The Gillman land deal should be the subject of an independent judicial inquiry, says the immediate past president of the Law Society Morry Bailes.

Bailes, a managing partner at Tindall Gask Bentley, told InDaily that the circumstances of the deal warranted a judicial inquiry, preferably headed by a retired Supreme Court justice from interstate to ensure its independence.

Last week, Upper House MLC John Darley, a former Valuer-General, called for a judicial inquiry following the scathing judgement of the deal by Supreme Court justice Malcolm Blue.

In a judgement on litigation related to the deal to give exclusive rights to the 400 hectare piece of government land to Adelaide Capital Partners, Blue found the decision was unlawful, ignorant and irrational.

However, he found that the contract with ACP was not invalidated.

Blue’s judgement was implicitly criticised by unrepentant Premier Jay Weatherill this week, who said the critical findings weren’t necessary to his judgement.

Bailes told InDaily today that Blue was an expert commercial silk before being appointed to the Supreme Court bench, and his reputation was “outstanding”.

“I would be stunned if on appeal his judgement was overturned,” he said.

He said an inquiry should examine the questions of how and why the Government chose to over-ride the concerns of the board of Renewal SA about selling the land without going to tender.

“How can it be that that process is allowed to stand without further inquiry?

“We should be ensuring that this never happens again.”

A State Government spokesperson rejected the call.

“The Government has been presented with no justification for the establishment of a judicial inquiry,” the spokesperson said.

Another Adelaide law firm, DMAW Lawyers, has issued advice on the Blue ruling, which summarises the ruling and why Blue found the process followed by Renewal SA was in breach of the Public Corporations Act and principles of general administrative law.

It says that despite these breaches, it is a “matter of statutory construction” that the contract is not void.

“The decision highlights that contracts entered into with the government are unlikely to be invalidated, even where the government or one of its agencies has engaged in unlawful conduct or inappropriate decision-making procedures,” the note says.

This is the point seized upon by Weatherill in his extraordinary defence of the deal this week.

He told ABC radio that he did not regret the decision and that similarly controversial decisions would continue to be made.

“We are going to have to do some incredibly controversial things if we are going to turn South Australia around. And if you think this is controversial, if you think this is a challenge, you haven’t seen anything yet,” he said.

“We are going to be putting in front of South Australians some very big changes which I think will cause them to gasp a little.”

Weatherill’s response has startled Sydney silk Geoffrey Watson, best known as counsel assisting the Independent Commission Against Corruption in NSW.

He told ABC radio this week that Blue’s judgement was “a very high standard judgment, this is a very scholarly, careful judgment. It’s really high level stuff; really an admirable judgment”.

Blue’s findings that the decision to sell the land was not made rationally warranted further inquiries.

“Now you started out this little introduction by saying there’s no suggestion of corruption, and I’m not suggesting that there is, but a finding like that, that is no reasonable person could have rationally made the decision, is saying one of two things,” Watson told 891’s Ian Henschke. “It’s saying either that was a silly or stupid decision, irrational – or it was made for some ulterior purpose. Now, the thing is you’ve got to get to the bottom of that.”

While Weatherill insisted the decision was solely about creating jobs in South Australia, Watson asked for evidence.

“Because as I read the judgment, there is no basis for anybody to have made a decision on the basis that jobs would be created,” Watson said.

“There’s just no evidence to support that either. It’s really, from an outsider it’s not going to trouble me, but just looking at the way that government should be conducted, it is a very disturbing decision. And to think that a careful judgment like this one would be brushed aside – dear me.”

Claims about job creation might be made clearer by the release of the contract – or, at least, the redacted version of the contract with ACP that was tendered in court to Blue.

The State Government is waiting on legal advice before making a decision about whether to release part of the contract.

Central to the jobs claim is the idea of an “oil and gas hub” to be established on the Gillman land. Little detail has been released by the Government or ACP about what this hub might look like, or the need for it.

Geoffrey Watson QC at an ICAC hearing in NSW last year. AAP photo