And We're Back - My ICAC Inquiry Testimony Part IV

Howdy dear availees...had a coupla' goes at re-booting this 'ere blog and quite frankly, it's been a bit of a minor disaster...then I realised I haven't even finished posting my testimony as presented to the South Australian Parliamentary 'Inquiry into the Harms and Adverse Outcomes of ICAC Investigations'...this is specifically symptomatic of how burnt-out and even disassociated I'd become with the whole bloggin' thing...easy fixed though with this 4th and final lengthy installment which continues on from previous 3 posts...(indeed, and we rejoin our hero in the Blossom Garden of the Winter Palace as he explains how Magistrate Teresa Anderson recused herself from the 'trial' officially citing "Abuse of Process"-Ed)...well, lovely reference to Monty Pythons' 'Gumbies' sketch, but I don't know about "our hero", but yeah, dear availees, please enjoy...***   

3467 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Why would she excuse herself? She's identified there is
an abuse of process. Why would she excuse herself?
Mr FLETCHER: Because she felt that I had proved that to her.
3468 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You might have proved it, but why would she discontinue
her presence?
Mr FLETCHER: The only explanation at the time was as the resident magistrate,
because the stuff I had provided her involved so many local government authorities and police and—
3469 The CHAIRPERSON: There could have been other reasons for her recusing herself.
Mr FLETCHER: If I may, that's the quote:
In light of the material that has been filed in relation to the abuse of process/stay of proceedings
application, Her Honour rules that it is not appropriate for the resident magistrate in Mount Gambier to hear this matter.
Her Honour recuses herself and disqualifies herself from hearing the trial. Set for trial before a new magistrate. Listed
November 10.
That was moved to Magistrate White.
3470 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: In Mount Gambier?
Mr FLETCHER: Yes. I would like to table that if I may, because that's—
3471 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
3472 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will move that it be received and published.
Carried.

Friday, 22 October 2021 Legislative Council Page 485
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS

 
Mr FLETCHER: The Courts Administration Authority, 3 November 2016, where
Magistrate Anderson identifies the abuse of process. It's not just me going into court and saying this
stuff. Her Honour, at that stage, felt I had proven what I was saying about being persecuted rather
than prosecuted to the degree that she was prepared to use that sort of language. That's the outcome
of it.
3473 The CHAIRPERSON: That's your interpretation. There might be others.
Mr FLETCHER: No, I'm saying that's what happened. Anyway, sorry—
3474 The CHAIRPERSON: It's alright. Can we get on to the—
Mr FLETCHER: Which—
3475 The CHAIRPERSON: Where were you going?
Mr FLETCHER: The conviction. As I was saying, the bottom line of it all is I am a
private citizen. I'm not a public servant or any of those sorts of things. I've been right through the
ICAC site, all their various responsibilities, etc.
3476 The CHAIRPERSON: Under the act private citizens can also be—
Mr FLETCHER: That's not what it says.
3477 The CHAIRPERSON: They can be.
Mr FLETCHER: But that's not what it says. That's what I'm saying, as a private
citizen. I've been through it. nowhere does it—all it talks about is maladministration and corruption,
etc., public officials, politicians, etc. At no point is that made clear that a private citizen is also subject
to ICAC legislation. As a layperson—that's that term—nobody I've spoken to understands that.
That's what I'm saying, why the specific request I make of the committee today is
that it needs to be publicly expressed, as politely as you choose to do it—I don't care if you don't use
my name or my example, whatever—to go into the public realm, via the media, etc., and say,
'Everybody needs to be concerned because you are all subject to this legislation and, given that the
precedent has been set at $30,000 per count, that's what you've got hanging over your heads.'
For my part, that's the threat of it; that's the deliberate threat implied in the ICAC
legislation. If you speak out, you're going to lose your house, you're going to lose your business,
because you are going to get a fine beyond all reality.
3478 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You're saying that private citizens are not subject to the
ICAC law in regard to disclosure.
Mr FLETCHER: Yes, it's not explained in the ICAC legislation.
3479 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That's different, if it's not explained. But do you concede
that the law does cover private citizens?
Mr FLETCHER: It doesn't, because in the ICAC site it specifically takes it away from
that. If it were just a law, that covers us all. We are all covered by speeding laws, drink-driving, etc.
3480 The CHAIRPERSON: That section of the act would also cover private citizens from
disclosing that there is an ICAC investigation or whatever. It doesn't exclude private citizens.
Mr FLETCHER: That may be the intent. Sorry, I haven't explained myself terribly
well. You start reading it; all it talks about is how it relates to public servants, maladministration, etc.,
etc. Nobody in the community has any idea that even exists.
3481 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: But if somebody is charged or under investigation, it's
quite clear that they can't tell their contractor, electrician, or whatever, that there is an investigation.
Mr FLETCHER: Too late if you have already done it, though. Again, I come back to
the wording of the legislation. It's too late.
3482 The CHAIRPERSON: No, you need to be aware of what's in the legislation.
Mr FLETCHER: Ignorance is no excuse before the law. I have had that put to my
face in court.

Page 486 Legislative Council Friday, 22 October 2021
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS

 
3483 The CHAIRPERSON: There's also those about those representing themselves as
well, Mr Fletcher. You may have heard that one.
Mr FLETCHER: I have, and I can tell you that if I had half the money made available
to me as is being spent on prosecuting me to be able to defend myself, I would have engaged proper
lawyers. When I did, they did it free, they did it pro bono, and they did marvellous, incredible work.
They are an absolute credit to the community legal service establishment because, as I say, I would
be completely lost without the support I got.
3484 The CHAIRPERSON: So you are actually one of the first, if not the first, to be caught
under that legislation, and you are certainly paying a heavy price for that. What we wanted to get to
was the fact that you are considering an appeal.
Mr FLETCHER: I am still trying.
3485 The CHAIRPERSON: Have you sought legal advice or are you trying to get legal
advice about appealing that matter?
Mr FLETCHER: Again, I have been back to community legal service, and it's outside
of their realm. They just tell me straight out, 'Sorry, this is way beyond what we can do. We don't
have the finances, we don't have the expertise.' It is my understanding that I should have been
afforded all of my transcripts the moment that I lodged my initial interest in appealing, the week that
I was convicted. So why it is 3½ years later that I am still fighting to try to get them is a mystery.
3486 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Regarding the community aid, which helped you at the
beginning of your legal fight, is it in their charter to fund or help support people who are subject to
criminal charges, or was that out of their realm, that that is a reason?
Mr FLETCHER: It was the combined problem they had with this being the precedent
case: there was no case law to refer to, plus there's one and, I think, a quarter lawyers for the whole
of the South-East operating out of community legal service. They do handle smaller criminal matters,
domestic violence cases and things like that. They have been quite open. They helped me up to a
point.
3487 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That would be on behalf of the victim, not a perpetrator.
Mr FLETCHER: I am sorry, I don't know that one. They don't do appeals, I know
that. Because they don't have the funding or the facilities, the man or person hours to do it, they don't
help with appeals and stuff. They straight out just can't deal with that sort of caseload, that workload.
As I say, they did what they could to help me, things like when the police tried to change the charges
the first day of my actual trial. I went straight to them, and the paperwork they provided me says this
is something to be deeply concerned about, not least of all because you have been asked to plead
to this stuff and then they want to change it. The terms they used were 'stay of proceedings'. They
downloaded me whatever piece of legislation it was. Again, that's just part of the smaller process.
To come back to my main concern, it is the extraordinary effort. I can understand an
effort to properly prosecute the precedent case because it is incredibly important and it does affect
every single person. I say it again: most people have no idea that ICAC involves them. They just
wouldn't even know because they are not a public servant or they don't have a government contract
or whatever else; that's stuff that is happening over there. That's how I felt when I first got involved.
I have tried, done everything I could, to establish what the heck that legislation was about, including
lawyers writing on my behalf, etc., and still—
3488 The CHAIRPERSON: In the beginning, yes, it was, and it was fairly new, I imagine
at the time. But the act is certainly there, and those provisions are there, and I guess, Mr Fletcher,
the opportunity for you perhaps is to see if you can engage some—I don't know how you will do it—
Mr FLETCHER: That's alright. Nobody knows how I can do it, so it's—
3489 The CHAIRPERSON: —strong legal advice that perhaps can lead you in that
direction. I don't know what much more this committee can do, but we have heard you out.
Mr FLETCHER: I would just like to table some more of these documents that I have
referred to specifically, if I may.
3490 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

Friday, 22 October 2021 Legislative Council Page 487
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS
Mr FLETCHER: It's just the first page of the police officer who raided my house, her
affidavit to the court, where it identifies this investigation is referred to as Operation Baritone,
Anti-Corruption Branch case management. That's a police document.
3491 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: There's the copy—I don't think I've handed it up already—of council
of 20 May 2014, where they published on their website a motion without notice about having been
investigated and cleared.
3492 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: I also have here the three pages from the 2017-18 ICAC report,
which specifically has a section setting out the prosecutions and outcomes for all cases held across
that period, and I'm not in there, even though I fall directly in that time frame. Again, I refer to the fact
that my case appears nowhere, so how is anybody to know, even if they do what I have done and
read entire ICAC website, that my case has even happened?
3493 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
3494 The CHAIRPERSON: Do you have you any other documents that you wish to table?
Mr FLETCHER: Just two: a copy of the cover page of the minutes of the special
meeting of Mount Gambier city council, January 2017, where the subject matter is 'Allegations
regarding Andrew Lee to be referred to ICAC', which I referred to before—
3495 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
Mr FLETCHER: —and the contrast between what is happening in front of me while
I am standing in court: over here this is happening and over here I am being charged for it. The final
one is an unsigned letter from the Crown Solicitor, from May 2018, threatening me in all sorts of
ways, etc., about my blog and having been convicted and so on.
3496 The CHAIRPERSON: Is that a subsequent blog that you published?
Mr FLETCHER: Well, I'm still blogging. I continue to blog.
3497 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You're still blogging, yes.
Mr FLETCHER: I've never stopped blogging, and this is I have 'supposedly,
possibly, perhaps—
3498 The CHAIRPERSON: Continued to breach the act.
Mr FLETCHER: —contempt of court, but possibly and maybe this will happen'. I just
table that as a broad template of the many, many sorts of threats I have received, particularly when
it comes to the issue of child protection in Mount Gambier. I won't name the school. You gentlemen
know which school it is because you and I have discussed it several times in your previous
employment, and we have discussed it. The Crown Solicitor has threatened me many times about
how I'm facing criminal defamation for the things I say, etc. This is going back 15-plus years. That's
just the latest iteration of the sort of stuff that I have been subjected to and it relates directly to that
ICAC—
3499 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move that that be received and published.
Carried.
3500 The CHAIRPERSON: We're running out of time. Can I suggest that you have a look
at the new legislation that's been passed, and you will see that parliament has also in that created
an office of an independent inspector who can now—

Page 488 Legislative Council Friday, 22 October 2021
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS
Mr FLETCHER: I did see that. I haven't had a chance to see what that actually—
3501 The CHAIRPERSON: Well, can I suggest that you do because that may well be an
avenue for you to be able—
Mr FLETCHER: There's a little light coming on in my head. With all the stuff I've
been saying, the office of the inspector could be the sort of person who might be able to address
these issues for me personally.
3502 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can go to the inspector and present your case. I'm
not saying whether the inspector will decide to take it up, but there is that opportunity that exists now
for people to be able to take a complaint in relation to matters that have been dealt with. Those
matters can be retrospective and going back to the time that you were first investigated and the
subsequent prosecution. You may have an opportunity in that regard. Can I ask that you consider
that as soon as the inspectorate is established. It hasn't been as yet; it will be. Furthermore, perhaps
you do need to engage or find some way of engaging advice from a prominent barrister.
Mr FLETCHER: If I can be really flippant and say I am that desperate I have
considered going to Davis Xenophon.
3503 The CHAIRPERSON: Nick?
Mr FLETCHER: Well, Mr Davis has helped me with advice, the issue I referred to
before when Corrections tried to gaol me. He very kindly gave me an hour-long phone conference
pro bono to help me with that and it nipped in the bud. Again—
3504 The CHAIRPERSON: Well, you may need that.
Mr FLETCHER: —I was lucky to get that sort of support. I have tried with various
people like Nick. It's a bit of a poisoned chalice really at this stage. Perhaps, as you say, the
inspectorate is somebody who can, given those powers, act in that way.
I'm upset because this has happened to me, but the concern, the harm, the adverse
outcome, is the fact that it has happened at all and it could still happen to anybody, as it stands, with
that piece of legislation in place, etc. I come back to my original plea, which is that somehow you talk
to somebody at The Advertiser and just have a really polite article about the committee has become
aware that these issues could involve everybody, so people need to be aware of the ICAC
legislation—something like that to get it out there into the public realm.
3505 The CHAIRPERSON: It's a warning, and you are issuing a warning.
Mr FLETCHER: A light—
3506 The CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure people would not want to go through the experience
that you did, Mr Fletcher. As I said, there is that opportunity coming up with the independent
inspector. Perhaps you would like to go to legal aid again or perhaps even an organisation known as
JusticeNet. I don't know if you have tried them. You have?
Mr FLETCHER: I have. That's where I ran into trouble back in 2015 with someone
claiming to represent me via JusticeNet. I never spoke to them. They showed up at court, claiming
to be acting on my behalf, and I had never even spoken to him. That just fell apart and it wound up
back in Mount Gambier.
The final thing I want to say is the trauma aspect of things. What I have tried to do
is: this is what has happened. This is what can happen. I believe that it's politically motivated. It's not
an accident that this has happened. It's been deliberately manipulated. Whoever has done it, I don't
know. I couldn't tell you. I wouldn't begin to guess, but there's a degree of political involvement with
the ICAC that has seen me be treated the way that I have, and it has been deliberate.
So I'm arguing partly against myself, in saying that this could happen to anybody,
but it has also happened to me because I am special and I have been meted out special treatment.
Those two realities can exist side by side because this has happened to me, because it has been
done to me specifically and—
3507 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That begs the question: have you seen other people
publish online, on their Facebook statuses and so on—

Friday, 22 October 2021 Legislative Council Page 489
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS

 
Mr FLETCHER: Have you ever been online?
3508 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —that somebody has been referred to ICAC and wondered
what happens to them?
Mr FLETCHER: I have seen stuff. Apparently, there are secret hearings for ICAC
and you don't know what's in there. All that you see is there has been a hearing about stuff. The
terrible case of the police officer that you dealt with recently, who was charged and he didn't even
know what he had been charged with—sorry, he was under investigation, not even charged, and
didn't even know what he had been under investigation for. So I am aware in a broader sense that
things are happening.
The Troy Bell case is obviously the big one at the moment, the obvious one, but
what's really happening? Even as it's in court now, there seems to be all sorts of confusion about
what's actually happening.
3509 The CHAIRPERSON: That's on appeal to the High Court. The matter will be dealt
with after the High Court brings down its decision.
3510 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I was more meaning that somebody goes to a council
meeting, in the council it says that somebody might be referred to ICAC and you then, as somebody
who blogs—
Mr FLETCHER: Yes.
3511 The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —write about that, and you're the one who—
Mr FLETCHER: I have blogged about other people and other ICAC things after they
have been in the public realm—for example, former Robe council mayor and some other people
involved with Robe council. A couple of them actually referred themselves to ICAC because it shut
down discussion of it publicly. As I say, another misuse of the ICAC legislation was that somebody
accused of maladministration referred themselves because then it couldn't be discussed. That's the
only issue.
3512 The CHAIRPERSON: We are running over time.
Mr FLETCHER: If I could just make my final—
3513 The CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
Mr FLETCHER: Talking about the harm to me personally, I've been through it, but
it's been worse for my family. It's caused ructions in my family where parts of my family look at me
as a heinous criminal. I now have a criminal conviction for telling the truth. Every step of the way I've
told the truth, regardless of what is or isn't in there. I am the only person involved in all of these things
that's ever faced any charges for any of it.
The damage it's caused in my family—my poor mum thinks I'm going to gaol every
other day of the week, and not least of all because Corrections is threatening to gaol me. That
happened last year. That's the personal level of harm that I've been through. That's what's happened
and it continues because this just doesn't go away for me. It's never going to go away for me.
Deal with the inspectorate for however many years while they try to sort out. There's
the harm that's happened to me, there's the potential harm to the average citizen who's got no idea
that this stuff applies to them. That's just all I'd like to say.
3514 The CHAIRPERSON: Yet there are others who would know that and have managed
to escape scrutiny. I won't go into that.
3515 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Just one observation: you got a $540,000 fine.
Mr FLETCHER: Yes.
3516 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: For that you get 265 hours—
Mr FLETCHER: 260 hours.
3517 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: —which works out to $2,000 an hour.

Page 490 Legislative Council Friday, 22 October 2021
DAMAGE, HARM OR ADVERSE OUTCOMES RESULTING FROM ICAC INVESTIGATIONS

 
Mr FLETCHER: I'm a very special person. I tried to say that.
3518 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Maybe you are the highest paid community worker in
the world.
Mr FLETCHER: And I didn't do it, so—
3519 The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes, I understand that, but if you don't do that community
service you could very well end up in gaol.
Mr FLETCHER: That was what happened last year. I was excused for health
reasons by Corrections back in 2018: doctors' letters and whatever else. For some reason they came
back in February last year and tried to have me gaoled. They wanted an enforcement of 30 days for
not doing it. Even in their affidavit last year it said, 'We excused him in 2018, but now we want him
gaoled because he hasn't done it.' So that is the reality, you face gaol for not doing community
service.
When it comes to the actual section 56, there is no gaol time related to that, only the
fines. That relates to not getting legal aid. The letter literally said, 'No gaol time attached to that
offence, you don't get legal aid.' That was the explanation. So you're right, but you have to not do the
hours to be in that—
3520 The CHAIRPERSON: Okay Mr Fletcher, thank you. Unfortunately, I think you were
an easy target for that legislation.
Mr FLETCHER: I would like to think I've made it as difficult as possible.
3521 The CHAIRPERSON: You became an easy target for them, and certainly because
of your inability to get strong legal representation.
Mr FLETCHER: In that sense, definitely, yes.
3522 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for appearing before the committee today. A
transcript of your evidence will be forwarded to you. Make any corrections you see fit, okay?
Thank you for appearing today.
Mr FLETCHER: Again, thank you for accommodating me. I appreciate the chance
to get some of this on the table.
3523 The CHAIRPERSON: Good luck with your challenge or pursuit of an appeal.
Mr FLETCHER: I know you can't do anything to help me, I knew that coming in, but
I would like to think that something can be achieved from me being here. Let me make the point
again: if you can make it known that everybody is affected by this legislation so this doesn't happen
to another person, that will be something. Cheers.
3524 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Fletcher.
THE WITNESS WITHDREW

***and so there you go...it's fairly self-explanatory and again quite lengthy so I'll leave it there and then come back with an overview summary post...

Tomorrow: Reviewing My ICAC Inquiry Testimony

Again thanks to those few who have supported/encouraged me to return to this 'ere blog...pre-emptive apologies if it's a bit clunky and chunky as we get back up to speed, but we're back and that's what's important...

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...