Former Turf Club board member Damien Moriarty starts legal action against ICAC

Another former board member of the Darwin Turf Club has begun legal action against the NT’s anti-corruption watchdog following the release of the damning report into the $12m turf club grandstand grant.

A SECOND former Darwin Turf Club board member has commenced legal action against the NT’s anti-corruption watchdog, seeking to strike out adverse findings made against him.

In documents lodged in the Supreme Court, lawyers for Damien Moriarty claim the ICAC exceeded its jurisdiction, made errors of law and failed to afford him procedural fairness in its damning report into the handling of the $12m turf club grandstand grant.

Mr Moriarty was one of five people who were the subject of adverse findings over the decision to award a $12m grant to the turf club to build a new grandstand. The club then awarded the tender to build the stand to a company owned by its chairman, Brett Dixon.

Former DTC board member Damien Moriarty. Picture: Gary Shipway

Mr Dixon, who was also the subject of adverse findings, has launched a separate Supreme Court challenge.

Mr Moriarty has also made a complaint to ICAC Inspector Bruce McClintock SC. In a letter to Mr McClintock, Mr Moriarty’s lawyer, Patrick Cozens, says his client was told – both orally and in writing – that he was not under investigation when he presented for two examinations in April and October 2020.

According to the complaint, Mr Moriarty was sent a notice ahead of the April examination where former Commissioner Ken Fleming QC wrote: “Pursuant to section 34(2)(c) of the Act, I advise that you ARE NOT under investigation.” Mr Moriarty attended this examination without legal representation where Mr Fleming declared he was a “protected person”.

Mr Moriarty was sent another notice to appear on September 28, 2020 which “again advised our client pursuant to s 34(2)(c) of the Act that he was not under investigation”.

The complaint alleges that at the subsequent hearing on October 8, Mr Fleming said: “Mr Moriarty, I know it’s an uncomfortable place where you are sitting today but can I assure you, you are not under investigation.”

It’s alleged Mr Moriarty only became aware he had been under investigation when he was sent a copy of proposed adverse findings made against him on May 7 this year.

Mr Moriarty is claiming he was denied natural justice because he was only given an opportunity to make submissions and be re-examined after the ICAC had proposed making adverse findings against him.

“There is a distinct difference between requiring submissions in response to findings proposed by counsel assisting, and requiring submissions in response to findings already proposed by the tribunal tasked with making those findings,” Mr Cozens wrote in his letter to Mr McClintock.

Mr Moriarty has also written a complaint to ICAC inspector Bruce McClintock. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Joel Carrett

“The latter puts a respondent at a distinct forensic disadvantage.”

The complaint says Mr Moriarty was told during his October 2020 examination that he would be given an opportunity to be re-examined and to provide submissions.

But, despite a follow-up email sent to ICAC investigator Sean Goff in November, no such opportunity was given before the draft adverse findings were presented on May 7.

Mr Moriarty’s lawyers subsequently wrote to the ICAC on May 24, rejecting its findings of misconduct and alleging it had breached Section 34 (2)(c) of the ICAC Act, which states a person “must be given a written notice … if the person is under investigation – stating that fact”.

They also claimed the ICAC had breached Section 50 of the Act, which states a person must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond if the ICAC proposes to make adverse findings.

But in an email sent on May 26, Mr Fleming responded: “In respect of your interpretation of sections 34 and 50, I do not agree.” He did not provide further reasons.

Mr Moriarty subsequently filed a 21-page response to the ICAC on June 11, rejecting the adverse findings made against him.

MORE NT NEWS

Darwin inmates found unconscious in their cells after fire, rushed to hospital

Why Gunner’s $12m vow motivated new Turf Club chairman to apply for role

Former Top End water park operators fined after underpaying worker

His lawyers claim this response was not adequately represented in the ICAC’s final report.

“Save for extracting a short summary of the response, the report provides minimal material from the response, and fails to include many of the exculpatory matters raised by our client,” Mr Cozens writes in his letter to Mr McClintock.

Mr McClintock said he had initially accepted Mr Moriarty’s complaint for investigation but has now deferred the matter pending the outcome of Mr Moriarty’s Supreme Court action.

In his Supreme Court action, lodged on Monday, Mr Moriarty is seeking a declaration by the ICAC that the adverse findings made against him were in excess of its jurisdiction, that they were made without affording him procedural fairness, and that they “were subject to jurisdictional error and/or were not made according to law and are a nullity”.

He is also seeking costs.

ICAC Commissioner Michael Riches, who took over from Mr Fleming on July 6, said he could not comment on the matter as it was before the courts.