Prosecutors in the theft and dishonesty case against MP Troy Bell failed to distil their evidence and the trial judge gave “wholly inadequate” jury directions, his lawyer has told an appeals court.
A South Australian District Court jury found Bell, 51, guilty in September of 20 counts of theft and five aggravated counts of dishonest dealings, committed between 2009 and 2013.
In the Court of Appeal on Thursday, Domenic Petraccaro said the case against his client had relied on conduct claimed “to constitute evidence of lies, concealment of offending” and him attempting to stall or stop an investigation.
It also relied on a financial motive to commit the offences.
“Yet on these crucial aspects of the prosecution case, the directions of the trial judge are wholly inadequate … or not given at all,” Mr Petraccaro said.
Prosecutors had alleged that Bell abused his position as an Education Department employee to steal $436,000 from not-for-profits that helped vulnerable school children, and used it to fund property investments and pay debts.
During the trial, his lawyer Nicholas Healy had described the prosecution case as “a trial by vibe”.
“We are not characters in the iconic Australian film The Castle. The system (the prosecution alleges Bell used) is akin to ‘the vibe’,” he said.
On Thursday, Mr Petraccaro said prosecutors had failed to distil the evidence that constituted “the system”.
“The prosecution simply said that without it, the evidence of the transactions appeared neutral, colourless and … it would only be able to see the true character (when) looked at together,” he said.
The member for Mt Gambier has represented the South-East seat since 2014. He quit the Liberal Party and became an independent after he was charged in 2017.
In January, Judge Rauf Soulio delivered an interim decision on Bell’s application to stay the sentencing process until the appeal process is completed.
“The application for a stay was primarily based on the fact that the defendant is an elected member of parliament in the lower house,” Judge Soulio said, while deciding sentencing submissions could go ahead on March 20.
Proceeding to sentence “may well require him to be expelled from the house and a by-election conducted”, Judge Soulio said.
Given the complexity of the matter and the material he anticipated he would need to consider, Judge Soulio said he would then reserve his sentencing decision.
“If I am provided with further information as to the actual cost and scope of the task of holding a by-election, then I may revisit this interim ruling,” he said.
Under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, there is a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for a count of theft, while an aggravated offence of dishonest dealings with documents carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.