Hedley Thomas re-appears today in The Australian to tell us that Victorian Police have taken files (under a search warrant) from Julia Gillard's old law firm.
Yet if you read the report carefully, one will see that there is no mention of when they did this. Just that "sources told The Australian yesterday."
Given that Gillard is under intense leadership, doesn't this leak just appear a bit convenient?
I personally suspect that there is something deeply fishy and potentially scandalous about the whole matter of the Victorian police investigation into the Gillard "did she or did she not properly witness a Power of Attorney" question.
The point is - no one seems to be claiming that anyone lost any money out of this, and the person whose evidence is crucial (Ralph Blewitt) is both widely considered to be a crook, and does not deny signing the Power of Attorney.
A lawyer who improperly witnessed a document may certainly be guilty of unprofessional conduct, but it is a matter normally dealt with by the local Law Society, as this blog post by a barrister with lots of examples illustrates. He points out that solicitors don't even usually lose the right to practice over such a matter.
Without knowing the exact details of what Blewitt has alleged, it is difficult to know completely what the Police are running with. But it has always looked very strange to me that the Victorian Police have such an intense interest in a matter which is nearly 20 years old, and in which no one alleges any money was lost. Furthermore, it has to be remembered that Michael Smith, a man well motivated to have a nutty personal obsession with politically hurting the PM, but who wasn't even involved in the matter, is apparently the one who has made the complaint that the police are investigating. How does that work?
Will it work like this: Police conduct investigation for a year or more, hand it over to public prosecutor lawyers who decide there is insufficient evidence to charge anything, and it really is more a matter of professional misconduct? Meanwhile, political damage has been maximised? Wouldn't that be considered a somewhat scandalous outcome?
Or is it that Blewitt has made some other allegation of Gillard's knowledge of the source of funds to buy the house in Melbourne? But as his partner in dodgy business Wilson is completely supporting Gillard, how would you ever hope that there is a credible case to be worth running?
If it is only relating to the power of attorney, why has there been no lawyer or reporter out there asking "why are the police so interested in an old matter which would normally be one relating to professional conduct only"? Or has there been, but I have missed it?
I have been meaning to make this point for many months, but today's report was the one to finally prompt me to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment