Shadow Attorney General weighs in on Gladys Berejiklian failed ICAC appeal 05:39

Alistair Henskins is the Shadow Attorney-General and a former colleague of Gladys Berejiklian. He's on the line. Alistair, thanks for your time. Good afternoon, Chris. Do you think that Gladys Berejiklian is seriously corrupt?

Well, I've always found it curious in this matter that the ICAC made no findings of any arguable criminal misconduct by Gladys, made no findings that she received one cent of personal financial benefit, yet she's been found seriously corrupt. And I think that's why, as you said in your introduction, most people think Gladys is

was an outstanding Premier. She has great public popularity because I think they judge her by what they know of her and the things that she did in public office. And the case that was brought against her by ICAC, as you said...

it didn't resonate with the public. So the public still... I think you said it was a public relations battle that she won, but I would say that in the court of public opinion, people always thought Gladys was very hardworking, diligent and earnest person, and I must say that's how I've always found Gladys to be in my dealings with her. When the former Premier did say that there is...

It is limited in its nature, the way that any citizen can challenge an ICAC finding as a shadow attorney general and a member of the bar yourself. What does that mean?

Okay, so Chris, if you run a case in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in front of a judge and you're unhappy with the decision, you can take that to the Court of Appeal, usually by right, and you can challenge all the findings of fact as well as the findings of law made by the judge who heard your case.

ICAC is not like that. So an individual that's brought before ICAC actually has fewer rights than they do if they actually have a case in court. And when you have a hearing before ICAC, the only grounds that you can get a court to review the findings of the ICAC

is very limited and it's not based on the merits of the case, the factual findings in particular. You can only really challenge findings of law and not findings of fact. So it's a very limited form of appeal and I've for a long time, I must say, thought that that's quite unfair.

So it's not the substance of the allegations that ICAC has deemed you corrupt on. It is how ICAC conducted itself. Is that right? Exactly. How ICAC got to that decision. Right. And so... And by the way, in New South Wales...

There are other states where they're ICAC equivalent. You can challenge the merits of their findings as well as legal matters on appeal. So our ICAC actually has a much more limited form of appeal than some ICAC equivalents in other states. Anywhere from here for Gladys Berry-Jickling, could you go to the High Court?

So she doesn't have an appeal as of right to the High Court. She would have to do what's called seek special leave to appeal to the High Court. Which is what Margaret Canaan did, correct?

Correct. Well, actually, ICAC appealed Margaret Kenean's decision because Margaret Kenean. But Chris, the point is that usually when you have a split decision like this, that gives you a much better chance to go to get laid by the high court.

than if it's a unanimous decision. So I'm sure that's something that her lawyers will be looking at. She had Brett Walker as probably the best, if not one of the best, barristers in the country representing her. So I'm sure that's something that she will no doubt get advice about. Not to, you know better than anyone, what roughly would have this cost her?

Well, I've been out of the game for a while, Chris. But, look, there's no cheap way to appeal... Hundreds of thousands? I would think it would be in that order without knowing. A lot of coin, isn't it? Look, it is, but you raised Margaret Kenean. Nick Griner also appealed his corruption finding. It is...

that when Gladys did so much for our state, guided us through the pandemic and so on, that that will be...

that rather than her being remembered for those things, there will be, you know, historically a notation that she was found seriously corrupt. And I think, as you said earlier, I'm not sure that she deserves to be in the same class as some of the other people that have been found seriously corrupt, particularly when she has not arguably committed a crime. Okay.

Alistair Henskins, I really appreciate you coming on. Thanks as always. Thanks very much, Chris.