Today in court the case against Craig Thomson weakened, as it would seem that Fair Work Australia backs away from its allegations against the Federal MP.
A judge has decided to adjourn the hearing on virtually all of Fair Work Australia’s civil matters against Thomson, these include allegations around travel, accommodation, meals, cash withdrawls, and of course the allegations of brothel use.
All that remains of the civil matters is the allegations surrounding Thomson’s use of Union funds for the purpose of campaigning for the Federal seat of Dobell. These are claims that Thomson has not denied, in fact was quick to point out that the HSU which was affiliated with the ALP at the time, did indeed provide campaign funds for the seat, as it was one of the seats that the ACTU had indicated as focus electorates for that campaign.
What this means is that FWA does not believe it holds enough evidence to mount a civil suit against Thomson on these matters, and will await the outcome of the criminal proceedings. If Thomson is aquitted in criminal proceedings then the whole matter is dead and buried and no further cases on these issues can be made against Craig Thomson.
Craig and Zoe Thomson- good news at last
The criminal case against Thomson has been dealt a massive blow by this court action today, as the civil proceedings run to a vastly lower standard to criminal proceedings. The chances of Thomson being found guilty of any of these charges in a criminal court can now best be described as remote as there is not even enough evidence to support a civil case.
Thomson’s Barrister, Chris McArdle who attended court today claimed that today’s news “further vindicated his client” and was “Another step towards to total exhoneration of Craig Thomson”
I asked Mr McArdle if this meant a greater chance of defamation cases against Kathy Jackson and some of her Coalition friends, to which he responded “Absolutely”
Bring it on I say….
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
There is no pecuniary anything for almost all the claims made by the FWA mob, they know it and said it at the time.
They are using Craig Thomson as an example and they admitted that at the time.
That’s not correct, there are rules governing the use of company credit cards, them bing that they must be used on official employer business, this was made clear to me when I signed for my work visa cards 10 years ago.
No, There is only one correct one and that’s taken from what the Judge said in his judgement, the link to that is up the page.its written in plain English.
The rule you think doesn’t exist is in fact called FRAUD, yes it does exist and is a serious crime.
Wow, I didn’t realise you worked for the HSU
Because everybody has the sakes rules and regulations…., right?
As the NSW Police said originally there is no case for fraud
The card in question bore Craig Thomson’s name and he had authorization to use it. This means unless somebody else was using it and forging his signature there is no fraud committed….
So your implying that anybody who gets an employer credit card can go out spend on anything, withdraw as much money as they want and put into their own bank and they can legally do this? No, they can’t, there are fraud and embezzlement laws for a reason, why do you think he was handcuffed and dragged away and put in jail? Do you actually think the Police Prosecutor would pursue this case if no crime had been committed. Why do you think it was the Fraud Squad that arrested him, why do you think he has been charged with 149 counts of Fraud?
I’m not implying anything, I am simply stating that different organisations have different rules and regulations
You seem to think they all operate under some sort of universal set of rules.
We will see how many of those charges hold up in court in Vic. NSW refused to go there,,,,
Wixxy, I know you are having fun this Wayne Milton character, but he’s getting really boring. A notification comes in, and it turns out to be just the same old shite.
I wouldn’t say I’m having fun….
But I certainly see your point 🙂
I have watched and listened to questions in parliament; reports in the media; concerning the allegations made against Mr Thompson MP; and I remain of the opinion, that he has no case to answer, unless of course, evidence still awaiting examination must be considered by our esteemed legal system. But I do appreciate that in our legal system, our courts have very powerful rulings about hearsay. As I understand, the rule against hearsay prohibits witnesses repeating out-of-court statements made by others in order to establish the truth of those statements. It will be interesting to see the matter further unfold and it will also be interesting to observe how questions by Mr Abbott MP including his Liberal parliamentary members “attack dogs” continue to use privilege in the parliament to advance either facts or fiction.
Your beliefs on the meaning of hearsay are wrong, if you overheard a hooker talking to a friend and she said Craig Thomson paid her for sex that’s not hearsay, if a friend told you that she heard a hooker say that she had sex with Thomson that is hearsay.
Wixxy….I found the rules for you governing the HSU credit card use, I believe this one covers what Craig has or hasn’t done
HSU Rule 36(b) not to expend funds of the HSU unless the expenditure:
a. had been authorised by the National Council or the National Executive; or
b. was expenditure on the general administration of the HSU or for purposes reasonably incidental to the general administration of the HSU.
So the 150 counts he’s been charged with are all individual items of expenditure on his Visa Card that have nothing to do with the HSU e,g dinners, brothels, holidays etc. So all he has to do is explain to a Judge, convincingly, how those charges came to occur on a Credit Card he was issued with. Shouldn’t be a problem right, bearing in mind just about every person in the world with a credit card keep it in their wallet.
The entire point is that he had the permission to spend up to $50K on transactions
This permission came from the National executive
so even if the allegations are correct, he is still in the clear
Wow, I’m just reading the evidence against him, like this handy little snippet
27. The Respondent:
a. flew from Melbourne to Sydney on or about 11 June 2005;
b. had both the CT Credit Cards in his possession on both 11 and 12 June 2005;
c. attended the Australian Labor Party NSW Branch (NSW ALP) State Conference, which
was held on 11 and 12 June 2005;
d. stayed the night in Sydney on both 11 and 12 June 2005.
28. On or about 11 or 12 June 2005, while in Sydney, the Respondent:
a. caught a taxi from the city to Taylor Square, which is approximately 500 metres from 99
Albion Street, Surrey Hills; and
b. used the CT CBA Mastercard to purchase services from a brothel called Tiffany’s operated
by Nolta Pty Ltd at 99 Albion Street, Surry Hills, at a cost of $418.00.
PARTICULARS
Particulars CT CBA Mastercard transaction:
Date on credit card. Transaction details statement. Amount
11 June 2005. “NOLTA PTY LTD SURRY HILLS AU”. $418.00
Wow, pretty damning stuff
We have all read the papers Paul, and no matter how damning you think that wording as specific as “on or about” is, the fact is the NSW Police even with all of this “damning stuff” you speak of dropped the case as even if the allegations were true, and they are disputed, no crime was committed due to the terms of use of the credit card.
You are about 8 months behind the conversation….
The term “on or about” is the term used by prosecutors, even if you got caught robbing a bank by the police when you get charged they use the same phrase, LEGAL SPEAK. it’s great to know that he has it in writing that he can spend up to $50,000 a month on anything he likes,strange the ASU are seeing him then for the money, did he pay tax on this Fringe Benifit or will the ATO be chasing him next?
You may think it strange that people have credit cards and travel for work, which involves food, drink and accomadation, I don’t.
Why would the ATO chase him? Having to travel for work is not a benefit, in fact many companies pay a living away from home allowance for the inconvenience.
I assume that Craig found being away from his family to not be beneficial, you apparently don’t feel that way about yours
@ Paul Whickham. Well, what can I say, except that the judge will decide and rule accordingly on hearsay. Of course the burden or onus of proof as it is often referred to, requires a duty that lies on a party either to introduce evidence so that the party’s case, or a particular defence, may be left to the jury (the evidential burden) or to ultimately persuade the jury that a party has established a case, or a particular defence (the legal burden). We must not confuse the newspapers reporting of parliamentary question time or its problematic party political ‘shadow-boxing’ concerning the charges as laid before a proper court of law, which is totally separate from any public (hearsay) opinion on this interesting matter.
Hotels, food, car hire are all ok, they can be easy explained and paid for by visa Card, $102,000 in cash withdrawals on top of these are not, neither are flights for his wife. The $150,000+ salary was compensation for being away from home. I suppose the brothels were because he missed his family?
The Corporate charge card is as old as when American Express was first invented. The holder of the Corporate charge card is given permission either by himself, by his partners, or by the directors etc to use it according to agreements made in house. Even Government Departmental Heads, Ministerial and Non Ministerial, members of parliament and so on, they’ve all held corporate charge cards and used them according to agreements entered into by others etc.
As I said, these are disputed, and unless over $50K were already allowed at any rate….
But hey, I’m sure you’d know more than the NSW police force….
ADAM SMITH, fear not, I don’t pay much attention to MSM, everything you would like to know, including each charge itemised that has been laid plus the evidence provided to the court is readily available at;
http://www.federalcourt.gov.au/case-management-services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/fwa-v-thomson
Here you can read the latest Judgement, the Originating Application which includes evidence in the form of Bank Statements etc. it makes very interesting reading I’m surprised the MSM havnt published it. Later I will read Craig Thomsons Defence statement, should be good for a laugh.
Even the Commissioner of Police, their heads of departments have a corporate charge card. I think that the Highway Patrol Officer has a corporate charge card? Judges use them, prosecutors use them and so on.
It’s entirely in the hands of our judges. But not in the hands of a newspaper writing in ways that can lead to you know what!
@Paul Whickham. I suspect that you may know this man personally. Myself, I do not know this man. However, the law is made by us. I’m interested in the way in which our elected members of parliament use their position of privilege; how our elected law makers conduct themselves. I’m not impressed with Mr Abbott MP at all. Especially on this particular issue, where privilege has been trashed. In my opinion, the Opposition leader has shown himself to be a man of no principle. He has broken one of the Ten Commandments. Should he be elected to the position of PM, I can only pray, that he doesn’t award himself the ministerial position of Attorney General of Australia.
Can I recommend that all who are interested in the Law, view “Judge John Deed”… and you’ll see examples of hearsay.
What an arrogant prat you are Wixxy. Wayne Milton is 100 per cent correct, you have it totally wrong yet won’t admit it. Quoting Chris McArdle doesn’t impress me either … don’t you remember what a goose he made of himself when the story first came to llight? And @ Bob Lloyd, the reason we won’t see Wixxy’s ‘scoop’ splashed over the mainstream media is because it’s utter crap.
Actually it was all over the mainstream media….
As was the story I broke tonight…
Show me a mainstream media story saying the case against Thomson just got weaker.
You didn’t say one that agreed with me, I say half full, they said half empty what a surprise.
As for quoting McArdle, he is Thomson’s lawyer, would quoting someone totally unrelated to the case make it more impressive? After all, you are the person I was setting out to impress…
What do the public already know the $6000 plus tax-payer expense payment, reportedly claimed by the well-known politician author of “Battle-lines” (Mein Kampf?) as reported by a certain high profile journalist writing in another blog? What can you tell us about that John Mackay? Or is that the Liberal Party telling the truth?
at long last, a smidgeon of a mention over at Abbotts Bulletin Corporation.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-30/thomson-asks-public-to-donate-to-legal-defence/4661000
@wixxy. The sycophants, the News, the commentators not interested in revealed truth, always work at concocting stories, so as to allegedly mislead public opinion. These are the “shock jocks” using half truths bordering on telling lies so that they are able to “manufacture consent” as it were, from amongst innocent people, like many of us. These liars hope that we might just vote against own best social interests by supporting the Abbott led Liberal Party of Australia. Observers of this Australian “Tea” Party kind of behaviour, was also at it during the US Presidential election campaign. But a great many US voting citizens saw through the Fox et-al News process and re-elected President Obama for a second term. In the end, most liars always reveal themselves. In the case of the HSU, I believe that we must disengage ourselves from the politics, run by certain members of parliament sitting in the House of Representatives Chamber and in The Senate Chamber where they enjoy and are under rules of privilege et-al. We must allow our respected Judges to do their work correctly, so that the prosecution and the defence can reveal the truth of the alleged matters put before them and the jury. We should also apply the same attitude of behaviour to the people appointed to the Royal Commission investigating the truth about child sex abuse and so on. The ongoing examination of the order of witnesses, be they hostile or unfavourable, their memories and so on, is where our Judges are more or less totally focused, so as to decide what is hearsay and what is admissible as credible evidence. That is why I recommend for those interested, to watch the great TV Series “Judge John Deed”.
Good news, I lived on the Central Coast for many news & found Craig to be an honest family man, it sickens me with the constant trash by Abbott, Pyne etc.
Wixxy, no offence mate, but you are completely wrong on this.
I worked as defence counsel for over a decade, and where there are civil charges brought at the same time as criminal charges, those civil charges are inevitably adjourned until after the trial of the criminal charges (but not any appeal).
The reason for this is simple: given the higher standard of proof required in the criminal proceedings (beyond reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities) then if Thomson were found guilty in the criminal court there is no reason to run them again in the civil.
However, conversely, were Thomson acquitted on the criminal charges they still could proceed against him on the civil, as whilst the charges couldn’t be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” they might be able to be proved “on the balance of probabilities”.
It would be highly unlikely to adjourn “the whole lot” as you claim, it just doesn’t happen.
Those additional charges that don’t form part of the civil claim but not the criminal still need to be heard in any event, and the Court will be anxious to keep it moving towards a trial.
I don’t know your background, and maybe you were a criminal lawyer (or prosecutor) in the past, but I doubt that given that you don’t seem to understand these basic principles.
Lastly, please don’t take what McArdle says as gospel. You should ask a few legal industry professionals as to what the fraternity think about him and his ability. You might be surprised at the level of regard (or possibly lack thereof) his skills are held in.
craig thomson is a slimy piece of crap
he can go to Bali but not pay his bills???
rot in jail !!
He has paid his bills….
Who the hell are you to judge if his family deserve a holiday or not?
The dreadfully judgemental comment by Kim is so typical of the vicious nastiness which has overwhelmed our society since the days of Howard. Not an ounce of empathy left in this type of thinking.
No surprise the likes of Kim exist in Abbottsville, the hate and venom Kim demonstrates is a pre requisite for the adoration of the leader Abbott.
Of course this member of the intelligentsia Kim is in full possession of the facts eg..did a friend, benefactor shout Craigs family the holiday or perhaps he decided to give his wife and kids a break from the continual personal attacks and humiliation they have suffered with whats left of his savings.
I am not religious by any yardstick, far from it but brought up in a Christian family a saying my mum handed down from her mum may be food for thought for the person Kim.
Matthew 7:1-5
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. .
Yes, let’s see this corrupt example of taxpayer ineptitude drown in the ocean of shit he has swum in for years.
Hopefully it will spur on the removal and incarceration of Mr’s Ludwig Sr and Jr, Mr McDonald, Mr Carr, Mr Sartor, Ms Gillard, Mr Obeid, Mr Swan, Mr Roozendal et al.
All of whom are criminally involved in matters that need to be exposed and dealt with in the justice system.
Fuck your claims of defamation, When you vote for criminals to run the country then you shouldn;t wail and moan when they carry on like criminals.
Wake up to yourselves, anyone who supports Williams, Thompson and the rest of those corrupt self-serving union scumbags needs a slap.
Yes, we are waiting for the real criminals to be charged….
You clearly know your stuff, I believe you mean Williamson?
There’s only one member of parliament that throws punches at women that I know of….
Yes, Williamson included. A typo, my apologies.
The bloke lives 600m down the road from me in Mirrabooka, in a lavish waterfront home bought using criminally defrauded HSU funds. Oooh, libelous claims right here. It’s true enough. He threw out HSU stamped office material, photo copiers, printers, phones etc, in a recent council cleanup (6 months ago) all of which was bought using taxpayer funds, all of which strangely found their way to his own residence. Oh, yes, he “works” from home.
The man is corrupt, and so is Thompson. And the rest of the dirt mentioned in my previous.
Sad thing is is that they will both walk, or at the most get a “smack” on the wrist. As will the rest of the fingers in the taxpayer pies. And that in itself is criminal.
Can’t work this out Wixxy … you told us the case against Thomson was getting weaker. Now he’s been charged with 19 more offences. How could this have happened?
And that goose McArdle has backed off on some of his ridiculous claims too.
If I had McArdle representing me I’d just throw up my hands and plead guilty.