Salim Mehajer set to be released from jail after five years behind bars
Mehajer will be released next month after the State Parole Authority on Tuesday handed down a decision to grant him parole on a long list of conditions.
In a hearing before the Authority earlier this month, the Commissioner of Corrective Services opposed his release, citing a risk of reoffending, his lack of attitudinal change and Mehajer's continued denial of some of his crimes.
This is despite a Community Corrections prerelease report recommending that Mehajer be released on conditional parole when he becomes eligible for release on July 18.
The parole board took into account that he had completed all possible programs in prison, determining his rehabilitation was better served in the community where he will be under the watch of a psychologist and community corrections officers.
Upon his release, he will have to be of good behaviour, report to a Community Corrections officer, participate in any domestic violence programs where directed, have ongoing treatment from a private psychologist and undergo drug and alcohol testing.
He is also banned from contacting his victim and entering The Central Coast.
As well, he must not have any communication with Outlaw Motorcycle Gang members or associates.
Mehajer is serving a seven-year and nine-month prison term for domestic violence offences against a former partner, as well as fraud for forging his lawyer's signature.
The former property developer and Auburn deputy mayor has been in prison since November 2020 when he was jailed for lying to a court and has served back-to-back sentences for multiple offences.
Mehajer was jailed in November 2020 after he was found guilty of two counts of perverting the course of justice and one count of making a false statement under oath.
The case centred on his lies in affidavits and under cross-examination that he used to secure relaxed bail conditions.
In 2023, Mehajer was again found guilty in separate trials for unrelated fraud and domestic violence matters.
Mehajer was sentenced to a maximum of seven years and nine months in jail for both sets of offences.
He was found guilty by a jury of multiple counts of assault, one count of intimidation and one count of suffocation relating to his abuse of an ex-partner.
He was found guilty of assaulting the woman by punching her in the head during an argument in his car, squeezing her hand and crushing her phone that she was holding, suffocating her by putting his hand over her nose and mouth until she passed out as well as threatening to kill the woman's mother.
The following month, he was found guilty by a jury of two counts each of making a false document and using a false document.
He was found to have created false statutory declarations and affidavits by forging the signatures of his solicitor, Zali Burrows, and sister.
Last year, Mehajer pleaded guilty to his role in a bizarre staged car crash in an attempt to duck a court appearance.
He pleaded guilty to 22 charges, including perverting the course of justice, making a false representation resulting in a police investigation, making a false call for an ambulance and negligent driving.
He admitted to staging the car accident in Sydney's west in October 2017, with the court hearing that Mehajer orchestrated the incident in a bid to delay his court appearance for an unrelated criminal matter for assaulting a taxi driver, to which he later pleaded guilty.
He was sentenced to a maximum of two years for the crash offences, with a non-parole period of 16 months.
Mehajer will be released in July.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
SA Police officer found not guilty of 'tickling' woman's bottom
A senior police officer has been found not guilty of aggravated indecent assault for "tickling" the buttock of a woman he worked with from another agency — but could have been found guilty of common assault, a court has found. The 62-year-old officer was accused of touching the woman's bottom over her clothing but he was found not guilty after a trial in the Magistrates Court. An appeal against his acquittal has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. In a published judgement by the higher court, Justice Laura Stein noted the magistrate who presided over the trial had "concluded the defendant's conduct amounted to assault, but stated that the defendant did not face that charge" and therefore found the defendant not guilty. She said that prosecutors had not laid a common assault charge as an alternative to aggravated indecent assault, and did not open nor close their case on the basis the officer could be convicted of the lesser charge if indecency was not established. Justice Stein noted in her ruling that the magistrate was "satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the tickling of [her] left buttock was deliberate". However, she noted the magistrate did not find the alleged aggravated features proved and while the woman "should not have been subject to unwanted touching" the magistrate "could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the element of indecency was proved". The judgement notes there was no suggestion of any flirting behaviour by the officer, and that "the touch was not accompanied by any comment or other behaviour". "In the circumstances, the magistrate could not draw an inference that the defendant intended to gain sexual gratification or cause sexual humiliation". "It was just as likely the conduct was a joke or an ill-conceived gesture," she said in the judgement. According to the judgement, the incident was captured on CCTV and showed the officer had his fingers "curled" and that the "movement of his fingers was consistent with a tickling motion". Justice Stein noted the magistrate also found the woman was "an impressive witness" who was "credible and reliable" but "rejected" the officer's evidence. The judgement said the woman had told police she was holding open a door for the officer in 2022 when she felt the "tickling movement", which had "made her angry as he had no permission to touch her". "The magistrate was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt from [the woman's] evidence and the video footage that the defendant touched [her] left buttock in a tickling fashion," the judgement said. She reiterated the magistrate's comments that "the behaviour was harassing, unacceptable, inappropriate and should not have occurred". The Commissioner of Police appealed against the officer's acquittal, but Justice Stein said the magistrate "did not err" in articulating the elements of the offence, or in failing to convict the officer of assault. "I am not persuaded that the magistrate was wrong in failing to do so given the manner in which the trial was conducted." Justice Stein also said the principles of double jeopardy justified the Supreme Court also declining to convict the officer on an assault charge. A spokesperson for SA Police said the service had "robust" internal investigations procedures that are "independently overseen", but would "provide no further comment".
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer seems to have forgotten one key detail: the defamation case was his idea
Bruce Lehrmann's bid to overturn the damning findings of his failed defamation case made for intensely awkward viewing. The former Liberal staffer was back in court this week, more than a year after Federal Court Justice Michael Lee dismissed his case against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, over the blockbuster interview with Brittany Higgins on The Project in 2021. Justice Lee was satisfied that the civil standard had been proven — that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins in an office at Parliament House after a night out drinking. But Mr Lehrmann, who has always maintained his innocence, launched an appeal seeking to overturn that judgment. For that task, he retained Zali Burrows, a high-profile Sydney solicitor whose primary experience has been in criminal law. She would spend the two days of appeal hearings acting alone for Mr Lehrmann — who sat beside her at the bar table — having confessed to the Federal Court that her client could not afford Sydney silk Guy Reynolds. She conceded she was underprepared. "I'm just going to try and do the best I can," she told the court on Wednesday. It was just the first sign that the path ahead for Mr Lehrmann's appeal would be rocky. Ms Burrows claimed Justice Lee's findings erred in four ways, but she frequently found a way back to her central point: that Mr Lehrmann had been denied procedural fairness. She claimed the original trial judge came up with "his own version" of how the alleged rape occurred, which strayed too far from the "forceful" rape that The Project had presented. "It is not, with respect, a judge's role to do that," Ms Burrows said. At one point, Ms Burrows even tried to characterise the court's findings as describing a "soft rape" — a kind of "consolation prize" for Network Ten, since she said Justice Lee was not persuaded as to the network's version of events. And her argument that the case could have turned out differently if a varying set of allegations had been put to Mr Lehrmann was met with confusion by the three-judge bench. "You need to explain why it is a different case," Justice Craig Colvin told Ms Burrows. "His Honour [Justice Lee] didn't find sex on a different day … with a different lead up of different circumstances … "The findings His Honour has made are all within the four corners of what was described. Justice Michael Wigney also pointed out that Mr Lehrmann has consistently maintained his innocence and said that no sexual intercourse took place. He told Ms Burrows it would not have made sense for Mr Lerhmann to have faced questions about the nature of an act he was denying. It was a point that went "round and round in circles," Justice Wigney said, summarising the clear observation that Ms Burrows seemed overwhelmed. Struggling to articulate certain arguments, answer questions clearly, follow page references, or, at times, even find documents, Ms Burrows laboured to advance the 16 pages of written submissions she had lodged months ago. Indeed, she strayed far from them, often lapsing into criminal terminology, such as telling the court there was a case put "against" Bruce Lehrmann that he was required to "defend". Of course, Mr Lehrmann has already been through that process in the ACT, which ended in a mistrial with no verdict and no criminal findings against him. But anyone who heard Ms Burrows's description of Mr Lehrmann's appeal grounds could be forgiven for forgetting that her client was the applicant — and now appellant — in a civil proceeding. Mr Lehrmann was the one who — to borrow a phrase associated with this case — "made the mistake of going back for his hat". Nor did the civil case require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While it was still Network Ten's job to justify its broadcast, establishing the "substantial truth" would suffice. Ms Burrows was up against two of the country's most accomplished defamation specialists in Matthew Collins and Sue Chrysanthou. Her learned friends were friendly enough to recognise that Ms Burrows needed time to review the vast bundles of material from the trial, with which they were innately familiar. Perhaps given that familiarity, they also used the opportunity of the appeal to launch their own contentions with Justice Lee's finding. Network Ten urged the court to find Bruce Lehrmann did in fact know he did not have consent for sex, based on how intoxicated Brittany Higgins was, and his role in encouraging her to drink. Ms Chrysanthou also sought to reverse Justice Lee's decision to dismiss Lisa Wilkinson's qualified privilege defence. She argued the journalist acted reasonably in preparation of the program, going so far as to prepare interview questions from a make-up chair if Mr Lehrmann took the opportunity for a right of reply on the day of the broadcast. Four years and three courts later, Mr Lehrmann has certainly exercised that right. The Full Court of the Federal Court has reserved a decision which could prove to be the end of what Justice Lee described as "an omnishambles".
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Richard King reappointment to APY Lands board general manager role 'constitutionally invalid', report alleges
South Australia's remote Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands board has been ordered to remove its general manager from his role after a review found that a lengthy process to replace him was deliberately abandoned. The review, commissioned by the South Australian state government, found that Richard King positioned himself to obtain a "direct financial benefit" by allowing his name to be put forward as the sole nominee — sidelining two preferred candidates. In October last year, the board granted him another three years in the role, which attracted more than $375,000 in "salary expenses" in 2023-24. In his report, tabled in state parliament this week, conciliator Greg Rooney concluded that Mr King's reappointment was constitutionally invalid. He directed the board to immediately strike out the decision and begin the search for a replacement. While the government said the direction was enforceable, an APY Lands spokesperson said Mr King remained in the role and the board would consider legal advice before responding. The APY Lands covers more than 100,000 square kilometres of arid lands in the far north-west of South Australia, with multiple communities and homelands of First Nations Australians. According to the report, a board-appointed recruitment company had by mid-2024 helped the board narrow down 24 applications to two preferred candidates. Mr King, who was first appointed to the role in 2015, was not one of the two. His wife, APY Lands manager of stakeholder engagement Tania King, was then tasked with organising a follow-up meeting for the board to progress their selection. But the meeting, due to be held in May, was never scheduled. "It was at this point that the recruitment process that had cost the board $32,580 up to that point was, for some unknown reason, abandoned," Mr Rooney's report said. At APY Lands board elections held in August last year, eight of the 14 board members were replaced. At the new board's first meeting, they were immediately asked to vote to appoint a new general manager. Mr Rooney found that new board members were not briefed on the recruitment process or told about the two preferred candidates. Instead, the report alleges Mr King allowed his name to be put forward as the only candidate — before he accepted the nomination. "Richard King … placed himself in a position of obtaining a direct financial benefit by being granted a further term of three years ahead of two preferred candidates that were still available for consideration," the report said. "He did not disclose that conflict of interest, nor did he absent himself from the meeting while voting took place." Mr Rooney found that the outcome of the vote was voided by the circumstances. He said the decision to "deliberately abandon" the 18-month process to replace Mr King, and the resulting "waste" of APY and government funds, was "a failure of proper accountable administration". In a statement, an APY spokesperson said Mr King remained general manager of the APY Lands. "The conciliator's directions are now the subject of legal advice to the APY executive board," he said. "A full meeting of the executive board will consider the report, receive legal advice and respond formally in due course." The spokesperson said several board members have expressed concern that important context — including recordings of board meetings and other evidence — was not fully considered. "Only six of the 14 democratically elected board members met with the conciliator during the conciliation, and the general manager was not invited to participate," he said. "This has left many board members surprised that the report was tabled in parliament before they had the opportunity to review it." The spokesperson said salary expenses published by the APY Lands — which listed $377,554 for Mr King's role in 2023-24 and $300,404 in 2022-23 — appear inflated because they include a decade of entitlements such as annual and long service leave. "These payments were approved through board and ministerial oversight in annual budgets," he said. Mr King told the ABC: "It is now up to the board to make a decision, and it would be inappropriate to comment any further". In a statement, a government spokesperson said, under the APY Land Rights Act, a conciliator's directions were binding. "Pursuant to … the APY Land Rights Act …, a conciliator may give directions as he or she considers just in resolving any matters in dispute," the spokesperson said. "It is now for the APY executive to implement the directions within the conciliator's report. "The Act prescribes that if the directions are not complied with, an application can be made to the District Court to compel compliance with the directions." Liberal MLC Frank Pangallo, who last year raised concerns about the reappointment process, said the issue warranted further investigation. Aboriginal Affairs Minister Kyam Maher did not respond to questions about whether he would commission any further inquiry.
