Prosecution outcomes

We have compiled information on the outcomes of ICAC matters prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions before the courts. These are concluded prosecutions. This page does not refer to current, ongoing prosecutions.

Sentencing remarks and judgments

All sentencing remarks and judgments of the Courts of South Australia reproduced on this site are subject to copyright claimed by the Crown in right of the State of South Australia. This reproduction does not purport to be the official or authorised version. For reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), written permission should be sought from the South Australian Attorney-General, through the Courts Administration Authority.

Published on	Title	Description
22 Jun 2020	King, Michael	Initial charges laid 25 February 2016 - 22 counts of theft and 1 count of failing to act honestly.
18 Jun 2020	Buza, Yvonne	Initial charges laid 15 January 2016 - 36 counts of deception
14 May 2020	Asker, Michael	Initial charges laid 3 December 2018 - two counts of bribery
27 Mar 2020	Kradolfer, Sharif	Initial charge laid 5 September 2019 - one count of accepting a bribe or corruption of a public office.
10 Dec 2019	Theriault, Veronica	Initial charges laid on 15 September 2017 - two counts of deception, two counts of dishonestly dealing with documents and one count of abuse of public office.
07 Jun 2019	Graham, Kim	Initial charges laid on 15 May 2017 - two counts of abuse of public office.
07 Jun 2019	Weetra, Colin	Initial charges laid on 15 May 2017 - two counts of counsel and procuring abuse of public office.
05 Apr 2019	Michaelis, Jurgen	Initial charges laid on 5 August 2015 - two counts of abuse of public office.
05 Apr 2019	Corkill, Alan	Initial charges laid on 15 September 2017 - One count of deception and one count of improperly benefit from appointment to public office.
05 Apr 2019	Thomas, Mignon	Initial charges laid on 2 March 2015 - 233 counts of theft and 113 counts of dishonest dealing with documents.
05 Apr 2019	Wang, Dayang	Initial charges laid on 1 November 2016 - One count of wilfully making a statutory declaration, knowing that declaration to be untrue in a material particular.
05 Apr 2019	Schulz, Karen	Initial charges laid on 9 February 2016 - 62 counts of aggravated theft.
05 Apr 2019	Cray, Josephine	Initial charges laid on 12 September 2016 - 74 counts of abuse of public office.
05 Apr 2019	Beaumont, Richard	Initial charges laid on 12 September 2016 - 74 counts of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring abuse of public office (in relation to the matter of Josephine Cray).
05 Apr 2019	Bartels, Alana	Initial charges laid on 17 May 2016 - 13 counts of abuse of public office and two counts of aggravated theft.
05 Apr 2019	Templeton, Frank	Initial charges laid on 3 May 2017 - six counts of wilfully making a statutory declaration, knowing that declaration to be untrue in a material particular.
05 Apr 2019	Hellander, Paul	Initial charges laid on 7 April 2015 - six counts of abuse of public office.
05 Apr 2019	Stretton, Sharon	Initial charges laid on 21 July 2017 - one count of abuse of public office.
05 Apr 2019	Hatch, Adrian	Initial charges laid on 24 April 2015 - one count of abuse of public office.
05 Apr 2019	Bassani, Lindsay	Initial charges laid on 19 June 2015 - six counts of abuse of public office and four counts of dishonestly dealing with documents.

Last updated: 22 June 2020

For court related information including court appearance dates, please visit the Courts Administration Authority of South Australia.

Sentencing remarks are edited to take account of suppression orders, statutory prohibitions on the identification of victims of sexual offences and on the identification of young offenders. Sentencing remarks may be edited if the general publication of them is likely to have an adverse impact on victims, witnesses and others connected with the proceedings. A Judge or Magistrate may decline to release sentencing remarks for publication if the Judge or Magistrate considers that it is not possible to edit the sentencing remarks appropriately while retaining meaning, or if the sentencing remarks cannot be satisfactorily edited on the basis indicated above.

Judgments are sometimes edited to take account of suppression orders, or if the general publication of them is likely to have an adverse impact on victims, witnesses and others connected with the proceedings. A Judge may decline to release a judgment for publication if the Judge believes it is not possible to edit the judgment appropriately while retaining meaning.