Craig Thomson appeal: Money belonged to bank, not union, court told
Lawyers for embattled former federal MP Craig Thomson say he did not steal from the Health Services Union because the money he took from his union credit cards belonged to the bank.
Thomson is appealing against 65 convictions of obtaining financial advantage by deception by misappropriating union funds during his term as national secretary between 2002 and 2007.
The former member for Dobell was convicted and sentenced to 12 months in prison, with nine months suspended, after a trial in the Melbourne Magistrates Court in March.
He was ordered to serve three months in prison but his lawyers lodged an appeal straight away, meaning he spent only two hours in custody before being freed on bail.
Prosecutors told the Victorian County Court Thomson had no authority to spend the union's funds on personal expenses.
It was alleged the expenses included brothel visits.
But Thomson's lawyer Greg James QC argued there should not be a case against his client.
He said when Thomson withdrew cash from his credit cards the cash was the property of the bank, not the union, so there was no basis to the theft allegations against him.
Mr James said it was the union, not Thomson, who owed money to the bank.
Judge Carolyn Douglas asked: "So you're saying there's no obligation legally for the person on the card to pay?"
Mr James replied: "At no point does the appellant have a legal relationship with the bank ... The bank looks to the HSU, not to him."
"There's never a point in time where Mr Thomson has a debt to the bank.
"It is our submission the case against him is not made out on a proper analysis of the evidence."
Mr James said the union's executive had not been specific about use of its credit cards.
"There is nothing in the resolution ... except it (the credit card) could incur expenditure of up to $50,000," he said.
But Judge Douglas suggested Thomson should have been aware of what he was doing.
"He's educated ... he has a law degree," she said.
"It was implicit in his position as a manager ... because he counselled others ... that you do not take your wife on a business trip."
Thomson 'told lies to divert attention'
The court also heard Thomson had told lies publicly on the question of spending money on prostitutes to divert attention.
"He was under direct attack for moral turpitude," Mr James said.
Judge Douglas agreed Thomson had been embarrassed.
"The only reasonable explanation for telling lies is the realisation it was dishonest ... it was embarrassing because he was a member of Parliament," she said.
Judge Douglas said the contents of today's hearing had taken its toll on those listening in court.
"I've got to say, Mr James, it's been a long morning and I've hit the wall," she said.
"I think we all need a break."
Thomson has always maintained his innocence.
The case has been scheduled to return to court on December 15 for judgement.
