Court apology over error finding in MP blackmail case
Former South Australian MP Annabel Digance and her husband Greg were charged with one count each of blackmail after allegedly threatening to make accusations of misconduct against Premier Peter Malinauskas in 2020.
Those charges were later dropped.
Ms Digance is suing Mr Malinauskas and the state of South Australia for $2.3 million for allegedly instigating what she claims was a malicious prosecution mounted to damage her reputation.
During a hearing over the lawsuit at the South Australian Supreme Court in July, Mr Malinauskas' lawyer Michael Abbott KC claimed the Digances had been found guilty of blackmail in April 2023
He told the court that the charges were later dropped on the basis that the pair did not contact Mr Malinauskas or his family.
However, the state's Courts Administration Authority on Tuesday confirmed this was incorrect and the Digances were never found guilty.
An order - known as a nolle prosequi - was imposed in April 2023, which meant the legal action was abandoned with no sentence of imprisonment, fine or bond imposed.
A document referring to the court making a finding of guilt was generated in error and is incorrect, the Courts Administration Authority said in a statement.
"The Courts Administration Authority unreservedly apologises to the parties for this error," it said.
"The Courts Administration Authority will review all court matters with orders made in the same circumstances to ensure that court records are accurate."
An external assurance review has also been launched into how the error was made.
During the hearing on the defamation lawsuit, the court was told the blackmail charges had stemmed from a meeting between Mr Digance and then opposition leader Mr Malinauskas in February 2020.
That meeting was recorded by Mr Malinauskas and handed to the police.
Defence documents filed by the state government say at that meeting, Mr Digance demanded Ms Digance "be secured an upper or lower house seat in the SA parliament, and that a failure to do so would result in Mr Malinauskas' career being deliberately damaged".
In her statement of claim, Ms Digance states Mr Malinauskas reported the meeting to police in March 2020, "claiming he was a victim of blackmail".
In her lawsuit, Ms Digance also alleges trespass, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment by SA Police.
The state government and SA Police's lawyers have indicated that they plan to lodge applications for the lawsuit to be dismissed.
The matter is due back in court on September 4.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Roblox Stock Got Rocked Today
Key Points Louisiana is suing Roblox for endangering children with its online gaming platform. The state accuses Roblox of prioritizing profits over child safety. Roblox doesn't actually have any profits. 10 stocks we like better than Roblox › Roblox Corporation (NYSE: RBLX), the online gaming platform that's especially popular with teens and younger kids, saw its stock sell off hard this morning -- down more than 10%. The shares have clawed back some of their losses as the day progresses, but as of 11:10 a.m., they remain down 7.1%. You can blame Louisiana for that. Image source: Roblox. Louisiana takes a shot at Roblox And why? Louisiana Attorney General (AG) Liz Murrill announced today that her state is suing Roblox for: "Facilitat[ing] the distribution of child sexual abuse material and the sexual exploitation of Louisiana's children." Failing to implement "basic safety controls to protect child users from predators." And also failing to warn its users, and their parents, of these dangers. "Roblox is overrun with harmful content and child predators," argues the Louisiana AG, and "prioritizes user growth, revenue, and profits over child safety." Of particular concern, the AG alleges "a group of 3,334 [Roblox users] openly traded child pornography and solicited sexual acts from minors." Is Roblox stock a sell? This is terrible PR for Roblox. More substantially, Louisiana is seeking monetary damages, unspecified "injunctive relief" (which might simply mean stronger safety protocols, but could potentially forbid the company from doing business in the state), and proof that "adequate safety features" have been put in place -- all of which threaten Roblox's ability to achieve "user growth, revenue, and profits." Speaking of profits, it's worth pointing out that Roblox doesn't actually have any. The gaming company has lost money every year it's been in business, and most analysts agree Roblox will continue losing money at least through 2029. The company is free-cash-flow positive, however, generating $942 million of free cash flow over the last 12 months. That still works out to a price-to-free-cash-flow ratio of 92. Should you buy stock in Roblox right now? Before you buy stock in Roblox, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Roblox wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $663,630!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,115,695!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,071% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 185% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Roblox. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Roblox Stock Got Rocked Today was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
9 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Foreign Aid Groups to Challenge Loss in Trump Funding Freeze
By Nonprofits and businesses that carry out foreign aid programs said they plan to contest a recent court ruling that empowers the Trump administration to unilaterally refuse to spend billions of dollars in funding approved by Congress. The challengers on Friday asked the full US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit for an emergency stay as they seek reconsideration of a panel's 2-1 decision earlier this week that tossed out a pair of lawsuits over the funding block.
Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Schumer claims Trump admin withholding Epstein files, threatens to sue
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is threatening to sue the Trump administration if they don't release the Epstein files. Late last month, Schumer and every Senate Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee invoked an arcane, nearly century-old law to compel the Trump administration to release information on Jeffrey Epstein. The move came as Epstein drama had already paralyzed the House, and as Democrats in the upper chamber began to ramp up their messaging against President Donald Trump for his handling of the issue. And Friday was the deadline for the Justice Department and White House to comply, and so far, the documents have not been given to Schumer and Senate Democrats. "They're now breaking the law to hide the files," Schumer said on X. "[Senate Majority Leader John Thune] must appoint a lawyer to defend the Senate in Court and get the files." "If he chooses complicity — we'll take them to court ourselves." The Justice Department declined to comment on the matter. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and Thune's office for comment. However, a senior GOP aide noted to Fox News Digital that it's not entirely up to the South Dakota Republican to appoint legal counsel to represent the Senate. Instead, that falls onto the Senate Joint Leadership Group, which includes Thune, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and the president pro-tempore of the Senate, Schumer, and the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Judiciary and, in this case, the Homeland Security committees. That committee would have to approve legal counsel on a two-thirds vote. Or, the Senate could vote on a resolution to grant legal counsel, which also requires two-thirds of lawmakers to advance. Last month, Democrats invoked the "rule of five," a 1928 law that requires government agencies to hand over information if any five lawmakers on a Senate or House committee with jurisdiction over the information make a request. Typically, it's viewed as a tool of the minority party to exert oversight powers. In a letter sent to the White House and the DOJ, Schumer and Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security panel charged that it was "essential that the Trump Administration provide full transparency," in releasing the files related to the late pedophile. "We call on you to fulfill those promises of transparency," they wrote. Democrats' request included all documents, files, evidence and other materials that DOJ had related to the case of U.S. v. Jeffrey Epstein, along with any records related to Epstein and his clients. However, whether the law is enforceable in court remains to be seen, given that it has seldom been used since its inception. The last attempt came in 2017, when Democrats tried to force the release of documents surrounding the lease of the Old Post Office building in the District, which became one of Trump's hotels.
