Former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald has alleged he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice after being jailed for corruptly awarding a mine exploration licence in the state’s Hunter Valley.
In 2022, Ian Macdonald, now 75, was convicted after a retrial for issuing the Doyles Creek mine licence to a company chaired by former union boss John Maitland in 2008.
Mr Maitland was acquitted of being an accessory to the misconduct.
The men were granted a retrial in 2019 after an appeal court found the judge in their original trial misdirected the jury about the state of mind required for Macdonald to be found guilty.
Justice Hament Dhanji, who presided over the 2022 retrial without a jury, found Macdonald wilfully made decisions to benefit Mr Maitland, and there was no justification for his actions.
In sentencing him to 14 years and six-months’ jail, with a non-parole period of 10 years, the judge said a high degree of criminality was involved.
Ian Macdonald has appealed his jail sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal. (ABC News)
Decision within guidelines
The former Labor minister rejected that and his barrister David Mackay argued his case at a Court of Criminal Appeal hearing in Sydney on Wednesday.
Appearing via audio visual link, a visibly gaunt Macdonald watched the proceedings, putting on glasses and taking notes as evidence was put to the court.
The Doyles Creek licence was granted by direct allocation in 2008 when Macdonald was the state’s resources minister.
Mr Mackay said such an allocation was within guidelines.
“There was a practice where certain decisions were made for the public good … some went to cabinet and some of them didn’t,” Mr Mackay said.
“The applicant chose option one because that was the only option that mentioned a training mine, and that is what he wanted to achieve.
“There were 19 letters of support … the letters set out what proponents believed and their honest belief was that it was a good idea.
“Both [then] premier Nathan Rees and Morris Iemma said they relied on such letters of support and it was common practice.”
Ian Macdonald is a former NSW Labor minister. (AAP: Joel Carrett)
‘Competitive process expected’
Crown Prosecutor Brett Hatfield SC agreed the allocation was not in breach of Department of Primary Industries (DPI) guidelines.
“Was the direct allocation contrary to the guidelines or not? … Arguably it wasn’t contrary to the guidelines,” Mr Hatfield said.
“The effect of the evidence from two main people in the department is that it is usually the case that it would expected to be a competitive process, unless there was a good reason for not doing so.”
Mr Hatfield said the exploration licence covered an area with up to 91 million tonnes of coal and over its 35-year life could have a net profit of $1 billion.
The prosecutor questioned the allocation’s approval on a number of fronts.
“As far as [addressing] a skills shortage there is some lag time, with the mine and training operation established in three to five years,” he said.
“There would be 104 trade trainees and 32 mining trainees, which goes to the insignificant nature of the proposal.”
‘Miscarriage of justice’
Mr Mackay said his client believed it would have significant benefits.
“The granted exploration licence was granted because he believed a training mine was worthwhile,’ he said.
“A mine had real prospects, even though the size of mine was small.”
The court was told the underground mine would have surface training facilities and classrooms where trainees were taught about mine safety protocols.
Mr Mackay said there had been a miscarriage of justice as the judge repeatedly used the word motivation as opposed to the word purpose, adversely affecting his client.
In response, the Crown Prosecutor said: “Motivation and purpose … it is the same thing … there is no miscarriage of justice and there is no error”.
The court heard the DPI did not support the mining proposal.
Mr Mackay said his client had been wrongly convicted.
“The verdict was unreasonable and Mr Macdonald should be acquitted. He did not receive any benefit no money, no nothing from this decision,” he said.
The judgement has been reserved.
