An employee of the Attorney-General’s Department is seeking workers compensation after being investigated over the alleged passing of a cheque for $50,000.

The cheque-passing claim became “entwined in” a wider Anti-Corruption Branch investigation into nine people relating to the defrauding of the Victims of Crime Compensation Fund (VCCF) to the tune of $1 million.

Details of the compensation claim surfaced in the Workers Compensation Tribunal where government employee Janet Markotic sought documents related to the investigation from the Commissioner of Police.

No charges were ever laid against Markotic and InDaily understands she remains employed in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, where she has worked for a substantial period.

“No charges have been laid against Ms Markotic. Her matter appears to have become entwined in the VCCF matter at some stage,” a spokeswoman for SA Police said.

Markotic’s request for the police documents was denied by Tribunal Deputy President Peter McCusker in a decision published this week.

Her claim for compensation alleged a “reactive anxiety and depression secondary to her work over a period of time up to 4 March 2013”, the court was told.

“In particular she relied upon the circumstances of an investigation of her,” Judge McCusker said in his decision.

“The employer’s stance (the State Government) was that, while conceding the employment was a substantial cause of the injury, the injury arose wholly or predominantly from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

“The claimed reasonable administrative action was the investigation of an allegation that the worker had received a cheque in the sum of $50,000.00 at her workplace.”

The documents sought by Markotic included a notification made in early 2012 by a government security officer at 45 Pirie Street, Adelaide, identifying the worker as having received certain sums of money in the foyer at that address, which houses the Attorney-General’s Department.

The court decision shows that Markotic believed she was the victim of a false and malicious notification and she wanted to view the police files to see the name of the security guard who had made it.

“The only documents for which the worker sought full and unredacted production were those containing the name of the security officer who made the notification, the name of the second security officer on duty but not present at the time and the name of the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) security officer’s manager who was involved in the notification process.

“The basis was that the injury was caused by a false and malicious notification.”

Solicitors for Markotic told the court: “In our view our client is entitled to investigate the veracity, reliability and credibility of the notification that was made by the AGD security officer at the time it was made. To do this, our client requires the names of the relevant officers involved.”

The police responded by claiming the matter was still being investigated and production of such documents would interfere with its outcome.

The head of the Anti-Corruption Branch, Detective Superintendent Christine Baulderstone, told the court via affidavit that production of the five documents sought would hinder the work of the Anti-Corruption Branch.

“These withheld documents are concerned with a wider investigation than that in relation to the alleged passing of a cheque for $50,000.00 at the workplace,” she said.

“The documents relate to an ongoing investigation involving some nine persons and in respect to misappropriation of funds said to be in excess of $1,000,000.00.

“All but one of the persons investigated have yet to be dealt with by trial upon non-guilty pleas.”

In his decision, Judge McCusker said the police investigation concerns “matters of major deceit and concealment”.

“In those circumstances reality requires the protection of the police investigation and that police methods be kept hidden.

“It is difficult to imagine how such an investigation might otherwise be effectively conducted.”

Markotic’s layers told the court it was difficult to advance her claim of false and malicious investigation without access to the police files.

“The issue is the notification by a co-worker of alleged misappropriation of funds,” the court was told.

“Those allegations are false and malicious and the investigation misconducted.

“Those factors are the “cause” of her injury and are not administrative actions.

“If the “cause” is notwithstanding this plea, due to the administrative action, in any event it was unreasonable and taken in an unreasonable way.

“In so contending the worker admits she is not contending a conspiracy between the employer and the police.”

The investigating police told the court they took the view that the report by the security guard was credible.

The judge said a clearer reason was needed before he could release the contents of a police file.

“The overall impression is that the nature of the request to produce documents is tantamount to wanting to see the balance of the police file in the hope that something might be found.

“That would be a “speculative possibility” and hardly a circumstance of it being “on the cards”.

“It would amount to fishing. For all these reasons the Crown’s objection must be upheld.”

He said the broader investigation needed to be protected.

Solicitors for Markotic told InDaily they did not want to make any comment on matters relating to the Victims of Crime Fund case.

“We act for Ms Markotic and we won’t be talking to anyone about the case or as it relates to the Victims of Crime matter,” a spokeswoman for lawyer Julia Palios said.

The VCCF fraud surfaced in April 2012 when media reported investigations had begun.

Last year one former Government employee admitted making fraudulent payments of more than $1 million from the fund.

Nicholas Wayne Lowe, 31, was employed by the Attorney-General’s Department and pleaded guilty to dishonesty offences in the Adelaide Magistrates Court.

It had been alleged that Lowe, and six others misappropriated the money between October 2008 and April 2013.

James Moore, 20, and Kane Dominey, 21, also admitted to dishonesty offences but others charged pleaded not guilty.

In May last year Travis James Langston and Steven James Langston also pleaded guilty to multiple counts of dishonest dealing with documents.