Make: NIKON CORPORATIONModel: NIKON D3SDate/Time: 2010:10:23 12:58:46 Source: PerthNow
THE WA lawyer who was secretly recorded telling the man at the centre of the City of Stirling corruption scandal to "get rid" of evidence has received a 12 month suspended sentence.
Trevor Howard Brickhill today admitted to telling his former client, the City of Stirling employee who took his own life before Corruption and Crime Commission hearings into the saga began, to wipe his home computer as well as transfer property out of his name to avoid it being confiscated.
He also admitted to giving misleading testimony during the hearing in November 2010.
Mr Brickhill, a civil lawyer with more than 20 years' experience and the managing partner of his own firm, was secretly recorded by CCC investigators in June 2010.
In the recorded conversation, which was played to the court, Mr Brickhill told the man, who was not his client at the time, that he should "get rid" of his computer as well as any financial records that could be used as evidence against him.
The comments were made following a meeting with the man's wife and father earlier.
He also advised the man, who was accused of misappropriating council funds and receiving an estimated $544,000 in kickbacks from contractors he awarded work to, to see another lawyer about transferring his farm and home out of his name.
During the sentencing hearing in Perth Magistrate's Court today, Mr Brickhill's lawyer Phillip Urquhart told the court his client had made a "serious error of judgment" which was completely "out of character" and that he was genuinely remorseful about his actions.
He said the father of three had suffered incredible shame over the incident and his 25-year professional reputation had been "decimated".
And while his client accepted he gave misleading testimony, Mr Urquhart likened the tactics used by the CCC to catch his client out as being tantamount to "entrapment".
He said while he did not like to use that word, the fact that Mr Brickhill was unaware he had been recorded and was then asked questions relating to that recording meant he was bound to incriminate himself.
"He was drawn into the contradictions he had made," Mr Urquhart said.
He also added that his client never instigated the discussion about wiping the computer drive, saying it was the man's wife who had actually asked if she could do it.
But Theo Lampropoulos, who was representing the CCC, said it was clear Mr Brickhill had told her to do it. He said in the phone conversation Mr Brickhill said the computer has "got to go". He later tells the man he should "get rid of your computer and get rid of these records".
"It can't be suggested he was a reluctant participant," Mr Lampropoulos said. "He counselled the wife to destroy it. He had the intention of preventing it from being effectively used in evidence."
Mr Lampropoulos also rejected the suggestion the tactics used by the CCC resembled entrapment, saying Mr Brickhill was fully aware of the seriousness of giving misleading testimony when he took his oath.
He also said investigators were not privy to the details of the meeting held between Mr Brickhill and the man's wife and his father and needed to ask a range of questions to see if any more meetings had been held.
"To suggest there was some kind of entrapment involved is unrealistic," he said.
"He was well and truly put on notice about the seriousness of telling the truth. The accused was given adequate opportunity to come clean."
Mr Lampropoulos said by giving deliberately misleading testimony, Mr Brickhill undermined the effectiveness of the investigation, which almost amounted to a form of "perjury" and by counselling a person to destroy evidence "directly interfered" with the investigation and was an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
In handing down his decision, Magistrate Richard Bromfield said he was obligated to give him an 18-month sentence but would reduce it to 15 months because of his good standing.
He then said he took into account his guilty plea and further reduced it to 12 months and ordered that the sentence be suspended for 18 months.
With regards to giving misleading evidence, he fined Mr Brickhill $10,000 and order he pay costs of $3500.
