Legal columnist HUGH SELBY, a man of joyous prose but limited headline-writing skills (see above), has uncovered a probable pot-boiler of a case before the courts in NSW that promises something for everyone, starting with a young prosecuting solicitor accused of having sex with prison inmates, accessing restricted data and deriving a material benefit from a criminal group…

Why can’t our media recognise the stuff of folk legend? Don’t believe it? Read on.

(In the interests of decorum, the presumption of innocence, and not willy nilly throwing reputations into the gutter, the names of those allegedly involved are not being used in this article.)

The background is that a young solicitor working at NSW prosecutions (ODPP), but with prior criminal defence experience, was charged with criminal offences in October.

That’s unusual (thank goodness!) but not especially interesting. Read on.

The charges include three counts of misconduct in a public office, two counts of accessing restricted data and hindering the discovery of evidence, knowingly deriving a material benefit from a criminal group, and knowingly dealing with crime proceeds with the intention of concealing it.

It’s getting more interesting. What’s the devil in the detail?

Scant details were revealed by Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, and then in The Australian, after a suppression order was set aside last week.

The headline was, “NSW DPP rocked by allegations employee had sex with inmates, accessed sensitive files”.

As an aside, I doubt that the DPP was rocked. As readers of CityNews well know, DPP office holders are resilient, not much surprised by anything a fellow human being does, and focused on doing their job.

It must have taken mainstream media a while to get wind of this titillating story, because it was in early December that a NSW Local Court judge in rural NSW was persuaded to make a suppression order.

Yes, rural, not city.

The relevant part of the orders is:

For the avoidance of doubt, the … orders do not prevent publication of information already within the public domain, including:

a) The defendant’s employment at the ODPP;

b) Information pertaining to the defendant’s alleged relationship with “a named male”;

c) Information pertaining to the defendant’s alleged relationship with “another named male”;

d) Information pertaining to the defendant’s alleged interactions with “a named female”;

e) That the defendant is alleged to have received $5000, being the proceeds of crime;

f) That the defendant is alleged to have had a sexual relationship with other inmates; and

g) That the defendant is alleged to have had a prolonged association with a number of criminals.

If we take the court order together with the charges, then it seems that it is the alleged romps with the inmates that are the bases of the “misconduct in public office” offences.

That offence is used against well-known, powerful people who have strayed from the straight and narrow: for example, corrupt ministers of state.

Supposing that there was sex with one or more prisoners, this defendant might claim that she had no intention of receiving a benefit, or that the “physical interaction with the prisoners” was not part of official duties, or that any influence wielded by her was not due to her employment.

She might also claim that she was forced into whatever, if anything, happened when she met the male prisoners.

Where will this story go?

This story, even with its so far threadbare details, has all the ingredients for a saga that runs and runs.

I am surprised at the headline quoted above.  Apart from “sex with inmates” it has no colour.

Even I, a writer with no flair for the dramatic, easily came up with, 

Crime lord’s lover hacks the enemy ODPP’s intelligence; or,

Mata Hari, eat your heart out; or,

Crime and Punishment: this episode will shock you.

Shaping the story is very important. Taunting the poor DPP when there are so many more interesting episodes to run is to be blind to the opportunities.

The defendant might usefully learn from some famous, recent celebrities in the legal space. For example, if appropriate, she might:

• Spend time as a patient in a psychiatric hospital;

• Get one or two shrinks to diagnose a curable condition;

• Establish a good social media profile that paints her as vulnerable, as a victim ;

• Seek out a podcaster to tell her story and “monetise” the podcast; 

• Set up a trust fund to ensure that any income can’t be accessed by creditors;

• Find a good defamation lawyer to look for opportunities, but don’t go back for her hat;

• Keep all film rights for a future doco or streaming series; and

• Look successful. Be seen in public with a great wardrobe, hairstyle, and glamour accessories.

No doubt the NSW prison authorities are thoroughly investigating how it was possible for a visiting prosecutor to, allegedly, have sex with persons not her witnesses or complainants.

Sure, the room lawyers visit don’t have CCTV and sound recording, but who “helped” her to see these prisoners? 

Surely these visits weren’t logged as sessions where prisoners grassed up other criminals?

We must wait and see. Real life may prove to be stranger than fiction.