Claremont serial killings: My ‘caring’ uncle Bradley Edwards is not a serial killer says nephew

Gabrielle KnowlesThe West Australian

Tuesday, 12 March 2019

https://thewest.com.au/news/claremont-serial-killings/claremont-serial-killings-my-caring-uncle-bradley-edwards-is-not-a-serial-killer-says-nephew-ng-b881132440z

The nephew of accused Claremont serial killer Bradley Robert Edwards says he believes the 50-year-old is innocent and describes him as a “caring and simple man” and not “evil”.

In a detailed social media post more than two years after the arrest of the former Telstra technician, Adam Edwards spoke out to defend him and asked the public to withhold judgment.

“He’s not a serial killer, he is a caring and simple man who doesn’t ask for anything in return, always has been and always will be,” he claimed in a post published on Facebook on Monday night.

“Everyone is very quick to judge but you don’t know him like I do, you didn’t grow up with him like I did and if he is denying all the allegations then I believe him.”

Mr Edwards is fighting accusations he attacked an 18-year-old in her Huntingdale home in 1988, raped a 17-year-old girl in Karrakatta Cemetery in 1995 and murdered Sarah Spiers, Jane Rimmer and Ciara Glennon, who were abducted from Claremont between January 1996 and March 1997.

He was arrested in December 2016 after police allegedly identified him from forensic evidence.

Prosecutor Carmel Barbagallo told the Supreme Court during a pre-trial directions hearing last month that during a six-hour interview with police after his arrest, Mr Edwards denied all allegations but could offer no explanation why traces of his DNA had been found on two of his alleged victims and a kimono left behind during the Huntingdale attack, or why his fingerprints were found on the door of another Huntingdale home after an attempted break-in.

The post by Adam Edwards came just days after the accused killer’s brother contacted The West Australian to say the Edwards family were united in their belief that Mr Edwards was innocent of the horrific crimes.

Adam Edwards claimed people were just “being shown the parts to make him the villain”.

“When real justice happens and he’s cleared of the charges, everyone who’s rained down on him I think should apologise,” he said.

Adam Edwards, who is living in Sydney, said it had taken him two years to decide to speak out but he felt it was necessary.

“I’ve got nothing to hide nor do I have anything to lose anymore and neither does my uncle,” he said.

Adam Edwards sent a private message between him and his uncle to help verify his identity.

Several of his friends reacted to the post, some messaging their support while others highlighted prosecution claims that DNA evidence had been found to link him to the crimes.

One friend wrote: “Sorry to hear you are going through this man. I can’t side with you on this issue ... it isn’t personal and I still respect you highly. I hope whatever happens you can find some closure.”

Adam responded that it did not hurt their friendship and he just wanted to express his “view and opinion”.

Ex-Claremont killer case cop says he ‘prays for Sarah Spiers’

Kim MacdonaldThe West Australian

Sunday, 25 December 2016

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/ex-claremont-killer-case-cop-says-he-prays-for-sarah-spiers-ng-b88338770z

Dave John Caporn says he thinks about the families of Sarah Spiers, Ciara Glennon and Jane Rimmer on a daily basis.

The former head of the Macro task force into the Claremont serial killer says he is praying for more information about missing woman Sarah Spiers, and has defended the investigation of the crime.

Breaking his long-running silence on the case, David Caporn said he had not stopped thinking about Ms Spiers and the other two women who went missing from Claremont in 1996 and 1997, even after he left the police service in 2009.

Bradley Robert Edwards was last week charged with the murders of Ciara Glennon and Jane Rimmer.

Mr Caporn, who headed the task force between April 1997 and February 1999, said it was an “understatement” to say he was pleased for the families of Sarah, Jane and Ciara that there had finally been a breakthrough in the case.

“Hardly a day goes by without me thinking about the families of Sarah, Jane and Ciara,” he said. “I hope and pray that more will come to light about Sarah.”

Mr Caporn also defended the task force’s handling of the investigation, which has been criticised for focusing on the wrong prime suspect for two years.

A 2007 book, The Devil’s Garden, suggested detectives had botched the inquiry, singling out Mr Caporn for “tunnel vision” by focusing on a Cottesloe public servant, Lance Williams, as a prime suspect.

Labor MP John Quigley told State Parliament in November 2008 that it was a “dud” investigation.

Bradley Robert Edwards after being taken into custody last week.

But an unapologetic Mr Caporn said yesterday the investigation did not focus on Mr Williams in the early days or have him as its sole focus. “The task force commenced investigation in June 1996, five months after the disappearance of Sarah (Spiers),” he said.

“Mr Williams did not come to the attention of the task force until several months after the disappearance and then discovery of Ciara’s body. The task force had already been investigating for over 18 months on a massive scale before we even started any inquiries about him.

“The allocation of resources to pursue any particular line of inquiry was always based on what was known at the time. And at that time, the only way we could eliminate persons of interest was by alibi.

“Alibis become harder to lock down the more time that passed, so the legwork by detectives on each and every reasonable person of interest was enormous.”

Mr Caporn became substantive superintendent at Major Crime in 1997 but maintained involvement in the Macro task force until 2001 when he was appointed to head up Operation Zircon into the Lathlain bombing. In 2004, he was appointed assistant police commissioner.

He was temporarily stood down on full pay in 2008 over his role in the wrongful conviction of Andrew Mallard in 1994.

There was no evidence of police searching the home of accused Claremont serial killer Mr Edwards in Kewdale yesterday.

From: http://www.nyt.bz/


 
 Help Find Sarah Spiers Poster

Claremont Serial Killer, 1996 - 1997, Perth, Western Australia - #2 P.50

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?284695-Claremont-Serial-Killer-1996-1997-Perth-Western-Australia-2/page50

The former head of Western Australia's Prostitution Task Force Con Bayens 


hinted that it was Donald Morey that he stopped and searched his car in Northbridge, Perth, and found his boot lined with blue plastic and all the necessary equipment in his boot needed to carry out an adbuction, such masking tape, pliers, wire ties, rope etc.
The former head of Western Australia's Prostitution Task Force Con Bayens believes the Macro Task Force under the then head Assistant Commissioner David Caporn that has been in charge of the investigation into the Claremont Serial Abductions and killings, missed crucial opportunities to explore suspects including a suspicious character Con Bayens encountered in 2002.
The former head of WA's prostitution taskforce Con Bayens believes the taskforce missed crucial opportunities to explore suspects - including a suspicious character he encountered in 2002
Mr Bayens recalls the chilling night he pulled over a man during an undercover operation in Highgate in 2002 - 11 kilometres away from Claremont.
The boot was lined with blue plastic and there was a pair of pliers and masking tape – disturbing equipment which he believed appeared to be for an abduction.


The driver was questioned but Mr Bayens does not know why he was cleared in inquiries

Murder suspect Donald Morey says missing woman Sarah McMahon is alive

CORONER Alistair Hope says evidence that missing woman Sarah McMahon was a victim of homicide appears "overwhelming."

https://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/murder-suspect-donald-morey-says-missing-woman-sarah-mcmahon-is-alive/news-story/369008c4a8dc1d4854bd7cc66c647dcf

THE West Australian coroner has been urged to find that a man serving 13 years in jail for the attempted murder of a Perth prostitute is the most likely person to have killed Sarah McMahon, who disappeared in 2000.

Ms McMahon was 20 when she went missing in November 2000.

Three police investigations into her disappearance have failed to uncover her whereabouts.

An inquest into the matter wound up late on Friday, with Coroner Alastair Hope saying there was no reason to suggest Ms McMahon died of natural causes, suicide or a drug overdose.

The evidence that she had died of homicide appeared overwhelming, Mr Hope said.

He also said evidence pointed to one of her acquaintances, Donald Morey, 57, who was the last person to have spoken with her, as the prime suspect.

Her car and mobile phone had been abandoned in Midland, where evidence showed she and Morey were around the time she disappeared.

Mr Hope also described as ``sinister'' evidence presented by several witnesses about a bag owned by Morey, containing ropes, knives, gaffer tape and extreme pornography.

Several witnesses also suggested Morey was attracted to Ms McMahon and that she did not return his feelings.

There was also evidence of their relationship changing, with Ms McMahon possibly having broken ``a code of silence'' about drug dealing two days before she went missing.

Morey testified at the inquest on Friday, saying Ms McMahon was alive and living overseas.

Philip Urquhart, counsel assisting the coroner, said the claim that Ms McMahon disappeared voluntarily was "patent nonsense'' as she seemingly had a strong relationship with her family and friends.

Morey had contradicted his claim that she didn't want to be found, by appearing in two TV interviews in 2001 appealing to the public to help locate her.

Mr Urquhart also said the credibility of several witnesses this week was lacking.

In particular, key witness Natasha Tracy-Ann Kendrick recanted a November 2011 statement to police in which she said she had seen Ms McMahon's naked body on Morey's bed, with rope looped around her neck and congealed blood on her face at a Marangaroo house he shared with trucking colleague Gareth Allen and his wife Marta Margaret Allen.

She said in the statement she and Ms Allen helped clean up the grisly aftermath on Mr Allen's request, and saw the body being removed from the house, wrapped in Morey's quilt and placed in Mr Allen's ute.

But on Thursday, Ms Kendrick denied any knowledge or involvement in the matter, saying she was "messed up'' on drugs and alcohol when she made the statement.

"In my submission, she's a thoroughly discreditable witness,'' Mr Urquhart said.

Ms Kendrick's assertion that she didn't say what was contained in the statement was "an obvious lie'', he said, given she had repeated major aspects of it in a conversation with her brother six hours after the police interview.

"It's a somewhat complicated web that they've weaved between them all,'' Mr Hope said.

Whether the coroner will refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and make adverse findings against the witnesses will be revealed when Mr Hope hands down his findings on January 17.

Originally published as McMahon inquiry wraps up

Former WA Assistant Police Commissioner Dave Caporn

4 May 2011, 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-09-09/former-wa-assistant-police-commissioner-dave-caporn/1423348

CCC finds police misconduct in Andrew Mallard case

THE Corruption and Crime Commission has made findings of misconduct against two of WA's most senior police and the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions over their role in the wrongful conviction of Andrew Mallard for murder.

Colleen Egan and Nicole Cox, with AAP

https://www.news.com.au/news/top-cops-stood-down/news-story/21815e87f8623ed0c369959dd840c32a

OCTOBER 21, 2009

THE Corruption and Crime Commission has made findings of misconduct against two of WA's most senior police and the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions over their role in the wrongful conviction of Andrew Mallard for murder.

The CCC report released this morning recommended that disciplinary action be considered against assistant police commissioners Mal Shervill and David Caporn and Senior DPP Prosecutor Ken Bates.

Mr Mallard's sister, Jacqui Mallard, this afternoon described the report as 'soft' but said it warranted strong action.

Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan this afternoon stood down Mr Shervill and Mr Caporn with full pay, saying he had not lost confidence in them and they had been given time to respond to the allegations.

Police Union president Mike Dean said the officers were very disappointed with today's report, did not agree with the findings and were seeking legal advice.

The report by retired NSW Judge John Dunford QC resulted from his inquiry into the wrongful conviction of Mr Mallard for the murder of Pamela Lawrence in 1994.

One of the supporters who helped clear Mr Mallard's name, Labor MP John Quigley, was cleared in today's report of misconduct relating to allegations he threatened a policeman.

The report did not recommend criminal charges against any public officer.

Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan will give a press conference this afternoon regarding the future of Mr Caporn and Mr Shervill.

The CCC report tabled in the Parliament today included four opinions of misconduct against Mr Shervill, who as a detective sergeant led the murder investigation, and two against Mr Caporn, who as a detective sergeant worked on the investigation.

There were also two opinions of misconduct against Mr Bates, who prosecuted Mr Mallard at the 1995 trial.

The report found Mr Shervill had caused witnesses to change their statements, dropping references to their earlier accounts.

It said Mr Shervill made false entries in police records in relation to those changes and asked a chemist to delete any reference to salt water testing on Mr Mallard's clothing in a report given to his defence lawyers.

Mr Dunford's report said Mr Shervill had also failed to disclose witnesses' original statements, including forensic test reports and unsuccessful attempts to locate a weapon capable of inflicting the wounds that Mrs Lawrence suffered, to Mr Mallard's lawyers.

Mr Caporn had written a letter to the police prosecutor in 1994 which contained incorrect and misleading information relating to the case and also caused witnesses to alter their statements.

Mr Bates had prosecuted the trial on the basis that a wrench depicted by Mr Mallard in a drawing was the murder weapon, but made no attempt to prove Mrs Lawrence's injuries were consistent with the use of a wrench, the report said.

He had also failed to disclose forensic test results about the wrench to Mr Mallard's lawyer and did not ensure the results were disclosed by police.

Mr Dunford's report also made recommendations regarding police interviews of mentally ill suspects, police training and the documentation of advice received from the DPP's office.

Attorney General Christian Porter read the recommendations of the CCC and said there is now a process which must be followed.

“The Solicitor General will be given time to consider the report in full and to revert to me with his advice," Mr Porter said. 

“Any meeting with Mr Mallard on the issue of compensation would most usefully occur after the relevant advice has been received.”

Report soft, says Mallard's sister

Mr Mallard’s sister, Jacqui Mallard, said the report was “soft” and called for an independent prosecuting office to evaluate whether charges should be laid.

She called on Commissioner O’Callaghan to take strong action.

“I haven’t had time to study the report in full but there are some officers who have been very, very lucky,” she said.

“We’ll wait to see what the Commissioner has to say about that.

“The Commissioner has to ask himself, what confidence can the WA public have in the police force with these people working for it?”

Mr Quigley, who fought for Mr Mallard’s release, said the compensation figure “could not be less than $10 million”.

“Andrew Mallard will be suing the state of WA and at the same time negotiating with the state of WA for a massive pay-out,” he said.

“It’s not just lost income, it’s all the pain of his dad dying while he was in jail – money just cannot compensate.”

He said the CCC had flown someone to the eastern states, where Mr Mallard is living, to “sell him the report”.

Mr Quigley said he was pleased to be vindicated and shrugged off a comment by Commissioner Dunford that his behaviour towards an undercover police officer was not condoned.

“I stand by my behaviour utterly, it was within the law,” he said.

“There was a catatonic failure of justice in this state, an innocent man was held for 12 years.

“I’m not interested in some retired judge who comes over here and says, ‘I don’t condone John’s behaviour’.”

Mr Quigley was commended in the report’s conclusions for his efforts to have Mr Mallard freed and exonerated.

Senior police stood down

This afternoon, Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan confirmed he had stood Mr Caporn and Mr Shervill down from duty on full pay.

``I've issued a notice of intention to remove. All that is, is a request for them to furnish me with information. I've not lost confidence in them at this stage - there is no reason for me to lose confidence,'' Mr O'Callaghan said.

``I have to follow a due process. It's a due process in law and they have been given time to respond to the allegations and the material that is put forward in the report by Commissioner Dunford.''

Mr O'Callaghan said the officers had been given three weeks to respond.

He would then consider the material and seek legal advice. The officers' tenures are due to expire in February.

``I've asked them to show cause why I shouldn't lose confidence in them, but I'm not in a position to make a statement about my confidence in those officers until I've had time to consider all of the material they have to provide me with,'' he said.

Asked if this was the darkest moment in the history of WA Police, Mr O'Callaghan said:

``This happened 14 years ago - a lot of things have changed in the West Australian Police in the last 14 years and those things are actually mentioned in the report by Commissioner Dunford.

``A lot of changes have been made in the last few years, but changes are still being made. There is a major project underway in the WA Police about investigative interviewing of all sorts of people, and dealing wiht people with mental illness is one part of that.

``Obviously it's disappointing to get a report like this but I have to respond to the report as I'm required to do. I'm the Commissioner of Police. I have to preserve confidence in the WA Police.''

WA Police Union president Mike Dean said the officers were very disappointed with today's report and did not agree with the findings. They are seeking further legal advice from their QCs.

``The strength of these opinions - and they are opinions - of Dunford are obviously going to be tested and reviewed over the next few days by our counsel and then those officers will be in a position to either contest this issue or accept the findings,'' Mr Dean said.

``Given the context of the original allegations, they are very thin indeed.

``Many of the officers have been exonerated, but unfortunately we have two left.

``This process has obvioulsy destroyed them, destroyed their families, destroyed their reputations and yes, they are upset.

``Probably the most upsetting thing for them is the Mallard case itself and what happened to Mallard.

"These are not people of ill will. They are good honest people and they were trying their best for their community. The end result is yet to come and that will be settled hopefully within the next few weeks for everyone's sake.''

Prosecutor to appeal

The WA Director of Public Prosecutions, Robert Cock, said this afternoon he had instituted disciplinary proceedings against Mr Bates under the Public Sector Management Act.

Mr Cock said he had written to his deputy today and expected the process to take about six weeks.

Mr Bates would continue to work at the DPP but not do court work.

Mr Bates released a statement today that he was “bitterly disappointed by the outcome” and planned to appeal.

“The findings are not accepted by me,” he said.

“I conducted the prosecution of Andrew Mallard under difficult circumstances and did not deliberately fail to disclose any relevant evidence.

“I have always conducted myself ethically.

“I will be exploring all possible legal avenues to challenge the findings. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of myself and everything I stand for.”

Police 'effectively exonerated'

The senior counsel for the police officers, Ron Davies QC, said the CCC’s report had “effectively exonerated” Assistant Commissioners Caporn and Shervill and completely exonerated the other three detectives involved in the investigation, Superintendent John Brandham, Inspector Alan Carter and Sergeant Mark Emmett.

Mr Davies said there were no findings that any of them had engaged in corrupt or criminal behaviour.

“The original 50-plus allegations of serious misbehaviour against the officers, made in the course of a sustained and carefully orchestrated campaign against them, have been largely dismissed as being without any substance with the result that only a handful of expressions of opinions of misconduct remain against Assistant Commissioners Shervill and Caporn,” he said.

“These opinions are not supported by the evidence and will continue to be vigorously disputed.

“They are not, in any way, final legal determinations.”

Mr Davies said any disciplinary action would be strenuously contested.

Minister 'concerned'

Police Minister Rob Johnston said today that he had read the recommendations of the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) report into the alleged misconduct of public officers in connection with the investigation into the murder of Pamela Lawrence and the prosecution of Mr Andrew Mallard.

“I am naturally concerned at the misconduct opinions by the CCC against two of our most senior officers,” Mr Johnson said.

“I have spoken to the commissioner, who is the appropriate public officer to take action and who will deal with the findings against the officers.

“It would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment that could prejudice or influence his actions, because I may have a role to play at a later stage depending on the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings.”


Colleen Egan has been investigating the Mallard case since 1998. During that time she has been a supporter of Mr Mallard and his family.

With AAP

Caporn resigns from WA Police

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/caporn-resigns-from-wa-police-20090211-8443.html

A senior police officer who was stood down for his involvement in the wrongful conviction of Andrew Mallard has resigned from the force to accept an executive role at the Fire Emergency and Services Authority.

Assistant commissioner Dave Caporn was stood down from police duties along with fellow assistant commissioner Mal Shervill following a Corruption and Crime Commission inquiry into the Mallard conviction.

Mr Mallard was wrongly jailed for 12 years over the murder of Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence in 1994. The overturning of his conviction led to the CCC inquiry, after which acting commissioner John Dunford registered two opinions of misconduct against Mr Caporn.

Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan today accepted Mr Caporn's resignation from WA Police, which was a decision entirely of Mr Caporn's making.

"As he is no longer a serving officer, the current evaluation by police of the findings against Mr Caporn by acting CCC commissioner Dunford with regard to Andrew Mallard will cease immediately," Mr O'Callaghan said.

"No further action will be taken and I wish Mr Caporn well with his new career."

Mr O'Callaghan said the police evaluation of the findings against Mr Sherville in the Dunford Report would continue.

He remains stood down from duty pending the outcome of that evaluation.

Mr Shervill's contract as assistant commissioner expires at midnight on February 19 this year after which his rank will return to the rank of superintendent.

Mal Shervill resigns

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/mal-shervill-resigns-20090630-d3mw.html

Andrew Mallard.CREDIT:CHRIS THOMSON

Former assistant police commissioner Mal Shervill, who played a big role in the wrongful imprisonment of Andrew Mallard, has resigned.

Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan has this afternoon accepted a letter of resignation from Mr Shervill, which is effective immediately.

Mr Shervill had already been demoted to Superintendent from his previous post over the affair.

Mr O'Callaghan said that prior to receiving Mr Shervill's resignation, he had not made a final decision in relation to the embattled officer's future as he had not yet received a response from Mr Shervill to his most recent letter outlining his concerns.

The murder investigation and Mr Mallard's wrongful conviction were the subject of a Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) inquiry into whether police and other officials had engaged in misconduct.

Two assistant police commissioners, Mr Shervill and David Caporn, were forced to step down from their jobs in the wake of the CCC's findings.

Mr Caporn subsequently quit the force to take up a senior post with the Fire and Emergency Services Authority.

Mr Mallard said at the time he was "quite angry" that the public officials involved in his imprisonment had got off "scot-free", with none sacked or prosecuted.

But because Mr Shervill is no longer a serving police officer, Mr O'Callaghan now had no legal power to continue or finalise the current evaluation of the opinions against him that were formed by Acting CCC Commissioner John Dunford with respect to his role in the prosecution of Mr Mallard.

Mr O'Callaghan had previously been provided with legal advice that he could not simply adopt the opinions of Acting Commissioner Dunford, rather he had to start his own disciplinary proceedings and form his own opinion.

Under legislation covering the removal process, a police officer is entitled to resign at any time during that process.

RELATED ARTICLE

Bashed police sidestep their union

Add to shortlist

O'Callaghan cancels internal inquiry on Caporn

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/ocallaghan-cancels-internal-inquiry-on-caporn-20090211-84g0.html

West Australian Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan has cancelled an internal review into an assistant commissioner, after he resigned from the force to take up another public service position.

David Caporn, who headed an investigation which led to the wrongful conviction and jailing of Andrew Mallard for the murder of Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence in 1994, was stood down by Mr O'Callaghan last year.

It followed a finding by the state's Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) that the then-detective had engaged in misconduct during the bungled investigation.

Mr Mallard is suing Mr Caporn and other police officers, the state, the police commissioner, the police minister and others for damages over his conviction and 12-year jailing for Ms Lawrence's murder.

It was revealed on Wednesday that Mr Caporn, whose contract expired on the same day, had accepted a job with the WA Fire and Emergency Services Authority (FESA) as executive director of community development.

The CCC findings - that he provided incorrect and misleading information to a police prosecutor in relation to the care of Mr Mallard - will not be investigated by police.

Mr O'Callaghan said Mr Caporn's resignation also left the internal investigation null and void.

"As he is no longer a serving officer, the current evaluation by police of the findings against Mr Caporn by Acting CCC Commissioner (John) Dunford with regard to Andrew Mallard will cease immediately," Mr O'Callaghan said in a statement on Wednesday.

"No further action will be taken.

"I wish Mr Caporn well with his new career."

A spokesman for the commissioner said he still wanted to examine the findings against another assistant commissioner, Mal Shervill, who is also the subject of adverse findings by the CCC inquiry into the Mallard case.

"He has to come to his own opinion about Mr Shervill's behaviour or conduct in the Mallard investigation and then he'll make a decision," spokesman Neil Poh said.

Now living interstate, Mr Mallard told The West Australian newspaper he was still receiving advice on whether Mr Caporn may yet face criminal charges.

"We will see how long Mr Caporn lasts in this job after I receive a second opinion on whether or not criminal charges could be laid. That's all I have to say," he told the paper.

FESA has declined to say what would happen if Mr Caporn ended up facing criminal charges as a result of Mr Mallard's action.

A spokesman said the position was advertised and filled according to public sector processes.

Mr Caporn starts his new job this week.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cops-under-probe-had-inside-help/news-story/1d40e9366dcea49e2194f2adb61152e2?nk=a1c7335fee0e3f1203372e064967cdd0-1552327904

Cops under probe had inside help

FIVE West Australian police officers, including two assistant commissioners, were given access to classified documents and allowed to examine evidence of corruption allegations against them while on full pay, the Corruption and Crime Commission was told yesterday.

Assistant police commissioner David Caporn admitted under questioning that he and four other officers had done nothing for three months except "research, analyse and hypothesise" on allegations that they acted corruptly in the investigation that led to Andrew Mallard spending 12 years in jail for a murder he did not commit.

The use of the office where the five gathered was signed off at the highest level, probably by Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan, Mr Caporn said. But he denied suggestions by commissioner John Dunford that the men had worked together to get their story straight and corroborate on their evidence.

The group, which had collected at least 30 files of documents to help in its defence, was assisted by the WA police's internal affairs unit, Mr Caporn said, adding that he and fellow assistant commissioner Mal Shervill began requesting documents last year when they thought the probe into the Mallard affair was imminent. Mr Caporn, Mr Shervill, Superintendent John Brandham, Senior Sergeant Alan Carter and Sergeant Mark Emmett were stood down by Mr O'Callaghan in May last year after the discovery of new evidence in the Mallard case.

This led to Mr Mallard being exonerated of the murder of Perth jeweller Pamela Lawrence in 1994. Simon Rochford, who was serving a life sentence in Albany prison for the murder of his girlfriend, committed suicide hours after being named as the prime suspect in a cold case review of the bungled murder investigation.

Mr Caporn told the CCC that while the men were allowed back to work in September, he and Mr Shervill stood aside from their usual portfolios at the end of April to prepare for the corruption hearings.

The other officers joined them in the following weeks.

"Was anyone doing any police work other than preparing for this matter?" counsel assisting the commission Jeremy Gormly SC asked.

"No," was the response.

Mr Gormly also revealed that one of the officers working on the cold case review, Senior Constable Dion Selby, had shown the group confidential documents.

Mr Caporn and the officers also had access to the list of every piece of evidence collected by the investigation team, which were locked away in boxes, and were given copies of many of these documents after making a written request to the internal affairs unit.

Mr Caporn said yesterday the officers were allocated police office space, most recently in the southern Perth suburb of Cannington, where they spent their time going through the various allegations against them and comparing their individual recollections.

"We research, analyse and hypothesise (sic) all of the allegations that have been made against us," Mr Caporn said.

He said the officers sometimes had conflicting recollections but he denied that they agreed to change their memories to satisfy the CCC.

"Don't you think the commission might be more interested in five separate responses?" Mr Dunford asked.

The hearing, which will be closed to the public next week, continues today.

Mallard sues for millions in damages

https://www.smh.com.au/national/mallard-sues-for-millions-in-damages-20081118-69s4.html

The man wrongfully convicted of the 1994 murder of Perth jeweller Pamela Lawrence is suing eight police officers, the director of public prosecutions and others accused of bungling the investigation.

Andrew Mallard, who spent 12 years in jail for the murder before the High Court quashed his conviction, has lodged a writ in the WA Supreme Court for damages against 14 individuals and the state of Western Australia.

A recent inquiry by retired NSW judge John Dunford QC found two assistant police commissioners, Mal Shervill and David Caporn, then detective sergeants, caused witnesses to change their statements.

They either used persistent and repeated questioning or deliberately raised doubts in witnesses minds, Mr Dunford said.

Mr Shervill was also found to have changed police records.

Deputy DPP Ken Bates engaged in misconduct and failed to question forensic pathologist Dr Clive Cooke about whether Mrs Lawrence's injuries were consistent with the use of a wrench, Mr Dunford said.

Police claimed Mr Mallard had identified the wrench as the murder weapon during interviews.

Also listed in the writ are the police commissioner, the police minister, the chief forensic pathologist, a chemist and a psychiatrist.

Mr Mallard is seeking damages, aggravated damages, exemplary or punitive damages and interest from most of those named in the action, including current DPP Robert Cock QC.

Mr Cock is being sued for negligence, breach of statutory duty, misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution.

An undercover police officer and another investigator are also being named in the writ for encouraging Mr Mallard to use cannabis at a time when he was "psychologically vulnerable".

West Australian police union president Mike Dean says lawyers will have a field day.

"Matters of compensation are essentially with the government," Mr Dean said.

"We're looking at a four to five year civil process which will cost both sides many millions of dollars.

"I think the theatre has overtaken the facts in this case... and they seem to want someone's head.

"If you read the (Dunford) report closely, you'll see that there are no corruption issues. There were 52 separate allegations of corruption, originally, and none of them (were carried)."

Mr Mallard was released from jail in 2006 and is now living interstate.

'Cruel blow' for man who lost 12 years of freedom

https://www.smh.com.au/national/cruel-blow-for-man-who-lost-12-years-of-freedom-20090505-atww.html

Andrew Mallard can't put a price on the 12 years of freedom he lost for a murder he did not commit.

But he knows the $270,800 he's been offered for every year he spent behind bars doesn't come close.

At less than half of what he'd sought for his prison ordeal, which allegedly included bashings and being sent to a psychiatric hospital, it's not even in the ball park.

Mr Mallard says he's "extremely disappointed" with an offer on Tuesday of $3.25 million for his wrongful conviction for the 1994 murder of Perth jeweller Pamela Lawrence.

Despite it being a record ex gratia payment for Western Australia, he's seeking further legal advice over what opposition legal affairs spokesman John Quigley called a cruel blow for an innocent man.

Mr Mallard served 12 years of a 20-year jail sentence before his conviction was quashed by the High Court in 2005. He walked free from jail in 2006.

The police special crime squad conducted a cold case review of Mrs Lawrence's murder in 2006 which finally eliminated Mr Mallard as a suspect.

The review found there was sufficient evidence to implicate convicted killer Simon Rochford in Mrs Lawrence's murder.

Rochford, whose palm print was found during the review, committed suicide in jail after a news organisation reported he'd been identified as a suspect.

The murder investigation and Mr Mallard's wrongful conviction were the subject of a Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) inquiry into whether police and other officials had engaged in misconduct.

Two assistant police commissioners, Mal Shervill and David Caporn, were forced to step down from their jobs in the wake of the CCC's findings.

Mr Mallard had demanded $7.5 million as compensation on advice from his lawyers, but on Tuesday West Australian Attorney-General Christian Porter said the settlement would be just $3.25 million.

Mr Quigley - a long-time champion for Mr Mallard - said on the weekend that Mr Mallard had been advised to accept nothing less than a $7.5 million ex gratia payment.

He said that if the government failed to match that amount, Mr Mallard would simply pursue a Supreme Court writ he'd already lodged against 17 defendants, including seven police officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

"So he's looking at, is this figure enough to settle this Supreme Court action and it's not being suggested by the government that it is or that it's fair compensation in that regard," Mr Quigley said on Tuesday.

A "disappointed" Mr Mallard was consulting his lawyers after the announcement of the payment, Mr Quigley said.

Mr Porter said the figure was based on the best legal advice available to the government.

"There's no doubting that what he went through was quite terrible and based on the best legal advice and after the extensive deliberations of cabinet without any strings attached ... this is the quantum which has been determined," Mr Porter told reporters.

A spokesman for Mr Porter later said the money was a gift, not compensation, and Mr Mallard would have to continue his fight if he also wanted compensation.

WA Police Union president Mike Dean said the police officers listed on Mr Mallard's writ were not concerned about the prospect of being sued.

"I've spoken to some of the officers involved ... and quite frankly they are not concerned at all," Mr Dean told AAP.

"... these officers have never been found guilty of anything by anybody and their legal exposure is nil."

Mr Dean said the ex gratia payment was fair.

"And we don't begrudge him the money, there is actually a real concern that the system let him down that badly and put this man in jail ..., " Mr Dean said.

Mr Quigley said he was outraged that a man who'd been so terribly wronged by the system had been told to fight on.

"This man was taken from the streets as a totally innocent person, imprisoned for 12.5 years, bashed in prison, sent to a psychiatric hospital where he was injected because he wouldn't accept his guilt," Mr Quigley told reporters.

"This is enormous what's happened to him ...

"For a man who has had to fight against the system, the DPP, the police and the government for over 12 years to prove his innocence it's a bitter and cruel blow to be told for the rest of your compensation keep on fighting sunshine.

RELATED ARTICLE

$3.25m is enough to help Mallard forgive and forget: premier

Add to shortlist

"That is not fair."

$3.25m is enough to help Mallard forgive and forget: premier

https://www.smh.com.au/national/western-australia/325m-is-enough-to-help-mallard-forgive-and-forget-premier-20090506-av61.html

West Australian Premier Colin Barnett says it's a "vast amount of money" that will set up Andrew Mallard for life.

But the 48-year-old, wrongly jailed for murder, says $3.25 million is not enough to escape the painful memories of his 12 years behind bars.

As supporters sought to organise a petition to plead Mr Mallard's case for a larger payout from the West Australian government, his treatment dominated talkback radio in Perth.

Fairfax Radio's Simon Beaumont said most callers wanted the government to increase its offer.

John Quigley, the shadow attorney-general and a self-appointed advocate for Mr Mallard, told the station he would assist one of the callers who wanted help to prepare a petition.

The male caller said a much larger payout was required to help remove the "stain" the Mallard case had left on Western Australia's reputation.

But the premier told ABC radio: "As much injustice as there is in the Mallard case ... just think about it ... $3.25 million is a vast amount of money.

"It's an amount of money that provides Andrew Mallard with absolute financial security for the rest of his life, so long as that money is properly and well managed."

He conceded Mr Mallard would have to pay federal tax on what state Attorney-General Christian Porter has described as a "gift", and said it was up to him to make his own tax arrangements.

"In the payment ... it's been made clear to him that he is responsible for any tax implications," Mr Barnett said.

"I'm not a tax adviser but he needs to structure that in a way that provides him a lifetime income and minimises tax."

Mr Mallard - who served 12 years of a 20-year jail term before his conviction for the murder Perth jeweller Pamela Lawrence was quashed in 2005 - had asked for $7.5 million for his wrongful imprisonment.

He said on Wednesday he would need double what the government had offered to rebuild his life in Britain, where he planned to live to escape the painful reminders of his time in jail.

Mr Mallard said he had no option but to pursue a Supreme Court writ lodged against 17 defendants, including eight police officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who were involved in the case.

He said he would be forced to work overseas because of constant reminder of "what happened to me exacerbates the post-traumatic stress I still suffer today".

Mr Mallard walked free from jail in 2006, the year that police finally eliminated him as a suspect in a cold-case review of the 1994 murder.

The reinvestigation found there was sufficient evidence to implicate convicted killer Simon Rochford in Ms Lawrence's slaying.

Rochford, whose palm print was found during the review, committed suicide in jail after a news organisation reported he'd been identified as a suspect.

The murder investigation and Mr Mallard's wrongful conviction were the subject of a Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) inquiry into whether police and other officials had engaged in misconduct.

Two assistant police commissioners, Mal Shervill and David Caporn, were forced to step down from their jobs in the wake of the CCC's findings.

Mr Mallard said he was "quite angry" that the public officials involved in his imprisonment had got off "scot-free", with none sacked or prosecuted.

He said he was yet to receive any justice for the wrongs he had endured.

RELATED ARTICLE

'Cruel blow' for man who lost 12 years of freedom

Add to shortlist

He said he was yet to receive any justice for the wrongs he had endured.

Officers in Mallard case stood down

Updated 7 Oct 2008

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-10-07/officers-in-mallard-case-stood-down/534184

The Western Australian Police Commissioner, Karl O'Callaghan, has stood down two assistant commissioners following misconduct findings against them by the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC).

The CCC recommended Mal Shervill and Dave Caporn face disciplinary action over their involvement in the wrongful conviction of Andrew Mallard for the 1994 murder of the Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence.

Commissioner O'Callaghan says the men have been stood down on full pay, but he will wait for their written responses to the findings before deciding what action, if any, to take.

He says the officers will get some time to respond.

"Well it's a minimum of three weeks," he said.

"There is an awful amount of material to be provided and then I have to consider the material and receive legal advice about that material before I can form an opinion."

The police union says the officers maintain they did not engage in criminal behaviour, and any disciplinary action against them will be strenuously disputed.

Mr Mallard spent almost 12 years in jail for the murder of Mrs Lawrence.

He unsuccessfully appealed against the conviction before it was overturned by the High Court in 2006.

In a report tabled in Parliament today, the CCC made four misconduct findings against Mr Shervill and two findings against Mr Caporn.

There were also two findings against senior DPP lawyer Ken Bates, who was the prosecutor at Mr Mallard's trial.

PHOTO: Andrew Mallard spent almost 12 years in jail for the murder of Mrs Lawrence. (ABC TV)

PHOTO: Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan says the officers will have three weeks to show why they should not be dismissed. (ABC)

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.

AUDIO: Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan on the CCC findings on Andrew Mallard. (ABC News)

RELATED STORY: Misconduct findings against senior police in Mallard case

Mallard five on 'disaster planning duties'

Staff ReportersPerthNow

December 13, 2007

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/mallard-five-on-disaster-planning-duties-ng-b119f204b3c089294d351c400ee55a0c

 

FIVE senior officers involved in the investigation of wrongly convicted Andrew Mallard remain in limbo, but have officially been allocated non-police roles.

WA Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan today said he would not take permanent action against the five officers before the release of a report by former NSW Supreme Court judge John Dunford, QC, next year.

Until then, the officers will be involved in duties such as planning for an outbreak of the Avian Flu and other major disaster contingencies.

They will perform these duties until the CCC inquiry findings are released, at this stage expected to be in April 2008 at the earliest.

The officers are assistant police commissioners Mal Shervill and David Caporn, superintendent John Brandham, inspector Alan Carter and sergeant Mark Emmett.

Mr Dunford has been investigating allegations of misconduct by police and prosecutors in the case against Andrew Mallard, who was convicted in November 1995 of the 1994 murder of Pamela Lawrence in her Mosman Park jewellery store.

Mr Mallard spent 12 years in jail before walking free last year.

His conviction was quashed by the High Court in 2005, which declared a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Mr Dunford is conducting the inquiry for WA's powerful Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC).

"My legal advice instructs that it would be `premature' and `unsafe' to pre-empt (Mr Dunford's) findings,'' Commissioner O'Callaghan said.

The officers would remain stood aside from police duties and work on Emergency Management Business Planning, he said.

"Their skills can be put to good use until the CCC inquiry is completed, conducting major project work in areas such as planning for an outbreak of the avian flu pandemic and major disaster contingencies,'' the commissioner said.

“These officers have high level skills and are being paid decent wages.

"The public rightly expect a return on their investment and it would be untenable to have these officers sitting at home on full pay.

“As Mr Jeremy Gormly (Counsel Assisting the inquiry) has stressed several times to Acting Commissioner Dunford, the submissions that are made by counsel assisting don't in any way amount to findings or opinions or assessments, they are simply submissions for Mr Dunford to consider.”

The Commissioner further stated that he would not be commencing any other internal inquiry or process attempting to analyse the very material that Acting Commissioner Dunford has been engaged to determine.

Counsel assisting the inquiry Jeremy Gormly has recommended 11 adverse findings against Mr Caporn and nine against Mr Shervill.

Police officers polished statements, planted evidence on Mr Mallard, removed and changed facts in witness statements, and rewrote their written accounts of interviews, the inquiry has been told.

The officers have consistently denied any wrongdoing.

Commissioner O’Callaghan also advised that Detective Senior Sergeant Tony Dorosz and Detective Sergeant Jim Stanbury, both serving officers who were named by Mr Gormly as potentially being the subject of an adverse finding, can continue to perform operational policing duties.

The Commissioner said that the submissions pertaining to these officers did not warrant allocating them non-operational duties.

“Until such time as Mr Dunford publishes his report next year I have determined that that there is no purpose in me, or indeed other persons, speculating about what Mr Dunford is yet to conclude,” the Commissioner said.

“I will not be making further statements about the CCC Mallard inquiry until Mr Dunford’s report is published and I have had an opportunity to consider it.”

https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/publications/publications.nsf/DocByAgency/04E2DAF2F53EFBDC48256C32003886E2/$file/S020912.pdf

 

 

https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/publications/publications.nsf/DocByAgency/FCF7B2E86660459B48256C3600220120/$file/S020916.pdf

 

OYAL COMMISSION INTO WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY CORRUPT OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE OFFICERS

COMMISSIONER: G.A. Kennedy AO QC

Held at Perth on the 16th day of September, 2002

Counsel Assisting

Mr K. Pettit SC

Appearances Mr J.C. Hammond (with him Ms J. Pepe)

Mr A.J. Power

Mr W.M. Bryant

AT 9.47 AM HEARING COMMENCED:

COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hammond?

MR HAMMOND: Thank you, sir.

DAVID JOHN CAPORN: CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR HAMMOND (Continuing): MR HAMMOND: Superintendent Caporn, it is the case that you gave an instruction to Constable Italiano that even if Q2 confessed that he was to be released?---That's not the full extent of the instruction that I gave. But did you give an instruction along those lines?---I gave the instruction, and again I can't remember my exact words, but the effect of my instructions were that whatever occurred in the interview on that particular day that they were going to interview him, he was to be released and that I would re-assess the evidence. And I'm not so sure that I used the word "released" in fact, but that he wasn't to be charged at that particular time until I had an opportunity to re-assess the evidence. Constable Italiano, who was a constable at the time, said that what you said was that regardless of whether Q2 confessed or not, "you are to release him and I will reassess the evidence".

Do you accept that you gave that direction, as she has - - ?

---I don't accept that it was necessarily in those exact words. I think I've given quite clearly what the thrust of my - - what the effect of my instructions were.

But you've just said that regardless of what happened in the interview that you would reassess the evidence?

---That he was not to be charged, and that I wanted a hand in reassessing the evidence; yes, I did.

So even if Q2 made a full confession in the interview to the interviewing officers, he was not to be charged. That's your evidence?

---As I said on Thursday, quite clearly if he had have sat down and made a full confession then I would suggest that I would have received a call that day about that issue from Inspector Brandham.

But that's not what you said to Constable Italiano, is it? You said regardless of what happened in the interview he was not to be charged?

---As I say, I don't recall the exact words.

Are you able to answer that in the affirmative or the negative?

---I don't recall the actual? words, if you'd just let me answer your question. I don't remember the exact words that I used, but the substance and effect of my instructions were that, and I've explained the reason why I gave that clearly on Thursday - - were that I wanted a hand in re-assessing the evidence because there were many issues in relation to perceptions about what amounted to a confession and, indeed, as I say, I believed that this case could have gone forward with just some admissions, let alone a confession. But we had to get it right. We had to be professional, thorough, and, at the end of the day, safe to make sure that we were charging him with the correct charges that were sustainable.

MR HAMMOND: The four officers that have made their complaint to the Royal Commission; as you know, they complained that you made a direction that, "Regardless of whether or not Q2 confessed or not, you are to release him, and I will re-assess the evidence." In relation to that, they say they have never had such an instruction before in their time in the police force. What do you say to that?---Well, that amazes me that they've never been into an interview and not had a case significant enough to do some reassessment at the end of it. Particularly when you're working in that particular field, or any field with issues that really, at the end of the day, there are several things that have to be considered so the right charges are laid.

I put it to you that if a suspect comes into an interview and makes a full confession that it would be very rare for a direction to be given that he be released?---But you must take into context - -

No. No. I - - ?---No. No. No. In answering your question, you - - you must - - you cannot work in a vacuum. You must take into context that I'd already been told things like that Q2 had confessed to the mother. Now, I'm sure with your experience, if you look at the statement of Q1's mother, you'll see that that is not a confession. So now we start to move into a field where perceptions weren't correct.

Superintendent, that's not your evidence?---And it would have been very wrong of me - - very wrong of me to hand full carriage back to the team when they obviously didn't agree with my view on that matter.

Superintendent, that, with respect, is not your evidence. What you have told this Commission is that regardless of what happened in the interview you would reassess the evidence?--- So what's different in relation to that as to what I've just said?

I'm putting to you that the logical inference to be drawn from that direction is that even if Q2 made a confession he was to be released?---That's a confession in their mind. And - - and to be released is again a word that I don't believe that I used.

MR HAMMOND: Superintendent Caporn - - ?---I don't believe that I used the word "released".

- - do you agree with that inference, that regard - - ?---No, I don't.

You don't agree that that means that?---No, I don't agree with that inference at all. Because you're taking things out of context. We've already had a lengthy discussion about the views on the diaries and the views on - - and what amounted to corroboration, and the views on the issue concerning the alleged confession. Now, you - - -

WITNESS: - - - the alleged confession. Now, you can't work in a vacuum. You must take those things into consideration because they're very important issues. This is about management and leadership, and that was my role.

MR HAMMOND: The officers say that you provided no qualification to your instruction that Q2 be released whether or not he confessed?---This was a lengthy discussion where I've already gone through my evidence, the number of different aspects of - -

Are you able to answer - -?--- - - this case - -

- - the question? Did you provide any qualification to your statement, that regardless of what happens in the interview, you would reassess the - -?---There was qualification given prior to even making that statement and - -

Oh, so you - -?--- - - again, I refute the words, the exact words that said I've been used, because I don't believe I used the word "released."

But you don't remember what words you used now, do you?---I know the - - I know - - I cannot remember exact words, but I can certainly remember the substance and effect of my instructions. I mean, they are without question - -

Constable Italiano - -?--- - - not what has been portrayed here.

- - has a crystal clear recollection of the words that you used?---Well, I'm not going to argue about what Constable Italiano believes, or her perception is.

I put it to you, then, do you dispute Constable Italiano's clear recollection that you gave the instruction that regardless of whether Q2 confessed or not, "You are to release him and I will reassess the evidence." Do you dispute that?-- -I dispute many of the perceptions that she's had in this matter.

#

Do you dispute Constable Italiano's recollection that you said, regardless of whether Q2 confessed or not, "You are to release him - -"?---I question that I used those exact words, yes, because it seems to take, to some extent, the substance and effect of my instructions out of context.

Do you dispute that you said to some of the officers on that team that you would lose your job if Q2 was arrested?---The only one I had a discussion with that about - -

Sorry, can you answer the question?---I will answer, if you let me answer the question, because you said to a "number of officers." The only person that I had that conversation with, in fact, was Constable Italiano on the 8th of January, and it was in context, as I explained on Thursday, nothing about the issue of what's been suggested. It was all about the fact that if you go and charge people with these serious offences when you haven't got a brief and that you're going to put forward offences that would be nolle prosequi, then it is an extremely serious issue and it would impact on my position. Absolutely it would, and I would say that it should impact on my position, because I wouldn't be doing my job.

MR HAMMOND: Did you say to Constable Italiano that you would lose your job if you proceeded to arrest Q2?---No. I said that - - and again, whether the words be exact or not, I said, "Certainly, I could lose my position if you were to charge people when you didn't have sufficient evidence to charge people with these type of offences" and I still stand by that.

So, again, you dispute Constable Italiano's recollection of what she says you told her?---I dispute the perception of what she says that I told her. The perception in the context of what I told her has certainly been put forward in a different - - than it was.

At the time of this investigation, Superintendent Caporn, you were in charge of the Macro Taskforce?---I was the commander of the Macro Taskforce, yes, I was. I still am.

Which was investigating the Claremont serial killings?--- That's right.

And you were also in charge, as superintendent, of four separate areas of crime within the WA Police Service?---Yes, I was. Yes.

That included homicide?---Yes.

The Child Sexual Abuse Unit?---Yes.

And what were the other two areas?---The Sexual Assault Squad, as it was then, and the Missing Persons Investigation Unit.

And you had the time to devote, as you call it, a thorough review of this file and to put all matters on hold while you were investigating the - - well, heading up the Macro Taskforce?---Yes, and as I pointed out, and I think it's important to your question, that as soon as I was appointed as acting superintendent at Personal Crime, I appointed an operations manager, so I elevated a person into a position that would take far more control of the day-to-day issues. I provided over-arching management and leadership in relation to major decisions, but the day-to-day runnings of that particular inquiry were delegated to an operations manager.

MR HAMMOND: You've already said in evidence that this was a very simplistic investigation, haven't you?---No. I said the brief that I reviewed, the brief of evidence, compared to other briefs of evidence that I've reviewed, I found it to be very simplistic. It would be one of the easiest ones that I've reviewed in the last 7 or 8 years. Why didn't you entrust the matter to Inspector Brandham - - -

MR HAMMOND: - - - to Inspector Brandham?---Because as I pointed out on Thursday, Inspector Brandham - and like anyone else who works directly for me - would have had a hundred things on his plate.

But you had a hundred things on your plate, Superintendent. You were in charge of the Macro Taskforce, investigating the Claremont serial killings, yet you had plenty of time to devote to this?---No, no. Don't take it out of context. Yes, I was a very busy person, but I also knew that I had the knowledge, skills and ability to deal with this in the matter of a couple of days.

Yes, but so did Inspector Brandham, Superintendent?---He may have, but you've got to take the - - the situation. What I - - there was a major reform going on in the Child Abuse Unit. I've already clarified that. He was doing a whole number of things for me. Anyone who works for me directly will tell you that I delegate a hell of a lot to them. This was a situational decision. This was - -

But as to delegate, why didn't you delegate this matter?--- This was a situational decision based on what everyone was doing at the time, and I knew that I had a lot of experience in doing this and I knew that I could do it within a couple of days, and I made a decision.

I'm not questioning your abilities, Superintendent. You've told this Commission the extent of your abilities, but you've also told this Commission that this was a simple brief?---It was simplistic review of evidence that I've done, yes.

You've also told this Commission that you were a very busy person - -?---Yes.

- - heading up the state's most important murder investigation - -?---Yes.

- - at the time?---Yes.

And you've also told the Commission that you delegated work very easily. You were very good at delegating?---Yes. I have no problems with that.

Why not delegate a very simple brief to an inspector - -

COMMISSIONER: No, a simplistic brief, I think was the word. It has a very different context.

MR HAMMOND: Sorry, simplistic brief to someone such as Inspector Brandham?---Because it was a situational decision. It was based on what everyone was doing at the time. I set aside the time and I did it myself. And, you know, it's not unusual for me to do that. I will make that decision and I will do it, and I can give you many many other examples of me doing that.

Were you familiar with Operation Cathedral?---Yes. I certainly have some recollection of Cathedral, but I'm - - I'm - - look, I - - I don't have the depth of recollection with me at this particular time.

That was the child sexual abuses - - the Child Sexual Abuse Unit's most important investigation in 1998?---Well, yeah, that may be a judgment call, but go on.

It involved 105 search warrants being executed around 13 countries in the world?---Yes, but - -

Is that correct?---Our part of it certainly wasn't to that extent. I can assure you. Our part of it was a very small part in that international investigation, and that's why I would dispute that that was our most important - -

It involved complicated issues of jurisdiction?---It involved an assistance that we were giving to an external body and I certainly wouldn't put it at the upper end of what we were doing. It was probably the upper end of something that got a bit of publicity but it certainly wasn't a - - what I would consider one of the major issues at the time.

It involved the international media?---Oh, certainly. As I say, media-wise it was - - it was an international event, but our - - our role in that was fairly small.

It involved complicated issues of law, didn't it, for the Child Sexual Abuse Unit?---I wouldn't think so.

You don't think so, or you don't know?---No, I don't think so.

Do you have any knowledge of it?---I have - - as I said to you, I do have some recollection of that particular - - of that particular inquiry and the role that we played in it.

But you never reviewed Operation Cathedral?---No, there was no need to.

There was no need to?---No.

MR HAMMOND: In fact, you took no interest in it at all?---No, that's absolutely wrong. Of course I take interest in any investigation. As I said, the benchmark that I set in my business areas was to advise me of any significant investigations. Now, that was one that I had advice on, albeit that our role was fairly small in the - - in the big picture.

This was a case, Operation Cathedral, where the National Crime Squad hosted a communications centre for law enforcement officers globally and the Child Sexual Abuse Unit in Perth was providing significant assistance to the global investigation. Do you agree with that?---That would certainly be our media spin on the matter, yes.

That's your media spin on it, is it?---That's right.

Is that a truthful spin, or just the media spin?---No - - well, you know - - I mean, obviously we try to highlight the good work and the assistance that we provided. You know, it was made a lot more of than our role really was. I mean, let's - - let's be honest about this. We weren't coordinating that investigation. We were playing - - -

WITNESS: - - - were playing a - - what I would call a fairly minor support role in relation to investigations in this state.

MR HAMMOND: You call it a minor support role, do you? ---That's right, in the big picture of that investigation. Important. Important, absolutely.

Have you read all the documents in relation to Operation Cathedral?---I wouldn't have read every document in relation to Cathedral, no.

There's extensive documentation generated by the Child Sexual Abuse Unit?---Probably well could be. Yes. Intelligence reports. I'd say some of it would have been from material that we already had possession of.

Reports coming from all around the world?---Well, this was coordinated by a body that was external to our Police Service who were basically coordinating inquiries all around the world. For them it was a major investigation and we were minor players in it.

Minor players, but the law enforcement authorities from around the world were providing your unit with information as to how people involved in child pornography, child molestation, could be apprehended?---Yes, in context but, I mean, that's their core business.

And that was the core business also of the Child Sexual Abuse Unit?---That's what I'm saying. That's the core business of the unit so you've got to take that into context. If you move that away from the area and say, "This is about that happening" you would say it's a major thing but it's the core business of the unit so that's everyday business and it just happened to be that that was an opportunity to be involved in an international operation.

Inspector Brandham said that he had several discussions, if not a number of discussions, with you regarding Q2?---Well, let me say this: from the time I - -

Is that correct?---From the - - no.

It's not?---Well, yes. Yes.

It is correct?---Can you let me answer your question so I can give you the proper facts? On the 18th of August I was advised - again that memorandum. I had nothing more to do either in verbal or any other issue in relation to this investigation until the 21st of October when - - as I recall, when Mr Brandham approached me with a - - sounding me out on the game plan by the team. Now, in the interim period between that I was largely on an officer development course for about 6 weeks of that period of time and I had no contact in relation to it, and that's not unusual. I mean, I've been advised that the significant investigation has commenced. It's not unusual for me not to hear about it until it gets to a stage where something significant is going to happen about it.

MR HAMMOND: You never sought to be briefed by the Child Sexual Abuse Unit in relation to Operation Cathedral? ---I would have been briefed by them in relation to Operation Cathedral. Absolutely, at some stage or another. I mean - -

Do you recall the - - ?--- - - in that period of time I would have been briefed about a number of investigations that were being conducted by the Child Abuse Investigation Unit.

The discussions that you had with Inspector Brandham regarding Q2 - they were instructing Inspector Brandham to oversee the carriage of the file by the officers at the Child Sexual Abuse Unit?---No. No, they were not.

They were not?---No. After my review I gave him specific instructions to overview - - this was after I'd had the meeting on the 10th of November. I gave specific instructions to Mr Brandham to overview the game plan, the operational plan for the interview, and also to be present on the day of the interview. Again, I never gave him any specific instructions in relation to that. It was just having a man of his experience there. No matter what connotation, no matter what path it took, I knew that he would add value.

He's told this Commission that he was to oversee the activities of the Child Sexual Abuse Unit in a non-involved manner. Do you know what that means?---Yes. Absolutely. In the - - the main reason I was sent to the Personal Crime Division was because of the significant issues that existed in the area - this is aside from anything to do with Q2 - and I put him in place down there and, as I said, a bit of water had passed under the bridge before I put him in place down there, to address many of those issues. If you have a look at the review that was done in October 98 of the area, the independent review that we had done, you will see that there is a wide range of significant issues in relation to the backlog of files, the dwindling amount of arrests, the processes that were taking place down there that needed addressing. Now, if you have a look at that particular review you will understand why I had Mr Brandham and had a commissioned officer paying close attention to it - - -

WITNESS: - - - close attention to it. We implemented major reform over the next 12 months in that area.

MR HAMMOND: Why did you give the instruction that Q2 was not to be arrested until you had reviewed the file personally?--- Because I was not confident that the correct judgments were being made. Already judgments had been made that were wrong, and I wanted to make sure that we were professional, that we were thorough and that we were safe, so that when we laid charges against Q2 that they were going to be charges that would be sustainable to the point - -

Do you say that Constable Italiano was making wrong judgments in relation to the matter?---I will certainly say that in relation to the fact that Constable Italiano thought that there was a brief on 12 to 14 charges without Q2 saying anything was an incorrect judgment. Now, I really believe - - I really believe, and I still say to this day, that that is an issue that should have been picked up at a supervisory level, because Constable Italiano was in fact that when she first started that investigation. Over the next 12 months we've changed it so constables who were interviewing officers do not take carriage of the investigation. It is a very - - it has a lot of pitfalls. It's a very dangerous situation and it's not fair on the person who is the interviewing officer. This no longer occurs.

Even after you had reviewed the file you were happy or content that Q2 be brought in for questioning, weren't you?--- Absolutely

Because you thought there was enough on the file after your review to warrant an interview of Q2?---Oh, absolutely. No question.

And that was notwithstanding your concerns in relation to corroborative material?---Well, the interview's all about gaining corroboration. The interview is all about - - there were a number of things that we could have put to Q2 that would have certainly, if he had have responded to the questions, given us an opportunity to get either admissions and then, you know, given the large extent of it, if he was to confess, well, that's fantastic. But even some admissions would have put us in a position to be able to consider charges against him.

So even if there had been admissions to the investigating officers you wouldn't have necessarily charged?---It would depend on what those admissions were, you see. If he had admitted to certain things, that's when you've got to take into context the issues of statute law, the issues of consent and the issues in relation to the time frame and the age of the - - of Q1 at the time of the events, you see. It's not just a straightforward matter. You have to look at that and say, "Yes. He's made an admission to that. That admission amounts to this. It's supported by statute law. There are no consent issues. We can prove her age," if that was part of the - - depending on which particular issue he admitted to. You know, they're the things that needed to be done to make sure we got it right. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't go out 2 days later and arrest him. We can do that. Or we might have chosen to summons. Either way you can do that, but either way, when the charges were laid, they would have been sustainable to the point of getting them to court. No one can guarantee convictions but you've got to have them sustainable that you're going to get to court.

MR HAMMOND: Isn't there a real danger in child sexual abuse that if someone confesses and they're released that there could be an impact on the victim?---Let me say this, and it's certainly an issue in this because it was put up by the team. In my experience I always find that the team on the ground take the most extreme view of that. There were some issues here, but I didn't think that those issues outweighed the fact that we needed to be professional, thorough and safe in laying the right charges. And I did consider that. I mean, that's my job. That's where leadership and management comes into it. I sometimes have to override decisions made by people on the ground, and that's certainly what I did on that occasion. But as I say, if he had have confessed and Inspector Brandham had have contacted me and said, "Look, Dave, he's just - - he's just told us the whole lot here," well, I could have made a decision that day that we at least charged him with some of the obvious offences and we could have later charged him - - preferred charges in relation to the more difficult analysis offences. I mean - -

So Inspector Brandham - - ?--- - - it's a situational effort.

Inspector Brandham had to come to you, even for approval to arrest someone that may have made a confession?---Because under those circumstances you can't act in a vacuum. The circumstances were there'd been significant issues in relation - - as my review identified that the team were going to arrest a man on 12 to 14 charges, some of which were even statute barred. Okay?

Can you answer the question yes or no? Did Inspector Brandham have to come to you, even if the suspect confessed to child sexual abuse, before he could be arrested?---In this particular circumstance I would have at least expected a phone call in relation to it; absolutely. Given all of the circumstances, not just operating in a vacuum - - -

WITNESS: - - - operating in a vacuum, trying to isolate something that is not true.

MR HAMMOND: Are you able to answer the question? Did Inspector Brandham have to come to you, if the suspect confessed, before he could be arrested?---I've just answered that question.

Your answer is, you would have expected a phone call?---In - - given all the circumstances, in this particular instance, I would have at least, at the minimum, expected a phone call to get some acknowledgment of what occurred in the interview, given all the circumstances of what - -

But couldn't that be left to - -?--- - - had transpired - -

- - Inspector Brandham?---Again, the difference between Inspector Brandham and myself in this case is that I'd reviewed the brief of evidence. It would have probably only taken minor detail for him to provide to me, but I had set a proviso that there be at least some contact.

A brief which you describe as simplistic?---It's simplistic in relevance to other briefs that I've reviewed. Simplistic in relation to the complex briefs that I had previously reviewed and have reviewed since in relation to evidence against - -

And it's also the case, isn't it, that even the interview of Q2 couldn't proceed without your knowledge?---Oh, no, that's not the case at all. I wanted to know basically what the outline plan was, but you know, that was pretty much delegated back to the team, with an oversight by Inspector Brandham.

Inspector Brandham's evidence was, "the interview was postponed until Superintendent Caporn reviewed the file"?---Oh well, that goes without saying. We're talking about two different issues here. They were going to interview him initially on the 2nd of November. Now, on that occasion, if he'd have come in and said nothing, they were going to arrest him and charge him with 12 to 14 offences. Now, that was delayed for 7 days because I wanted to do a review, and we know the history of that. From that point on, what day they done the review was completely up to the team to put together an operational plan, and the only proviso that I had was that I wanted to have a hand in reassessing the evidence to make sure that we got it right.

Was it your view that the officers on the case had lost perspective in their dealing of the matter?---No. I - - my belief is this; one, Constable Italiano had certainly misread the brief in respect of saying that there was sufficient evidence to charge initially 12 to 14 offences. Secondly, I really believe that the supervision aspect had not occurred in respect of more senior officers had taken it on face value that there was corroboration in the diaries and that there was other supporting evidence, ie, the confession on the mum, to -

MR HAMMOND: Did you ever speak to anyone about the lack of supervision?---So - - yes, I did. Most certainly. I'll explain that. So, what I say is this - - is that it should not be taken on face value of the interviewing officer who turned out, in this case, to also be the case officer. As a supervisor in this particular unit, it should have been a thorough examination of the brief. Now, when I had Sergeant Miller, Senior Sergeant Miller and Constable Italiano in to explain my review of the evidence and the second opinion of Ms Vicker, they admitted to me that neither of them had read the diaries thoroughly, that neither of them had done the crossreferencing work that I had done. Now, these are fairly basic things that should have been done prior to proceeding, so I don't know about perspective. What I do know about is that they hadn't done the job to the extent it should have been done at that critical point, and that's not all the blame on Constable Italiano. That's a team effort, and to some point, I'm accountable for that as well. And that's why I put in - - measures in place, and most certainly I counselled Sergeant Miller on two significant occasions in relation to this, and I also dealt with this matter extensively in his performance report, but I do believe there are other issues in relation to that, and they are health issues concerning Sergeant Miller's performance at the time.

Inspector Brandham was there to oversee the Child Sexual Abuse Unit?---Yes.

And you were also there, reassessing evidence, giving directions that interviews not occur and giving directions that arrests not occur until you'd reassessed the evidence. So, there was a lot of, would you not agree, high-level involvement in the case of Q2?---There was a lot of high-level involvement in the Child Abuse Unit at that time. Let's put aside the case of Q2. My fingerprints were all over that unit in relation to the time. Major reform was required and major reform was implemented over the next 12 months. This was not just an isolated case where they had - - I would - - I would tell you right now that out of the four business areas that I had at the time, in that 12 months there was more work done and more high-level work done with the Child Abuse Investigation Unit than any other of the four units. If you go to the last 12 months that I was there when it was the Major Crime, I would suggest there was the less time spent with Child Abuse Investigation Unit because the reforms had been put in place, and it wasn't just about processes; it was also about resources. I was able to achieve an extra seven staff for that area, which was an important part of it. They needed extra resources - - -

MR HAMMOND: And more time was being spent on Q2's case than the Macro Taskforce?---That's not true, and I don't know what context you're putting into it, but that is - - well, I won't be disrespectful. Thank you.

You find that question insulting, do you?---Oh, I think it's a ridiculous comment, if you want me to say that. Obviously you do.

I put it to you that it was an exceptional step for you to take to get involved in the file of Q2 when you were heading up the Macro Taskforce?---Absolutely it was not. You've taken that completely out of context. I've already explained that, I think very clearly, and that is not the case. I mean, I'm also the superintendent that's interviewed three suspects in the last 2 years and - - and - - in relation to cases. I guarantee that none of the four officers or other superintendents have ever interviewed suspects in relation to cases. It's just a situational basis where I thought I could add value and I did. But there would also be, I would suggest, none of those officers who would say that their superintendents have ever interviewed suspects, and I've done it on three murder cases in the last 2 years.

So you got involved in the file of Q2 because you thought you could add value?---Absolutely, and I did.

So do you agree with Inspector Brandham's statement, "The officers had lost perspective in relation to the case" - the four officers that have made this complaint to the Royal Commission?---I think I've adequately explained what my position is on that matter.

Are you able to answer that affirmatively or negatively?--- Well, you know, I'm - - I'm not quite clear exactly what he said and what he retracted, or whatever. I think I'm quite clear on the fact that I've explained at length what I thought about - - occurred in relation to this brief.

Do you agree with Inspector Brandham that Q2's profile was a concern?---No, it was a consideration. Not a concern. It's a consideration. It's just another aspect, another element, of an investigation that has to be considered. It was going to be a controversial issue and it has to be considered, but that's just all it is. It's a consideration.

Inspector Brandham said in his evidence that his instructions were "No matter what occurred, Q2 was to be released." He was asked:

"Those instructions being to release Q2 - -?---Yes. "- - no matter what occurred?---That's correct. And to provide feedback to Superintendent Caporn on what had occurred - - what had occurred on that particular day."

MR HAMMOND: Is that correct?---There's many things that Inspector Brandham articulated and many other witnesses articulated about my thoughts that were not exactly correct.

He doesn't say these were your thoughts. He says:

"Those instructions being to release Q2 - -?---Yes.

"- - no matter what occurred?---That's correct."

WITNESS: Well, that's - - that's his recollection of that matter. I've already covered that issue. I mean, he's been bombarded by press and many other issues and plus, you'd only have to look at what an officer has been involved in, or any of us have been involved in, in that time. But I'm the person who gave the instructions. I know what the effect and substance of my instructions were and I've made that quite clear and I stand by those instructions.

MR HAMMOND: He also felt it was your position that the officers couldn't be trusted to carry out your instructions?-- -I think I've made myself quite clear on that issue.

Do you believe it was Sergeant Miller's position that he was showing resistance to the file being reviewed by the DPP?---At what particular time are you talking about? I mean, I don't think it was Sergeant Miller's position that he had shown resistance to the DPP reviewing the file. There was some initial resistance that was conveyed to me concerning my review of the file. My understanding is that Senior Sergeant Miller was - - was very much happy about having the file reviewed by the DPP and in fact I think he's put that on paper to me.

And you're a friend of Inspector Brandham?---Absolutely.

A close personal friend?---Oh, I wouldn't say close personal friend. I mean, we don't have a lot to do with each other socially - -

WITNESS: - - - each other socially. I mean, socially we'd probably get together about twice a year, but do I have a close working relationship with this officer? Absolutely. He's a fine officer and he can work on my team or I'd work on his team any day.

MR HAMMOND: And you were briefing the deputy commissioner in relation to the file of Q2?---In perspective. I had spoken to him on probably two occasions about the matter but again put it into perspective. I had a direct reporting relationship into the deputy commissioner because of my role on Macro and we used to also discuss at times, and they're all recorded, Personal Crime issues; and they've all been spoken about in evidence.

And there was a concern by you and the deputy commissioner that his relationship with Q2 would become public?---No. That was never ever discussed between myself and the deputy commissioner.

And that was discussed - - but that issue was discussed between you and Inspector Brandham?---What, about Mr Brennan's - -

Mr Brennan's association with Q2?---Becoming public?

Yes?---No. We never discussed that issue.

And no issues regarding media releases were discussed? ---Certainly there were issues regarding media releases. When Mr Brandham came to me on the 21st of October sounding me out on the game plan that was coming forward from the team there was certainly a number of discussions about that because there was one thought coming from the team that there be a media conference done after Q2 was arrested and I was against that because we don't normally do that in relation to those sort of arrests.

Did you hear the evidence regarding the diary entry of Inspector Brandham of the 23rd of October 1998 where it was said:

"Explain Mr Brennan's interest - professional only."

Did you hear that evidence?---Yes.

And were you present at a meeting where that issue arose? ---No.

Were you aware that there were concerns in the Child Abuse Unit in relation to the association between the deputy commissioner and Q2?---No. The first time I became aware of concern was when I was handed that August 25th memorandum, which I was given well into December, and I think you know what my thoughts were on that; and I recorded them the very same day when I received that. I think if I had have known those things it could have made a hell of a difference to us sitting here today having this discussion.

MR HAMMOND: It's your position that Constable Italiano, soon to be promoted to detective, didn't read the diary notes properly?---Oh, absolutely.

Did you instruct her to read them properly?---I didn't instruct her to read them properly but I did question her and Sergeant Miller about it after I had done my review and they admitted to me that they had not read them thoroughly.

You say you read every page of the diary notes?---I did, yes.

And every entry?---Yes.

Were you familiar then with the symbol that Q1 used after sexual contact had occurred with Q2?---I may have been at the time. I'm not now.

You're not now?---No.

It's been in the press?---It may have been in the press. I don't read every press report.

So you cannot recall the symbol that Q1 used after sexual contact with Q2?---No. I can't recall at this time. No.

And you read every page of those notes?---Yes, I did.

Did you have a copy of the file in your office?---When?

At any stage?---No. I had a - - what I obtained when I decided to do a review of the brief. I obtained a full copy of the depositions, medical reports and any other issue that was going to be put up as evidence and I obtained the set of diaries, which was a large volume of diaries. That is what I obtained. So it wasn't the file as such but it was the evidence, the brief of evidence that was going to be put forward, and that was only with me for a couple of days and then it was given to Ms Vicker and then it was later picked up by Mr Brandham and taken back to the Child Abuse Investigation Unit.

And it's your position that you conducted a very deep and extensive review of the file, isn't it?---I conducted a thorough review over a couple of days. That's my - - not of the file, of the brief of evidence.

MR HAMMOND: You never met with the complainant?---No. No, not until the 8th of December.

In your evidence on Thursday last week you say that you weren't prepared to leave the full carriage of this matter to the team that was involved in investigating it. Doesn't that indicate that you had lost confidence in the unit?---No. I think "lost confidence" is too harsh a word - - -

WITNESS: - - - too harsh a word.

MR HAMMOND: What word would you use then?---I would - - exactly as it was. They didn't agree with my assessment or Ms Vicker's assessment on the brief of evidence. I had found significant deficiencies in this particular inquiry as to what they were going to do and what they had done, only concerning the fact that they believed that there was evidence that didn't exist. So as a manager and as a leader it would have been very wrong of me then to just say, "Well, despite all these issues you now have full carriage to go ahead with this." You know, so I put some things in place - checks and balances, so to speak; whatever you wish to call them - to make sure that we did this professionally, that we did it thoroughly and that we were safe in relation to what we were doing.

It's the position of the four police officers that there are many other files in the Child Sexual Abuse Unit that don't have independent corroborative evidence, and they were proceeded with. Is that your understanding?---I know there are some occasions where such briefs are proceeded on, but it has a great deal to do with the situational aspects of the case, and certainly one of the significant issues in relation to Q1's complaint was the time frames in relation to it. But, you know, every case is situational in relation that we deal with, and certainly the time frames impacted on the analysis of Q1's complaint.

Let's get this clear. You do concede that there were other cases at the Child Sexual Abuse Unit at the time without any independent corroborative evidence that proceeded to the preferring of charges?---Don't take this out of context though.

I'm asking you, do you concede - - ?---No. Don't take this out of context.

- - that there were some cases - - ?---It's very important, because it's been reported out of context. The recency is a major aspect of these particular issues.

No. I'll get to that, superintendent?---I think I already said in my - - my evidence that if this had occurred a short period previous, and depending upon all issues like the issues in relation to complainant, and many other issues, and it gets to be a bit hypothetical, but at the end of the day potentially there is in - - with different circumstances.

I'll ask the question again, superintendent?---Yes.

MR HAMMOND: Do you agree that at the Child Sexual Abuse Unit in 1998 there were other cases that did not have independent corroborative evidence?---Well, I don't know that I can actually say yes or no to that, because there are so many other issues to take into context.

So the answer is, you don't know?---No. The answer is it's situational. Every brief must stand alone in relation to that matter.

Are you able to answer that very simple question?---No. Well, I have answered it.

Is that the best you can do?---That's the correct answer, because you're trying to narrow something down to which it shouldn't be narrowed down to. You've also got to remember that that was in the very early stages of my being a part of that unit, which is why some of these officers have the perception of what I should do as a superintendent or not, and comparing me to how other people do business.

Do you also agree that there are other cases of child sexual abuse which have a significant historical element - and by that I mean they occurred many years ago - and that they also lacked independent corroborative evidence, yet they still proceeded with preferring of charges?---I would suggest to you there were a number of cases like that that didn't go forward. But again, it's situational. Let's - - you know, you can't just draw a line in the sand here. They're all situational. Now, are you talking about cases that were 30 years old, or you're talking about cases that were 5 years old, 10 years old? Remembering I've already spoken about the DPP policy, not to prosecute uncorroborated offences that are more than 20 years old. Now, that's something that they put in place with all their prosecutorial experience. You know, that's - - so, you know, they're the sort of issues that you have to look at.

Well, I'll try and put it more succinctly. The four officers, when they complained to this Royal Commission, said that there were other inquiries being conducted by the unit at the same time - - -

MR HAMMOND: - - - at the same time which involved less corroborative evidence. Do you agree with that?

COMMISSIONER: Well, you are saying there was no corroborate evidence, weren't you?

MR HAMMOND: Sorry, this is another proposition - -?---That's right. I'm saying there's no corroborative evidence, and what I'm saying is this - - is that you, given that statement, but in that statement you've just made, you haven't put a timeframe, you haven't talked about aspects in relation to what did exist in these cases. I mean -

Well, I'll read the statement in full, superintendent, and - - ?---Can I have a - -

- - ask you whether you agree or disagree:

"We are concerned by the fact that other inquiries conducted by the Child Abuse Unit at the same time involved less corroborative evidence, had the same time frames of disclosure by the complainants, which resulted in the matters proceeding to arrest, charging and successful prosecution in the District Court."

WITNESS: Well, certainly none that I'm aware of.

MR HAMMOND: Did you make inquiries?---No.

They went on to say:

"Of all cases investigated by the Child Abuse Unit, this was the only one - -"

They've left out "one":

"- - this was the only that Mr Caporn and other senior officers became involved."

WITNESS: I arrived there on the 26th of June - - the 22nd of June.

MR HAMMOND: Yes?---I had been in the USA for 3 weeks after that. I was - - in September I was on an ODC. Most of these people, three of the officers, the four officers, probably had me as their superintendent for about 2 to 3 months in total of me being there.

Well, let's not worry about - -?---They are not used to how I do business, and anyone who is used to how I do business knows that I do get involved in cases, if I see the need or if I see that I can add value.

MR HAMMOND: Superintendent, you have not answered the question one jot. Listen to this again:

"Of all cases investigated by the Child Abuse Unit, this was the only that Mr Caporn and other senior officers became involved."

WITNESS: Well, that's actually wrong, if you give it - - that statement like that.

MR HAMMOND: That's wrong?---It's wrong, given like that. Are you narrowing this to a time frame? Are you saying that this is in that two months in 1998 or are you saying this is the whole period that I was superintendent in charge of this area? Because if you're saying that this was the whole period that I was superintendent in charge of this area, well, you're wrong. You've very wrong. But if you want to narrow it down to that 2 months, this probably was the only case that I was involved in at that time. So, you can't just operate in a vacuum. You must be specific in what you're doing.

I wonder if the superintendent can be shown a memorandum that he wrote to Detective Senior Sergeant Miller on the 25th of August?

MR PETTIT: Are you sure about the date?

MR HAMMOND: The 25th of August 1998 - - sorry, I've read from the subject matter. It's actually dated the 14th of December 1998.

MR PETTIT: Yes. That's D1012867.

MR HAMMOND: I think you now have that, superintendent?---Yes, I do. Yeah.

There are four questions asked there?---Yes.

And this is in relation, of course, to the memorandum from Constable Italiano outlining her concerns?---Yes.

Question 3 is: "Why didn't you advise either myself, Detective Inspector Hawker or Acting Detective Brandham regarding this information."

WITNESS: Yes.

MR HAMMOND: Question 4:

"Why didn't you include the memorandum in the report that you submitted."

And you require your information in the form of a memorandum by close of business by the following day?---Yep.

MR HAMMOND: Do you recall what time Miller received this memorandum from you on the 14th of December?---No, I don't. No.

And you wanted him to respond - - -

MR HAMMOND: - - - him to respond within 24 hours? ---Absolutely.

Because this issue was of critical importance?---Absolutely.

Because it involved a taint, if you like, on the deputy commissioner?---Not at all. That's not the reason. I'll tell you exactly what the reason was. It was because this significant piece of information had come in which obviously impacted on both Q1 and impacted on Constable Italiano. It had been with Senior Sergeant Miller and Constable Italiano for 3½ months and it was only after the complaint file had been received and he had already given me a report that he decided then - - and in his own words on his report, "I'm obliged to tell you about this." I saw this as a very serious matter and I still believe to this day that if the August 25 memorandum had have been dealt with properly that we may not be here today.

What would be the proper way of dealing with Italiano's August 25 memorandum?---It should have been immediately established and investigated. It should have been dealt with in a transparent manner. It should have been taken forward to the divisional office. It should have been registered with professional standards and it should have been investigated. At the very minimum, (...name suppressed...) should have been interviewed. At the very minimum, the inquiry should have been subject to a proper report and a proper approach in relation to it, so whatever the outcome may be that any concerns by Q1, by Detective Italiano and any other inferences that had been made had been clarified one way or the other.

Did you speak to (...name suppressed...)?---Absolutely not, because by the time that I received this file the matter was already subject to a complaint, a complaint that was going to be going to an external body depending on the decision, the final decision that she made, and I actually included on my memorandum of February 4, which is the time when I've sent my file on to the - - the one that went to the ACC - - exactly why I didn't in December start making inquiries about it, because the matter had gone out of my hands by then, but if I'd have got this file on August 25 it would have absolutely been dealt with in a very transparent way and I believe all this perception and innuendo would have been nipped in the bud. You can see by the questions that I put there the seriousness I saw about Sergeant Miller holding back this memorandum and, in fact, in my report on February 4 - - I informally counselled him and in my report on February 4 I recommended to the professional standards area that on completion of the ACC inquiry that Senior Sergeant Miller be formally counselled in not appropriately dealing with the memorandum given to him by Detective Italiano on August 25.

MR HAMMOND: You never wrote to Senior Sergeant Miller at any time, did you, telling him that the way he had handled this matter was inappropriate?---Never wrote to him?

No. Never sent him a memo?---I've sent him this memo and I've formally counselled him in person on two occasions in relation to this. Informally. Informally. I also spoke to him at length about this issue, and I have the notes from our performance report meeting which was on the very next day, December 15. We had a meeting in relation to his performance report. I still have maintained the notes of that, and this was one of the key issues because it all comes down to judgment and ability to manage ethics, but I want to also say that Sergeant Miller in my opinion was suffering from health issues at the time and this was not his normal - - I don't believe that in the past he would have been operating at the level he was operating during this period.

What's the ethical issue involved?---If you're going to manage ethics you need everything you do to be transparent. To hand this August 25 memorandum back to Detective Italiano and tell her, "Look, it's a" - - I mean, if you go by the report he gave me back on this, "Look, there's nothing in it. Just sit on it and don't tell anyone about it." That's not managing ethics because all of a sudden there's the conspiracy theories growing in her mind and in the mind of the complainant, so you're not managing ethics if you're not making these issues clear to them. That's to say - - I mean, who knows - - and I think we get a fair indication of what was going through Detective Italiano's mind by the evidence that she's given in these proceedings in relation to what one - - words are said and they mean another thing.

The next memorandum you received was one by the close of - - or you actually got it the same day. Detective Senior Sergeant Miller wrote back to you on the same day? ---Yes, he did.

14 December 1998, outlining the circumstances of Constable Italiano's note?---Yes.

And he gives you the reason:

"I was reluctant to proceed into some form of parallel investigation into the deputy commissioner based on third party information."

MR HAMMOND: Did you have any issue with that response?---I did not accept his response at all, and I told him that, and one of the issues that I put down in "performance" was the fact that even after sitting down with Senior Sergeant Miller and explaining the situation to him - even after doing that - he still could not see - - he still believed that he - - he still relied on his view of the matter and it was my personal belief, and my experience, that his view on the matter was totally incorrect, and I stand by that and it was why I said he should be formally counselled in relation to the matter. That's how serious I see the issue. And I'm not saying that now. I recorded that at the time and they're documents that you examined.

But as superintendent, you were happy to leave Miller in charge of the Child Sexual Abuse Unit?---No, I wasn't. Within 6 weeks of this issue, he was removed from that position, and I also reported to health and welfare the issues that I thought he was going through in relation to that, and I also spoke to him directly about that.

So it was this issue that led to his removal and the way he handled it - - sorry, the way he handled it, in your view, that led to his removal - -?---No.

- - from the Child Sexual Abuse Unit?---No. This was one issue. There were many many issues. This was one issue. This was just one element of that. If you look at my performance reports notes, there were a whole number of issues that we spoke about in that and there were - - there was a range of issues. This was just - - this was just one element.

But your evidence is that within 6 weeks of this memorandum - -?---Yes.

- - he was removed from the unit?---Yes, he was.

In relation to his response at issue 3:

"I did not advise yourself, Detective Inspector Hawker or acting Inspector Brandham, for the following reasons: the information was third-hand information that may or may not be true."

WITNESS: Yes, but he's not seeing the forest from the trees there. You know? You don't just look at whether it may or may not be true. The veracity of the complaint is nothing to do with why it should have been investigated. You should not make a decision on the veracity of it. You should make a decision to - - to investigate the matter to make it transparent. So no matter what the veracity - whether it be right, whether it be wrong - the matter is dealt with fully and thoroughly. That way, there can be no misguided perceptions; that way, there can be no conspiracy theory.

MR HAMMOND: I put it to you that Miller gave you a very honest response when he said:

"I did not place the memorandum on the original report to you because the information was third-hand."

WITNESS: Oh, let me make it quite clear - and I hope I haven't come across the wrong way - Senior Sergeant Miller believed that what he was doing was right. I have no doubt about that, and I've already discussed the issues he was facing at the time. I have no doubt that there was no malice in what he did. I have no doubt that there was no corruption in what he did. It was just poor judgment, and I believe that judgment was impacted by other issues which I've already discussed. So I certainly don't believe that there was any malice or - - or any corruption in what Senior Sergeant Miller did or not, dealing with this issue.

MR HAMMOND: Detective Italiano, as she was then, also submitted to you a lengthy memorandum, dated the 8th of January 1999?---Yes. All the memorandums after the 7th of December, bar a couple, were all related to the complaint file, the complaint file in relation to the complaint by Q1 that there'd been some sort of intervention, if I can use that word, in relation to her case, and the 8th of January memorandum was Italiano's report on - - basically start to finish, her involvement in the case.

Through October, November, December of 1988? you were very busy on other cases?---I'm always very busy.

But the issue of Q1 and Q2 wasn't your only concern at that time, was it?---Absolutely not.

And the most important matter that we've already canvassed was probably the - - trying to find the culprit for the Claremont serial killing - Claremont murders?---I don't know that it would be fair to say that's the most important issue. It's obviously a very important issue that is being dealt with and I obviously had put in place a significant structure to be able to deal with that and still enable me to deal with the issues of the Personal Crime Division. I mean, that's all about - -

But, Superintendent, you were personally responsible for the Macro Taskforce?---Me personally responsible?

Yes?---I had command of the Macro Taskforce, yes, if you want to put it that way, and I don't have any problems with - - with that.

MR HAMMOND: Did you have any other major investigations on in October, November and December of 1998?---I've got four business areas that all do major investigations. There is no doubt there would have been a number of major investigations. Some I would have actually played a direct role in, others I would have just simply had - - had knowledge of them.

And if we can now turn to the memorandum prepared by Constable - - or Detective, I think by then, Italiano, and in particular page 3 - - -

MR HAMMOND: - - - in particular page 3?---It's not the one I've got up on my screen at the moment.

MR PETTIT: I'm sorry, I missed that. You want the report from Ms Italiano?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, please. January the 8th.

MR PETTIT: It's D1012857.

MR HAMMOND: Thank you. (TO WITNESS): One page 3, in the middle of the page, it says:

"The date for the interview was unchanged. On Wednesday, October 28 1998 - -"

Sorry, I don't think you have it in front of you yet?---I haven't got it. Page 3, go on.

Yes:

"- - I was summonsed to Miller's office and advised that Mr Caporn wished to view the file and that no action was to be taken until he reviewed it."

You'd agree that that was correct?---Just point out where it is, so I can read it for myself?

Sorry, it's around about the middle of the page. "The date for the interview is unchanged - -"?---Interview's unchanged, yep. Yes. I certainly agree with that. Well, I certainly agree that that was the effect and substance of my instructions, yes.

And you also agree with:

"I then had to photocopy the entire file for Miller, who then delivered it to Mr Caporn."

WITNESS: That's what's on this paper, but I didn't get the entire file. I got a copy of the depositions and the medical reports. I didn't get a copy of the entire file. But that's obviously what's on this page here, from Detective Italiano.

MR HAMMOND:

"On November 10 1998, after Mr Caporn had reviewed the file, Brandham, Miller, Wibberley and myself had a meeting at Mr Caporn's office."

WITNESS: That is correct.

MR HAMMOND: Would you not agree that that's an inordinate amount of police resources to be involved in a review of someone who hasn't been interviewed or arrested?---No, they weren't involved in the review. That was when I briefed them on my findings. They weren't in any way involved in the review.

I put it a different way; isn't that an inordinate number of people to be involved in the management of this file?--- They're not involved in the management of this file. I'm making them aware of the findings of my review. I knew that my review would not be received well by Senior Sergeant Miller and Detective Italiano, and I wanted my two inspectors - - and at that time, those guys were both my inspectors. I wanted them present so they knew the full details, which would save me explaining it perhaps two or three times.

Then:

"Mr Caporn stated that we did not have enough evidence to charge Q2, as he considered the complainant's diaries were not good evidence, as they could be more damning to the complainant and there was a lack of corroboration for the complainant."

Do you agree that was your position?---No, that's a very narrow view. There's a whole number of - - range of issues that were spoken of. There are some words in there that I believe are not my words, but if you want me to work through it, I'll work through it with you. The complainant's diaries were not good evidence. Well, what I said was certainly the complainant's diaries did not particularise in relation to the offences and I believed that in some cases they were contrary, and they were. Again, no impact on the veracity; it's the emotional state of Q1. There was a lack of corroboration for the complainant in respect of evidence for court, yes, there was. It stated that Evelyn Vicker had reviewed the file. That's correct, and as the file stood, they would not proceed with charging. That is correct.

MR HAMMOND: And then she goes on to say:

"Mr Caporn then said that regardless of whether (...name suppressed...) confessed or not, we were to release him and that he, Mr Caporn, would reassess the evidence."

WITNESS: Well, again, I've already made it quite clear, I don't know that they are my exact words, but I think that I've laboured to point what my substance and effect of my instructions were in that matter.

MR HAMMOND: What I want to put to you in relation to that statement, and indeed, the one that follows, that Inspector Brandham reiterated what Mr Caporn had said at the meeting, about not charging (...name suppressed...) is that - - sorry, Q2, thank you.

WITNESS: Can I have a look at page 4, please? About what Mr Caporn said about not charging. Now, that's more in line, at that particular time, without me reviewing the - - now, there's nothing in that paragraph that says that Brandham said that I used the word "released."

MR HAMMOND: In relation to what is said in the penultimate paragraph on page 3 - - -

MR HAMMOND: - - - on page 3, you never sought to - - ?---Can I go back, please? Yes. Penultimate. Yes.

My copy's slightly different. I'm looking at the last paragraph of your page 3?---Okay. Yes.

Did you ever respond in writing to Detective Italiano in relation to that statement made by her?---No. Because that's her report, and this is - - and this is where you've been confused a few times. These - - these reports follow up on a very standard procedure in relation to a complaint file. Everyone who's involved in the matter, it's a standard procedure; they report on their version of events from start to finish. This was her report. I had a lengthy discussion with her on the day she handed me this report and we discussed and canvassed a whole number of issues where I tried, as I say, my level best to get Detective Italiano to put her thoughts and feelings on the table. But at the end of the day I wasn't going to send this report back to her because this is a report for the complaint file, and she should do that without interference from me.

Well, the four officers who - - well, the one that heard the instruction and the others than came to learn of what they believed the instruction was, were so incensed by it that they wrote to the Royal Commission, believing it was a corrupt statement by you?---I am really struggling to have a handle on why they had that perception, although, as I say, I do believe that things would have been far different if I could have dealt with the August 25 memorandum as I would have. I would also suggest to you, sir, that up until these proceedings that some of your clients had never seen those memorandums that I'd sent to Miller giving him a rocket in relation to these particular issues, you know, and I think that they're significant issues when you look at the full picture. And if - - and they would have also never seen my report of February 4th. And if you look at all of those issues, if you deal with anything in a vacuum, if you don't have all the information, then you're liable to come up with two and two means twentysix instead of four. Just as I didn't have all the information, because I was not given that August 25 memorandum.

Your major concern after reading of the, or after learning of the Italiano memorandum dated 25 August 1998, was to ensure that there was no damage to the WA Police Service?---Nothing to do with that. It had nothing to do with that. Absolutely nothing to do with that.

You weren't concerned about the perception that Constable Italiano had?---I was concerned about the perception and I was concerned that it had been allowed to grow for 3½ months before I was told about it. And you think of what she was thinking when - - after being told by Sergeant Miller and co that they've got a great brief, and then I come along and do my review and say there's no brief. I mean, you see how the snowball effect occurs. And I was operating without that information and should never have been doing so. There would have been extra measures that I would have taken in this matter if I'd have known about that August 25 memorandum to demonstrate that there was no inappropriate behaviour going on here.

MR HAMMOND: But you were briefing the deputy commissioner and, indeed, Assistant Commissioner Atherton, weren't you, in relation to these allegations concerning the association between - - ?---They'd had - - like on many other significant investigations, they'd had a briefing from me. Having said that, if I'd have received the August 25th memorandum things may have taken a different path there as well, because that matter would have been put on the table, that matter would have been subject to an investigation and that may have precluded me from saying anything to the deputy commissioner in relation to the matter until that was investigated one way or another.

Did you quiz the deputy commissioner about his association with Q2?---Not at all.

Not at all?---Not at all.

Did you speak to Assistant Commissioner Atherton about whether there was an association between the deputy commissioner and Q2?---We had a discussion on the day before - - the day before we interviewed Q1 and her husband, and we spoke with them. We certainly would have had some discussion then because of the complaint and the letter and the information that was in the letter from Q1, bearing - - -

WITNESS: - - - in the letter from Q1, bearing in mind, even at that point on the 7th and 8th of December, I still didn't have the August 25 memorandum.

MR HAMMOND: Did you meet with the deputy commissioner in his office when you briefed him?---Which time?

On any occasion, in relation to the file of Q2?---Yes.

You would have seen the photo on the wall, of Q2 and the deputy commissioner?---Up until these proceedings, I have never seen that photograph.

But you were aware of the association, superintendent, that there was a loose - if I can put it that way - association between the deputy commissioner and Q2?---I was aware in no great depth. I had an awareness that there was some bike rides that they used to go in. That is it. And let me tell you, doing the job that I do, there are many, many times when that sort of loose association, like going to the same meeting a person has gone to or whatever, is the case. I mean, in respect to - - you know, I've been to functions where there are lawyers who are representing people who I'm prosecuting. Now, you know, it could be said, well, I shouldn't be going to this function that these lawyers are at, because they're prosecuting someone who I - - they're defending someone who I'm prosecuting. I mean, you can take that any which way but loose. The additional information that's been given a perception by the complainant and the perception by Constable Italiano on the August 25 memorandum does have an impact, and if that had have been dealt with properly, a lot of this might not have occurred.

But, inspector - - sorry, superintendent, you were briefing the very person who was at the centre of the allegation, weren't you, about what was being said about him?---But there was no allegation to me at that stage. That's the point I'm making. I did not have that information. There was no allegation whatsoever against Mr Brennan. If you look at the August 18 memorandum, he's not even mentioned on that. I had some knowledge, through being a person in the Perth society, that he may have gone on bike rides on occasions that Q2 was also involved in. That was the extent of my knowledge. Some of the things that have been said in here in the proceedings, about the issues of the community work and the contact there, at that point in time, I had no knowledge of that whatsoever, so I didn't even have that depth of knowledge.

Your officers at the Child Sexual Abuse Unit, as you can see from the memorandums, and indeed, one you had at the time, were concerned about the possible association between Q2 and the deputy commissioner?---Which was the one I had at the time which told me that? You find the one that I had at the time that told me that?

MR HAMMOND: I'm talking about the memorandum from Constable Italiano?---January 8?

August the 25th, which you received, I believe, on the 10th of December 1998?---So, your point is - ?

Well, you knew on the 10th of December 1998 that Constable Italiano had a concern that there was an association between the deputy commissioner and Q2?---Yes, and I would - - in no way, shape or form was I briefing the deputy commissioner after the 10th of December. I did not tell the deputy commissioner in that period, and in fact, for many years later, about the existence of the August 25 memorandum. When I got that August 25 memorandum, I didn't tell the deputy commissioner about it, because by the time I got it in December, then it was a matter that was going to be investigated by an external body, so I never, even then, had a conversation with the deputy commissioner to tell him that, "Oh, by the way, there's been this memorandum where it's been suggested ABC." Absolutely not.

But if you were briefing the deputy commissioner on the file of Q2, are you telling me that he never once raised - ever - that he had an association with Q2?---No. He never.

He never told you that?---No.

I find that fantastic?---Find it any way you wish.

I find it incredible?---But you've got to remember, the conversations that I had with Mr Brennan about the investigation was probably limited to maybe three at the outside, probably two.

I put it to you, inspector, that you are covering up?--- Covering up what?

The fact that you did discuss the association between the deputy commissioner and Q2?---I did not discuss the association between the deputy commissioner and Q2.

And your handling of the file at the Child Sexual Abuse Unit was a whitewash?---I think that the memorandums in place clearly demonstrate that my handling of this matter was open and accountable, and I will stand by that 100 per cent. At no stage did I do anything improper. At no stage did I do anything other than my job extremely thoroughly, and I think - - and thank God they are documented. I think the documents clearly demonstrate that.

MR HAMMOND: It was an exercise, as Senior Sergeant Miller said, in death by memorandum. Wasn't it?---When you look at the investigation file, for an investigation that went as long as it is, there is very minimal memorandums on it, and the majority of the one on the investigation file - - -

WITNESS: - - - the investigation file run between Italiano and Miller. What you're getting confused with, and others have, is the complaint file. Now, in context of the complaint file and the amount of memorandums on that this is a very small complaint file. So you're dealing from a dearth of experience in this matter, Mr Hammond. You know, you have no experience in these matters and I assure you that as a complaint file it's a minimal file for memorandums, and as far as an investigation of this nature goes that spanned, as it turned out, over a period of 12 months or more there's a minimal amount and most of that traffic is between Miller and Italiano.

MR HAMMOND: Notwithstanding my dearth of experience, you haven't answered the question. This was a whitewash by you?-- -Well, I think that I have answered that adequately.

Do you deny - - ?---What do you see - -

Do you deny that proposition?---What do you base that on, Mr Hammond?

I'm asking you to answer a very simple question. Do you - - ? ---Absolutely.

- - deny that it was a whitewash?---I did nothing more than my job. There is no whitewash here and I cannot for the life of me see what you can base that on, and I sit here with absolute confidence that anyone, any reasonable thinking person who examines all of the material on this, could not come to this conclusion.

You would agree, wouldn't you, that it's pretty rare for four serving police officers to make allegations of corruption about senior police officers?---Certainly. It's a very unfortunate situation to be in where this happens to yourself, particularly when it's baseless.

Do you agree that it's rare?---Look, I wouldn't really know because I've never been at professional standards. They might get complaints like this all the time - I mean, I don't know - but for four members to go out public like this, yes, certainly in my memory it is rare, and on such a baseless case I would suggest it would be even more rare.

I have no further questions, Mr Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. There's just one matter, superintendent. You made a reference in passing to the existence of a complaint on the materials that you looked at for your review. To your recollection, was there any evidence of an early complaint on the part of Q1 in this matter?---No. As I recall, and again it's on my recollection, there was no evidence of early complaint in relation to the matter.

COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Mr Power?

MR POWER: Thank you, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR POWER:

MR POWER: Mr Caporn, you have said that you were away for part of the period of the investigation on an officer development course. When was that?---The entire period of September. I actually didn't arrive back there until about the first week of October, I believe it was.

Do you know if the eastern states based psychologist who was referred to on Thursday and the possible second complainant who Ms Italiano wanted to travel east to speak to were in fact spoken to?---Yes. Both of those matters were cleared up. One of the - - it's on the running sheet. The complainant in relation to the possible second complainant was spoken to by Q1. It's been reported on the running sheet that that person had stated that Q2 had done nothing to her and that was the end of that, and in relation to the New South Wales psychologist there's an entry on the running sheet that she's been spoken to by Detective Italiano and that she remembers Q1; but that's it, and that's the words that were used, and that she destroyed all the documents in relation to that matter.

And this is what set of running sheets?---This is the running sheet kept by the investigation team on the Q1/Q2 file.

And these notes were made in whose handwriting?---It appears to be Detective Italiano's.

We know from your evidence that Mr Miller was counselled on the 10th of November 1998 about allowing this investigation to proceed as far as it had without a proper review of the evidence. As the officer in charge of the Child Abuse Unit at that time, what - - -

MR POWER: - - - at that time, what, in your opinion, should he have done?---You need to be working your whole team, that those sort of checks and balances are in place. The situation was then that Constable Italiano had been appointed as an interviewing officer and really had assumed the role of also being case manager in relation to it. If you're going to let that happen you have to put checks and balances in place to make sure more senior people are thoroughly examining the brief. It's not good enough to just accept that the officer is telling you that these things are in place; you need to check them. Particularly at the critical issues, when the critical issues are there, particularly as it was on the 2nd of November when they were going to arrest Q2, whether he said anything or not. If those checks and balances had have been in place this would have been properly supervised, properly inspected and it would never have got to the stage where they were going to carry out what they were going to carry out.

Now, had you been advised of those concerns raised in the 25 August 1998 memo from Ms Italiano to Mr Miller, at or about that time rather than 3½ months later, what would you have done?---An official investigation file would have been started on that. You had a situation where you had both the complainant, Q1, and Detective Italiano with obviously at least - - at the very least a very strong perception that there would be interference by the deputy commissioner. That needed to be dealt with. (...name suppressed...) and others that were at the meeting needed to be interviewed, and the matter needed to be formally investigated and then everyone advised of the outcome of that in relation to whether there had been established that this could lead to some interference in the investigation. It would also have raised it to the level where then we would have been - - it would have gone from the knowledge that Mr Brennan was involved or had been in bike rides with Mr - - with Q2 to another extent where it was actually suggested by the - - Q1 and suggested by Detective Italiano that there was going to be interference in this investigation.

You've expressed the view that the non-action by Mr Miller in respect of the 25 August 1998 memorandum had an impact on the whole event, as you described it. In what way do you believe that an earlier disclosure of that memorandum could have influenced the perceptions of those who had those concerns?--- Well, that matter would have been dealt with at the time, so it would have been dealt with 3 months prior to any of this getting to the point where it was going to be on the point of arrest. And therefore those matters would have been addressed up front and it wouldn't have been a situation where people are being told that there is a good brief in relation to the matter, then all of a sudden the hand comes from down above and, as has been suggested in these proceedings, that, you know, I do a review and all of a sudden I find that there is no evidence. I mean, what you have there is a growing perception of some sort of conspiracy theory, and then that leads to obviously the things that happened after that as well in relation to the investigation where, at the end of the day, there was no sustainable charges laid against Q2. So my point is this; it should have been dealt with up front at the time. It should have involved the complainant, it should have involved the people who were suggested to have heard and seen things, it should have involved Detective Italiano. If that had have been thoroughly investigated either by within the area, by the divisional office or, as it probably should have been, given the person who it was aimed at, by the professional standards area, then I think that the complainant would have seen that we were very serious about any such allegation being made about interference in a case.

MR POWER: Mr Commissioner, I don't have much more. May I continue?

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Certainly.

MR POWER: Thank you. (TO WITNESS): Knowing now of Q1's impression of your second or third telephone call to her - whichever it was - following the meeting that she and her husband had with you and Mr Atherton on the 8th of December, and with the benefit of hindsight, would you have handled that telephone call differently?---Oh, with the benefit of hindsight I would have probably got someone to go and see Q1 rather than dealing with it on the phone. I mean, she's been subject to fairly significant emotional trauma over a number of years now, and in hindsight and hearing Q1 give evidence, and the perception that she had in me trying to achieve a decision, absolutely I would do it differently.

Notwithstanding that, what would or could have been the consequences of your not following up obtaining a decision from Q1 on her written complaint of the 1st of December 1998?- --Well, I'd already been - - from the time that I made the telephone contact I'd already been basically waiting a decision in relation to this complaint, which is basically aimed at the deputy commissioner - - -

WITNESS: - - - the deputy commissioner. Far more, could it be seen, and far more innuendo could have been laid, that the matter was being covered up if I didn't get a decision and didn't move it on and as I point out, regardless of what the decision had been, if the decision had been not to go ahead, I still would have sent all those reports and my report to professional standards with a view of Mr Miller being formally counselled for the August 25th memorandum issue and for the - - for the investigation to be filed, because basically my preliminary work has really conducted an investigation.

MR POWER: And finally, given what you have already said in answer to questions from my learned friend Mr Hammond, with the benefit of hindsight, Mr Caporn, do you have any overarching criticisms about the way in which Miss Italiano conducted the investigation, or Mr Miller's supervision of it, other than what you've already said?---No. I think I - - I've pretty much covered it, except to say that the whole issue of how that area was operating, and the structures, the levels of supervision, have all been dealt with down there. There's been major reforms. They've been given additional resources, additional structures have been put in place. The management team has - - a new management team has been put in place and those matters, where interviewing officers, for example, both interview the complainant and then take the role as case manager - - that does not occur now, and neither should it occur. It's not fair on the interviewing officer.

Mr Commissioner, I have nothing further. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr Pettit?

MR PETTIT: Just very briefly, thank you, Commissioner.

RE-EXAMINED BY MR PETTIT SC:

MR PETTIT: Superintendent, do you know who it was that decided that Detective Hawes should take up the file in, I think, January of 99?---It was the management team in place at the Child Abuse Investigation Unit. I can't put it down to a particular person, but certainly I had no involvement in that decision.

Were you made aware of the reason for it?---I was aware that Detective Italiano had some time previously achieved a promotion to detective and was being transferred at the end of her leave. So I was aware of that. I was also aware that Detective Ingham had - - was leaving the area. He left around the same time, of his own volition, in relation to something else he wanted to pursue. The only aspect that I might have had input into was that I wanted someone, other than an interviewing officer, conducting the investigation.

MR PETTIT: Was the appointment of Detective Hawes deliberate in the sense that it ensured that the file did not go to any particular person, other person?---No. No. I mean, I had no involvement. That was an issue for the team to sort out in relation to who would get that. That decision would have been made by the management team at the time and that would have been Senior Sergeant Miller, Inspector Brandham and others involved in that decision, not - - not, certainly, myself. And I don't know Detective Hawes. I've had - - probably spoken to her twice in - - in probably the last 5 years.

Thank you, Superintendent. Nothing further, thank you, sir.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. There is just one question that I should have asked before, Superintendent. That's in relation to Detective Italiano. When she moved into another area, would it be common - - would it be usual to allow her to continue with the file, or would that remain in the Child Abuse Unit?-- -With some of the interviewing officers when they go back, if - - the secondments for the interviewing officers is worked on either a 12 month or 2 year basis, depending on what the situation was.

Yes?---If they were going back into an area where they were going to be continually doing those sort of offences, to support that local business area then we may allow that. Where someone is promoted to a detective and goes out of the area it's a situational basis, case by case. But certainly in this case, it would have been - - and it wasn't, but if I had been asked I would have recommended that an investigation of that nature remained within the central area.

Yes. Is there anything that arises out of that, Mr Hammond?

MR HAMMOND: No, thank you, sir. Sir, the only question I have - and it doesn't relate to - - it relates to some earlier questions, is - - I know it's not my role to tender documents but I did want to put to you, maybe through counsel assisting, the Operation Cathedral information.

COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MR HAMMOND: It related to a significant part of the questions that I asked.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. It was really part of the questioning. I think we'd accept that.

MR HAMMOND: Thank you. I only have this copy.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, thank you, Superintendent. You're excused from further attendance under the summons.

WITNESS WITHDREW

16/09/2002 CAPORN, D.J. XXN

COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Pettit?

MR PETTIT: Commissioner, we are going to press on without a break this morning, I take it? The reason I ask that is, we have one further witness who should take only a short time and he's gone to some trouble to be here without a summons.

COMMISSIONER: He's here now, is he?

MR PETTIT: He is here now, sir.

COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MR PETTIT: I'd like to bring him in.

COMMISSIONER: Well, I think you can carry on if he's a short witness.

MR PETTIT: I call Paul Lines, please.

COMMISSIONER: Could I have your full name please, Mr Lines?

MR LINES: Paul Alan Lines.

COMMISSIONER: Do you have any conscientious objection to taking an oath on the Bible?

MR LINES: No, I don't.

COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PAUL ALAN LINES sworn:

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Sit down please.

EXAMINED BY MR PETTIT SC:

MR PETTIT: Thank you. Your full name is Paul Alan Lines?--- Yes.

And you are currently the principal weights and measures officer with the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection?---That's correct.

And I think you've been at the department just this year?--- Yes, indeed; February this year.

Prior to joining the department, you were an officer of the Anti-Corruption Commission - - -

MR PETTIT: - - - Anti-Corruption Commission?---I was an investigator with the Anti-Corruption Commission, yes.

You began there in December 1998?---That's correct.

And finished in December 2001?---Yes.

While you were with the Anti-Corruption Commission, you had some involvement in a complaint relating to the persons called Q1 and Q2 in these proceedings?---Yes, I did.

I think, at the outset, you had some involvement with an initial complaint by Q1?---That would depend what - - there were two complaints that the ACC looked at in respect of this matter. The initial complaint, no, I had no involvement with. The, what I will refer to as the second complaint, then that's where I became involved at the outset.

And as part of your involvement, you spoke, I think, outside the commission premises to Constable Italiano?---That's right.

Where did that occur, and why?---I can't remember when it occurred, or where it occurred. That would be recorded in the journals that were kept at the ACC, and are still there now. The meeting took place at Cris Italiano's request, in respect of the matter that's before the Commission at the moment.

And in short, there were things she had to tell you and that's why the meeting was called?---Yes, indeed.

Was any other person present at the meeting?---I know that Detective Connoley was with Cris on a number of occasions. I can't remember whether she was there at that time. I believe she was.

You've become aware, I think, that evidence has been given that you said to Ms Italiano that she should watch her back?-- -Yes.

Do you recall saying that?---I don't recall that specific comment. However, it's certainly something that sounds like something I would say.

And can you help us in why you would have said that to Detective Italiano?---It's not something I said specifically to Detective Italiano. It's something that - - or words to that effect that I would say to people effectively whistleblowing to what was the ACC, or what is the ACC. At the time there was no effective whistle-blower legislation in WA and it would have been said by way of "Watch your back. You're dealing with high-ranking officers", in the case of Cris Italiano. In the case of people within the Public Service, "Watch your back, you're dealing with people in positions of power".

MR PETTIT: Did you have any information about any specific threat to Ms Italiano's career or person?---Specific threat, no.

Did you have in mind any specific superior officer when you made the observation?---No.

Were you aware of any circumstance which should have caused Ms Italiano to be careful of her welfare?---Not specifically, no. Because of the position that I held at the ACC, I was aware of circumstances where whistle-blowers had had either their well-being, the jobs, their position threatened, either directly or indirectly.

There's also been some evidence that suggests that someone entertained the possibility that Mr Brennan, Deputy Commissioner Brennan, and Mr Looby, Kevin Looby, approached the ACC. Are you aware of that suggestion?---Approached in what manner?

In order to make some sort of representation to the ACC about the ACC's conduct of this investigation?---I have no knowledge of that at all.

Have you ever told any person - -?---No.

- - that those two officers did attempt to bring pressure to bear on the ACC?---No, and if they had, I would suggest that the ACC, particularly the chairman, Mr O'Connor, would have made that very, very clear. It would certainly have been looked at in a matter stand-alone at the ACC, if that were the case.

And why do you say that?---It's - - the suggestion that two senior officers would approach the ACC, which is a body effectively looking into their conduct - -

WITNESS: - - - into their conduct, just seems ridiculous.

MR PETTIT: You said earlier that you were aware of other cases in which a whistle blowing officer may have suffered as a result of his or her action?---Yes.

That's, I take it, in matters completely separate from the Q1/Q2 file?---Yes.

What matters did you have in mind?---I'm not sure of the position that I hold here, given the position I held at the ACC. There was certainly a matter that was looked into by the ACC concerning police officers and another that specifically comes to mind in respect of - -

Well, don't give us any names but can you tell us the circumstances?---I'm aware of one operation which was referred to as Eucla. As to the names involved in that, no, but there was suggestion there that pressure had been brought to bear on the complainant by senior officers. There was a separate matter which concerned a mid-manager with the then Ministry of Justice. There was a suggestion that one of the directors then brought pressure to bear and subsequently removed him from that position as a result of complaints made to the ACC.

That second one is a non-police matter, I take it?---It's a non-police matter, yes.

Thank you, Mr Lines.

COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hammond? Do you have any questions?

MR HAMMOND: No questions, sir, but it wouldn't be appropriate for me to question in any event, sir, because I must explain that I have had a solicitor-client relationship with Mr Lines so it would be a breach of that. So I'm in a very difficult position.

COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MR HAMMOND: So maybe if I could speak to counsel assisting.

COMMISSIONER: Yes, very well. Mr Power, do you have any questions?

MR POWER: No questions, thank you, Mr Commissioner.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION

COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you, Mr Lines.

WITNESS WITHDREW

.16/09/2002 LINES, P.A. XN

MR PETTIT: Commissioner, that's the last of the witnesses for the time being. There remains a couple of matters to resolve so it's appropriate that the matter be adjourned.

In addition to Mr Lines there is one other matter I should draw to the Commission's attention. ion. Detective Sergeant Bill Mansas also approached the Commission officers late last week with a particular concern in respect of a possible inference that the Commission might draw - namely, that the investigation of Q1's complaint was expedited on account of Q2's public profile. Mr Mansas was the officer who decided to investigate promptly and he says that the decision turned on the occupation of Q2 at the time and certainly not on his profile.

Now, that point, Commissioner, is of concern, understandably, to Detective Sergeant Mansas but it is not otherwise relevant to the matters to be inquired into and in the result I undertook to make public Mr Mansas's position.

The next matter that should be aired, Commissioner, is that on the weekend a report, Mr Gary Adshead, has brought to light that Deputy Commissioner Brennan may have been involved in two cycle rides from - - -

MR PETTIT: - - - two cycle rides from Albany to Perth, and further that the photograph which was shown in evidence last week may be a photograph taken in 1997 rather than as we had assumed in nineteen ninety - - in 1997 rather than as we assumed in 1998, and that seems to be correct. We'll pursue the point a little further and the publication to which Mr Adshead referred can be tendered later.

It's, as I say, Commissioner, appropriate, in my submission, to adjourn the hearings at the moment. There is a list of documents which has, as I'd understood it, been made available to my learned friends. That list is very comprehensive. It includes all documents - - just about all documents which have any bearing on the matter, and that's done for completeness. Counsel will be able to request access to any of those documents; that will, of course, be on the same conditions as usually obtained, namely that the documents are not to be released or provided to any other person and are not to be used for any purpose other than the present inquiry.

Lastly, Commissioner, can I suggest - and this has been raised again with my learned friends at the bar table - the - - and this is also in accordance with the Commission's procedural directions, Commissioner. I propose that the following timetable be directed. Firstly, that the written submissions of counsel assisting in the matter be made available to persons who may be adversely affected on or before the 14th of October. I should add that it's my intention to include in those submissions an amended list of documents, amended, that is, to include only those documents which are to be tendered, and that's something my learned friends can comment on or contact us about.

The second direction I propose is that written submissions in reply by other counsel should be lodged with the Commission by the 28th of October and lastly, if required, oral submissions can be made to the Commission on Monday the 4th of November 2002. And again, I would urge my learned friends to raise that with me well prior to the event.

Lastly, Commissioner, the next hearings of the Commission will be the resumption of the hearings into the members of the Armed Robbery Squad in relation to the Supa Valu robbery on the 28th of April 1997. Those hearings will resume on Monday the 23rd of September, and we ask that the hearings of the Commission be adjourned until that date.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. There's one other matter that I think I should raise with you, Mr Hammond, and that's in relation to Q1. You'll recall that I indicated that the Commission was not concerned with - - well, it couldn't be concerned with the determination of the circumstances which existed between Q1 and Q2 - -

MR HAMMOND: Yes. COMMISSIONER: - - because that would involve a criminal trial. I was not intending to cut Q1 out of the possibility of - - -

COMMISSIONER: - - - out of the possibility of expressing the fact that she, as she apparently is, strongly denies any assertion of Q2 that there was an affair between herself and Q2.

MR HAMMOND: Yes.

COMMISSIONER: That can either be done by, if she wants to, to give evidence, but it would be sufficient for my purposes if you were to write a letter in, saying that you were authorised by her to inform the Commission that she strongly disputed the evidence of Q2 on that point.

MR HAMMOND: Mr Commissioner, I think she would be very grateful if she could do that.

COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MR HAMMOND: I'm sure that offer will be taken up.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Very well.

MR HAMMOND: Thank you, sir.

MR PETTIT: Commissioner, I'm grateful that that matter has been raised, because it perhaps does require something by way of explanation from myself.

COMMISSIONER: Yes, very well.

MR PETTIT: I wanted to assure Q1 that that evidence came out and was pursued shortly because it related to the explanation given by Q2 as to why he might have been unsurprised by the police attendance. It had nothing to do, I can assure Q1, with any desire otherwise to intrude into that area.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you, everyone. We will adjourn now.

AT 11.35 AM HEARING ADJOURNED UNTIL 9.45 AM MONDAY, 23RD SEPTEMBER 2002

16/09/2002

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY CORRUPT OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE OFFICERS
COMMISSIONER: G.A. Kennedy AO QC

Held at Perth on the 12th day of September, 2002

Counsel Assisting Mr K. Pettit SC

Appearances Mr J.C. Hammond (with him Ms Pepe)

Mr A.J. Power

Mr W.M. Bryant

AT 9.46 AM HEARING COMMENCED:

COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Pettit?

MR PETTIT: Thank you, Commissioner. I call John Brandham.

COMMISSIONER: Could I have your full name, please?

MR BRANDHAM: Francis John Brandham.

COMMISSIONER: Do you have any conscientious objection to taking an oath on the Bible?

MR BRANDHAM: Absolutely not.

COMMISSIONER: Thank you. If you could take the Bible and read the oath aloud, please?

FRANCIS JOHN BRANDHAM sworn:

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Sit down, please.

EXAMINED BY MR PETTIT SC:

MR PETTIT: Your full name is Francis John Brandham?---Yes, it is.

But you are commonly called John?---Yes. That's correct.

And you're a serving officer?---Yes, I am.

And your rank is inspector, is it?---Inspector. Yep.

Where are you now stationed?---At the Internal Affairs Unit.

Are you able to - - when did you join the force?---Nineteen seventy - - 1976, as a cadet.

Mm hm?---January 76.

Are you able to give us a short version of your career history in the force?---I was a cadet for 18 months, went through the police school in 1977, went to Victoria Park Police Station for 3 years, 79 Division, joined the CIB as it was then in 1982, served at the Drug Squad, Fremantle detectives, Motor Squad, Major Crime, which then became Homicide Squad, sort of was transferred to Fremantle but then the Macro Taskforce happened and was involved in that. Worked for Bob Kucera for a little while and went down to take over the Shoalwater Taskforce and acted as inspector at Personal Crime Division, promoted to senior sergeant, went out to Cannington for 2 years and then was promoted to inspector about - - just over 2 years ago. And I've served at - - when I was promoted to inspector I was transferred to Internal Affairs Unit, and in the last - - oh, from September the 1st 2001 I was at the Zircon Taskforce as senior investigating officer.

MR PETTIT: Well, perhaps we should take up the story at the time of your - - I think your addition to the Shoalwater - - Operation Shoalwater?---Yep.

That occurred in 1998?---It did, yes.

About what month?---About May, from recollection. I was working with Mr Kucera at the Metropolitan - - Metropolitan Regional Office as his crime coordinator, and I was told that I was to go down and - - and assume command of the Shoalwater Taskforce which was investigating the murder of Gerard Ross.

And you were to replace Detective Sergeant Miller, I think?--- Detective Senior Sergeant Miller, yes.

And he at that point returned to Child Abuse Unit?---Yes, he did.

And you assumed operational command, was it, of that Operation Shoalwater?---Yes.

That lasted for how long?---I remained operational commander through till the inquiry returned to Perth, basically, which was through till the December, but in - - in September of that year I was assigned other responsibilities as an acting divisional officer at the Personal Crime Division, and I assumed management, I guess, of the Sexual Assault Squad and the Child Abuse Unit.

The Gerard Ross murder inquiry was seen as child abuserelated, I think?---Yes.

Which explains why Detective Senior Sergeant Miller was assigned to it for a period?---I don't know why Senior Sergeant Miller was assigned to it, but yes; it was obviously child abuse-related.

At the time you became an acting inspector, that was in, I think you told us, Personal Crime Division, is it?---Yes.

That was the time at which you assumed responsibility for the Child Abuse Unit?---Yes, that's right.

Where were you physically located in that period - - -

MR PETTIT: - - - physically located in that period?---Up until that time, I'd been down at Rockingham, at the Shoalwater Taskforce, and I think it was about the 5th of September I took up an office which was on the ground floor of the building that Child Abuse and Sexual Assault Squad were housed, which is on Adelaide Terrace.

Is that unusual, for an inspector in the Personal Crime Division, to take up an office in that building?---It hadn't occurred before. Having said that, there was - - there had never been a second divisional officer at the Personal Crime Division until that time. So I was like, I guess, a new inspector's - - a new inspector position and there was simply no accommodation anywhere else.

No accommodation anywhere else?---No, the eighth floor of Curtin House, which is where the administration is housed, was basically full. As I say, it was an extra position. I think it came from the days when an inspector was in charge of the Macro Taskforce.

Were you not placed in that position with instructions to particularly keep your eye on Child Abuse Unit, Sexual Assault Unit?---Mr Caporn and I discussed issues concerning the Child Abuse Unit in particular, and he asked me to go down there and oversee the management of the unit, have a critical look at it.

Isn't that the real reason for your physical location?---No, it wasn't the real reason for me being down there. As I said, it was simply an accommodation thing, but I was there to oversee the operations of the Child Abuse Unit, and Sexual Assault Squad.

So, as from, I think you said, 5 September - -?---Yeah, I think it was.

As from that date, what matters did you have under your responsibility?---I was still actively in charge of the Shoalwater Taskforce and I had oversight of - - or management, I guess, of Senior Sergeant Kevin Looby and his staff at the Sexual Assault Squad and Senior Sergeant Miller and his staff at the Child Abuse Unit. I reported direct to Mr Caporn.

I see. And that's the extent of the portfolio, is it?---That was the extent of my responsibility, yeah. The portfolio also included the Homicide Squad, and I think Major Incident Group, and Missing Persons.

And the chain of command as from 5 September, I presume, is that Mick Miller and - - is it Kevin Looby?---Kevin Looby, yeah.

Kevin Looby reported through you?---Yes, that's correct.

MR PETTIT: And you to Mr Caporn?---Yes. That's correct.

Do you recall when you first became aware of the file involving Q2? You're aware, are you, that during these proceedings we're referring to the original complainant and Q1 and the person complained of as Q2?---Yes.

Try and keep that in mind, if you will?---Yes.

Do you recall when you were first made aware of the file on Q2?---It was early - - it was shortly after I arrived at the Child Abuse Unit, so it would have been within the first week.

And you were briefed by Mick Miller?---No. Actually, from memory, Detective Italiano and Detective Connoley told me about it.

At that briefing, were you told of any concerns that those officers had, apart from the briefing itself, on Q2?---Not - - I'm not sure. I honestly couldn't say.

During the period September through to October, there was a lot of intra-office activity on this file?---Yes.

Memos and so forth?---Yes.

And you briefed Mr Caporn on the matter concerning Q2 regularly - -

MR PETTIT: - - - matter concerning Q2 regularly?---There was - - not in the form of memos. I mean, there was discussions held between various - - myself and various people and certain things were told to me and I would then pass that on to Mr Caporn; not in the form of memos. Generally in the form of a discussion.

And there must have been a couple of hundred files at Child Abuse Unit?---I cannot remember how many files there were, but there certainly were a lot. In fact, that was part of the - - the - - part of what was examined by a review which was later conducted - -

Yes, I'll come back to that - -?--- - - to examine the number of files on hand.

And you certainly were not briefing Mr Caporn on all of those matters, all of the - -?---Not all of them. Some of them, certainly. Some of the other matters.

But it's fair, isn't it, that the Q2 matter was head and shoulders more interesting to Mr Caporn than the others?---It was a significant inquiry. Yes, for sure.

Why was that?---Oh, because of the person's profile, because of his - - the impact that the investigation was going to have, the media interest that the investigation would have, once - - if it became public.

Why is that a - - well, first of all, is that a sound reason for Mr Caporn and others to take an interest?---Absolutely.

Why?---Because of the impact that - - the importance of getting it right.

Surely it's important to always get it right?---It certainly is but obviously when there's going to be the enormous media attention that this would attract, it's more important to get it right. I mean, this had huge ramifications. I mean, if - - the impact would have just been - - I mean, it would have been in the media for weeks. It would have been the story of the year.

Have you seen, on other occasions in your career, senior officers take an interest purely because the person who is suspected has a high profile?---Well, I - - I mean, I don't know, but I would imagine when - - when Brian Burke was charged by the police, I would imagine that the Commissioner would have been fully briefed on every aspect of the investigation. So - - I mean, I can't say that - - damn. Sorry. I can't say that, but I know there's been instances where - - in homicide investigations, that we have briefed up the chain of command through to the superintendent.

MR PETTIT: Did anyone, apart from yourself - - well, first of all, did you attend personally on Mr Caporn in these briefings through September, October, November?---I'm sorry. I - -

You were briefing Mr Caporn in September and early October?--- Yes. Yes.

Was that in person or on the phone?---Oh, it would have been both. Generally in person.

Anybody else attend those meetings?---Oh, the - - Senior Sergeant Miller - - there were a number of people that attended the meetings. Senior Sergeant Miller was present on some occasions. There were a number of occasions between when the matter first came to my attention and when Q2 was interviewed. There was a number of occasions where other officers, including Detective Sergeant Ingham, Detective Italiano, myself, were involved in discussions and briefings with Superintendent Caporn.

During that period - and I mean prior to Mr Caporn calling for a complete copy of the brief - what was the nature of Mr Caporn's interest?---Simply to be advised of what was happening with it.

All right. You were aware that he in turn was briefing Mr Brennan?---I can't say specifically, but I - - I have a recollection that I was told that Mr Brennan had been briefed, yes.

MR PETTIT: Do you recall an occasion on which Detective Senior Constable Connoley and, I think then, Constable Italiano spoke to you about whether to proceed by summons or by arrest in respect of Q2?---It may have happened, yes.

You don't recall something of a heated discussion?---A heated discussion?

Yes?---Between myself and - -

Jo Connoley in particular?---No, definitely not.

Where she was adamant that the proper way to proceed at interview of Q2 was to arrest?---My recollection is that that was the plan. That was the plan up until - - my - - my recollection is that that was the plan, that he was to be arrested, until Mr Caporn reviewed the file.

Do you recall whether you had a view on whether there should be an arrest or to proceed by summons?---We had a discussion and it would be proceeded in accordance with standard procedure, which was - - yeah, just that it would proceed in accordance with standard procedure. I certainly don't remember any heated discussion at all. There was nothing to get heated over. It was a - - I don't recall anything of that nature.

You don't - - excuse me a moment. You don't recall pursuing an instruction that if he were to be charged it would be by way of summons and Miss Connoley being adamant that it should be by arrest?---There - - there was some discussion. Don't get me wrong; there was some discussion over whether he should be arrested or summonsed. There was some discussion over it but not heated discussion, and in the end my recollection is that - - it was he was to be treated like anybody else.

Miss Connoley tells us that she suspects that - - well, let me start again. Miss Connoley tells us that she directly told you that she would proceed to arrest even though it was your view you should proceed by way of summons?---I'm not sure when - - when is this - - if I'm able to ask, when is this supposed to have occurred because - -

In October?---Well, my understanding, and I've got notes that support that, is that Detective Connoley was not - - was not involved in the investigation as it progressed. Detective Sergeant Ingham had been assigned to interview Q2 with Miss Italiano and that occurred long before the decision was made to review the file.

Detective Connoley suspects that she was replaced by Detective Sergeant Ingham precisely because it was her view that there should be an arrest and - - ?---The decision - -

MR PETTIT: - - that's the reason you replaced her with Ingham?---Well, two parts to that. One, I didn't replace anybody, and the other part is, the decision for Detective Sergeant Ingham to head that investigation was taken by Senior Sergeant Miller. I was there but it was in consultation with the sergeants at the Child Abuse Unit, so I was present when a decision was made, and again I've got notes of that meeting.

Do you recall who was at that meeting?---Well, it certainly - - it was certainly Sergeant Miller and myself. I can't recall who else was there. I can't recall whether it was a decision - - I can't recall whether Sergeant Mansas was there or whether Sergeant Ingham was there - - -

WITNESS: - - - Sergeant Ingham was there, but I know it was - - it was in at the Child Abuse Unit and the decision was taken by Sergeant Miller and supported by me, because Mark Ingham was the obvious choice.

MR PETTIT: Around about 28th of October Superintendent Caporn decided to review the file in its entirety. Do you recall that?---Yes.

How did that come to your attention?---Mr Caporn informed me that he was going to review the evidence.

Did he tell you why?---Not that I can specifically recall, but I imagine it would have been in relation to the, as I said before - - the - - the potential impact that this matter could have on the service.

Were you party to any discussion about whether that should occur, or were you just told that it was going to occur?---I was told that it was going to occur, but I fully supported the fact that it was being done. I mean, it's standard practice as far as what I'd been used to.

Why didn't you do it?---I don't know. There was a lot going on at the Child Abuse Unit at that stage. There was the review had been done, there was issues concerning the Wood Royal Commission recommendations being implemented; there was a lot of things. I don't know why Mr Caporn chose to do it himself.

It would seem logical, wouldn't it, if there's some concern that it be done correctly, you would be the man to review it?- --Oh, Mr Caporn is a very hands-on superintendent. I've worked with him a lot since 95. I've just finished 12 months with him at Operation Zircon. I was with him for nearly 12 months at Macro. I've seen Mr Caporn review almost every major line of inquiry in those investigations. I've seen him spend time reviewing TI transcript, reviewing interviews between principal persons of interest. It's just the sort of person that he is. He just takes these things on himself.

Have you worked with him since he's been a superintendent?--- Yes. He was a superintendent when he was officer in overall command of Operation Zircon.

And your evidence is that, as a superintendent, he gets down to the level of examining TI transcript?---Absolutely. Absolutely. In every - - in almost every major line of inquiry he will review it, provide input, give officers - - give officers that are planning to do an interview - - actually involve himself and, you know, give them lines of inquiry to follow, give them, you know, avenues to - - ways of interviewing a suspect, that type of thing. It's just the sort of person that he is.

MR PETTIT: In any event, the file was copied in its entirety and given to you?---My recollection is that I was provided with a fair bit of stuff by Senior Sergeant Miller, but some of it was missed and I think Sergeant Miller took that up himself. There was a - - I took most of it up to Mr Caporn and I think there - - I've got notes of his - - he'd forgotten to give certain things and they were later taken up to Mr Caporn.

The notes you refer to; do you have them here?---I do, yes.

You're welcome to refer to them if you need. Perhaps you should. Now, I take it that from the time the file was provided to Mr Caporn, all other plans were put on hold?--- Yes. That's right.

In particular a planned interview was postponed?---Mr Caporn had instructed that nothing was to occur until he'd reviewed the file.

And he did that within a few days?---He did, yes.

And let you know that he had completed his review?---Yes.

And arranged a meeting?---Yes.

Did he tell you anything about his review prior to that meeting?---From memory, he had told me one on one that he had reviewed the file and that it was his view that there was insufficient evidence - - insufficient evidence to support - - support, well, prima facie evidence - - -

WITNESS: - - - prima facie evidence.

MR PETTIT: You, I take it, had not at any stage reviewed the file?---No, I'd been - - I'd been told certain things by members of the Child Abuse Unit, but I'd not reviewed the file myself, not read the evidence of Q1 or reviewed anything else.

Throughout this entire matter, you have not ever turned your mind independently to whether you thought there was sufficient to proceed?---No, I haven't.

A meeting was called on the 10th of November. I think your report actually has it at the 11th, which I suggest to you might be an error?---Yeah, the 10th of the 11th, I have it.

That's a Tuesday, is it?---Tuesday, the 10th of the 11th.

And you took notes of that meeting?---Only brief notes. Just the fact that Mr Caporn briefs all, as in - - and I have himself, Senior Sergeant Miller and Detective Italiano, "Briefs all on review and including Vickers."

Yes. I think you've subsequently made a report about this matter. You reported to Mr Caporn by memo of 8 December. Do you recall that?---Yes, I recall the -

Perhaps we could have a look at it? It's D1012885. While that's coming up, though, I want to ask you in particular about the instruction that Mr Caporn gave on that day. I think Mr Caporn expressed the view that there was insufficient evidence, you've already told us that?---Yes.

And that it was necessary to proceed to an interview?---Yes.

What instruction did Mr Caporn give about the interview? Or its aftermath, I should say?---I can't specifically recall.

Do you have it noted? If you don't, we can turn to your report, at page 5. Perhaps if we start at page 4 to get the context. You'll see, towards the bottom of the page, you've written, "On Tuesday, November 11 - -" which as I indicated earlier I think should be November 10?---Yes.

Then: "

- - Acting Detective Superintendent Caporn called Detective Senior Sergeant Miller, Detective Italiano and myself to a meeting - -"

Just pausing there, wasn't Detective Sergeant Wibberley also in attendance?---He may have been. I'm not certain.

MR PETTIT:

"- - with him regarding the completion of his review. At that meeting, he outlined the results of review along the following lines."

And you set out a number of dot points. If we go to the next page, the last of the dot points, I think, is the instruction I'm presently concerned with. You've written:

"He further instructed that no matter what came from the interview, no action was to be taken against Q2 until he had further reviewed confessionable material."

WITNESS: Yes, that's correct.

MR PETTIT: "Confessionable material", I presume you mean, if any?---If any, yes.

Now, to outsiders, that does appear an unusual - or I suggest to you it may appear - - an unusual direction, that even if the suspect confesses, he is to be released. Did it not strike you that way?---Not really, no. I mean, under the circumstances - - under the circumstances that prevailed at that time, I found it to be a legitimate instruction.

MR PETTIT: What circumstances?---I believe that the officers involved did not accept the fact that the DPP had reviewed the matter and said that there wasn't sufficient evidence at that stage to proceed. I believe that - - that they had lost perspective in relation to the matter and that they simply couldn't be trusted to do the job properly. So Mr Caporn - - I mean, that's my perception of it; that Mr Caporn made it quite clear that nothing was to happen until he had had a chance to review the material.

Perhaps we should go through all of your dot points in this report. If we go back to page 4 please, the first one is - and the "he" I think refers to Mr Caporn throughout:

"He had examined the evidence and found that these offences had more than likely occurred in the manner described by the complainant, examined all the alleged corroborative material associated with the brief, and found that they did not support the alleged crime. He found that the only evidence against Q2 was a statement of the complainant which had been made more than 20 years after the events concerned. He found there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges against Q2 at this time in the absence of other supporting evidence. He had raised all the evidence concerning this matter in collaboration with Miss Evelyn Vicker, senior prosecutor with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Miss Vicker had concurred with his findings. He had questioned as to what other avenues of inquiry could be explored in order to obtain supporting evidence."

Just pausing there, do I understand from that that Mr Caporn questioned those at the meeting about what other avenues of inquiry could be pursued?---I can't specifically recall that, but yes, that's what I imagine would have occurred.

Continuing:

"He stated that in the absence of other supportive material, there was a need to obtain admissions or a confession from Q2 in order for any charges to succeed. He raised serious concerns that the Child Abuse Unit had intended charging Q2 under the current circumstances. Instructed Detective Senior Sergeant Miller to review procedures within his unit in order to ensure that this situation did not occur again. He instructed that Q2 was to be interviewed by members of the Child Abuse Unit with a view to gaining confessional evidence to support the alleged offences."

And then lastly, the one we've mentioned:

 "He further instructed that no matter what came from the interview, no action was to be taken against Q2 until he" - that's Mr Caporn - "had further reviewed the confessional material."

Now, in that context, it's your evidence that the last instruction was proper?---Absolutely. Yes.

MR PETTIT: And it was proper in the circumstances - tell me if I've misunderstood you - that he, Mr Caporn, had come to the view that officers had lost perspective, or is that your interpretation?---I suppose it's my - - it is my interpretation because I didn't actually review the file myself. So yes, it would have been Mr Caporn's view, based on what I've said there in the report and also from my - - the way I viewed how - - how everything had unfolded.

Did the other officers present - - that is, Italiano and Miller, was it?---Yes.

Do I understand your evidence to be that they showed resistance to Mr Caporn's statement that Evelyn Vicker agreed with him?---Yes, because they actually went up and had a meeting with John McKechnie over the matter.

Yes, but was something said at this meeting to give you that impression?---I can't recall specifically. I remember there was - - there was a resistance to the review shown by Senior Sergeant Miller in the first instance. So it was natural that if there was a resistance to the review being done, it just flowed on from there - - -

WITNESS: - - - flowed on from there. But I can't recall specifically whether anything was discussed at that meeting.

MR PETTIT: It's been suggested to the Royal Commission that the instruction by Mr Caporn was tantamount to closing the file. What do you say about that?---Absolutely ridiculous. That's rubbish. I mean, it was - - it was to progress properly. Mr Caporn instructed that an interview was to be conducted with Q2, that all other potential avenues of inquiry were to be pursued in an attempt to find some corroboration for Q1's deposition. As it says in my report, Mr Caporn believed that Q1 believed what she was saying in her evidence - in her deposition.

Were you subsequently asked for clarification of that instruction by Detective Italiano?---For clarification. I have a - - I have a note, which is later on in the day, where I spoke with Detective Italiano where it just simply says in my notes that she's very accepting of the decision. Just raises her concerns regarding the covertness of the interview with Q2.

What concern was she expressing there?---I'm not sure. Just simply the fact that - - I assume simply the fact that the date that the interview was to occur would remain in-house.

I see. Her concern was that it be kept a secret?---Yes.

Exactly what does your note say about her concern?---Sorry?

About Ms Italiano's concern?---It simply says:

"Speak with Cris Italiano. Very accepting of decision. Just raises her concern re covertness of interview."

And "accepting of the decision"; it's on the same day as the - - as the - - as Mr Caporn said that the matter was not to proceed further. That he'd done the review, etcetera.

From there, plans were progressed, I take it, to interview Q2?---Yes. That's correct.

You were a party to those?---Not really. As I say, I was just kept informed as to what was happening.

And an interview was planned for very early in the morning of the 17th of November?---That's correct. Yes.

And it was very early in the morning in order to try to keep the fact a secret?---Yes.

MR PETTIT: And just explain to us why that was a concern. Why it should be kept a secret?---Again, it was about the profile of the person. That was one of the concerns that springs to mind. I can't think of any others. It was kept within a very close-knit group within the Child Abuse Unit too, so I think it was - - I have a recollection that it was to be done, you know, so that no one outside of the investigation would know about it as well.

You were present when Q2 was brought in?---Yes, I was.

Why was it necessary for an inspector to be present?---I was just asked to be there by Mr Caporn to oversee proceedings.

Did you oversee proceedings?---In a - - in a non-involved manner. I just basically - - it wasn't my office. I just basically was there.

Were you told why you were to attend to oversee the interview?---Well, it was to make sure Superintendent Caporn's instructions were carried out.

Those instructions being to release Q2 - - ?---Yes.

- - no matter what occurred?---That's correct. And - - and to - - to provide feedback to Superintendent Caporn, had - - had - - you know, on what had occurred - - what occurred on that particular day.

There was a sense, was there - - -

MR PETTIT: - - - a sense, was there, from Mr Caporn that the officers who were to conduct the interview could not be trusted to carry out his instruction?---It's difficult - - it's difficult to say what the exact reason was. I suppose what you're saying is correct. I mean, that's - - I guess that's why I was there, to make sure that his instructions were adhered to.

Well, you'll have to explain that a bit further because I don't think we've heard that evidence before. What was it about the behaviour of Ingham or Italiano or Miller which gave rise to any such concern?---I can't - - I can't honestly say what was in Superintendent Caporn's mind. I think - - there had - -

Let me put it this way: were there differences of view about the sufficiency of the evidence expressed by those officers?-- -Yes, there was. Those officers believed that there was sufficient to charge Q2, even without any admissions.

Is that sufficient to oversee them on the day?---Well, I think so. I mean, that's what - - that's what a supervisor's role is, is to make sure that people are doing as they've been instructed.

What did you intend to do? Watch the interview and as soon as it had finished go into the room and ensure that he wasn't arrested?---No. As I say, my role there was simply - - was purely oversight. It was just to provide feedback to Superintendent Caporn as to what had occurred and to - - just to make sure that things went according to plan, according to the instructions.

Did you sit and watch the interview?---No.

In any event, were you present when the interview was terminated?---Yes, I was.

Did you take the phone call from Mr McPhee?---No, I didn't.

Did you knock on the door?---Not to my knowledge I didn't. I think Detective Senior Sergeant Miller stopped the interview.

Were you present during a conversation between and Ingham? ---No. I wasn't at the interview room when the interview was stopped.

So did you see any of those events?---No.

You were told about them later?---I was in the office. The interview room is at the end of the office. I was somewhere in the office but I wasn't present there when the interview was stopped.

MR PETTIT: Do you have a view on the propriety of terminating the interview at the request of a lawyer?---Absolutely. It's exactly what should be done.

Even though the person being interviewed did not at that point make a request?---The solicitor making the contact made the request and my recollection is that he made the request to speak to his client, and once that occurs, I mean, that's - - it goes without saying that that's what occurs.

Shortly after that interview I think you instructed Detective Italiano to speak to Q1. I may have that wrong actually. That might have been Mr Miller who did that?---I don't recall taking any active part in telling people what to do that day.

Yes. I'll check that. Subsequently, Detective Italiano went on leave and I think the file was transferred to another officer?---Some time later, yes. She was - - Detective Italiano had actually been transferred - - -

WITNESS: - - - had actually been transferred prior to all this occurring. She'd actually been promoted to detective and had actually been transferred, prior to all this occurring, to City Detectives, and she'd actually been retained at the Child Abuse Unit so she could continue with this job. An agreement was made where she went on leave and when she came back from leave, she was to start at her new post.

MR PETTIT: Was any thought given to her retaining the file, notwithstanding the transfer?---Not that I'm aware of, no.

Were you party to the decision to transfer the file to Detective Hawes?---I can't specifically recall. I probably would have been involved in the decision in some way, but it was a decision that was taken within the unit, from my memory.

At that stage, had you known Detective Hawes from earlier contact?---No.

Did you know anything about her?---Not really, no.

Are you aware that she had very limited experience in child abuse cases?---My understanding is, is that she was a senior detective, an experienced investigator and any experienced investigator, no matter what offence is being investigated, knows what is required in relation to the burden of proof, what corroboration is all about. It's not a specific thing that's just associated with child abuse cases. So, she was considered well and truly capable of doing the job.

By you?---Certainly by the group that I was part of when the decision was made.

By you?---My experience with Detective Hawes was that she was competent and capable, but I hadn't had a lot of contact with her.

Thank you, Inspector. I think that completes all I wanted to ask you. Is there anything about the conduct of the matter that you think should be brought to the attention of the Royal Commission, and which you have not so far given evidence about?---Other than to say that - - no, no. Other than to say that it's very fortunate that Mr Caporn decided to review the file. Other than to make that point, no.

And you say that, for what reason?---Oh, because of the impact that this matter would have had on Q1, on Q2 and on the Police Service.

And you say that with the benefit of hindsight?---Absolutely, yes.

MR PETTIT: It wasn't particularly your view at the time, though?---I fully supported the review. I fully supported that - - as I said, I hadn't seen the case, so I don't know what evidence was there, but fully supported the fact that Mr Caporn wanted to review the file.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Mr Hammond? You may crossexamine the witness as to any evidence which impacts upon your clients.

MR HAMMOND: Yes. May it please you, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR HAMMOND:

MR HAMMOND: Inspector Brandham, do you personally say that the case officers involved at the Child Sexual Abuse Unit had lost perspective in relation to this matter?---I think that the officers involved believed that there was sufficient evidence to charge Q2 and that they were wrong.

Do you say that they had lost perspective in relation to the matter?---I think I just answered that question.

So, you believe there wasn't enough - - it was your view that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute this matter?---It was the view of a senior Crown counsel that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute this matter.

Yeah, but you had never personally reviewed the file?---No, that's right

Which officers do you say were wrong, that were working on the case?---I was told that - - -

MR HAMMOND: - - - on the case?---I was told that - - that - - specifically that Senior Sergeant Miller believed it was a winnable brief, that Detective Italiano believed that there was sufficient evidence to proceed, and even Detective Sergeant Ingham believed there was sufficient evidence for it to proceed.

And you believed that they were all wrong?---I believed that the Crown counsel - senior Crown counsel made a decision that there was insufficient evidence to charge Q2, and I would say that that person, that senior counsel, is probably in the best position to make that decision.

And you went on to say, and is it your personal position, that these officers couldn't be trusted? Is that your personal position?---It was my position that that - - it was my position that they had to be overseen to make sure that Mr Caporn's instructions were carried out.

Because you couldn't trust them?---It was my position that we had to ensure that Mr Caporn's instructions were carried out.

Are you able to answer this question? Did you trust the case officers working on the file?---In what regard?

That they would do the job efficiently?---Which part of the job are we referring to? If you're referring to their ability to - -

I'm talking about the - - ?--- - - conduct the interview, or you're - - their ability to conduct an investigation, then I'd say yes, they were more than capable of doing that.

What aspect - - did you have any lack of trust in Constable Italiano at the time?---No.

No. In any respect whatsoever in relation to her performance?---No.

Did you have any lack of trust in police officer Connoley at the time?---At the time I'm not sure what Detective Connoley's role was in this.

Did you have any lack of trust in her?---No.

In respect to any aspect of her performance?---No.

Did you have any lack of trust in police officer Miller?--- Yes.

In relation to his performance on this file?---Yes.

MR HAMMOND: And what was that lack of trust?---Well, basically he had a problem remembering instructions that were given to him.

So you didn't trust him?---What do you mean by trust?

That you had no faith in him as an officer?---No, that's not true at all.

Did you have any lack of trust in Mr Mansas? Police officer Mansas?---I'm not sure what Mr Mansas's role in this was.

But he was at the Child Sexual Abuse Unit at the time that you were there?---Yes.

Did you have any lack of trust in him?---Again, what do you mean by trust?

You used the word?---Yeah.

Did you have any lack of trust in Mr Mansas?---In relation to the performance of his duty?

Yes?---In this particular matter?

Yes?---I don't know what his role was in this particular matter.

So I can put it to you that you didn't have any lack of confidence in Mr Mansas in relation to this matter because you didn't know what his role was?---I don't know what his role was, no.

So it's not your evidence, is it, that the four officers - - all four officers couldn't be trusted?---I - - did I - - I'm not sure what I said exactly. Was it the fact that I didn't trust all the officers, or did I clarify that later in my evidence to say that I was there to ensure that Mr Caporn's instructions were carried out? Because that's my evidence.

Your evidence was also that you believed that the four officers were not doing the job properly?---Did I say that?

Yes, you did say that?---Specifically?

Can't you remember what you said 10 minutes ago? No, it's a serious question?---Well, I'm - -

I expect a witness - - ?---I'm - - I know it's a serious question but - -

Do you recall saying 10 minute - - do you recall saying - - ?- -- - - you're basically trying to put words in my mouth.

MR HAMMOND: - - 10 minutes ago - - ?---Mr Hammond - -

 - - that these officers weren't doing their job properly?

COMMISSIONER: Mr Hammond - -

WITNESS: Mr Hammond, I've explained - -

COMMISSIONER: Mr Hammond, if you can just start the question again, please.

MR HAMMOND: Do you recall saying 10 minutes - - ?---If I can say - - if I can say - -

Could you direct the witness, Mr Commissioner, to listen to the question?

COMMISSIONER: If you will put the question, Mr Hammond.

MR HAMMOND: Did you say 10 minutes ago in your evidence in-chief that the officers were not doing the job properly?--- My evidence is - - and if I've said that then I retract that. My evidence is that I was there to ensure that Mr Caporn's instructions were adhered to.

Well, let's get this clear. If you did say that, then you retract it, don't you?---My evidence is is that Senior Sergeant Miller had shown some behaviour which concerned both Mr Caporn and myself, and that I was there to ensure that Mr Caporn's instructions were carried out.

But if you said it in relation to the four officers that they were not doing their job properly, you retract that, don't you?---In relation to - - I've already said I think, in answer to your question - - -

WITNESS: - - - to your question, that I did not have any concerns regarding the competence of Detective Italiano, Detective Connoley or Detective Sergeant Ingham.

MR PETTIT: Commissioner, if it helps - I'm always reluctant to substitute my memory for anyone else's - my memory is that the witness said in this respect that some of the officers had lost perspective, rather than that they were not up to the task.

MR HAMMOND: I wrote it down verbatim, Mr Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER: Well, we'll look at the transcript.

MR HAMMOND: When you came to the Child Sexual Abuse Unit, did you have any experience in sexual abuse matters?---In sexual abuse matters or in child sexual abuse matters?

Child sexual abuse?---No.

And you've been friendly with Superintendent Caporn for a number of years?---Absolutely. Yes.

Close friends?---Oh, work colleagues. Work together.

Socialise together?---On occasion.

And you discussed the case concerning Q1 and Q2 with Mr Caporn on numerous occasions?---As I've said in my evidence, I briefed Superintendent Caporn on any issues that I was briefed on.

You discussed the case on numerous occasions with Mr Caporn?-- -I guess the answer to that is yes, if - - it goes along with what I've just said.

And you've given evidence to the Royal Commission that it was a significant inquiry because of the impact the investigation would have. What was that impact?---In relation to -

The inquiry into Q2. What was the impact that that would have?---Well, charging a person with the profile of this person would have had a significant impact.

And in your view - -?---Which I thought would have been fairly obvious.

And in your view, charging someone of that profile would have been detrimental to the Police Service?---Absolutely not. Where - - I don't know where you got that impression from.

MR HAMMOND: Well, you did say it would have been the story of the year?---Exactly. It would have been.

Do you see that as being detrimental to the Police Service?--- It would be if we'd have charged the person with the evidence that was available at that time, as was suggested by the four - - the officers from Child Abuse. As I said in my evidence also, the Police Service can, you know, be thankful that Superintendent Caporn reviewed it. Otherwise the DPP would have nolle'd the prosecution.

You've never disagreed with a direction given to you by Superintendent Caporn, have you?---On many occasions.

And you don't recall a heated discussion with Police Officer Connoley in relation to the arrest of Q2?---I've never had a heated - - well, I've never had a heated discussion with Detective Connoley.

Well, you agreed with Police Officer Connoley, didn't you, that Q2 should be arrested?---There was some discussion as to whether he should be arrested or whether he should be summonsed. I can't specifically recall what the discussion was, but it was a - - if it was between myself and Detective Connoley, it was a discussion - certainly not a heated discussion.

You said a few moments ago to Mr Pettit that you were adamant that it was proper to arrest Q2. Is that still your evidence?---I didn't say "adamant." I never used that word.

Sorry, I withdraw that. You agreed that it was proper to arrest Q2?---As I said a short moment ago, there was some discussion as to whether he should be arrested or summonsed. At the end of the day Mr Caporn instructed, at that stage, that he should be proceeded against the same as everybody else.

And what is "the same as everybody else"?---I'm not 100 per cent sure, to be quite honest with you. I'm thinking now as well, that because this is a matter that's 20 years old - -

You're an inspector. How is everyone else treated in this situation?---As I said, I'm not - - as you pointed out, I'm not experienced in how those specific issues are dealt with at Child Abuse Unit. At the end of the day - -

Superintendent - -?---At the end of the day, it's a decision that's taken at the time. If a matter is historic, it's not improper for a person to be summonsed.

MR HAMMOND: Superintendent Caporn directed you to proceed with Q2 in the same manner as everybody else. Was that the direction?---That was our discussion, yes; the basis of our discussion.

And he directed you to treat Q2 the same as everybody else?--- Not in - - not in - - well, yeah, I suppose a direction. Yeah. It was a discussion and he said he should be treated the same as everybody else.

MR HAMMOND: And what is being treated like - - and what did you understand that direction to mean, that he be treated like everybody else?---Exactly that, that it would be a decision taken at the time. Bear in mind that this all occurred long before the review was done.

And the decision of the Child Abuse Unit to arrest Q2 was revoked after Mr Caporn reviewed the file?---Mr Caporn reviewed the file and instructed that - - well, and advised everyone that there was insufficient evidence in his view and in the view of the Crown prosecutor - - there was insufficient evidence at that stage to proceed, so of course he wouldn't have been arrested, because at that stage there was insufficient evidence.

Well, you can't shed any light on what it means to be treated like everybody else, what you understood that to mean? ---It means it's a decision taken at the time. As I said, I'm not 100 per cent aware what the decision is. If it's a case that's 20 years old, more than 20 years old, it may be a case that a summons is appropriate. It also maybe a case that in the same circumstances an arrest is appropriate. It's a decision taken at the time.

So there's no definition that can be given to the words "being treated like everybody else", is there?---Well, other than - - other than the general term that he should be treated the same as anybody else, no, I suppose not.

It's meaningless?---I don't think it's meaningless but - -

You can't help?--- - - I'm not going to - - I'm not going to argue with you.

You reported to Superintendent Caporn in your position as inspector?---Yes.

How many files do you envisage you handled whilst you were at the Child Abuse Unit?---What do you mean?

Did you have the conduct of many files while you were there? ---What do you mean? Investigations?

Yes?---No. That role, that managerial role, doesn't do investigations.

But you were there to oversee matters?---Yeah, in the chain of command. Yeah.

And you never - - and would you describe yourself as the most senior officer at the unit at the time?---I wasn't actually at the unit. I was in the same building but, as I said, I was  down on the ground floor which is adjacent to the sexual assault squad.

MR HAMMOND: But you were more senior than any other officer in the unit at the time?---Yes.

And you never reviewed this file?---No.

Superintendent Caporn told you why he wanted to review the file?---I can't specifically recall if he told me why.

He told you that he wanted to review the file because it could impact on the position of the deputy commissioner, Mr Brennan? ---Definitely not.

He never raised with you the sensitivity of charging Q2 in light of Mr Brennan's friendship with Q1?---Definitely not.

Sorry, Q2?---No, definitely not.

COMMISSIONER: This is going beyond the scope of the cross examination, Mr Hammond.

MR HAMMOND: It's been put by two - - have you any knowledge of the contents of the file in relation to Q1 and Q2? ---Not specifically, no. As I said, I've not reviewed any of the - -

Have you seen the memorandums that have been exchanged between the various police officers on the file?---Not that I can specifically recall, no. They would've probably come - - if they've gone up to Superintendent Caporn they would've gone through me probably, but I've got no specific recollection of them.

Do you have any knowledge of the friendship between the deputy commissioner and Q2?---I still don't.

You don't have any knowledge of it?---I don't have any knowledge whether there's a friendship or not - -

WITNESS: - - - whether there's a friendship or not.

MR HAMMOND: Could the witness be shown the memorandum that senior counsel referred him to? I think it was D1012885. Do you have your notes there, Inspector Brandham?---I do.

Can I see them, please? You'd agree, Inspector Brandham, that this is a very extensive memorandum concerning the case, to Superintendent Caporn?---Yes.

And you were asked to give him a very extensive memorandum regarding the case?---I was asked to provide a memorandum. That's what I did. I can't remember the exact details of the conversation, as to what I was asked for.

You can't recall or assist the Commission as to why you were asked to produce such an extensive memorandum?---No, I can't. Not off the top of my head, sorry.

Surely, Inspector, you can remember why you received an instruction to produce a memorandum of that detail?---(No audible response.)

If you could flick to page 2, please?---No, as I say, specifically I can't. I may be able to shed some light on that, with reference to my notes, but without reference to them, no.

You were aware at the time that Detective Sergeant Ingham believed that there was enough evidence for charges to be brought?---Yeah. Detective Sergeant Ingham made that point clear.

If we could turn to page 4, please? And you're aware that Detective Senior Sergeant Miller thought there was enough evidence on which to proceed?---Yes.

And you're clear about the instruction from Acting Detective Superintendent Caporn which appears through the middle of page 4, advised that he would fully review the case and instructed that nothing further was to occur until the review is completed. That's correct?---Which paragraph is that?

I think it's six?---Yes, that's correct.

Do you recall why, then, Acting Detective Superintendent Caporn gave that instruction, that nothing was to occur, until he had reviewed the file?---No, I don't recall why. I can assume it was so that he could review the file. To satisfy himself that there was sufficient evidence to proceed.

So, it's fair to say that until that review was conducted, not one further step was to be taken on the matter? All investigation would cease until that review had been carried out?---Well, the next - - my recollection is that the next planned step, if you like, wasn't for some time - - wasn't going to occur for some time anyway. The next planned step was the interview and - - so it's simply a case of reviewing the file to satisfy himself - - as I say, I'm speculating here, because it's in his mind.

MR HAMMOND: You don't know?---It's in his mind.

At the bottom of page 4, Inspector, the first dot point is:

"He had examined all the evidence."

Is that Superintendent Caporn you're referring to?---Yes.

MR HAMMOND:

"Superintendent Caporn examined all the evidence and found that these offences had more than likely occurred in the manner described by the complainant."

WITNESS: That's correct.

MR HAMMOND: So that was Superintendent Caporn's view, was it?---Yes, it was.

He believed that these offences had occurred?---He believed that the statement of the complainant supported - - yeah, that they'd occurred.

And he made that known to you in discussions as well?---Yes.

MR HAMMOND:

"Superintendent Caporn had examined all the alleged corroborative material associated with the brief, and found that they did not support the alleged crimes."

WITNESS: That's correct.

MR HAMMOND: Isn't it the case that you don't need - - -

MR HAMMOND: - - - that you don't need, on your understanding, corroboration for a successful prosecution?---That's a new one on me. My understanding is that you always seek corroboration to obtain a successful prosecution, particularly in a case that's 20 years old.

But it's not necessary, is it, for a case to succeed that you always - - ?---Absolutely it is.

So your - - ?---I don't know of any instances where you can't - - or I can't think of any specific instances where you wouldn't seek to find corroboration in a criminal matter.

I'm not saying you wouldn't seek to find it. I'm saying a case could be mounted without corroborative material.

COMMISSIONER: You're saying here that the corroborative material wasn't - - didn't support it.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, that's correct. But I was putting a slightly different proposition so - -

COMMISSIONER: I know you were, but there are two aspects; that he believed Q1; that he's pointing out there was no corroborative evidence.

MR HAMMOND: But my proposition, Mr Commissioner, is that even if there is no corroborative evidence - -

COMMISSIONER: It's possible.

MR HAMMOND: Yes.

COMMISSIONER: But it's running a risk.

MR HAMMOND: Well, I suppose - - I mean, the submission we would make in relation to that, Mr Commissioner, that no cases would be brought - - a lot of cases wouldn't be brought, and there are indeed many, where there is no corroborative material in sexual abuse matters.

COMMISSIONER: Well, each one is judged on its circumstances.

MR HAMMOND: Yes.

(TO WITNESS): If we could turn to page 6, thanks. Sorry; 5. The last dot point, Inspector Brandham, is that Superintendent Caporn further instructed that no matter what came from the interview, no action was to be taken against Q2 until he had further reviewed the confessional material?--- Yes. That's correct. It's also worthy of mention, noting those other dot points in there, in that Ms Vicker concurred with his finding that there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed at that stage.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, I have read that?---And the fact that - - that - - that all other avenues of inquiry should be explored in relation to obtaining supporting evidence.

So the instruction from the superintendent was, regardless of what was said at the interview, Q2 was to be released?--- That's correct.

And I put it to you then that regardless of the risk to any complainant, that he was still to be released. There was no qualification to that statement, was there?---I can't remember the specific instruction.

Well, I put it to you that there was no qualification to Superintendent Caporn's statement regarding the release of Q2?---I can't remember the specific - - the content of the conversation with Mr Caporn.

You'd agree that in the memorandum there's no qualification, is there?---That's correct. Yes.

And Superintendent Caporn told you that he had lost faith in officers at the Child Sexual Abuse Unit? Did Superintendent Caporn tell you that?---I don't recall that.

Did you ever access the file concerning Q2 whilst you were at the Child Sexual Abuse Unit?---No. As I said, I've not - - didn't have anything to do with the file.

And after this memorandum was provided and the briefing took place, what was, as you - - what was the plan in relation to Q2 that was going to be pursued by the Child Sexual Abuse Unit, as you understood it?---I'm sorry?

What was the plan of action in relation - - ?---At what stage are we talking about? Post-interview or - - -

WITNESS: - - - about? Post-interview or - -

MR HAMMOND: Post the interview?---So once the interview is completed?

Yes?---And that his solicitor has stopped the interview and he'd been released?

Yes?---After that?

Yes?---And that all other avenues of inquiry were to be pursued to see if there was any - - any evidence at all that could be gained that would support a prosecution.

Mr Commissioner, there's a few matters that arise from the diary entries. I'm wondering if I could have 2 or 3 minutes to consider those?

COMMISSIONER: All right. We'll adjourn until 11.30.

MR HAMMOND: If it please you, sir.

AT 11.03 AM HEARING ADJOURNED

AT 11.35 AM HEARING RESUMED:

COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hammond?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, thank you, Mr Commissioner, and thank you for allowing that adjournment, and thank you to counsel assisting for the photocopies. I'm wondering if the witness could be shown copies of his diary notes. I don't know whether he has been given a copy or not. I actually have the original.

(TO WITNESS): I'm not sure, inspector, but you should have as the first diary note - - if you could tell me what it is actually, what date it bears?---There's no date on the page. It starts "Liaise Evelyn Vicker" at the top of the page.

Oh, yes, I'm with you now. You kept notes of what you were doing in relation to certain files?---Just, yeah, day journal notes. Yes.

And they were fairly comprehensive notes?---Not really, no. Just points that at the time when I was writing them - -

If you look at that page, for instance, that you have now by way of example, midway through the page you've referred to Cris Italiano and Q2?---Yes.

And you refer to a media release. Can you tell us what that's about?---It was obviously a conversation with Cris Italiano regarding the matter that she was investigating and those were the issues that were discussed.

And there it says: "Mark Ingham is to assess brief." Was he given that responsibility by you?---I can't remember specifically the context of that conversation, just merely that they're the notes that are made so "Mark Ingham to assess brief" may not necessarily have been an instruction that I gave. It just may simply have been that - -

And further down the page, inspector, it says: "Normal media release only." What's that supposed to mean?---Well, it goes along the lines with, as I said, he was to be treated like anybody else.

So it was envisaged at this stage that Q2 would be arrested and a media release would issue?---Not necessarily, no. It was just an issue that was discussed. Bear in mind that at that stage I was being told that there was more than sufficient evidence to charge him, no matter what he said at interview.

If I can move to the next - - before we move on, is it still your evidence that you had no knowledge of any relationship between the deputy commissioner and Q2?---I have no - - I still have no knowledge of any relationship between the deputy commissioner and Q2.

MR HAMMOND: And is it still your evidence that you had no knowledge of any sensitivity that may arise insofar as charging Q2 was concerned in relation to the deputy commissioner?---I don't believe I've given any evidence in relation to that matter.

Yes, but did you have any knowledge that that may be a sensitive issue for the deputy commissioner?---If you could - - I'm not sure what the question is, sorry.

In October 1998 were you aware that charging or bringing Q2 into the police station may have an impact on the deputy commissioner?---I think my evidence to the Royal Commission has been that should Q2 be charged it would have an impact on the whole service.

But did you believe it would have an impact on the deputy commissioner?---In what regard?

I'm just asking you whether you believed it would have any impact whatsoever?---It would have an impact on the commissioner.

I'll take you to the diary entry of the 23rd of October? ---Yeah.

And that appears five or six lines down the page?---Yeah.

And four dot points down: "Liaise with Cris Italiano re Q2 issue." Do you see that?---Yeah.

Then it goes on to say: "Meet Mick" - that's Miller, is it? ---Yes, it is.

"And Cris re Q2 issue"?---Yes.

"Treat him like all others"?---Yes, it's as I've said - - -

WITNESS: - - - it's as I've said

MR HAMMOND: "No media leaks"?---Yes.

That was a direction by you, that there was - -?---It's not a direction. This is a discussion, don't forget. This is not - - I'm not - - these are not directions by me. These are things that are discussed.

So, this is a note of a discussion between you, police officer Miller and police officer Italiano?---Yes. I guess, yeah.

"To be kept in-house. Detective Sergeant Ingham to figurehead inquiry"?---Yeah, as I said, that was that, what I mentioned earlier, about the discussion that was had, that he would run the inquiry, that - -

You were happy with that?---Sorry?

And you were happy with that?---Absolutely, yeah.

"Proceed by arrest" and you've already said you had no problem with that?---Yeah.

"Briefing note on issues by Monday"?---Yeah.

"Explain Mr Brennan's interest, professional only"?---Yeah.

What does that mean?---It means that Mr Brennan - - there was a - - there'd been comment that Mr Brennan had been briefed. There was - - if I can recall, there was some comment had been made within the unit that - - about a possible association between Mr Brennan and Q2.

So, you did know at the time that there was a possible association between the deputy commissioner - -?---No, I didn't know anything. I said that it had been - - there'd been a mention of it. I didn't know anything. I said Mr Caporn had told me that he'd briefed Mr Brennan and that there was some comment had been made within the unit.

I won't argue with you, inspector, but I don't recall that being your evidence?---I haven't given any evidence in relation to that.

Well, what was the reason behind those words, "Explain Mr Brennan's interest" - is it supposed to have the word "as" before "interest" and "professional"?---Oh, I don't know. As I said, it's obviously a matter that was discussed at the time.

So you have a memory lapse in relation to why that's there?--- I don't have a memory lapse. As I said, there's a lot of things that you put to me, Mr Hammond, that I haven't had clear recollection on. This is a note that's been made by me on the 23rd of the 10th 1998.

MR HAMMOND: Yeah, we can all see that?---I can't remember specifically the conversation that was had.

Can you explain to the Commissioner what was discussed at that meeting about explaining Mr Brennan's interest, professional only?---Well, it speaks for itself. Explain Mr Brennan's interest, professional only.

And who is that to be explained to?---I'm not sure.

Are you covering up things, inspector?---Oh, please, Mr Hammond.

Do you agree with this proposition, that that is shorthand for saying "Explain to the media that Mr Brennan's interest is only professional"?---Explain to the media? Where did you get that from?

I have put those words to you, as you have abbreviated - -?--- There's no mention of the media - -

No, there's no - -?--- - - anywhere in there. In the context of that five, six words, there's no mention of the media in there. I don't know where you get that from. So, the answer is "No".

Well, after the words, "Explain Mr Brennan's interest, professional only - likely to occur", what does "likely to occur" mean?---I have no idea.

So, you've forgotten that as well?---I don't even - -

MR PETTIT: Well, I think it's part of an expression, "likely to occur, Monday 2/11."

COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MR HAMMOND: Is that - - counsel assisting has readily jumped to assist you. Is that the position? Is that right?

MR PETTIT: Well, I haven't jumped to assist. I've jumped to put it in a proper perspective, with respect.

MR HAMMOND: Well, I thought it was this witness giving evidence, not counsel assisting.

COMMISSIONER: Well, I think the question was wrong, because it does follow on, "Monday the 2nd." "Likely to occur, Monday the 2nd."

MR HAMMOND: Can I clarify that, Mr Commissioner?

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Certainly.

MR HAMMOND: Inspector, do you agree with counsel assisting's proposition that "likely to occur, Monday 2 November - -" is that what it says, or "2" something? Do you know what that means?---Again, it's - - all I can suggest was - - is that the - - the interview, as planned at that stage, prior to it being reviewed by Mr Caporn - - the interview was likely to occur on the 2nd of the 11th. I think. I don't know.

"Advise Dave". That's Superintendent Caporn, isn't it?--- Yeah.

"And okay it." Is that right?---That's what it says.

MR HAMMOND: If we go to the next page, Wednesday 28 October, starting at 7.30 am?---Yep.

You've highlighted an entry - just prior to Wednesday 28 October - which says, "1830. Liaise with Dave -" which is Superintendent Caporn?---Yep.

"- and Jo Connoley re Q2 issue - -"?---Yep.

"- - re briefing for Mr Brennan"?---Yep.

What was that briefing about?---No idea.

No idea?---No.

Are you intimidated by the fact that the deputy commissioner is sitting here listening to you?---Do I have to answer that? Because that's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous comment, Mr Hammond.

Well, it's a question?---It's not a question. The answer is "No." If the question is: am I intimidated by Mr Brennan being in the back of the court - no, I'm not, not at all.

You have no idea what that means, that entry?---It seems fairly straightforward to me. "Liaise Dave" - Mr Caporn - "and Jo Connoley, re Q2 issue, re briefing for Mr Brennan."

And what was the briefing about?---I have no idea. Probably in relation to what was to occur in relation to Q2.

So your best estimate is that Mr Brennan was to be briefed in relation to what was to happen to Q2?---I've already said that Mr Brennan was briefed in relation to the matter. As I said, it's an issue that had major ramifications for the Police Service.

Okay. Well, let's go further down under "Wednesday 28 October" six dot point, "To Curtin House and meet Dave re Q2 issue. Has told Brennan he intends reviewing brief"?---Yep.

Do you remember Superintendent Caporn telling you that he had told the deputy commissioner that he would review the brief?-- -No, I don't remember him telling me that, but that's what I wrote down, so he must have.

And further down the page, dot point 2, "Child Abuse Unit." I assume that means you attended there, does it?---Yep.

"And liaise with Mick"?---Yep.

MR HAMMOND: That's Miller, isn't it?---Yep.

The officer in charge?---Yes.

 And he was the officer in charge, notwithstanding that you had no - - you didn't trust him, or you believed he wasn't a good officer?---I didn't say - - I haven't said that at all.

Didn't you have problems with Mr Miller?---Did I have problems with Mr Miller?

Yes. Didn't you have a lack of trust in Mr Miller because of his memory?---Yes. Yes.

And he remained in charge of this matter, notwithstanding that?---Well, he was - - I guess he was in charge of the unit, of the Child Abuse Unit.

But you were happy for him to be in charge?---Detective Senior Sergeant Miller is a very experienced officer.

It goes on to say "Discuss Q2 review issue as per Dave's instructions." Do you see that?---Yes.

And it goes on to say "Further" - something is crossed out - "action re charging Q2 put on hold until evidence reviewed." Then there's an asterisk "VIP." Does that stand for Very Important Person?---I guess so, yes.

Dash - "let's make sure it's right"?---Exactly. I mean that makes - - that's the whole crux of this, "Let's make sure it's right."

And if we look at your diary entries - and I won't take you through it verbatim, you'll be pleased to hear - there was considerable time devoted by you, wasn't there, in relation to the supervision of this file?---It was an important issue, yes. It's - - yeah, it was an important issue. There's lots of notes throughout my diary concerning it.

If you turn to the 9th of December 1998, is that your next - - ?---Yep.

About six or seven dot points down, it says "Liaise with Mick re additional memo re Mr Brennan"?---Yep.

And it says something, "I see (...name suppressed...) Do you recall what that was about?---Does that relate to a - - a memo that - - -

WITNESS: - - - a memo that Mr Miller, Senior Sergeant Miller, delivered to Mr Caporn or told Mr Caporn about on that day that had been given to him by Detective Italiano some time earlier.

MR HAMMOND: "It does relate to memos I - - "?---Yes.

So you do recall the issue?---Yes, I know what you're talking about.

So what I want to put to you, inspector, is that you were throughout the course of this inquiry totally cognisant of the fact that this inquiry would have an impact on the deputy commissioner?---I think I've already answered that. It would have an impact on the whole service.

I'd like you to answer the question insofar as it relates to the deputy commissioner?---Well, it would have an impact on the assistant commissioner, Mr Caporn, myself, the deputy commissioner, Brennan, the Commissioner of Police and the rest of the service.

Inspector, you don't mention the commissioner or any other senior ranking officers in these diary notes. You speak about Mr Brennan. Why do you speak about him generally in these diary notes?---Because Mr - - as I said, as I said to you earlier, Mr Caporn said that he briefed him and that there was some innuendo within the office about - - that I know nothing about, about a possible relationship, friendship, whatever, between (...name suppressed...) and Mr - - sorry, Q2 and Mr Brennan.

Which you knew about in October 1998?---What?

The innuendo?---It was going on in October 1998.

Yes?---There was some discussion in the office, yeah.

Which you knew about all along?---There was a - - there were some comments being made within the office.

And those comments were made to you?---I was aware of them, yes.

How were you aware of them?---They must have been said in my presence.

I seek to tender the diary, Mr Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER: Sorry?

MR HAMMOND: I seek to tender those diary entries.

COMMISSIONER: Yes, well, they'll be - -

MR HAMMOND: Actually, I should tender the whole - - the original - -

COMMISSIONER: No, I don't think that's your position actually, but they will be part of the exhibits. No, they are going to be part of a bundle.

MR HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr Commissioner.

 COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Power?

MR POWER: Thank you, Mr Commissioner.

CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR POWER:

MR POWER: There's just one matter that I need to ask you about. You were referred a while ago to a document - -

MR HAMMOND: Sir, I'm wondering what statements this witness has made which are adverse to Mr Power's client.

MR POWER: I would have thought it arises from the crossexamination of my learned friend.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Power's client is - - there are allegations made against him and he's entitled to pursue those.

MR HAMMOND: Just reading your ruling again this morning, sir, I understood it to be if it didn't come from the words of this - - the mouth of this witness then that can't be - -

COMMISSIONER: I think he has a broader - -

MR HAMMOND: Yes.

COMMISSIONER: He's the one who's subject to inquiry; your clients are not.

MR HAMMOND: Yes.

COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MR POWER: Thank you, Mr Commissioner.

(TO WITNESS): You were referred a moment ago, as I was saying, to a document numbered D1012885. I would like you to look at that again. Can we go to the last page of that to pick up the date? You'll see it's dated the 8th of December 1998?---Yes.

MR POWER: We know that a written complaint was made to the police on the 1st of December 1998, a week before this memorandum was written by you - - -

MR POWER: - - - was written by you?---I'm not sure when a - - I'm aware of a complaint, but I'm not sure when it was made.

Well, I think you can take it as read that the complaint was made to police on the 1st of December 1998 by Q1?---I'll accept that position.

Wasn't this memorandum, this detailed memorandum, written by you in response, in effect, to a request for information following on that complaint?---Specifically, I can't recall, but that would - - that would answer the reason why this memorandum was put in.

Yes, and it might also explain why it is so detailed, might it not?---Absolutely, yeah.

Thank you, Mr Commissioner, I have no need to ask any further questions.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Mr Pettit, is there anything you have?

MR PETTIT: No, nothing further, thank you, sir.

NO RE-EXAMINATION

COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you very much indeed. You're excused from any further attendance under the summons. If we can retain your diary for the time being, thank you.

WITNESS WITHDREW