Lionel Murphy files: Commission’s hands tied by restrictive guidelines

Some of the most salacious of the 41 allegations being investigated were deemed to be false or impossible to prove.

An allegation of Lionel Murphy wanting to have crime figure George Freeman, above, ‘knocked out’ was a ‘complete fabrication’.

Lionel Murphy was alleged to have been a Soviet spy, helped a drug dealer get out of Australia on a false passport, got a cheap house for Junie Morosi, imported pornography, dodged tax using diamonds, took free trips with Ethiopian Airlines, undermined the High Court by issuing minority judgments and sought to have Sydney crime figure George Freeman “knocked out”.

The parliamentary commission of inquiry established in 1986 was looking at these allegations and more involving perjury, perverting the course of justice, seeking to harm a Queen’s Counsel and seeking to bribe police officers.

But some of the most salacious of the 41 allegations being investigated were deemed to be false, probably fabricated, lacking evidence or impossible to prove. There were other allegations that were found to be true but were found not to fall into the category of “misbehaviour” of a judge that would warrant sacking under section 72 of the Constitution, and were not pursued.

The allegation that the judge, while he was attorney-general, had improperly “ordered the return to one Ramon Sala of a passport and his release from custody” was one of the first the commission decided to set aside. Sala used the returned fake passport to leave Australia and ­escape further scrutiny over drug dealing.

The commission found that while Murphy’s directions may have met with “disagreement” from the Australian Federal Police, this did not amount to mis­behaviour within the Constitution and recommended the matter be taken no further. Likewise the ­allegation that while attorney-general Murphy had ordered the lifting of surveillance of Sydney crime figure Abe Saffron was taken no further because there was no evidence the order had been made by him.

After investigating the claim that Murphy had been involved in a tax avoidance scheme using diamonds in Western Australia, the commission “confirmed” an earlier AFP probe that found “the documentation in provided relation to the alleged diamond was unreliable and in all likelihood false”.

A police investigation also concluded that the allegation about Murphy wanting to have Freeman “knocked out” was a “complete fabrication” and the commission said there was no evidence of misbehaviour. An allegation that Murphy had sought a $2000 bribe to “fix” a legal matter was also found to be false.

But there were some allegations that were true but still not acted upon because they did not go to proving misbehaviour strong enough to remove a High Court judge.

Three allegations of potential corruption relating to development sites in Sydney and crime ­figure Abe Saffron based on phone intercepts were considered to have insufficient evidence for action.

Free flights on Ethiopian Airways were taken but the commission said “whatever view one may take as to the propriety of a law ­officer accepting free or discounted travel” it did not amount to misbehaviour under section 72.

The commission also found that while he was in the Whitlam government, Murphy had approached another minister to get preferential treatment for Junie Morosi into government housing. The inquiry confirmed this was the case but again said it was not sufficient to seek to remove a High Court judge.

There were some technical legal issues which were also found to be true but not grounds for dismissal. Murphy’s remarks after his acquittal in the NSW court ­defending himself, his refusal to give evidence on oath and his continual “minority” decisions while on the High Court did not warrant any further action.

Murphy’s playing down of his relationship with Morgan Ryan, Saffron’s solicitor and friend and contact to the judge, was criticised by the commission but again it ­decided to “note only” the investigation into the allegation without taking further action.

In deciding not to pursue some lines of investigation or some allegations, the commission made it clear the inquiry’s guidelines were part of the reason it was restricted.

In rejecting some of the allegations, particularly in relation to the two trials Murphy had faced, the commission chafed against the ­restrictive guidelines the Hawke Labor government imposed on the inquiry. It said the guidelines made it impossible to inquire into and make findings on some relevant issues regarding section 72 and what constituted misbehaviour.

There was also the early termination of the inquiry, because of Murphy’s illness and death, which prevented full exploration of some allegations. On claims Murphy was going to persuade “the premier of a state” to intervene with a solicitor in a crown case to change a submission, the commission intended to interview the premier but could not “proceed to finality” ­as the inquiry was shutting down.