transcript of the 11-minute hearing at which they were imposed, it can be revealed.
Transcript viewed by The Advertiser shows that finding of guilt, revealed in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, was recorded without an arraignment being conducted, pleas being entered or any of the standard sentencing procedures.
It also shows orders banning her from contacting Mr Malinauskas arrived at the District Court so late, the judge was handed them as he “walked in the door” – and had to fix multiple errors before they could be imposed.
Mr Malinauskas, meanwhile, has told the Supreme Court he was “not a party” to negotiations between Ms Digance and prosecutors that saw her case resolved without a sentence – and now wants to see all correspondence between them.
On Thursday, The Advertiser viewed documents key to Ms Malinauskas’ claim that Ms Digance’s $2.3 million malicious prosecution lawsuit is without merit and should be immediately thrown out.
The first is the District Court’s transcript from April 21, 2023, when prosecutors dropped blackmail charges against her and her husband, Greg.
The couple, who had pleaded not guilty to the charges, were due to stand trial the following month.
The hearing, before Judge Paul Muscat, began at 2.05pm as a directions hearing – which is closed to the public and media – to either expedite or vacate the trial.
However, Director of Public Prosecutions Martin Hinton KC said “the matter has resolved”, and Judge Muscat ordered the court be opened.
Mr Hinton said formal orders, banning Mr and Mrs Digance from approaching Mr Malinauskas and his family, had been prepared and apologised for their lateness.
Judge Muscat replied: “I’ve just been handed them as I walked in the door.”
Mr Hinton said the orders were “by consent” of all parties and “upon the orders made, a nolle prosequi will be entered in relation” to the blackmail charges.
Nolle prosequi is a legal term for the withdrawal of charges by prosecutors.
Barristers Steven Milsteed and Jane Powell, for Mr and Mrs Digance, confirmed their clients have “seen the draft” orders and “fully understand” their terms.
When Judge Muscat moved to impose the orders, Mr Hinton explained they were being laid not by his office, but by SA Police – with a police prosecutor in attendance to act.
That prosecutor then took conduct of the hearing long enough for the Digances to be warned they risked further prosecution should they breach them.
Judge Muscat, however, pointed out both orders named Mr Digance as the recipient, and lacked his date of birth, while neither named Mrs Digance.
He amended, signed and imposed the orders.
“So that now comes back to you, Mr Hinton, in light of the fact the orders have been issued by the court and accepted by each Mr and Mrs Digance,” he said.
“We come back to the information (charging them with blackmail).”
Mr Hinton replied: “And I enter a nolle prosequi.”
“That will be noted, and that brings an end to these proceedings … I formally vacate the trial date,” Judge Muscat said, adjourning the hearing 11 minutes after it began.
The transcript does not record Mr or Mrs Digance changing their not guilty pleas, nor being arraigned for blackmail, nor the allocutus – or pre-sentencing statement – being read.
All are standard, formal and required parts of the sentencing process.
The second document viewed by The Advertiser is a copy of the sealed orders imposed upon Ms Digance.
“The court, having found the defendant Annabel Faith Digance guilty, considers that it should exercise (its) power … to issue against the defendant (an order),” it says.
It bans her from contacting or communicating with Mr Malinauskas in any way save in parliamentary settings with the prior permission of Attorney-General Kyam Maher.
Those sealed orders are signed by Judge Muscat.
The third document viewed is part of Mr Malinauskas’ response to Ms Digance’s lawsuit.
In it, his counsel alleges the transcript and the sealed orders support their client’s argument that the claim should be struck out.
“(They) represent an acknowledgment by Ms Digance that she had engaged in wrongdoing in communications with Mr Malinauskas, which were the foundation for the prosecution,” it says.
“The precise terms of the resolution of the prosecution are not known to Mr Malinauskas.
“I am informed by Mr Malinauskas and believe that he was not a party to negotiations between solicitors acting for Ms Digance and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
“He has not seen any records of that negotiation and the resolution apparently reached.
“Any such records must be in the possession, custody or power of both Ms Digance and the State of SA.”
Mr Malinauskas’ counsel asked the court to order those records be handed over to them.
Ms Digance’s lawsuit returns to court in September.
Originally published as Ex-Labor MP Annabel Digance’s Peter Malinauskas blackmail guilty court transcripts don’t match
Class acts with big dreams: Meet SA’s private school captains
These bright sparks, who lead some of the SA private schools ranked in the nation’s top 100, have big aspirations for the future. Meet the school captains from the class of 2025.
Read more
‘Wave of ODs’: The deadly potent drug flooding SA streets
Injecting drug users are unwittingly playing Russian roulette, unaware if their dose has been laced with a super powerful and potentially deadly opioid, worried researchers warn.
Read more