“……. I believe that Coober Pedy administrator Tim Jackson MUST stand-down”
Why did the DCCP Administrator, Tim Jackson instruct for me to be charged with contempt of court when he had no legal grounds to do so?
Timothy Jackson authorised for me [Alexandra Walsh] to be charged with Contempt of Court in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
This action and the expense incurred, as well as being thrown out of court for want of prosecution, provided no benefit to the Coober Pedy Community and yet Tim Jackson was able to access and spend an estimated $50K of unbudgeted ratepayer’s money.
I question the process that Mr. Jackson employed when weighing up the RISKS involved in such an action. I also question if any potential conflicts of interest were declared.
The alleged offense: Due to us being in need of fellow councilor support, I had emailed a copy of Justice Stanley’s Judgement that was handed down on 13 May 2020 to 4 Elected Members. This was concerning the (a separate) Contempt of Court Charge that Jackson had authorised against George Naumovic. The document list in question was published in the Coober Pedy Regional Times on 11 June 2021 coober-pedy-regional-times-11-6-2021
At that time Tim Jackson was aware that:
1. There was no prohibition at the time the Court delivered its reasons on 13 May 2020 on the dissemination of those reasons. 2. There was nothing on the face of the Judgment or in the body of the Judgment to indicate that it potentially contained “protected material” 3. That dissemination of the Judgment might infringe any other Order previously made. 4. There was no attempt by you or your lawyers to convey to me prior to 25 May 2020 any concern or requirement that I not disseminate the Judgment. 5. Tim Jackson and lawyers knew that I had not committed any offence after 25 May 2020, being the date on which the Court imposed restrictions on the “copying and disseminating” of the REDACTED Judgment. 6. Tim Jackson as the instructor and Vas Marinos of Norman Waterhouse Lawyers were replaced by the Crown Solicitor’s office as the Prosecution. We estimate that council spent $50K on lawyers, on a case that was withdrawn for want of prosecution. 7. The charge of contempt that you authorised was withdrawn by the Crown Solicitors office for want of prosecution
In those circumstances, there was no breach of any Order specific to the Judgment prior to 25 May 2020 and any dissemination of the Judgment prior to that date was permissible.
Mr. Jackson and his lawyers dragged an innocent person, through the courts at considerable expense to the Coober Pedy Ratepayers. Again, for what purpose?
The unrestricted publication of the entire Judgment by the Court on 13 May 2020 was implied, if not express, permission for the unfettered dissemination of the Judgment.
Mr. Jackson’s failure to seek any orders restricting dissemination at the time of its publication by the Court reinforces this.
For the record that redacted Judgement is available to the public via this link:
At no time did Tim Jackson seek to appeal any of the judgments by Justice Stanley.
The charge of Contempt of Court against George Naumovic by the Council is best summarised in paragraph 3 of His Honours Redacted Judgement where His Honour remarks:
The Council alleges that Mr Naumovic breached the injunction by using the information, after the order was made, in a pleading filed in the Magistrates Court, in an action brought by Mr Naumovic against Mr Justin Freytag and the Council for defamation and misfeasance in public office.
[Definition of ‘misfeasance’. The tort of misfeasance in public office relates to an unauthorised exercise of government powers or functions.]
His Honour finds at paragraph 55 of his redacted judgment:
 I do not accept that Council has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the relevant pleading in subparagraph 89(e) was drafted by using documents 21 and 22. For the reasons I have given earlier, it remains a reasonable possibility that Mr Naumovic was aware that legal advice had been provided to the effect that the allegations he had made attracted the protection of the Whistleblowers Protection 1993 (SA) as a result of a telephone conversation or conversations he had with Mr Carr.
The Redacted Judgement still reveals elements of Whistle-blower Protection that was to be afforded to George Naumovic.
I also note that the Administrator of the DCCP instructed lawyers to have the entire Judgement suppressed AFTER I had sent that copy to the Elected Members. Justice Stanley rejected their argument to suppress his judgment in its entirety. [The judgment identified aspects of Whistleblower Protection viz para 55]
His Honour finds at paragraph 36 of his redacted judgment:
 Document 21 is an email from Mr Carr to Ms Hogan dated 18 May 2018 which is attached a letter of advice from the Council’s solicitors, Norman Waterhouse, to Mr Carr of 17 May 2018.
The email has the subject heading “Draft Confidential Report/Whistle-blowers Protection Act”. It states inter alia that since furnishing the draft report to Ms Hogan, Mr Carr has received legal advice about the application of the Act which he attaches to his email. He refers to Mr Naumovic’s claim that he qualified as a whistle-blower and should have been provided with whistle-blower protection. He refers to Mr Naumovic’s complaint that he was discredited by the actions of Ms Hogan. He seeks comment from Ms Hogan in relation to these complaints. [redacted].
Has Tim Jackson’s conduct been unlawful and in contravention of several legislative requirements that he is required to follow?
Has Tim Jackson, a Government appointed Administrator, deliberately ignored that an elected member/public officer was to be afforded whistle-blower protection?
For prosecuting an innocent person, I believe that Tim Jackson MUST stand down.