The submissions – which are findings of CA only and not of the commissioner – found that Ms Gobbo’s conduct may have breached her duties to the administration of justice and to the courts. Such conduct “may have been dishonest” and was likely to diminish the confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice.

Notably, CA found there was no evidence that Ms Gobbo ever disclosed her informant role to her clients or their legal representatives. While it was “arguable that those cases may have been affected by her conduct”, CA conceded it was not their position to have any submissions that draw a “definite nexus” between convictions and Ms Gobbo.

CA listed that Ms Gobbo’s conduct in providing information about her clients to Victoria Police and allegedly assisting prosecution of the accused while representing them may have amounted to wrongdoing. CA also submitted she was aware that evidence relied upon by the prosecution “may have been improperly or illegally obtained”.

Further, CA submitted that Ms Gobbo may have obtained evidence herself or assisted investigative agencies in their efforts to do so. The submissions also alleged, on some occasions, Ms Gobbo advised an accused to plead guilty as a conflict of interest.

“Ms Gobbo informing on an accused person may have involved a breach of confidence or legal professional privilege, and involvement in the tainting of evidence may create a further conflict of interest. In both circumstances an accused person may have been deprived of the opportunity to claim privilege or object to admissibility of evidence,” the CA said.  

CA submitted that it was “highly unlikely” that an accused person would have “sensibly maintained such representation” with the knowledge of a possible or actual active and open channel of communication between their legal representative and police.

On the facts before the commission, CA also submitted that there were three principal criminal offences that may have been committed by Victoria Police in their handling of Ms Gobbo’s role as an informant: misconduct in public office; perverting the course of justice or attempting to pervert the course of justice or conspiring to prevent the course of justice; and aiding, abetting, counselling or precuring Ms Gobbo, or conspiring with Ms Gobbo, to obtain property by deception or obtain financial advantage by deception.

Examples of wrongdoing, implications against convicted persons

In two of the CA’s case studies – Mr Thomas and Mr Cooper, whose real names have been redacted – the submissions assert wrongdoing by Ms Gobbo and Victoria Police, constituting a breach of legal duties and of the Victoria Police Act 2013.

Between August 2004 and June 2007, Ms Gobbo represented Mr Thomas while taking information back to Victoria Police. Among the claims, CA submitted that she was paid a regular retainer by Mr Thomas as cash she knew to be proceeds of a crime.

Mr Thomas also alleges that Ms Gobbo pressured him to plead guilty and give Victoria Police evidence against others and asked that he not identify her in his statements. In his evidence, Mr Thomas said Ms Gobbo had also persuaded him to sign a statement with incorrect information in it and acted as a knowing false alibi for attempted murder.

Through her lawyers and in their own submission, Ms Gobbo’s lawyers deny his claims and indicated anything he says should be “severely scrutinised” as he is known for his lies “to suit his own ends”, even when he was under oath in evidence.

CA found that Mr Thomas made 20 statements for Victoria Police implicating gangland figures. This evidence assisted in the guilty convictions of five people, including Milad Mokbel, Carl Williams, two redacted persons and Faruk Orman.

Between 2002 and 2007, Ms Gobbo acted for Mr Cooper. During this time, Ms Gobbo provided information to Victoria Police. CA submitted that Ms Gobbo had deceived Mr Cooper to the effect she would provide him with legal counsel while informing on him.

In the end, Mr Cooper made 45 statements to police. Over 20 of the submissions were used in obtaining guilty convictions, including for Tony Mokbel and Zlate Cvetanovski.

Ms Gobbo’s lawyers contended that Ms Gobbo could not have passed on “information in breach of legal professional privilege or confidentiality” given the information related to ongoing crime “that Mr Cooper could not be seeking legal advice about”.

“Further, Mr Cooper described Ms Gobbo as his best friend and it is apparent that the information he provided was in that context. When she attended the police to represent Mr Cooper, her actions were undertaken due to her genuine fear she would be killed if it became known she had assisted police,” her lawyers wrote in their submission.

In both case studies, CA submitted that former Victoria Police Commissioner, and the centre of many of the police controversies, Simon Overland was aware that Ms Gobbo was in conflict if she provided information about someone she was representing. They also submitted that Mr Overland would have known the evidence was inadmissible.

In terms of Mr Thomas, CA submitted that if it was open to the commission to find that Mr Overland became known of Ms Gobbo’s representation, “Victoria Police was using Ms Gobbo to encourage Mr Thomas to make admissions, enter a plea of guilty and to implicate his associates, or alternatively allow Ms Gobbo to do so”.

CA submitted that Mr Overland and the officers involved in both case studies breached sections under the Victoria Police Act 2013, bringing Victoria Police into “disrepute”.

Nicola Gobbo’s response

Ms Gobbo’s lawyers submitted that the evidence demonstrates that many of the clients provided information to her in social settings, which does not attract legal breaches.

Her lawyers argue that Victoria Police and Ms Gobbo behaved negligently in allowing Ms Gobbo to breach her duties as she did. Although they agreed that the conduct had impacted upon the administration of justice, it was “not unlawful” and was mitigated by the “lack of oversight and guidance by senior [decision-makers] at Victoria Police”.

As for the number of impacted cases, it was not for Ms Gobbo to comment on: “That is a matter for the commissioner to answer and the courts to consider.”  

Lawyers Weekly will be providing further updates on the submission and responses soon.