“Guilding the Lilly”: when polishing a story sinks your case

An IBAC surveillance operative with 15 years’ clean service has lost his unfair dismissal claim after the Fair Work Commission found two separate, valid reasons for termination: a reckless pursuit during a stakeout and a post-incident account that tried a little “Guilding the Lilly”.

The stakeout that went sideways

During an evening operation at a housing estate, a member of the public bumped an IBAC vehicle and fled. The operative checked on his colleague, then swung after the Mercedes to grab its plates and radio them in. In doing so he made an illegal right-hand turn across a median and briefly drove on the wrong side of the road at night in a narrow suburban street.

A manager had said he could observe “at a safe distance.” That was not a licence to chase, speed, or ignore road rules.

“Guilding the Lilly”: when polishing a story sinks your case

Why the FWC backed the dismissal

• Reckless driving = valid reason. Whether the exact speed was 70 km/h in a 50 zone or less didn’t matter. The unlawful manoeuvre and close pursuit created an obvious risk to the public.

• Dishonesty after the fact = another valid reason. In his complaint about the manager, the operative glossed over his own pursuit and tried to discredit the manager. That lack of candour stood as a separate ground for dismissal. “Guilding the Lilly” in your paperwork can be as career-ending as the original conduct.

Arguments that fell flat

• “Everyone bends the rules in surveillance.” There was no comparable evidence—and operatives aren’t exempt from traffic laws.

• “My manager told me to follow.” Directions to observe safely do not authorise unlawful driving.

• “The speed estimate was wrong.” Even if it was, the dangerous decision-making was enough.

Practical lessons

For employers: Put “safety first” into black-and-white protocols; train operatives for go/no-go calls; and assess honesty in reporting as its own integrity issue.For employees: Initiative never trumps the law. If a direction can’t be done safely and lawfully, don’t do it—and never embellish or omit when writing the report.

—

Case: Mr Brent Murphy v Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission trading as IBAC [2025] FWC 2286 (7 August 2025).