Independent Member for Mount Gambier Troy Bell has outlined his grounds for overturning the 25 jury guilty verdicts on theft and fraud charges.


In his notice of appeal filed with the Supreme Court, Mr Bell said the jury’s verdicts were “unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence”.


Furthermore, Mr Bell said the District Court judge who presided over pre-trial hearings had “erred” in allowing discreditable conduct evidence to be led at his three-month trial.


Mr Bell has also asked the Supreme Court to allow the appeal and enter not guilty verdicts on all counts, or to order a retrial.


News of Mr Bell’s appeal this week coincided with a busy day in Adelaide on Tuesday.


His fate was considered by State Parliament, the District Court and by Mr Bell himself at an impromptu press conference.


Last month, a District Court jury had found Mr Bell guilty of 20 counts of theft and five counts of dishonest dealings with documents after more than two days of jury deliberations.


He was acquitted of one count of dishonestly dealing with documents.


The offending had occurred between 2009 and 2013 when Mr Bell was an Education Department employee.


In the House of Assembly on Tuesday, Speaker Leon Bignell said the Director of Public Prosecution Martin Hinton KC had informed him that Mr Bell had lodged an appeal.


Mr Bignell said the Constitution Act provides for the vacation of a seat in the House of Assembly if a member is convicted of an indictable offence.


“I have also communicated with Mr Bell, inviting him to provide me with any information that he wishes the house to consider in determining the question of the vacancy of his seat,” Mr Bignell said.


“It is now open to the House to consider the question of the vacancy of Mr Bell’s seat arising by operation of section 31 of the Constitution Act 1934.”


Elsewhere in the capital city, Mr Bell’s penalty was debated in the District Court.


Crown Prosecutor Jemma Litster called on District Court Judge Rauf Soulio to disregard Mr Bell’s position in parliament while considering an appropriate sentence.


“Your honour is to act independently of the parliament,” she said.


“By submitting that, it is not relevant to your honour’s sentencing process … I submit, your honour, that you set it aside.”


She said taking Mr Bell’s position into account “would be to treat Mr Bell differently to any other defendant before the court and that would be corrosive of the administration of justice”.


According to Ms Litster, the offending by Mr Bell was “too significant” to delay the sentencing process to next year.


“I’m making a submission that such a delay in this particular matter is not warranted for that basis,” she said.


“In my submission, having regard to the duration of the offence, the number of them and the quantum of money that remained outstanding.”


Mr Bell’s barrister Nick Healy asked the District Court to list the matter for sentencing submissions early in February next year to obtain a mental health report from a forensic psychologist.


“Mr Bell’s mental health issues extend beyond, or prior to, the day of his arrest,” Mr Healy said.


“The forensic psychologist is not available to see Mr Bell until November 26, he says from that date he could have a report within eight weeks – I ask therefore for sentencing submissions in February,” he said.


“Your honour will need to consider Mr Bell’s personal circumstances and I can say that this has had a significant impact, over the last seven years, on Mr Bell.’’


Judge Soulio ordered Mr Bell to return to court for sentencing submissions on January 31, ahead of sentencing later in the year.


After the hearing, Mr Bell gave an impromptu kerbside press conference and said he would remain in State Parliament.


“We have got a lot to get through,” he said.


“There’s a Future Mount Gambier document we have been working on for a couple of years, I’m hoping to complete that on behalf of my community, but processes will play out.”


According to Mr Bell, his mental health was a factor in the court process.


“It’s always tough, and anyone who goes through this type of process, you would not be human if you did not find it confronting and very difficult,” he said.


“I have always tried to front up and do the right thing, but it is a factor for sure.


“I’m obviously very confident and very hopeful, but there’s a process to go through and I’m very respectful of that court process.


“There was a very difficult job the jury had in front of them but I look forward to clearing my name.”