The legal team for the Northern Territory's anti-corruption watchdog has rejected claims the ICAC went beyond its powers during an investigation into a controversial taxpayer-funded grandstand.
In June last year, the then-independent commissioner against corruption Ken Fleming levelled findings of improper conduct against five individuals over the handling of a $12 million government grant for the new facility at the Fannie Bay racecourse.
Former board member Damien Moriarty is trying to have the findings against him quashed by the NT Supreme Court.
Earlier this week, his barrister, Fiona Forsyth QC, accused the ICAC of conducting an overzealous investigation in pursuit of its main target, former club chairman Brett Dixon, who was found to have engaged in corrupt conduct.
But in court on Thursday, the ICAC's barrister, Ben Doyle QC, said the ICAC's investigation was conducted entirely within its legislative remit.
"Contrary to the claim made [by Ms Forsyth] that the ICAC 'threw out the rule book … taking out everything in its path', those sorts of descriptions are unwarranted," Mr Doyle said.
ICAC accused of falsely saying Mr Moriarty was not under investigation
In last year's report, the ICAC said Mr Moriarty made two false statements to the media after a company co-owned by Mr Dixon was selected as the successful tenderer to build the grandstand.
In the first statement, Mr Moriarty was quoted as saying: "Mr Dixon was at arm's length from this process at all times".
In the second, he said: "From the outset [Mr Dixon] had stepped away from the process, identifying his own potential conflict."
The ICAC report said these statements, combined with those made by other people, "concealed the true position of Mr Dixon's involvement" and inhibited the ability of the government to prevent the contract being awarded to Mr Dixon's company.
The ICAC report said Mr Moriarty's actions amounted to misconduct, unsatisfactory conduct and a breach of public trust.
Ms Forsyth QC told the court her client was challenging the adverse findings on 12 separate grounds, including that the ICAC failed to afford Mr Moriarty procedural fairness.
She claimed that a transcript of an interview conducted by the ICAC with Mr Moriarty clearly showed he was under investigation despite repeated assurances that he was not a specific target of its probe.
Justice Judith Kelly suggested that if Mr Moriarty had in fact been under investigation at the time of the interview, he might have provided different responses to the questions being asked.
In response, Mr Doyle said the ICAC's focus during the interview was on Mr Dixon's involvement in the grant process, and that Mr Moriarty was simply an important witness.
He said the fact the ICAC later made a finding of improper conduct against him "doesn't mean that Mr Moriarty was asked to come in to gather evidence that would potentially result in a finding against him".
ICAC lawyer rejects claim report should not have been published
Ms Forsyth also raised concerns that her client had not been told about preliminary adverse findings against the board of the Darwin Turf Club.
She said that while other members of the board had been given an opportunity to respond to the preliminary findings, the ICAC had directed the board not to disclose those findings to Mr Moriarty or Mr Dixon.
Ms Forsyth also claimed the ICAC did not have the legislative power to publish its investigative report on its website, nor to provide a version of it to the Chief Minister or the Minister for Racing.
Mr Doyle rejected the claim, saying such a contention was "manifestly inconsistent" with the legislation.
The hearing continues on Friday, when Mr Doyle is expected to continue his submissions.
The ICAC's findings are also being challenged in three separate court matters by Mr Dixon, another individual and the Darwin Turf Club itself.
