Parramatta Local Court dismissed the charge against Cr Dogramaci on August 25. The NSW Online Registry records the outcome as "Dismissed - Not Guilty after hearing". The case, DPP v Dogramaci, is closed.
The court order gives no reasons and makes no finding regarding Council, its staff, or NSW Police. Council documents and police statements from Council officers, reviewed by the Gazette, set out the sequence of events that led to the charge. Council has not explained two decisions: why it paid a claim it doubted and why it then took that claim to the police.
He asked how to do it, and Council told him how.
Councillors may purchase their own computers and phones and claim up to $4,169 in reimbursement. They must return the equipment at the end of the term or pay Council $2,000 to keep it.
In November 2024, Cr Dogramaci wrote to Council asking what he needed to do regarding a new iPhone, a laptop, and other devices. Council told him that councillors could buy their own equipment and claim reimbursement up to the cap.
He asked Council to itemise the amount allowed for each device, and Council did so. On January 13, 2025, he told Council he was ready to buy and asked for confirmation that he could proceed on the same basis as his previous term. Council replied with the maximum allowed for each item.
Those exchanges were recorded in a police statement by Council's Manager of Governance and Risk, Patricia Krzeminski. The claim Cr Dogramaci later lodged followed the process Council set out for him when he asked.
ICAC declined, then Council paid
On March 11, 2025, then-General Manager Elizabeth Richardson reported the claim to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Section 11 of the ICAC Act requires a general manager to report suspected corrupt conduct, and a report records a suspicion, not a finding. Ms. Richardson also asked ICAC to review a 2022 reimbursement, suggesting the two might show a pattern.
On March 25, ICAC declined to conduct an investigation.
Three days later, on March 28, Director of Corporate Services Laurie Mifsud wrote to Ms. Richardson: "I note this matter is currently under investigation." He asked whether Cr. Dogramaci should be reimbursed during the investigation.
Ms. Richardson replied on March 31: "Thanks, Laurie. Please pay, and we will address any reimbursement at a later date if the claim is determined to be improper."
Police statements signed by Mr. Mifsud and Ms. Krzeminski state that she formally authorised the payment on April 2. The Council paid Cr. Dogramaci $4,109.
The Gazette understands that a police statement from Council's General Counsel, Craig Winn, indicates the claim was approved in part to avoid alerting Cr Dogramaci to inquiries by ICAC, the Office of Local Government, and police. ICAC had declined to investigate six days before Ms Richardson told staff to pay.
Cr Dogramaci says the Council never asked him to repay the money. The Gazette has seen no request for him to do so.
The timing matters because of what he was charged with. To prove he dishonestly obtained a financial advantage by deception, the prosecution had to show that he obtained an advantage and that deception caused it. The advantage was a payment the Council chose to make after putting its doubts in writing.
Then the Council went to the police
On April 10, 2025, Ms Richardson and Mr Winn met Windsor police, Detective Sergeant Clint Lawrence and Senior Constable Nathan Veazey, and provided information about the claim.
The Gazette has seen no record that Council raised its concerns with Cr Dogramaci or used its own complaints or code of conduct processes before going to the police.
Council remained in close contact with the investigation. An email chain dated July 2, 2025, shows Mr. Winn sending Sen. Const. Veazey the answers Council proposed to provide to Cr. Dogramaci in response to questions he had asked. Sen. Const. Veazey replied: "I cannot see any issues with the reply below. I believe once he is served the charge, he will have a full understanding of the allegations."
Mr. Winn replied that the Council would give the Office of Local Government "a heads-up," adding: "This one will likely find its way into the media/papers very quickly!"
The chain does not include the proposed answers or indicate who started the exchange. The Gazette has asked Council why answers from an elected councillor were sent to the investigating officer before he was charged, and whether any were changed.
The Minister for Local Government suspended Cr Dogramaci from office in August 2025, following the start of the proceedings.
What Council told police about a conviction
On December 23, 2025, Mr. Winn emailed police regarding proposed negotiations about the charges. Council has claimed legal professional privilege over that email. The Gazette disputes the claim.
The Gazette has asked Council whether it told police or the Director of Public Prosecutions that it wanted a conviction recorded against Cr Dogramaci, who authorised that position, and whether the effect of a conviction on his eligibility for civic office was a reason for that position. Any answer will be published.
A charge that changed shape
Cr Dogramaci was initially charged with three offenses. He says two were withdrawn well before the hearing and that he was never offered the chance to plead guilty to the third without a conviction being recorded.
On the first morning of the hearing, the prosecution withdrew the remaining charge and replaced it with a new charge. Cr Dogramaci was not informed of the new charge, “dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception,” before the hearing. He pleaded not guilty. The court had set aside three days. On the second day, the Magistrate dismissed the charge.
"I'm not a liar or a cheat"
Cr Dogramaci is 80. He came to the Hawkesbury from Türkiye about 40 years ago and runs a business. He says defending the charge cost him about $80,000, plus $400,000 in lost business. Cr Dogramaci said that he still wakes in the early hours, imagining police coming into his home to charge him. The trauma associated with the event has led Cr Dogramaci to see two psychiatrists and a clinical psychologist. He has been diagnosed with PTSD, suffers from anxiety, and is taking medication.
"I'm a businessman, and this cost me customers," he said. "It is humiliating to be accused of defrauding the public, and it has really hurt my reputation."
"I take pride in representing all residents of Hawkesbury. I'm not a liar or a cheat, and I had to stand up to powerful government bureaucrats who were saying I was."
Cr Dogramaci has spent the past five years publicly criticising Council's management of major projects and its borrowing. "I have good friends who believed this was payback for my persistent criticism of the management of Hawkesbury City Council and of ratepayers' money," he said. "They organised help for me, and Hawkesbury won the case."
No court has found that the prosecution was brought for that reason.
What happens now?
Cr Dogramaci was reinstated as a councillor in September. The Minister will decide whether he recovers the councillor fees he lost while suspended.
He has declined to attend a meeting next week with General Manager Will Barton, Mr. Winn, and Mr. Mifsud. His lawyer has written to Mr. Barton stating that he will not attend any meeting without legal representation. He has also called on the Minister to investigate a series of decisions made by Council.
Council, Mr. Winn, Ms. Richardson, the Office of Local Government, and the Mayor have been invited to respond, and any response will be published. NSW Police has responded, stating that the case is closed.
What the case cost
The failed prosecution may have cost the public between $50,000 and $150,000, on top of a $4,109 claim. Adding Cr Dogramaci's estimate of about $80,000 in legal costs and lost income, the total cost may be between $130,000 and $230,000. The figure is provisional: Council, NSW Police, the DPP, and the court have not disclosed their spending.
The Magistrate raised the cost at the start. According to notes taken in court, he told the room that everyone present was a taxpayer and asked them to consider the cost of three court days over $4,000. After the prosecution handed up Council's policy and a month of emails, he was recorded asking whether that was all it came down to. These are contemporaneous notes, not a transcript.
The hearing concluded on the second of its three days.
About 10 publicly funded people attended the first day: the Magistrate and two court staff, a DPP solicitor and two support staff, Sen Const Veazey, and four Council officers, Mr Winn, Mr Mifsud, Ms Krzeminski, and Manager Corporate Communications Suzanne Stuart. Ms Richardson also attended, as did a solicitor from Marsdens Law Group, engaged by Council to argue its objection to a subpoena.
Not everyone was there both days, and some came as potential witnesses rather than to run the prosecution. It was still public time.
The Gazette would like to understand why, if there were concerns after the payment was made, the council didn’t ask Cr Dogramaci for reimbursement.
