Paul McIntyre: Vizard court show turning into farce

The former top-rating TV funnyman, lawyer, Australian Father of the Year and disgraced Telstra board director Steve Vizard was back in the courts this week as a reluctant witness for a A$3 million ($3.5 million) missing funds hunt by Westpac.

Vizard, who was banned 12 months ago from company directorships for 10 years for insider trading while on the board of Telstra, was looking rather shaky on Monday as proceedings started in the Victorian Supreme Court against his former bookkeeper, Ray Hilliard.

Westpac is trying to recover A$3 million from Hilliard after Vizard alleged it was stolen from him via unauthorised transactions executed by Hilliard over many years. Westpac paid Vizard his missing millions but has been pursuing Hilliard through the courts since 2003 to recover its payout to Vizard.

Vizard must now be ruing the allegations he made of theft against his bookkeeper. It was the initial Westpac-Hilliard court hearing three years ago which triggered Vizard's high-profile demise and a scathing judgment from a Federal Court judge last year who said Vizard was dishonest and motivated by greed.

Details of Vizard's share-trading scandal - linked to technology companies in which Telstra was either buying or selling in the late 1990s - were first aired during Hilliard's committal hearing in 2003.

Hilliard was essentially trading in shares on behalf of Vizard and it, ultimately, led to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) launching a civil action in the Federal Court against the celebrity board director. ASIC failed to uncover enough evidence to secure a criminal trial against Vizard so opted for a civil case in which he was fined A$390,000 and banned as a company director for a decade.

But much of the concern in the Vizard camp this week as he prepared to appear as a witness in Westpac's case against his bookkeeper was about providing fodder for a wary ASIC looking for anything to launch a criminal trial against the multi-millionaire.

Hence Vizard as a humble Westpac witness was flanked by two heavy-hitting QCs, James Judd and Robert Richter - the latter gaining plenty of attention working for the AWB during this year's Cole inquiry into wheat supply contracts to Iraq.

Hilliard's counsel, Peter Hayes, QC, told Justice Hartley Hansen on Thursday that Vizard had been shown to be a liar and would lie on oath when it suited him. Hayes considered Vizard an "entirely manipulative and disreputable person".

Hayes accused Vizard of tax avoidance and fraud and repeatedly lying under oath - claims Vizard denied.

Yet during four days of cross-examination this week, Vizard claimed privilege against self-incrimination dozens of times, refusing to answer questions about his illegal share trading activities.

After a ruling early in the week by Justice Hansen that Vizard would be denied the privilege of deflecting cross-examination on the grounds that his answers might prove self-incriminating, it looked as if Vizard was in deep trouble. But Justice Hansen later lightened his ruling, saying it was too "global".

Instead, Vizard's claims for privilege were decided as each question was asked, swinging right in behind Vizard's legal team.

Judd and Richter argued repeatedly through the week that Vizard should be allowed to stay mum about matters related to investigations into his illegal share trades in 2000, fearing that Vizard could yet face criminal prosecution by ASIC for either insider trading, breach of director's duties or even perjury if he contradicted evidence he gave in 2003, when he denied insider trading. Amazing stuff.

Backing up Vizard, of course, was his bank. Westpac's counsel Mark Drefus, QC, said Hilliard had taken money from the Vizard family over many years and that the full scope of the alleged fraud "may never be known".

Westpac claimed after investigating the money trail from Vizard's accounts to a Hilliard-related company and on to third parties that Hilliard siphoned off millions to buy shares, luxury cruises, valuable stamps and to pay for A$500,000 of personal expenses on his Diners Club card.

For the bookkeeper's part, Hilliard admits taking Vizard's money and pleaded guilty last year to falsifying accounts, saying he used cheques to withdraw the millions from Vizard's accounts. But all these activities, Hilliard claims, were authorised by Vizard because his boss wanted to set up a "secret cache of cash".

Hilliard claims he took an agreed cut of up to 30 per cent for his efforts but his legal team now wants the court to permanently halt the case, arguing that Vizard's claims of privilege are hindering Hilliard's defence.

What a show.