After "anxious consideration", the ACT's Chief Justice decided to "let the genie out of the bottle" and dismiss a last-minute effort to prevent the release of a report, which found a former CEO engaged in "serious corrupt conduct".
The integrity commission report, handed to the ACT Legislative Assembly on Thursday, found former Canberra Institute of Technology chief executive Leanne Cover deliberately concealed information about multimillion-dollar contracts from the board.
This related to a series of contracts worth more than $8.5 million awarded to companies owned by Patrick Hollingworth over a five-year period to help with organisation transformation. The companies include Think Garden and Redrouge Nominees.
The investigation has been going on for two years. The commission publicly revealed it was undertaking an investigation on June 23, 2022.
However, shortly before the report was to be handed to the Legislative Assembly, Ms Cover sought an injunction in the ACT Supreme Court to prevent this.
Due to a suppression order, The Canberra Times has not been able to name Ms Cover in connection to the injunction until now.
Earlier this week, Chief Justice Lucy McCallum dismissed this application and the report was later published.
'Solemnity of the court's power'
In a decision published on Friday, Chief Justice McCallum said her refusal of the application would "let the genie out of the bottle".
The decision states the commissioner of a special report has a legal duty to give it to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
The Chief Justice emphasised "the solemnity of the court's power to interfere with the administration of such a statute".
Lawyers for Ms Cover had alleged the publication of the report breached rules of procedural fairness and contained errors of law in "at least eleven respects". They had sought declarations from the court on these matters.
However, Chief Justice McCallum was not able to assess a number of these allegations "for the simple reason that the evidence did not include the proposed special report".
Lawyers for the commission had planned to present the proposed special report as evidence but the Chief Justice said she felt "awkward" about receiving this before the Legislative Assembly Speaker. The commission's lawyers ultimately decided not to present the report.
Barrister for Ms Cover, Peter Horobin, alleged the commissioner had a misconception on the scope of the former CEO's duties, had made findings without sufficient evidence - including from a key witness - and applied the wrong test to the meaning of "corrupt conduct".
The Chief Justice stated the allegation a key witness had not given evidence "appears to lie at the heart of the plaintiff's response to the proposed special report".
"It is not for this court to tell the commissioner how to conduct his investigation. I cannot speculate what evidence [the person] might have given before the commission or how the commissioner might have evaluated any such evidence," the judge said.
'Obvious risk of significant damage'
Chief Justice McCallum found the commissioner had complied with his requirements for procedural fairness "and indeed gone further than required by that section".
The judge accepted publication of the report caused "an obvious risk of significant damage to [Ms Cover's] reputation".
"That is a factor which has weighed heavily with me. I am mindful of the impact media reporting can have on the reputation of a person," Chief Justice McCallum said.
"That has been a considerable part of my professional experience in New South Wales."
Ultimately, the Chief Justice dismissed the application and found the commissioner had a legal obligation to hand the report to the Assembly.
She did not take into consideration a submission made by a barrister for the integrity commission "that it is relevant that this is an election year in the territory".
"Good governance and related matters addressed in the Integrity Commission Act are of enduring and constant importance to the government and the community," Chief Justice McCallum stated.
"I have, however, had regard to the solemnity of those matters and the care this court would take before intervening with the application of the Act."
