(Screenshot: theleader.com.au)

Kathy Jackson fails to persuade the court that a suspicious fire ate her homework and is set down by the Federal Court to face allegations she defrauded the HSU for $1.4 million. Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks reports.

They say “everybody has their day in Court”, however most of us have lost count of Kathy Jackson’s days.

Today, however, was another one to add to the tally as the matter of the $1.4 million of allegedly misappropriated member funds was once again due before Federal Court and another attempt was to be made for Jackson to answer the questions of her accusers.

Along the way, in this case there have been numerous breaches of court orders from Jackson, changes of legal representation, an admission to a psychiatric facility and last week a fire at Jackson’s residence. However, that is just the events related to the Federal Court case.

Since the Federal Court case commenced, almost two years ago, there have been some other significant events in Jackson’s life.

There has been a Royal Commission where she claimed she was ambushed. There has been the recommendation by Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission that she be deferred to the Department of Public Prosecutions for criminal investigation and charges. There has been the exposing of her $250,000 NHDA private bank account care of cancer workers. There has been the flaunting of her sex life all over the media. There has been the decision from her own union to report matters to Victorian Police for investigation. She was portrayed as a crook in an election campaign by the Victorian Liberal Party and the Federal Liberal Party have all but deserted her — tossing her aside like yesterday’s garbage.

Today the question on everyone’s lips was: Would Jackson use last Friday’s small fire as a means to further delay proceedings?

The answer to that question is that, yes, she attempted to — however she completely and utterly failed.

Jackson’s psychiatrist, prior to the timely fire, had declared that Jackson was mentally fit to instruct her lawyers.

However, in true Jacksonville style, it would appear that her lawyer may have been instructed to plead that she was now possibly unable to instruct him since the fire. However, given there was no evidence given to show from any medical practitioner, Justice Tracey’s response was that the fire at the Jackson house had “no bearing” on the matter before the court.

The claim from Jackson’s lawyer Philip Beazley via videolink was that the fire may have had an impact on Jackson’s psychiatric state due to the stress and it was mentioned that the fire had destroyed some of her personal effects, such as clothing, leaving her nothing to wear to court.

Despite the fire occurring a week ago, Jackson claimed she hadn’t been able to find suitable clothing in the meantime, nor been able to find time to see a doctor to assess her mental state.

Justice Tracey dismissed the bid for an adjournment on these grounds and set a trial date for 27 June 2015, setting aside 10 days for the trial.

It is expected Jackson will face trial for the full  $1.4 million, after the Health Services Union were given seven days to amend their claim to include some further findings of alleged financial discrepancies.

Beazley has indicated he may try for eighth time lucky, with a desperate plea to claim the case against his client is an “abuse of process”.

The last seven times similar actions have been attempted by any of Jackson’s legal representatives they have been withdrawn.

Justice Richard Tracey said that there would be no delay to the case by this kind of action, as the matter had dragged on for two years already.

For union members seeking answers, 27 June can’t come fast enough.

Catch up on the full Jacksonville saga on our dedicated page. Follow Peter Wicks on Twitter @madwixxy.

Monthly Donation

$

Single Donation

$

Monthly Donation

$

Single Donation

$

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

 

Share this article:   

Join the conversation Comments Policy

comments powered by Disqus