What Laws have been broken?
David Rofe QC wrote to Premier Beattie in August 2007, urging the Premier to deal with 67 alleged prima facie serious charges that need to be Immediately addressed.
We will add the details as soon as thet come to hand.
Queensland Criminal Code
CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 87
(1) Any person who--(a) being employed in the public service, or being the holder of any public office, and being charged with the performance of any duty by virtue of such employment or office, not being a duty touching the administration of justice, corruptly asks for, receives, or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself, herself or any other person on account of anything already done or omitted to be done, or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done, by the person in the discharge of the duties of the person's office; or (b) corruptly gives, confers, or procures, or promises or offers to give or confer, or to procure or attempt to procure, to, upon, or for, any person employed in the public service, or being the holder of any public office, or to, upon, or for, any other person, any property or benefit of any kind on account of any such act or omission on the part of the person so employed or holding such office;
is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years, and to be fined at the discretion of the court.
(1A) If the offence is committed by or in relation to a Minister of the Crown, as the holder of public office mentioned in subsection (1), the offender is liable to imprisonment for 14 years, and to be fined at the discretion of the court.
(2) The offender can not be arrested without warrant
Criminal Code Sect. 92 Abuse of office
(1) Any person who, being employed in the public service, does or directs to be done, in abuse of the authority of the person’s office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.
(2) If the act is done or directed to be done for purposes of gain,
the person is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 129
Any person who, knowing that any book, document, or other thing of any kind, is or may be required in evidence in a judicial proceeding, wilfully destroys it or renders it illegible or undecipherable or incapable of identification, with intent thereby to prevent it from being used in evidence, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 132
Conspiring to defeat justice
(1) Any person who conspires with another to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat, the course of justice is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.
(2) The offender can not be arrested without warrant.
(3) A prosecution for an offence defined in this section shall not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General.
CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 140
Attempting to pervert justice
A person who attempts to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of a crime.
Maximum penalty--7 years imprisonment.
THE MISAPPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC MONIES:The additional payment from the public purse to Mr Coyne in February 1991 of $27,190.00 was extraordinary in the Queensland Public Service. The payment has continually changed description when challenged by Mr Lindeberg until finally being treated as "a loss" by the Department despite being recoverable.
For Mr Coyne, having his career destroyed after the shredding, he was entitled to feel entitled but his entitlement was for a lost career not for non-existent so- called award entitlements. Any notion of "damages" associated with the shredding meant liability for the Government with Mr Coyne, and also for the union with Mr Lindeberg, another victim of the shredding.
The expenditure of public monies is governed by the Financial Administration and Audit Act and legally binding instruments or impositions on the Government eg Industrial Awards, contracts, court orders etc. In all cases expenditure must be fully accounted for and have justification of some sort.
The payment became a fraudulent concoction behind a Crown Law Settlement Deed negotiated between the Government and Union, forced on Mr Coyne under duress at the very last moment. Mr Coyne must ultimately give his story.
This case raises questions over the proper use in the public interest of public monies and Crown Law Settlement Deeds.6.1 This section needs to be read in concert with activities set out in Queensland Professional Officers Association/ State Public Services Federation, (Points 13.1 - 13.41) and Queensland Audit Office (Points 7.1 - 7.14) of this submission.
6.2 On 10 January 1991 QPOA Assistant General Secretary Terry Hamilton threatened the DFSAIA to take "the Coyne Case" to the CJC unless the Department:(i) made available to Mr Coyne documents relating to his application for the position of JOYC Manager; or
(ii) made it financially worthwhile for Mr Coyne to leave the public service. QPOA Industrial Officer Mr Brian Tierney attended the meeting as well as Mr Coyne. (Note Exhibit 19)6.3 For negotiations between a Government Department and a public sector union to be based on allegations worthy of being investigated by the CJC, and to attempt to extract public monies out of a unit of public administration on that basis introduces prima facie elements of "extortion."
6.4 For a Government Department to offer to pay monies from the public purse on the basis of such threats issued by a public sector union worthy of being investigated by the CJC introduces prima facie elements of "collusion."
6.5 Additional to Mr Coyne's normal redundancy payout, he was paid on 11 February 1991 $27,190.00 made up of so-called award provisions which in reality either did not exist or did not apply at his classification level (I-12). The industrial officers involved from the DFSAIA and the QPOA UNQUESTIONABLY KNEW that there was no legal basis for the payment. (See Exhibit 51)
6.6 Mr Tierney, a party to the negotiations, informed Mr Lindeberg afterwards that Minister Anne Warner approved the payment.
6.7 Mr Tierney informed Mr Lindeberg that the payment was made - in the minds of the DFSAIA and QPOA - in order to assist Mr Coyne purchase his delicatessen, and that it was "a fraudulent concoction". Mr Tierney was never interviewed by either the CJC or the Queensland Audit Office.
6.8 Mr Coyne was required to sign a Crown Law Settlement Deed in order to obtain these monies. If, those my monies were his entitlement under the award, why was such a settlement Deed necessary? Upon signing that document, Mr Coyne was required to remain silent. Why?
6.9 On 12 February 1991 Ms Eastwood, QPOA General Secretary wrote to Ms Matchett confirming the payment, and stated that the QPOA would no longer pursue matters on behalf of Mr Coyne. (See Exhibit 52)
6.10 The settlement was not broadcast in the union despite the significant prima facie breakthrough of a public servant receiving cash for accumulated time off in lieu, excess travelling, and remuneration above the set classification level for overtime. It remained "a secret deal" except that Mr Tierney disclosed its true nature to Mr Lindeberg.