Daryl Maguire, the former Liberal Member of Parliament for the New South Wales seat of Wagga Wagga, has been convicted. He corruptionously furnished false/misleading evidence to the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). This ruling is based on a 2018 hearing. There, Maguire was accused of engaging in shady practices during a multimillion-dollar real estate transaction. The matter was moved to the John Maddison Tower as the Downing Centre had endured flooding problems.
In fact, during the hearings, Maguire repeatedly and loudly denied doing any business with ex-councillor Michael Hawatt. He similarly dismissed allegations that he demanded a deposit to negotiate a settlement from a Chinese real estate mogul. Negotiations between Maguire and Hawatt were evident from the evidence found. They were testifying in favor of a significant development with an overall value up to $48 million.
Evidence and Proceedings
The feds, too, had an ace up their sleeve. Damning recordings documented the backdoor dealings of Maguire and Hawatt. Maguire: What’s the margin look like for you? This question signaled her that they were still working out financial terms for the Joint Development project. There were mentions of margins in the dialogue. As Maguire said, “1.5 per cent isn’t quite cutting it halved down the middle, if you catch my drift,” which implied that he was hoping for something like profit sharing.
Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor Phil Hogan revealed that both Maguire and Hawatt intended to directly benefit financially from the land sale. This agreement included the former Harrison’s Hardware site on Canterbury Road. A controversial, proposed 300-unit development was the center of these discussions.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Farnan handled the case and thoughtfully weighed the record. Following a number of preliminary hearings in Local Court, he finally convicted Maguire of the one charge. Despite Maguire’s continued denial of wrongdoing, the prosecution maintained that he engaged in a “money-making exercise,” focusing on the commission discussions that took place with Hawatt.
Legal Proceedings and Non-Publication Application
As the verdict was delivered, Maguire’s barrister, Rebecca Gall, sought a non-publication order to prevent media coverage of the case. Yet Magistrate Farnan denied this request, noting that the case had already attracted considerable public scrutiny.
As Magistrate Farnan puts it, “the interest of the community in open justice was greater than Mr. Maguire’s interests. She remarked that incredibly, nobody showed up to discuss the issue. Once there were enough police prosecutors in the area, she went to do other work.
Following the ruling, Maguire issued a statement lamenting the loss. He strongly denied the allegations and insisted that he did not request or accept any monetary payment in connection with the claims.
Public Reaction and Next Steps
The case has drawn considerable public interest given Maguire’s previous political role and the implications of corruption within local governance. These have raised important ethical issues in public office and accountability debates with discussions of potential profits and commissions.
Unfortunate for Daryl Maguire, he’s facing the consequences of his actions. Whether here or elsewhere, as the implications of this ruling play out, more legal challenges are sure to come. His case serves as a reminder of the extraordinary risks that public officials face. Most importantly, it highlights the important need for transparency in government contracts.
