A veteran crime reporter was prosecuted over a plot to blackmail the masterminds behind the $105 million Plutus tax evasion scheme based on the evidence of a proven liar, a court has heard.
Stephen Barrett was accused of working to extort millions of dollars from the architects of the Plutus scheme, in which GST meant for the Australian Tax Office was skimmed off and transferred elsewhere.
Crown prosecutors alleged Barrett used his position as a journalist to threaten to blow the lid on the scheme and extort $5 million from its architects in February 2017.
The former 60 Minutes reporter was said to have pocketed $10,000 from his role in the alleged blackmail.
But he denies that, saying the only money he received was $2000 from now-convicted blackmailer Daniel Hausman for journalistic services.
A criminal trial against Barrett concluded with a hung jury in May 2021.
Prosecutors in July withdrew a single charge of making an unwarranted demand with menaces with the intention of obtaining a gain.
On Wednesday, Barrett's barrister Gregory Woods KC said the prosecution was unreasonable because Hausman, a key crown witness, had been caught out in a "blizzard of lies".
Hausman's credibility was shot and he was "a proven liar", NSW Supreme Court Justice Natalie Adams heard.
The property developer lied to the jury at Barrett's trial, made further lies during the trial of Sydney lawyer Sevag Chalabian over the blackmail plot and in another proceeds-of-crime trial, Dr Woods said.
Barrett is seeking a costs certificate to try to recoup almost $500,000 in legal expenses from defending the dropped proceeding.
Dr Woods said his client had been an investigative reporter for over 20 years and commonly associated with criminals to chase down leads.
Barrett's motivation in dealing with Hausman and other co-conspirators was pursuing a story.
"He was going to do what he did in the past, which was get it on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, or Channel Seven or Channel Nine,” Dr Woods said.
"It may be that he was acting as a cowboy journalist ... but he wasn’t acting like a fraudster."
Prosecutor Patricia McDonald SC accepted that removing Hausman's evidence weakened the Crown's case but said this was not the "killer point" Dr Woods claimed it was.
She said a jury could still have convicted Barrett based on other evidence, such as telephone calls and meetings between the various parties that were recorded by the police.
In a meeting at a Sydney law firm bugged by the Australian Federal Police, Barrett still made threats to those behind the Plutus scheme, Ms McDonald said.
He used words like "if I investigate this" or "if I go the distance" to threaten the Plutus masterminds with the idea that he could make the story public, she said.
Barrett also delayed and did nothing to actually investigate his allegedly great tax fraud story before being raided by the AFP despite telling the court that was his motivation, Ms McDonald said.
Working as a freelance journalist living on "tid bits and pocket money" and having to pay off a mortgage at the time, it was not unusual that Barrett would have accepted $10,000 from a $5 million blackmail bid, she argued.
Further submissions will be handed to Justice Adams on whether she has the jurisdiction to issue a costs certificate in this case.
The judge will deliver her decision at a later date.
