The lawyer for an independent South Australian MP accused of stealing more than $400,000 from not-for-profit educational organisations has told a jury the prosecution’s case has “more holes than a Balfours crumpet”.
Troy Stephen Bell, 50, is standing trial in the District Court after pleading not guilty to 20 counts of theft and six counts of dishonest dealing with documents, allegedly committed between 2009 and 2013.
During the defence’s closing submissions on Monday, barrister Nick Healy told the jury the “entire prosecution case against Mr Bell [was] all sizzle and no sausage”.
“This has been nothing more … than a trial by smear,” Mr Healy said.
“It’s not a trial by vibe. We are not characters in the iconic Australian film The Castle.
“The entire prosecution case is misguided, it is misleading, it is confused and confusing and it is internally inconsistent”.
The jury had previously been told Mr Bell allegedly used his position of power to “siphon” money meant for the Independent Learning Centre (ILC), a program established to keep “at-risk” youth who had disengaged from mainstream education in training programs.
In her opening address, prosecutor Jemma Litster said Mr Bell, who was then employed by the Department for Education, helped to establish and run the ILC in Mount Gambier in 2006.
She said it was alleged that funds he stole were those that were intended to be used for the purpose of not-for-profit associations in the south-east, which invoiced Millicent High School to fund the ILC.
But, Mr Healy told the jury Mr Bell was dedicated to the Independent Learning Centre and it “thrived and grew under his leadership”.
“He had a very strong relationship with the students, he knew how to connect with them in a non-judgemental way,” Mr Healy said.
He said that after Mr Bell left the ILC “there there was a reduction in floor space, there was a reduction in numbers and a reduction in programs available for these kids”.
Last week, during the prosecution’s closing address, Ms Litster told the jury at least $436,023.24 had been withdrawn from the accounts of a not-for-profit organisation.
“It was a conservative calculation, I suggest, in Mr Bell’s favour.”
The jury was previously told Mr Bell had stolen money to fund credit card debts and renovations on his family home.