Cost battle looms over disastrous findings for former NT opposition leader and her brief Alistair Wyvill … Waiver of client privilege … The CLP’s sting operation that actually stung … NT Law Society sits on its hands … Kevin Childs, with Top End field-agent Buffalo Bruce, on the case  

DARWIN is the focus of one of more riveting cases of severely chastised legal behaviour in a saga that has wounded three stellar careers.

The first scalp is that of Northern Territory Labor leader Delia Lawrie, who was given the heave-ho over what a judge found were pork-pies. She now faces the prospects of a privileges committee hearing, disgrace, and bankruptcy once a cost order of hundreds of thousands of dollars is made. 

Her barrister, Alistair Wyvill SC, resigned as president of the local bar association because, among other damning finds, Justice Stephen Southwood in the NT Supreme Court said he had advised Lawrie to make a false statement – saying the findings of an inquiry into ALP property dealings came as a complete surprise. 

To add to this grand Guignol, Southwood refers to a letter from former NT Labor President, union heavyweight and one of Lawrie’s lawyers, Cathy Spurr, in which she falsely claims Lawrie and her deputy had run dry their pro bono legal representation. 

Peter Bravos, recently named as  acting assistant commissioner crime and specialist services, is on the job with a vengeance, commanding court files and so increasing speculation about possible criminal charges.

Those in the know are astonished that the NT Law Society has been sitting on its hands, watching events roll out, despite pretty clear evidence that professional conduct issues need to be probed.

An inquiry was held last year by the former CEO of the Australian Crime Commission, John Lawler, into how the Labor government must have believed it was in Sydney and so passed up the boring open tender process to flick an historic Darwin site to Unions NT on a 10-year lease for no rent – all done the day before snoozing into caretaker mode for the August 2012 election. 

While, ultimately the lease was not taken up by Unions NT, Laurie was the relevant minister responsible for arranging the deal to benefit the unions. Wyvill acted for her in Lawler inquiry. 

The inquiry was an attempt by the Top End CLP regime to sink Lawrie once and for all. Terrirory politics is probably the grubbiest in the nation, but the government of Adam Giles has succeeded in shaming Labor, beyond its wildest dreams. 

Lawrie went to the Supreme Court to claim that Lawler’s report contained adverse findings and recommendations that damage her reputation.  

She wanted a declaration that, in reporting adversely, Lawler failed to observe the requirements of procedural fairness. 

She said that she was entitled to the relief claimed because she was denied an opportunity to respond to the adverse findings about her before Lawler finalised his report. 

Justice Southward had other ideas:  

“Ms Lawrie and her advisers had developed a sophisticated strategy to deal with the ‘ugly’ report findings they had for some time anticipated Mr Lawler would make. 

Further, the purpose of Mr Wyvill’s advice … was to try and bolster their assertions that they had been denied procedural fairness.”

Lawrie had a “conscious and deliberate strategy” to withdraw from Lawler’s inquiry and then claim that it denied her procedural fairness. 

Not only did Southwood find that Lawrie was accorded procedural fairness, he also said she and her lawyers waived the right to any greater procedural fairness than accorded to her by the inquiry.

“I would prefer to adopt the position that this process never had any independence from the beginning, they picked [inquiry commissioner John] Lawler because they knew he would do what he was asked to do and this just confirms that this whole process was a set up from the beginning. Writing to Lawler suggests that he has an independence to be influenced! What do you think?”

One of the strategies was the claim, in a letter to the commissioner from Lawrie’s solicitor, Cathy Spurr, a former president of the NT Labor Party, that Lawrie and another minister subject to the investigation, Gerry McCarthy, had exhausted the pro bono legal services of Wyvill and Spurr, and so would no longer be able to participate in the inquiry. 

Southwood said this was “deliberately and knowingly false”. 

Southwood’s findings, fittingly, were handed down on April Fools’ Day. He said:

“The making of the false statements is counselled by Mr Wyvill and Ms Spurr sent the letter after obtaining instructions from Ms Lawrie. Ms Lawrie knew the statements were false.”

Spurr and Wyvill had agreed to act pro bono after they were told in late 2013 that the NT Government would not fund Lawrie’s representation at the inquiry.

Southwood accepted the argument of Lawler’s brief, David McClure, that Wyvill had a strategy to make “the incredibly serious and completely baseless allegation that the Country Liberal Party government picked Mr Lawler on the basis that he would find what they wanted him to find”.

Central to the court’s findings was the fact that communications between the lawyers and Lawrie and her staff had lost their privilege. Laurie’s appeal focussed on her state of mind and her belief she should have been warned by Lawler if there were any adverse findings. 

To properly discover her state of mind it became necessary to examine all relevant records from her lawyers that revealed her beliefs. 

These included file notes of meetings, emails, draft letters and settled letters. During the inquiry itself, cabinet privilege also was ransacked. 

Battle is now joined over costs. Lawrie was ordered to file and serve documents joining Wyvill and Spurr. There’s a directions hearing on June 8.