Annabel and Greg Digance found guilty of blackmailing South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas: court

The former Labor MP suing South Australia’s premier for $2.3m was earlier found guilty of blackmailing him, a court has been told.

A former Labor MP who has launched a $2.3m lawsuit against South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas was earlier found guilty of blackmailing him, a court has been told.

Annabel Digance is suing Mr Malinauskas for damages, claiming he orchestrated a “malicious prosecution” against her to further his own political ambitions and crush a parliamentary inquiry into alleged bullying in the Labor Party.

The former parliamentarian’s civil lawsuit was heard for the first time in the South Australian Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Justice Graham Dart revealed Mrs Digance and her husband Greg had been found guilty of blackmailing Mr Malinauskas before their charges were later dropped, according to court records.

Justice Dart said he had an order from the lower District Court saying there had been a finding of guilt.

“There’s a sealed order of a court saying , someone has pleaded guilty and ... this is the penalty, or these are the orders made as a consequence of that guilt,” he said.

Annabel and Greg Digance were found guilty of blackmailing Mr Malinauskas before the charges were dropped. Picture: Naomi Jellicoe

Mr Malinauskas has led South Australian since 2022. Picture: Martin Ollman

Mrs Digance and her husband Greg were charged with blackmailing Mr Malinauskas in 2021, but the charges were dropped in 2023 after the couple agreed to refrain from contacting him.

The alleged blackmail conduct centred on secret recordings between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Digance in February 2020 and Mr and Mrs Digance in March 2020.

The pair were never sentenced and the case was dismissed by District Court Judge Paul Muscat.

On Wednesday, Michael Abbott KC, appearing for Mr Malinauskas, spoke about how the Digances could have been found guilty but not sentenced, suggesting the DPP had “interrupted” standard legal processes.

“Judge Muscat, when he entered the court, thought he was undertaking a directions hearing … it was then made clear to him, there were to be no directions made, but the matter was to be brought to a conclusion,” Mr Abbott said.

“The sentencing process, which took place, included the making of the (court) orders. After those orders were made, the sentencing process … was then brought to an end by the Director of Public Prosecutions, entering a nolle prosequi.”

Nolle prosequi is a legal term that refers to a prosecutorial decision to bring a criminal proceeding to an end.

“The sentencing process, which took place, included the making of the (court) orders. After those orders were made, the sentencing process … was then brought to an end by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

“The sentencing process was not complete,” Mr Abbott said.

“The sentencing judge could have gone on to impose a sentence of imprisonment, or a fine, or a bond.

“However, apparently, the correspondence, presumably, and the arrangement was made with the DPP, was that the only penalty (was the court order).

“That’s what the nolle prosequi did, it interrupted the sentencing process by bringing it to an immediate termination.”

Martin Hinton KC is South Australia’s DPP.

Mr Abbott asked Justice Dart to order the South Australian Police and Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to hand over documents explaining the agreement with the Digances.

“Given the outcome, there must have been an agreement reached that if they effectively agreed to (court) orders, the rest of the charges wouldn’t be pursued,” Justice Dart asked.

“That’s what we understand to be the effect of whatever communications occurred, but we of course were not party to any of that,” Mr Abbott said.

Mrs Digance’s Statement of Claim, submitted by Carroll and O’Dea Solicitors, argues her arrest and prosecution caused “injury, loss, damage and harm” and that Mr Malinauskas conspired with the SA Police to pursue her.

“The circumstances giving rise to the causes of action immediately caused the cancellation of Mrs Digance’s employment, permanently damaged Mrs Digance’s prospects of further employment, required Mrs Digance to incur substantial legal expenses in defending herself against the prosecution and required Mrs Digance to incur medical expenses,” the claim states.

Annabel Digance was a former Labor member of the South Australian parliament and a candidate for the federal seat of Boothby. Picture: Supplied

The lawsuit is directed against both the premier and the state of South Australia, represented by the South Australian Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mrs Digance is asking for $2.3m in damages.

The claim references the issue of nolle prosequi and argues Mr Hinton’s legal maneuver supported Mrs Digance’s position.

“On April 21, 2023, the prosecution was terminated in favour of Mrs Digance when the Director of Public Prosecutions, Martin Hinton, entered a nolle prosequi,”the claim states.

“The entry of the nolle prosequi was, in practical effect, an acceptance that there were no prospects of the prosecution succeeding, it had been unreasonable to commence the prosecution and it had been unreasonable to maintain the prosecution.”

Justice Dart spoke of the finding of guilt in reference to Mrs Digance’s claim of “malicious prosecution”.

“My understanding from malicious prosecution generally is, if there’s some finding of anything approaching guilt, then the prosecution’s not malicious,” he said.

On Wednesday, Mr Abbott and lawyers representing the state of South Australia state indicated they would apply for summary judgement in relation to some of the claims, meaning they will argue the case should be thrown out without going to trial.

Applications will be filed with the court by August 29, with a next hearing scheduled for September 4.

Originally published as Annabel and Greg Digance found guilty of blackmailing South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas: court