There was “sufficient evidence” to justify an investigation into former Renewal SA boss John Hanlon’s interstate and international travels, but South Australia’s anti-corruption watchdog “substantially mismanaged” parts of its inquiries, a review of the case has found.
Key points:
- A review of how ICAC handled an investigation into the former Renewal SA boss’s travels has been tabled in parliament
- It was critical of the work undertaken by the anti-corruption watchdog in Germany
- It found the failure to follow processes amounted to “an infringement of Germany’s sovereignty”
Mr Hanlon was first charged with abuse of public office in 2020 after an investigation under the former independent commissioner against corruption, Bruce Lander KC.
That investigation focused on trips Mr Hanlon took to Melbourne and Germany during his time as chief executive.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) discontinued a case against Mr Hanlon for a second time last year, after the District Court excluded six statements made by German citizens from being presented at trial, because ICAC investigators obtained them illegally without the permission of the German government.
Mr Hanlon has always maintained his innocence.
His colleague Georgina Vasilevski was also charged in relation to expenses claimed for the Melbourne trip, but those were also dropped.
Ms Vasilevski also maintained her innocence throughout the proceedings.
The handling of both investigations and prosecutions sparked calls for a royal commission from SA Best MLC Frank Pangallo.
Attorney-General Kyam Maher in December asked the ICAC inspector Philip Strickland SC to review ICAC’s investigation into Mr Hanlon.
In his review of the case, tabled in South Australia’s parliament on Tuesday, Mr Strickland criticised the work undertaken by the anti-corruption watchdog in Germany, finding aspects of its inquiries amounted to “maladministration”.
“Before the ICAC investigators undertook the Germany trip, they should have sought and received legal advice about the lawfulness of ICAC’s investigations in Germany, and how those investigations should have been undertaken to comply with German law,” he said.
“It was highly regrettable that neither any ICAC legal officer nor Mr Lander turned their mind to the fundamental issue of whether the ICAC investigators had the lawful authority to carry out official functions in Germany without the knowledge and permission of the German authorities.”
Sovereignty ‘infringed’ but investigation ‘justified’
Mr Strickland said the failure to follow processes in Germany amounted to “an infringement of Germany’s sovereignty”, had the potential to cause “significant damage to the reputation and the integrity of ICAC”, and could have caused “diplomatic embarrassment to Australia or South Australia”.
Mr Strickland found the ICAC later sought legal advice about affidavits gathered by its investigators in Germany, but that advice was not implemented.
“This was a significant institutional failure,” he said.
But Mr Strickland said the decision to investigate trips Mr Hanlon took to Melbourne and Germany was “justified”.
“The decision by Mr Lander to investigate Mr Hanlon’s Melbourne trip and the report by the employee of Renewal SA about the use of public funds was … appropriate in the circumstances as the report was reasonably assessed as giving rise to a potential issue of corruption in public administration,” he said.
“I have found that there was sufficient evidence to justify the investigation by ICAC into Mr Hanlon’s Melbourne and Germany trips.
“I have also found that the referral of those allegations to the DPP were appropriate and reasonable.”
Mr Strickland also found issues with the ICAC’s evidence disclosure procedures, saying while the COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption, the anti-corruption watchdog should have had more robust procedures in place.
He did not find any evidence of a “pervasive culture of inappropriately pursuing prosecutions”, nor any “pressure” to finalise the brief.
But he said some language used by investigators may have created “the appearance of bias or partiality”.
Mr Strickland said any harm caused to Mr Hanlon’s reputation was not caused by “deficiencies in the ICAC investigation or by ICAC’s failures of disclosure to the DPP”.
“The damage to Mr Hanlon’s reputation would have occurred whether the improprieties and deficiencies by ICAC had occurred or not,” he said.
The review has recommended more training for staff about appropriate record keeping and management, and improved processes around evidence gathering in different jurisdictions.
Mr Strickland said he did not believe any individual ICAC officer should be referred to SA Police, and found new procedures put in place by ICAC under current commissioner Ann Vanstone were “appropriate and reasonable”.
“It is important that an integrity body such as ICAC has in place robust systems for ensuring that investigations, referrals for prosecution, and disclosure are in place,” he said.
Commissioner Vanstone declined to comment on the review.
The ABC has contacted former Commissioner Bruce Lander for comment.