A long list of failed prosecutions is becoming increasingly longer with the latest case against Ian David Lazar.

The 82-year-old Ms Hewitt was in financial trouble when she appeared with her daughter Linda Hewitt on A Current Affair in 2003. She was on the brink of losing her $225,000 house for her failed attempt to obtain a claim that she allegedly fell in the street due to the council defects in road works. The court found both the daughter and the elderly mother Amy Hewitt to be untruthful and the case was dismissed against them.

The council also obtained a costs order against Amy Hewitt which gave rise to the debt for which the charges were brought. The Hewitts used the appearance on A Current Affair to lie to the Australian public. This was proven in the recent trial.

Among other things, the Hewitts arranged for the interview to be conducted in a beautiful house in Bowral (NSW) that was rented by the daughter Linda Hewitt instead of the house in Nambucca Heads (NSW) owned by the mother Amy Hewitt. According to industry data the average house price in Bowral in 2003 was over $540,000 which is more than double the $225,000 value of the house in Nambucca Heads. It was the house in Nambucca Heads not the property in Bowral that was at the centre of the alleged criminal case against Ian Lazar.

Brady Halls, the Journalist and Senior Reporter for A Current Affair, gave evidence that he had no knowledge about the house in Nambucca Heads. He stated under cross examination that he felt that the entire ACA story was conducted as a sting operation on Ian Lazar. He also said that he had no interest in doing the story about Mr. Lazar.

Mr Halls stated he was being directed by the police who both told him what to say and email and what to SMS to Mr. Lazar in order to obtain evidence to have him charged.

Mr. Lazar didn’t see the episode featuring the Hewitts. Mr. Kevin Gow, who is a previous long-time friend and business associate of Mr Lazar for over 15 years, referred the transaction to Mr. Lazar, and asked Lazar to come to Amy Hewitt’s rescue. Kevin Gow was also Lazar’s co-accused and his charges were withdrawn in exchange for becoming a Crown witness against Mr Lazar.

Unsurprisingly there was no mention of Mr. Kevin Gow who was the one that received the benefit from the transaction in 6 years through any media outlet.

Mr Lazar sat in goal for months awaiting three failed bail applications until the Supreme Court of NSW granted bail. It took six years and two vacated trials for the case to get to court.

Also unanswered to date is the fact that a Federal Senator of Australia at the time Senator John Williams muddied himself by getting involved publicly and supporting the falsehoods against an innocent man on the floor of the Australian Senate.

Former Senator John Williams’ comments in Federal Parliament which are entered into record in Hansard using Parliamentary Privilege was challenged through a subpoena of his use of the Federal Government to slander a citizen, Senator Williams claimed parliamentary privilege and has to date refused to take service of the issued subpoena.
Williams has still failed to respond

A total of three criminal charges were brought against Mr. Lazar. The three sequences (charges) were as follows:

• Dishonestly obtaining by deception a valuable thing.
• Dealing with the proceeds of crime.
• Fraudulently omitting to account for money.

The court ruled as follows;

• Ian Lazar was found Not Guilty in relation to the charge of dishonestly obtaining by deception a valuable thing.
• A directed verdict of No Case to Answer (Not Guilty) was entered in respect of the charge of dealing with the proceeds of crime.
• The charge against Mr Lazar of fraudulently omitting to account for money was withdrawn.

Ultimately the prosecution proceeded to trial with three sequences (three charges). Sequence three was withdrawn by the Crown after pre-trial arguments. They realised their evidence was ‘unreliable’ and had no case. After an application was made by the defence, sequence two was given a directed verdict of Not Guilty on the basis that the prosecution was not able to establish a prima facie case. Effectively the prosecution’s evidence was unable to support a finding of guilt on the allegations made in sequence two.

In relation to the the remaining sole sequence one, the Court was not satisfied that the evidence could establish that a deception of Amy Hewitt had occurred by the accused. With this as a primary element of the offence, the court rightly found Mr. Lazar ‘Not Guilty’.

Lazar’s lawyer Raed Rahal of Cambridge Law and counsel submitted a costs application and the court granted costs against the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) in favour of Ian Lazar.