Parliament should be responsible for dealing with the alleged misuse of Cabcharges by Peter Slipper, his lawyer has argued as part of her bid to stop the case.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Slipper has been accused of three counts of dishonestly using Cabcharge cards while a federal politician, but his lawyer argued that the case is a violation of parliamentary privilege.
Defence counsel Kylie Weston-Scheuber sought leave to file an application for a permanent stay of proceedings when she arrived with her client at the ACT Magistrates Court on Monday.
She said the prosecution proceedings "violated parliamentary privilege".
Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker adjourned the court until 10am on Wednesday while she considers the application further.
Slipper, who was a speaker of the House of Representatives during the last Federal Parliament, was the Liberal member for the Queensland seat of Fisher for more than 20 years, before becoming an independent MP in 2011.
Commonwealth prosecutors allege Mr Slipper, who was not re-elected at the last election, improperly used $1000 of the taxi vouchers to visit district restaurants and wineries.
Prosecutor Lionel Robberds said there were a number of reasons that the application should be dismissed during his submission on Tuesday.
“There is no evidence that the defendant’s conduct on the three trips stay within the proceedings of parliament,” he said,
“… Even if his conduct did come within that definition, it does not follow that the travel to the wineries was on parliamentary business.”
Mr Robberds said that for the travel to be relating to parliamentary business, the purpose of the trip itself should be as part of political responsibilities.
He said that using a portion of the travel time to discuss or plan for parliament was insufficient.
“In order to travel on parliamentary business, at the very least the purpose of the travel must be for parliamentary business,” he said.
“The purpose of the travel on these three occasions was not for parliamentary business.”
Mr Robberds said that had the travel been on parliamentary business, Slipper would not have used multiple cab charges or allegedly falsified the documents.
In response, Ms Weston-Scheuber said there were no comparable cases to the matter, which she said should be dealt with by parliament itself.
“What is effectively being criminalized here is activity that centres on parliamentary business,” she said.
“… It’s for that reason that the very essence of the case infringes on the concept of proceedings in parliament.”
Ms Weston-Scheuber said it was “not appropriate” for Mr Slipper to be required to put forward evidence prior to any evidence being put forward by the prosecution.
“I could not ask Mr Slipper about that,” she said.
“Mr Slipper could not answer that question… The defendant in a criminal proceeding has the right to silence.”
She also disagreed with the prosecution’s definition regarding travelling for parliamentary business.
The hearing, if the matter proceeds, is expected to take several days and include a witness list of eight people. Diary notes from the Australian Federal Police are also expected to be tendered as part of evidence.
Slipper has pleaded not guilty, and has previously said he would vigorously fight the charges.
He refused questions from the media when entering and leaving the court on Tuesday.
