Coronavirus: Hotel quarantine witnesses ‘open to charges’

Key witnesses in the hotel quarantine inquiry may have left themselves open to criminal charges.

Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton. Picture: Ian Currie

Key witnesses in the quarantine inquiry may have left themselves open to criminal charges under strict laws empowering the commission to investigate the hotel ­fiasco.

Senior lawyers have told The Australian there is an emerging view within the legal community that several witnesses — including former top public servant Chris Eccles and Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton — could be in breach of the Victorian Inquiries Act 2014.

Sections 86-90 of the act set out a range of offences relating to evidence and the tendering of documents, including failing to comply with a notice to produce, an offence to hinder, obstruct, or cause serious disruption to proceeding, and an offence to make false or misleading statements or produce false or misleading documents or other things.

The offences carry penalties, with a breach of section 86 carrying a fine of almost $40,000 and two years’ jail. Section 90 carries a fine of almost $20,000 and 12 months’ prison.

“You will see the offence provisions which clearly make it an offence to fail to produce documents called for under a notice to produce and to give misleading evidence,” one eminent legal figures said.

Mr Eccles resigned as the Premier’s top public servant after admitting his phone records were at odds with his evidence to the inquiry, as they established he called former top cop Graham Ashton on March 27, a critical day when the hotel program was being set up, as the coronavirus hit the nation.

Evidence revealed by the ­inquiry on Tuesday showed that Dr Sutton had requested the ­DHHS withhold an email from the inquiry that suggested he may have known about the employment of private security guards months earlier than what he admitted to. Mr Eccles could not be reached for comment, and the government declined to comment on his behalf. Dr Sutton said: “I have not yet received a request to provide further evidence ... when I do, I will respond fully.

“I have always been completely honest and truthful with the Board of Inquiry and will continue to be.”

If there were any referrals for potential breaches of the act, it’s expected they would form part of the final report.

A lawyer also said that law firm Minter Ellison, which represented the DHHS, may also be in breach of its ethical duties.

“If Minter Ellison advised Sutton that he should not produce these emails then they are in breach of their ethical duties. Will this commissioner lay charges?” Minter Ellison and the DHHS have been denied to the inquiry that they acted improperly.

One experienced legal figure slammed the inquiry as “ineffective”. “It has not been properly conducted, the witnesses have not been properly cross examined,” the legal figure said. The DHHS lawyers said after the close of evidence a DHHS employee, who had been a witness in the inquiry, asked whether the email from Professor Sutton to Braedan Hogan at 6.45pm on March 27 and an April 1 email from doctor Finn Romanes and two other emails had been provided to the board.

While only the March 27 email chain and the April 1 email were relevant to the board’s letter, they said DHHS was happy to provide copies of the additional emails to the board, “but would be grateful to receive a notice to produce prior to doing so, to ensure it is ­afforded the protections under the Inquiries Act 2014”. Daniel Andrews said Dr Sutton retained his full support and that he was confident the rest of the government was co-operating fully with the hotel quarantine inquiry.

“The Chief Health Officer‘s got a very important job to do, he leads a team … I’m grateful to all of them,” he said.

The Premier said he’d been asked to answer some “pretty basic questions” in an affidavit to the inquiry following the resignations of Mr Eccles and health minister Jenny Mikakos. “I’m not changing my evidence,” he said.