Over the past seventeen years, this publication has spoken often of the racism that drove the former Indigenous ACT Commissioner for Revenue Mark Mullins from his job and resulted in the prosecution of Bakchos, with subsequent acquittal on all sixteen charges. We have examined the issues from innumerable perspectives – individual organisations that should be working independently, individuals interfering beyond their remit, authorities misusing their positions to interfere in processes. It’s a broad, multi-faceted and sordid tale of the very worst of government and law enforcement, but what is not fully appreciated is how those individuals and organisations interacted with each other. It has taken innumerable conversations, re-reading of documents, reframing of events through targeted vignettes and posts to gradually focus our understanding onto what has happened.
Mullins’ story and Bakchos’ own prosecution are two chapters of the same institutional failure: what began as a campaign to end one Indigenous man’s career metastasised, over the following decade, into the fabricated prosecution of the second author of this record. The thread connecting them is set out below and it should make everyone worry. To borrow (and bend) a phrase from the era when this all began, Be Alert, Be Alarmed.
Be Prepared: Background
Whilst the origins of the matters today began with one vexatious employee disenchanted at being overlooked for a role in the ACT Government in 2002, it’s easy to forget that Angel Marina made racist attacks against the Mullins as far back as 1999 when he was in the ACT Department of Urban Services. Those matters were ultimately buried when Mullins left DUS to work at Ernst & Young in 2000. In early 2001, at the prompting of Graeme Dowell whom he had worked with in DUS, Mullins applied for two positions in ACT Treasury, being advised that a single application would suffice for both roles. It was against his better judgement that Mullins applied for a role with ACT Treasury, knowing that Marina was in the same department, but ultimately he did not believe that his career should be curtailed by racism and he was appointed as Manager Policy, Legislation & Projects.
Twelve months later, Marina was unsuccessful in his application for the role of Commissioner for ACT Revenue. Incensed at the Mullins appointment, he wrote his now infamous letter on 9 May 2002 to Howard Ronaldson, in which he repeatedly invoked his opinion “… that Aborigines are compulsive liars and criminals …” and arguing that Mullins should be dismissed. The assertions of lying and criminality were made three times on a single page and were underscored by the apparent support of “Friends within the Australian Federal Police” and “Tanya Taylor, Recruitment Consultant of Ernst & Young.”
One could write off Marina’s invocation of the opinion of others but for several points that reinforce his assertion:
- The agencies implicated have both assisted in attacking Mullins, refusing to consider and investigate anyone else.
- Marina boldly stated his success in late 2005 when, in a spray of verbal a physical abuse against Mullins and his wife, saying “…I fitted you up you dumb boong cunt, Quinlan, Pham and Harris all know and support me. I guess that you were not expecting that Tanya Taylor would have changed your application. I have friends and connections …” (Statement, Darren Bloomfield, sworn 16 April 2007).
- Ernst & Young files had indeed been altered, evidenced by the misalignment of Mullins’ stated qualifications on a letter of offer from EY Partner Andrew McCrossion on 13 July 2000 versus those “provided” to Marina to prepare his PID in December 2003.
- Howard Ronaldson took a copy of the letter, signed it and forwarded it to Mullins for his awareness. That copy was tendered into evidence in Bakchos’ 2017 trial. Ronaldson has consistently confirmed receiving that letter and attested to the authenticity of the document tendered into evidence, including confirming that the original ink signature was his own.
By October 2002, a terms of reference for investigation of the missing $130 million had been approved by Acting Chief Executive Treasury Tu Pham. The resulting Acumen Alliance investigation found irregularities in Marina’s section, to which he refused to respond. The draft report was not finalised until after Mullins was dismissed. The final sanitised version excluded any mention of problems, in particular in Marina’s area and to this day the missing money remains just that – missing.
Be Alert: The Evidence
In April 2003 Mullins submitted a draft of the Acumen Alliance Audit Report. Angel Marina refused to respond to concerns raised by the audit and its finalisation was delayed by many months. In July 2003 Chief Executive Mike Harris noted that the investigation into Rates and Land Taxes was nearing completion. It also noted racially targeted attacks on Mullins were also acknowledged and referred to Director Corporate Services Meredith Whitten.
On 12 September 2003, Marina was caught in Mullins’ office by his personal assistant with the door locked. Marina left with several files and upon investigation, Mullins found that several items were missing, including his application for his substantive Policy position, a draft application for the Commissioner’s role, documents which detailed personal family information, and information supplied by Alan Wylucki regarding allegations of corruption by Marina.[1]
It was at this time when Mullins’ mental health deteriorated and he started seeing psychologist Dr Jillian Flemming, expressing distress at the racism and lack of support he found in the workplace. His first appointment was on 18 September 2003 when he expressed ongoing problems going back over six months. This coincides with advertisement of the permanent position for Commissioner for ACT Revenue that Marina coveted.[2] Mullins continued to see Fleming until the end of 2003. Fleming’s diagnosis was non-melancholic depression, clearly inferred as being driven by stress in the workplace.[3]
By 24 September Harris advised Mullins that the Industrial Relations Minister Katy Gallagher had become involved, directing The Chief Executive to remove Mullins from his position as Commissioner.[4] According to Harris, Gallagher was being pressured by the CPSU, a union which Marina had joined but to which membership had been rejected for Mullins. This is where the tone of the interactions between Mullins and his employer changed. It is reasonable to consider that all further actions were politically driven, and that the actions of Human Resources (aka Corporate Services) and the Executive were at the behest of the Minister.
Mullins wrote to Chief Executive Mike Harris complaining of the breach of privacy by Marina in his office and also about Manager Corporate Services Louise Fitzgerald providing access to Mullins’ personnel file on 3 October. The reply from Director Corporate Services Meredith Whitten ten days later is important, because she notes three things: first, that Marina and Fitzgerald had been instructed to provide an explanation in writing by 27 October; second, she detailed the contents of Mullins’ personnel file in point form; and third, she returned his application for his substantive position. The copy of the covering letter presented to the ACT Supreme Court in 2017 notes that there were nine pages in total.[5]
Several others were bullied by Marina. Robert Lewis and Martin d’Este[6] both complained of being targeted for supporting Mullins. Director Resource Management Glen Gaskill also recorded witnessing Marina assault Mullins whilst racially abusing him and issuing the threat, “we’re going to get you, nobody likes boong cunts.”[7] Lewis was taken by ambulance from the Nara Centre and sought his own psychological support from Dr Jillian Fleming. Marina’s behaviour was widely known within ACT Treasury and went unaddressed by management.
On 19 November 2003, Pham advise Mullins that he had been removed from the role as Commissioner for ACT Revenue, replaced by Graeme Dowell without completion of the selection process that had commenced in March. Mullins sought legal advice and wrote to Pham on 12 December 2003, seeking an explanation for her actions. She refused to respond.
On 15 December 2003, Mullins submitted his resignation to Whitten enumerating his reasons and providing four weeks notice, with a concession that he would remain until the end of January 2004 if requested. He had been advised not to meet with anyone in Treasury without legal counsel present thenceforth. His faith broken in the public service, he trusted no-one in Treasury.
Failing a written response explaining her actions in removing him from his role as Commissioner, Mullins’ lawyers sent a similar letter to Chief Executive Mike Harris on 22 December 2003. A handwritten note by Fitzgerald records that ACT Government Solicitor Doug Jarvis responded on 24 December but the legal letter itself was not received in Corporate Services until 6 January 2004 and that Harris was on leave. No further actions were to be taken until he returned. This is again of import, as Whitten had noted that she was going to seek advice from the Government Solicitor in her email to Pham on 15 December.
Be Alarmed: Motivations And Mechanisms
According to the department emergency contacts list for Christmas 2003, Whitten was to be on leave from 22 December 2003 until 16 January 2004, but available for any urgent issues. It is reasonable to infer that pending legal action in the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal be considered an urgent matter. Mullins had further stated that he intended to take matters to the Australian Human Rights Commission.
But why would Whitten return an application from a personnel file to the applicant? Because it needed to disappear in order to discredit Mullins’ qualifications, which would have been detailed in his application. With the aforementioned direction of the Minister, just three weeks prior, Whitten found herself in the position to either run the gauntlet of political attack herself by supporting Mullins, or sacrificing the Indigenous victim of ongoing racial vilification. Shifting the trajectory of what had become a politically charged argument with the union and Minister both involved, Whitten wilted. We’ve said it before and we say it again – Meredith Whitten was and remains a coward. Not only did she fail to ensure a safe workplace for one of the ACT Treasury’s most vulnerable employees, she set about protecting her own position by laying the groundwork for Mullins’ dismissal.
Meredith Whitten was in the position to change details in personnel files without monitoring. She could have communicated with counterparts in human resources in Ernst & Young without question and sourced information regarding qualifications from tertiary institutions under the guise of checking an applicant’s bona fides. She would have been involved in union negotiations and resolution of disputes. In short, she was uniquely placed to direct the flow of information, advise the Executive and shape the outcomes.
It was only a matter of time to tighten the noose that had been slipped over Mullins’ neck. It just needed a little more tidying up of the lose edges. Marina himself tells us what happened. In a peak of rage seeing Mullins and his wife out to lunch more than a year after his dismissal, Marina assaulted them both, all whilst boasting the Tanya Taylor had altered Mullins’ Ernst & Young file and that the Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer Ted Quinlan along with Chief Executive Mike Harris and Acting Chief Executive Treasury Tu Pham, all colluded to get rid of Mullins.[8] Pham and Harris were both present at Mullins’ dismissal based upon Marina’s December 2003 PID.
Be Doubly Alarmed: The Email Chain That Could Not Have Existed
It is clear from examination of the email chain between the University of London and Angel Marina that something is amiss – the dates/times of the last emails cannot be correct, as the last was sent 90 minutes before the second last, clear proof that the email chain was altered. We also know the University of London has no record of communication with Angel Marina. Curiously, they have confirmed communication with the then Government Solicitor, Philip Mitchell and with Acting Chief Executive of ACT Treasury Tu Pham. As early as 2008, the University of London confirmed to McCabe Partners lawyers acting on instructions from Mullins that they did not recognise the chain of emails.
The communication with Philip Mitchell is especially of note as Director Corporate Services Meredith Whitten indicated to Pham in an email dated 15 December 2003 that she was intending to seek advice regarding the racism concerns raised by Mullins. That email is indisputable – it was handed to Bakchos’ defence during his trial in 2017 by ACT Policing’s Mike Harris and became pivotal to his defence. It was the first time Bakchos or his lawyer’s had seen the exchange. This exculpatory evidence was raised with presiding Judge Mossop at least four times during the trial, but was ignored by His Honour.
Detail within the email chain that formed the substance of Marina’s PID points strongly toward the reason for the changing the email headers dates/times – the Head of Section, Transcripts and Student Records at the University of London, Jo Thomas, was heading on leave for the Christmas break for two weeks. It is highly likely that the reply from Thomas was not sent until on or after 6 January 2004. That being the case, the date on the public interest disclosure (PID) submitted by Marina signed as received by Meredith Whitten as 19 December 2003 is problematic. Two analytical hypotheses may be drawn from this information: either the PID was received by Whitten on 19 December, but altered in the New Year, or it was delayed until on or after 6 January 2004 with Whitten’s signature backdated.
There is plenty of reason to suspect that the PID was altered after receipt. Numerous accounts of the file of the former Commissioner being accessed by Marina, assisted by Louise Fitzgerald who worked under Whitten, are on record. Fitzgerald’s role gave her access to employee files. Further, Whitten did not remain in her role as Director Corporate Services beyond 17 January 2004, being transferred to another role. Fitzgerald assumed responsibility for managing the disclosure for a short time.
Conversely, Whitten herself is on record for having removed material from the Commissioner’s personnel file, specifically his 2001 application for his substantive role, and returning it to him 9 weeks prior to the Marina PID submission. This is notable because the application from 2001 would have established conclusively that the qualifications detailed in Marina’s PID directly contradicted those in his earlier letter of 9 May 2002 to Chief Executive Howard Ronaldson. In that letter, Marina states, “I have attached a copy of Mr Mullins application for your information.” Two things needed to disappear to ensure that the allegations in Marina’s PID went unchallenged – the 9 May letter and Mullins’ original application for his substantive position. Then, the missing application needed to be replaced with something plausible, so Whitten used the application for the position to which Mullins was not appointed, but neglected to align it with the correct selection criteria. It is this misaligned material that the ACT Government has produced as Mullins’ supposed application for his substantive role.
It is this latter hypothesis that carries the greatest weight, given the subsequent actions of the ACT Government.
Be Alarmed Again: Forged And Withheld Evidence
Since the matter began, the AFP has failed to properly investigate the reasons for the dismissal of the former Commissioner from his position in ACT Treasury or the subsequent complaint against Bakchos following a series of FOI requests that led to his prosecution.
In early 2015, Bakchos was contacted by Detective Senior Constable Mike Harris of the AFP, seeking to discuss his hearing in the ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal (ACAT), held in October 2013. The ACT Government Solicitor had referred a supposed affidavit submitted to the ACAT by Bakchos prior to his hearing. The affidavit was not used in the hearing and hence, was seen by neither party, nor by the presiding President. The affidavit, over 50 pages in length was not provided to the ACAT. The affidavit that was being prepared on Bakchos’ behalf was the work of three independent legal professionals – a solicitor to prepare, a second solicitor to review and finally, a barrister to settle. It was only a few pages in length. Most importantly, none of the legal practitioners or firms involved in drafting the genuine affidavit held any drafts of the document on which Bakchos was charged and the original never surfaced.
The AFP, the DPP and the presiding judge were all aware that the original document was unable to be produced. All failed to investigate the possibility that it was a forgery. The prosecution also attempted to introduce other forged evidence, including minutes of a meeting that never occurred and a letter supposedly written by the Commissioner that contained so many inaccuracies that both were inadmissible.
Quite apart from the forged material was the missing evidence. Already mentioned is the email dropped into the hands of the defence team by the original investigating police officer, which notes complaints of racism made by Marina’s vilified victim. Pham had stated to the Public Service Commission in 2003 and in 2006 that Mullins had complained to her about racist attacks by Marina from not long after he commenced as Commissioner. Yet in 2017, she denied such statements and had to be recalled to the stand in to “clarify” her testimony. Mullins had made a workers compensation claim due to mental ill health that necessitated him to seek the support of psychologist Jillian Flemming. The claim disappeared. Mullins was dismissed. Marina got the outcome he wanted.
Be Worried: Community Risk
It should worry everyone that an ACT Government employee lacking any official role within the ACT Police should be able to coerce law enforcement resources to inflict his racist personal vendetta against others both within the ACT and across its borders. That has been the effect of Angel Marina’s letter of 9 May 2002 and his subsequent false public interest disclosure of 19 December 2003.
It should worry every public employ, public servant or corporate, that human resources can so readily access and manipulate personnel records virtually untraced and unchallenged. The degree of forensics that has been taken to work out what Whitten actually did, piecing parts of the puzzle from together, has taken years of investigation.
It should worry those same people that the most senior unelected legal officer in the ACT is able to convince the ACT Police to accept a copy of a document, the original of which cannot be produced or found in supposedly secure official government archives, resulting in charges being laid against a man who asks questions that the government or public service does not like. That is what Peter Garrisson did with the fraudulent “affidavit” on which Bakchos was charged.
It should worry anyone engaging with the ACT that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions accepts a poorly fabricated document, supposedly submitted to instigate legal proceeding in a low-level tribunal, remains unable to source the original from the secure tribunal archives or drafts from the law firm supposedly preparing said document, and considers that it has sufficient evidence upon which to proceed to prosecution. Bakchos’ acquittal in his 2017 ACT Supreme Court makes this the only possible explanation.
It should worry engaged in any activity in the Australian Capital Territory that a judge in the ACT Supreme Court can preside with the appearance of partiality over a trial, refusing to dismiss the prosecution case at the outset when it is clear that the substance of the charges is bogus, and is so incensed by a jury finding that he did not foresee that he departs the court in high dudgeon before releasing the accused from the court, needing to be recalled by the court registrar to finalise proceedings.
It should worry everyone unfortunate enough to come to the attention of any of these people or bodies that their actions can lead them to defending themselves against bogus charges, underpinned by forged evidence, presided over by a biased court, at their own expense for two years, depleting their finances, damaging their career, shredding their reputation, associations and friendships.
It should worry every single person that the people and mechanisms that facilitated a racist attack against an Indigenous man and his family by a malicious low-level government employee with “friends” in the right places could do so much damage over two decades AND IT HAS STILL NOT ENDED.
Be Steadfast: Never Surrender
Angel Marina has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for Indigenous people, from attacks in the workplace, breaches of privacy in the workplace and outside, public displays of aggression and lying under oath. But the real harm sits with those who have emboldened him over more than 25 years. The greatest portion of damage has been done by the Director Corporate Services, Meredith Whitten who, in failing to address the matters to made Mullins’ workplace unsafe and making changes to Mullins’ personnel file to see him dismissed rather than supported, enabled Marina to wreak havoc on the life of an Indigenous man and his family. Her failures and deliberate actions have gone overlooked by the ACT Government, AFP and DPP.
Justice that falters in the face of such repeated failures of integrity must be addressed. Bakchos won, but at a cost that only those close to him can come close to fully appreciating. Others have not been so fortunate. And it is because Bakchos won, because others have not, and because future others should not face similar risks, that Blak and Black must continue its pursuit to expose the mechanisms and people responsible for the manipulations and abuse of legal process that form the basis of everyone’s faith in law enforcement. Justice means accountability. Then the mechanisms need to be fixed. That’s what we at Blak and Black demand.
[1] Statutory Declaration sworn by Mark Mullins, then Commissioner for ACT Revenue witnessed by Commissioner for Declarations Joseph Tonna on 12 September 2003. Tendered into evidence in the ACT Supreme Court by Bakchos’ legal team in March 2017.
[2] Mark Mullins to Acting Chief Executive Tu Pham, in a letter dated 12 December 2003.
[3] Dr Jillian Fleming, in reply to Robert Coen of Pamela Coward and Associates Lawyers, dated 12 February 2007.
[4] Email, Commissioner for ACT Revenue Mark Mullins to Leonie Kennedy of Bradley Allen Lawyers dated 24 September 2003.
[5] Director Corporate Services Meredith Whitten to Acting Director Revenue Management Dr Mark Mullins, dated 13 October 2003. Tendered into evidence in the ACT Supreme Court by Bakchos’ legal team in March 2017.
[6] Statutory Declaration sworn by Martin D’Este, retired public servant, witnessed by Bill Flynn on 6 November 2013.
[7] Director Corporate Services Glen Gaskill to Dr Mark Mullins in a letter dated 9 May 2003.
[8] Statutory Declaration sworn by Darren Bloomfield witnessed by Justice of the Peace Anne M Diduk on16 April 2007.
– – –
© Watershedd, August 2026
That’s a solid analysis. Bakchos has said for years that Meredith Whitten was the one who came up with the plan, and used Angel Marina as her fall guy. We just had trouble putting it all together. Your analysis makes it as clear as crystal what’s happened, now the ball is in the Australian Federal Police’s court, they can either do the right thing, or run the risk of getting pilloried in the UNHRC. It’s a matter for them.
As you know, Marc, the AFP are not going to do anything, because if they were to take any action against Meredith Whitten or Angel Marina they would also have to take a close look at their own Commander Rowena Penfold and other senior officers within their ranks who are showing themselves to be nothing more than disgusting racists. The only place that this can go is the UN and hopefully the UN will hold the AFP exposed for what it is, and maybe other countries will think twice before they enter into any type of arrangements with the AFP, or allow it to operate on their territory.