its authority or power in obtaining services, information or advice from Ms McColl and taking the product of such services or any information or advice into account in the making of its findings, opinions, recommendations and reasons as part of the Report.
87 Ground of review 1 is rejected.
Ground of review 2
88 Ground 2 is:
Further or in the alternative to ground 1, the Commission's finding that Ms Berejiklian had a private interest in, and was influenced by a desire of, maintaining or advancing her close personal relationship with Mr Maguire was not supported by any probative evidence (R [11.619])…
89 The above extract of ground of review 2 does not include the eight subparagraphs to that ground, which identify the five "ultimate" and three other findings to which the challenged findings are said to be "material". The "ultimate" findings are those summarised at [35]–[38] above and three other findings are those of "substantial breach" of the Ministerial Code, being intermediate findings supporting the first, third and fifth of those "ultimate" findings.
90 There is an issue as to whether the applicant's written submissions mischaracterise the findings made in the Report for the purpose of establishing the materiality of the findings for which there is said to be no probative evidence. It is convenient first to address that question and then, having done so, to address whether those findings were supported by any probative evidence.
Threshold issue: whether findings mischaracterised
- Submissions
91 The applicant's written submissions identify two findings as made without any probative evidence. The first challenged finding is that the applicant had a private interest in maintaining or advancing her close personal relationship with Mr Maguire, which she "deliberately" preferred over her public duty. That finding is said to be "critical" to the two findings of "serious corrupt conduct" arising from breaches of public trust (s 8(1) (c)), which are the ultimate findings at [1.5.1] and [1.5.3], described at [36] above. The conduct in each case was exercising official functions in relation to decisions made concerning the ACTA and RCM Stages 1 and 2 funding whilst in a position of conflict of interest and public duty.
92 The second challenged finding is that the applicant engaged in partial conduct "influenced by the existence of her close personal relationship with Mr Maguire and by a desire on her part to maintain or advance that relationship". That finding is said to be "critical" to the two findings of "serious corrupt conduct" arising from breaches of s 8(1) (b) (partial conduct) and the finding of "serious corrupt conduct" arising from the applicant s breach of s 11 (duty to notify possible corrupt conduct), which are the ultimate findings at [1.5.2], [1.5.4] and [1.5.5] respectively, described at [37]–[38] above. The conduct to which the partial conduct findings were directed was the partial exercise
