Former union boss John Maitland's involvement in an entrepreneurial strategy to obtain a NSW coal exploration licence didn't constitute a criminal offence, his lawyer has told his appeal.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Maitland, 72, is challenging his conviction after he was found guilty by a jury and jailed for at least four years for being an accessory to former state Labor MP Ian Macdonald's wilful misconduct in public office.
Macdonald, 69, is appealing his conviction and minimum seven-year sentence.
The Crown told the pair's 2017 trial that Macdonald as mineral resources minister favoured the interest of Doyles Creek Mining, chaired by Maitland, over the interests of the state when he granted the licence without a competitive tender.
Maitland's lawyer Edward Muston SC on Wednesday said his client and "co-venturers" put forward a sales pitch for the direct allocation of the Hunter Valley coal exploration licence and they lobbied for it in a proactive and calculated way.
They were entrepreneurs who recognised that if the licence went to tender, a smaller operation like Doyles Creek Mining would struggle to compete, the lawyer said.
Their pitch included a plan for a training mine to address skills shortages and they focused on the advantages of that as well as community support.
"Of course they're going to be emphasising to the community the benefits of it," Mr Muston told five judges in the NSW Court of Appeal.
"They're not going to say ... it's quite a small training mine and we're going to make a packet out of it."
Whatever one thought of the strategy, it "didn't establish the critical elements of the offence against Mr Maitland", the lawyer said.
He said the evidence against Maitland revealed nothing more than the existence of the strategy, its implementation by Doyles Creek Mining and its effectiveness.
There was no doubt Maitland truly believed in the importance of the training mine, Mr Muston said.
Written submissions argue the prosecution failed to establish a sensible motive for Maitland to offend, and there wasn't direct evidence at trial to suggest he thought Macdonald was anything other than genuinely supportive of the project.
For Maitland's charges to be established, the Crown had to prove he was aware Macdonald was improperly motivated and that the politician knew he shouldn't use his public office in such a way, the submissions say.
But the Crown's submissions say "this was and remains a strong Crown case" and Maitland's appeal grounds are either misconceived or agitate sound trial directions.
The hearing continues.
Australian Associated Press
