Findings of corrupt conduct
The ICAC found that Ivan Petch engaged in corrupt conduct by:
-
arranging, through John Goubran, to convey a threat to then general manager, John Neish
-
releasing confidential information concerning the discovery of adult material on Mr Neish's computer to various people in an attempt to encourage its reporting in the media so as to undermine Mr Neish's credibility and reputation and to cast doubt on his suitability to serve as the Council's general manager
-
deliberately releasing confidential information in the form of advice from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure that was provided to Anthony Stavrinos on 26 November 2012 and an email from the Council's group manager of environment and planning that was sent to Norman Cerreto on 27 June 2012, in both cases with the intention that the information would be provided to Mr Goubran and used by him for his benefit
-
attempting to improperly influence acting general manager Danielle Dickson in May 2013 to resolve, in favour of six defendant councillors (of which he was one), an ongoing costs dispute in relation to Supreme Court of NSW proceedings in which the Council was involved, by making a threat implying that if she did not do so, he and his fellow defendant councillors would not support her application to be appointed as the Council's general manager
-
at the Council meeting of 26 March 2013, during consideration of a motion to split the Council's advertising between The Weekly Times and another newspaper, deliberately failing to disclose his pecuniary interest or conflict of interest arising from his financial dealing with John Booth (the owner and managing editor of The Weekly Times) and The Weekly Times
-
deliberately releasing Council information that he knew to be confidential to Mr Cerreto, in relation to the Council waste collection and disposal contract
-
deliberately releasing Council information that he knew to be confidential to John Mahony in relation to the proposed Ryde civic precinct redevelopment.
The Commission found that John Goubran engaged in corrupt conduct by arranging through Tony Abboud to convey a threat to Mr Neish implying that Mr Neish's position of Council general manager would not be safe after the 2012 local government elections unless Mr Neish agreed to establish a community consultative committee to consider the Ryde civic precinct redevelopment. The ultimate result of the establishment of this committee would be that the redevelopment would be delayed until after the local government elections.
Richard Henricus engaged in corrupt conduct when he approached Mr Pickering and told him that Mr Pickering would receive favourable publicity in The Weekly Times if he withdrew his opposition to a development application lodged by Mr Booth in relation to the property on which the office of The Weekly Times was located.
Recommendations for prosecutions
The Commission must seek the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on whether any prosecution should be commenced. The DPP determines whether any criminal charges can be laid, and conducts all prosecutions. The Commission provides information on this website in relation to the status of prosecution recommendations and outcomes as advised by the DPP. The progress of matters is generally within the hands of the DPP. Accordingly, the Commission does not directly notify persons affected of advice received from the DPP or the progress of their matters generally.
The ICAC is of the opinion that the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be obtained with respect to the prosecution of the following persons:
Ivan Petch
-
The common law offence of misconduct in public office in relation to his handling of the discovery of adult material on Mr Neish's computer and his attempts to leak the material to the media.
-
Five offences of giving false or misleading evidence pursuant to section 87 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 relating to the discovery of adult material on John Neish's computer.
-
The common law offence of misconduct in public office in relation to his release of confidential advice from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and also internal Council emails concerning planning approvals.
-
Making an unwarranted demand with menaces with the intention of influencing the exercise of a public duty pursuant to section 249K of the Crimes Act 1900 in relation to the approach to Danielle Dickson.
-
Offences of accepting an indirect campaign contribution pursuant to section 96E of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 in relation to advertising published in The Weekly Times on 1, 7, 15, and 22 August 2012, and also 29 August and 5 September 2012.
John Goubran
Making an unwarranted demand with menaces with the intention of influencing the exercise of a public duty pursuant to section 249K of the Crimes Act in relation to the approach to Mr Neish.
Anthony Stavrinos
Giving false or misleading evidence to the Commission pursuant to section 87 of the ICAC Act in relation to the leaking of details of the discovery of adult material on Mr Neish's computer.
John Booth
Giving false or misleading evidence to the Commission pursuant to section 87 of the ICAC Act in relation to his claim during the public inquiry that election advertising published in The Weekly Times under the banner of the website "saveryde.com" was organised by Barry O'Grady.
Jeffrey Salvestro-Martin
Accepting an indirect campaign contribution pursuant to s 96E of the EFED Act in relation to advertising published in The Weekly Times on 29 August and 5 September 2012.
Terry Perram
Accepting an indirect campaign contribution pursuant to s 96E of the EFED Act in relation to advertising published in The Weekly Times on 29 August and 5 September 2012.
Justin Li
Accepting an indirect campaign contribution pursuant to s 96E of the EFED Act in relation to advertising published in The Weekly Times on 29 August and 5 September 2012.
Victor Tagg
Accepting an indirect campaign contribution pursuant to s 96E of the EFED Act in relation to advertising published in The Weekly Times on 29 August and 5 September 2012.
Richard Henricus
Corruptly offering a benefit pursuant to section 249B(2) of the Crimes Act in relation to an approach to Councillor Bill Pickering in which Mr Pickering was asked to withdraw his opposition to a development application.
Updates
Following advice from the DPP, court attendance notices were served from 27 to 29 July 2015 on Ivan Petch, John Goubran, Richard Henricus, Anthony Stavrinos and John Booth.
Ivan Petch
Mr Petch was charged with one count of misconduct in public office for allegedly disclosing confidential information in relation to the former general manager John Neish in 2013. He was also charged with one count of blackmail for allegedly attempting to improperly influence council's acting general manager to resolve in favour of six independent councillors (of which he was one) a costs dispute in relation to Supreme Court of NSW proceedings by making a threat implying that if she did not do so, he and his fellow independent councillors would not support her application to be appointed general manager.
Mr Petch was also charged with being an accessory before the fact of a count of blackmail alleged to have been committed in 2012 by John Goubran, who had implied that Mr Neish's position of general manager would not be safe after the 2012 local government election unless Mr Neish agreed to form a committee to review the Ryde Civic Precinct Redevelopment proposal.
Mr Petch was also charged with six counts of giving false and misleading evidence at ICAC hearings in 2013.
On 8 June 2017, her Honour Magistrate Schurr dismissed the charge of accessory before the fact to blackmail for the conduct involving Mr Goubran, as her Honour had dismissed the substantive charge against Mr Goubran (see below).
Her Honour also found that a prima facie case had been established with respect to the misconduct in office offence, but dismissed the charge on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, would convict Mr Petch of an indictable offence.
Also on 8 June 2017, Mr Petch was committed for trial on a charge of blackmail, pursuant to section 249K of the Crimes Act. Six charges pursuant to section 87 of the ICAC Act were also sent to the Sydney District Court.
Section 249 Crimes Act offence
On 12 October 2018, Mr Petch was found guilty of the section 249K offence. On 10 December 2018, Mr Petch was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years to commence on 10 December 2018 and expire on 9 December 2020. The term of imprisonment was to be served by way of intensive correction in the community in accordance with the Crimes (Administration of Sentence) Act 1999.
On 14 December 2018, he filed a notice of intention to appeal
against his conviction only. Following several extensions to the period for the appeal to be lodged, on 29 January 2020, Mr Petch filed a Notice of Appeal against conviction in relation to the section 249K offence. The hearing was listed for 22 May 2020. On 22 May 2020, Mr Petch’s appeal against conviction in relation to the section 249K offence was heard by Justices Hoeben (CJ at CL), Hamill and Cavanagh of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Judgment was reserved.
On 19 June 2020, the Court of Criminal Appeal (Justices Hoeben, CJ at CL, Hamill and Cavanagh) allowed Mr Petch’s appeal in part, quashed his conviction and entered a verdict of acquittal (see Petch v R [2020] NSWCCA 133).
The Court upheld two of the three grounds on which Mr Petch appealed his conviction. It found that the trial judge had failed to correctly direct the jury with respect to the mental element of the offence of blackmail under section 249K of the Crimes Act. It also found that the trial judge had erred by admitting evidence of the complainant as to her opinion of Mr Petch’s state of mind when he uttered the words relied on by the Crown to establish the offence.
The Court did not uphold the third of Mr Petch’s grounds of appeal. It found that it was open to the jury to find that Mr Petch intended by his words and conduct on 2 May 2013 to issue an implied threat to act to Ms Dickson’s detriment in her application for the permanent general manager’s position. It found that it was open to the jury to convict him on the admissible evidence if given proper directions.
The Court declined to order a re-trial, however, noting that despite the public interest in the prosecution of people who had used their high public office to commit criminal offences, this was a case with unusual and compelling features. Mr Petch is now 80 years of age and has already served more than three-quarters of the custodial sentence (intensive corrections order). By the time of any re-trial, it will have been 8 or 9 years since the offence was allegedly committed. The Court also noted that Mr Petch was subject to public scrutiny and opprobrium in the course of proceedings before the ICAC.
Section 87 ICAC Act offences
On 28 October 2019, Mr Petch was found guilty of two counts of give false evidence to the Commission (the section 87 offences) and on 21 February 2020, he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 18 months of imprisonment by way of an intensive corrections order (ICO). A condition of home detention for 12 months was imposed in addition to the standard conditions of an ICO.
On 24 November 2020, Mr Petch lodged a conviction and severity appeal in relation to the section 87 offences. The matter was listed on 21 February 2021 at Sydney District Court. On that date, the appeal was stood over for judgment to 11 March 2021.
The matter was again adjourned and was listed for judgment on 15 June 2021 in relation to the conviction appeal.
Judgment in this matter was given on 15 June 2021. Mr Petch was unsuccessful in his appeal against conviction. The two convictions in the Local Court were upheld, namely:
a. Sequence 7: On 25 July 2013 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales at a hearing before the Independent Commission Against Corruption gave evidence that was false in a material particular, namely by falsely stating he did not seek to have Anthony Stavrinos leak the finding of adult pornography on John Neish’s laptop to the media, knowing that the evidence was false or not believing it to be true.
b. Sequence 8: On 25 July 2013 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales at a hearing before the Independent Commission Against Corruption gave evidence that was false in a material particular, namely by falsely stating he stopped seeking to leak the finding of adult pornography on John Neish’s laptop to the media after a meeting with Bryan Belling on 1 February 2013, knowing that the evidence was false or not believing it to be true.
The matter was adjourned to 18 June 2021 to set a date for the hearing of Mr Petch’s severity appeal. Mr Petch’s severity appeal was listed on 10 September 2021 at Sydney District Court.
Mr Petch’s severity appeal was heard on 10 September 2021 at Sydney District Court in relation to the two offences upheld on appeal on 15 June 2021, noted above.
The Aggregate ICO imposed in the Local Court on 21 February 2020 was reduced from 18 months to 15 months for the two offences. Indicative sentences of 12 months were given for each of the offences.
Because Mr Petch had already served 5 months (21/02/20 – 20/07/20) of the ICO before being granted bail, he is now to serve the remaining 10 months of the ICO commencing from 10 September 2021.
The Court did not impose an additional condition with the ICO because of the fact Mr Petch has already served 5 months of home detention and because of his age and health.
Mr Petch filed a summons seeking judicial review of the decision of Tupman DCJ to dismiss his conviction appeal in the District Court on 15 June 2021. The matter was listed for hearing on 8 February 2022, with a one day estimate. At the conclusion of the hearing on 8 February 2022, the Court of Appeal reserved its decision in relation to this matter.
On 11 March 2022, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in this matter.
On 15 June 2021, Judge Tupman of the District Court upheld the decision of a Local Court magistrate who had found Mr Petch guilty on 21 February 2020 of two offences of knowingly making false statements to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (the Commission). There being no appeal from the District Court judgment, Mr Petch applied to the Court of Appeal for judicial review of the District Court convictions.
The Court of Appeal (Basten JA with Macfarlan and Payne JJA agreeing) found that no jurisdictional error had been established and dismissed the application, ordering that the applicant pay the costs of the Director for Public Prosecutions.
The Court noted that on 10 September 2021, Tupman DCJ imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 10 months to be served by way of an intensive correction order. There has been no stay of that order and to date, the applicant has served some six months of that sentence.
John Goubran
Mr Goubran was charged with blackmail in relation to the threat alleged to have been made to Mr Neish, as set out above. On 8 June 2017, her Honour Magistrate Schurr found a prima facie case proven but dismissed the charge on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, would convict Mr Goubran of an indictable offence.
Richard Henricus
Mr Henricus was charged with corruptly offering a benefit in 2013 to a Ryde City Council officer by allegedly offering him favourable coverage in The Weekly Times if the officer did not prevent a particular development application from being approved by the council. Mr Henricus failed to appear on 7 April 2016 and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He was arrested on 4 May 2016 and appeared before the Gosford Local Court on 24 May 2016. He was sentenced on 29 June 2016 to 100 hours of community service.
John Booth
Mr Booth was charged with giving false and misleading evidence to the ICAC, contrary to section 87 of the ICAC Act. He was acquitted on 11 April 2016.
Anthony Stavrinos
Mr Stavrinos was charged with giving false and misleading evidence to the ICAC, contrary to section 87 of the ICAC Act. On 6 May 2016, Mr Stavrinos was convicted in the Local Court of one offence under section 87 of the ICAC Act. On 13 May 2016, he was sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 months. He lodged an appeal to the District Court, and was granted conditional bail. On 10 February 2017, the District Court sentenced Mr Stavrinos to 12 months imprisonment, expiring on 9 February 2018, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order. Mr Stavrinos was also required to perform 32 hours of community service work per month.
Advice concerning the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981
The DPP also advised that there was sufficient evidence to commence criminal proceedings against Mr Petch, Justin Li, Jeffrey Salvestro-Martin, Terry Perram and Victor Tagg for offences alleged to have been committed by each of them in breach of the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 in relation to advertising published in The Weekly Times in August and September 2012. Information in relation to offences against the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 was provided to the NSW Electoral Commission on 30 April 2015, following advice from the NSW Electoral Commission that it was taking over prosecution of offences under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981. Despite the advice of the DPP, the NSW Electoral Commission announced on 26 August 2015 that it had formed the view that there was insufficient evidence to commence proceedings against the above individuals for offences under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981.
Recommendations for disciplinary action
The ICAC recommends that the Office of Local Government should give consideration to the following matters:
-
The immediate suspension of Ivan Petch from civic office with a view to his dismissal pursuant to section 440B of the Local Government Act 1993 ("the LG Act") in relation to his intention to improperly influence John Neish's exercise of his public official functions by arranging to convey a threat to Mr Neish in relation to his position as general manager, actions that the Commission considers amount to serious corrupt conduct (in accordance with section 74C(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988).
-
The immediate suspension of Mr Petch from civic office with a view to his dismissal pursuant to section 440B of the LG Act in relation to his release of confidential information about the discovery of adult material on Mr Neish's computer, including his attempts to leak the material to the media, actions that the Commission considers amount to serious corrupt conduct (in accordance with section 74C(2) of the ICAC Act).
-
The immediate suspension of Mr Petch from civic office with a view to his dismissal pursuant to s 440B of the LG Act in relation to his release of confidential information to Mr Anthony and Norman Cerreto with the intention that the information would be provided to John Goubran and used by him for his benefit, actions that the Commission considers amount to serious corrupt conduct (in accordance with section 74C(2) of the ICAC Act).
-
The immediate suspension of Mr Petch from civic office with a view to his dismissal pursuant to s 440B of the LG Act in relation to his intention to improperly influence Danielle Dickson's exercise of her public official functions as the Council's acting general manager by making a threat implying that he would not support her application as permanent general manager unless she resolved Supreme Court proceedings in a way favourable to him, actions that the Commission considers amount to serious corrupt conduct (in accordance with section 74C(2) of the ICAC Act).
In the event that Mr Petch is not dismissed as a result of recommendation (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv), the Commission recommends that the Office of Local Government gives consideration to:
-
disciplinary action against Mr Petch, pursuant to section 440H and section 440L of the LG Act, in relation to breaches of clauses 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10 of the 2011 City of Ryde Council Code of Conduct, as well as section 664 of the LG Act, relating to the disclosure of confidential information concerning the discovery of adult material on Mr Neish's computer, matters that could amount to misconduct as defined in section 440F of the LG Act
-
disciplinary action against Mr Petch, pursuant to section 440H and section 440L of the LG Act, in relation to breaches of clauses 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10 of the 2011 code of conduct, as well as section 664 of the LG Act, relating to his disclosure of confidential Council information concerning the Council's waste collection and disposal contract and the proposed Ryde civic precinct redevelopment, matters that could amount to misconduct as defined in section 440F of the LG Act.
Pursuant to section 467 of the LG Act, the Commission also refers to the chief executive of the Office of Local Government the parts of this investigation report that relate to possible breaches by Mr Petch of clause 4.2 of the 2013 code of conduct, as well as section 451 of the LG Act, relating to Mr Petch's failure to declare a pecuniary interest in relation to John Booth and The Weekly Times when dealing with matters relating to the Council's advertising before Council.
Updates
Mr Petch was suspended from civic office on 30 June 2014.
Recommendations for corruption prevention
This report does not contain any corruption prevention recommendations. Chapter 10 of the report, however, highlights some of the legislative changes that have been made to the Local Government Act 1993 in an attempt to address issues of corrupt conduct in local government.