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 7th day of July, 2003 Counsel Assisting Mr S.D. Hall Copyright in this document is reserved to the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia. Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the Attorney General is prohibited.pg .07/07/2003 14676

A1/1 POLICE AT 9.49 AM HEARING COMMENCED: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Robbins? MR ROBBINS: May it please you, sir, I wonder if I could just raise a preliminary point which impacts upon my client, (...name suppressed...). You'll remember, Mr Commissioner, that counsel assisting put to (...name suppressed...) a question pertaining to an alleged meeting between (...name suppressed...) and Mr Doug Warnock at a premises described as "Ponte Vecchio". Now, that was put to (...name suppressed...) in circumstances where I had no instructions from (...name suppressed...) as to whether or not any such meeting between Mr Warnock and (...name suppressed...) had taken place. My preliminary instructions are that (...name suppressed...) was at the Ponte Vecchio restaurant. He was not with Mr Doug Warnock, and to the extent that counsel assisting, no doubt acting upon information provided to him by offices of this Commission, if it now be the case that the Commission is of the position that there was no such meeting between (...name suppressed...) and Mr Warnock, could I ask that that misidentification be corrected today? I understand from the way that the question be put and the answer - - COMMISSIONER: Have you taken this up with Mr Hall? MR ROBBINS: I haven't, sir, no, because - - COMMISSIONER: Well, that's the appropriate thing to do. MR ROBBINS: Yes. But I want it on the public record that you correct the position, sir, because it seems to me that the officers and Mr Hall are acting for you, as it were. I don't know what position you may be taking on the matter, but it needs to be corrected now because - - COMMISSIONER: Well, the appropriate thing is always, Mr Robbins, to consult with counsel assisting if there's a matter that arises like that. If necessary, a correction will be made, but there's little point in addressing these remarks in public in this way. MR ROBBINS: Well, there is a point, sir, because when counsel assisting opened this case he pointed out that the long arm of corruption extended into the present day, and one of the central points to this particular reference is to give examples of how that long arm of corruption extends to today. Well, so far as my client's concerned it doesn't. COMMISSIONER: Well, I'll ask Mr Hall what the position is. Yes, Mr Hall? .07/07/2003 14677

A1/1 POLICE MR HALL: Well, the position is that those questions were put and the responses were given by (...name suppressed...), and there's no intention to call any evidence to the contrary. The evidence before you is that there was no such meeting and I don't intend to challenge the evidence given by (...name suppressed...) in that regard. MR ROBBINS: I'm obliged to know that, because normally when counsel, as it were, for the Crown puts a question that's done in the circumstances where those are the appropriate instructions; that's what the Commission's positions. COMMISSIONER: Well, yes, Mr Robbins. It's not a trial where you have to - - MR ROBBINS: I appreciate that, sir, but it's very distressing for my client to have these - - COMMISSIONER: Well, the position has been - - MR ROBBINS: - - matters being put as if he were liaising with - - COMMISSIONER: Mr Robbins - - MR ROBBINS: - - Mr Warnock - - COMMISSIONER: Mr Robbins, the position is - - MR ROBBINS: - - 2 days after the summons has been served upon him. COMMISSIONER: Mr Robbins, please. The position has been clarified if there's no allegation against your client on that basis. MR ROBBINS: It's just an example, sir, of how a misidentification can occur and how serious this is. COMMISSIONER: Well, yes; thank you. MR ROBBINS: You'll know that the history of the common law is - - COMMISSIONER: Mr Robbins, we have to - - MR ROBBINS: - - littered with cases of misidentification. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, there's no misidentification here. The evidence of your client has been accepted. MR ROBBINS: Well, that's the first time I've heard about that, and I - - .07/07/2003 14678

A1/1 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Well, you might have heard earlier had you asked Mr Hall. MR ROBBINS: Well, the thing is, sir, that if Mr Hall, in answer - - in response to the answers given by my client, knew that those answers given by him were correct, then he should have approached me and said - - COMMISSIONER: But that - - that's a different - - MR ROBBINS: - - "By the way, we accept that this is a case of misidentification." COMMISSIONER: Yes. Very well. Yes, Mr Hall? MR HALL: Thank you, sir. It's intended to return to this matter now, and the hearings today should hopefully complete this matter and we can return to the Argyle matter on Wednesday, there being no public hearings tomorrow. Can I now call Douglas Warnock? COMMISSIONER: Can I have your full name, Mr Warnock? MR WARNOCK: Douglas Rodney Warnock. COMMISSIONER: Do you have any conscientious objection to taking an oath on the Bible? MR WARNOCK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER: Thank you. If you'd take the Bible and read the oath aloud, please. DOUGLAS RODNEY WARNOCK sworn: COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Sit down, please. EXAMINED BY MR HALL: MR HALL: Now, Mr Warnock, you were formerly a police officer?---Yes. And you resigned, I think, in 1998?---Yep. At that time you were a detective sergeant?---Yes. And I think you were in - - prior to that time had been the officer in charge of the Rockingham detectives?---Yes, I had. Now, in 1994 were you the officer in charge of Karratha detectives?---Yes. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14679

A2/2 POLICE MR HALL: And serving with you there were (...name suppressed...) and - - remind me?---Kingma. Kingma, yes. Now, you've been present, I think, throughout the hearings that were earlier conducted on this matter?---Yes. What's your recollection of G1? Do you have a recollection of meeting him?---Prior to this Commission, I had no recollection. Obviously the passage of time has diminished most people's memory of that time. MS PEPE: Let me interrupt. Can the witness please have one of the code - - MR HALL: Yes. MS PEPE: Thank you. WITNESS: And as for recognising G1 when he - - when he entered this room, I wouldn't have known him if I'd passed him in the street. Listening to the - - his account of what's alleged to have occurred at Hedland and having had the opportunity to review my occurrence books, I have some memory of this person. MR HALL: All right?---Conversations certainly not, but I have some memory of an operation that included this person. All right. Well, we'll go through your journals in a moment, but what is your recollection of how you first came to be acquainted with G1?---I've got - - I can't remember how I came to be acquainted with G1. I know that at Karratha, there was an operation mounted in relation to drug trafficking by this person between Karratha and Hedland. A number of other persons were involved with him, and as a result, we conducted some surveillance upon this person at Hedland and subsequently conducted a search warrant on his premises. Can I just ask you about that; was it normal for Karratha detectives to conduct an operation in Hedland?---Not abnormal. We did many jobs up there. If Hedland was busy, we'd cover their area. I know on different occasions we'd go up there to do an assault or a wounding or a sexual assault and I think there - - if I remember from reading my journal, while we were up there on - - on a surveillance operation on this chap, we actually tidied up a - - I think it was a sexual assault or a bodily harm matter - - All right?--- - - while we were up there. But in such circumstances, I assume that you would inform South Hedland that you were in their patch, so to speak?---Oh, obviously, yeah. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14680

A2/2 POLICE MR HALL: Yeah, and if that was an operation that involved not only going there and arresting someone, but conducting surveillance over a period of time, you would keep them informed as to the progress?---Yep. And you might call on them to assist you if there were warrants that needed to be executed?---Oh, absolutely. And it's the same that would be reciprocated when they came to Karratha. All right. Now, if we can turn to your journal and firstly, if we can have confidential exhibit D1021482? MS PEPE: Sir, I - - I appear for Mr Warnock and while I appreciate that confidential exhibits cannot be put on the screen, could I just simply ask if counsel assisting would be kind enough to give me the date, and then I can deal with the copies I have, rather than be left in the dark, so to speak, about the entry, if that's okay? MR HALL: I was going to put the public exhibit on the screen in a moment, but the entry is the 9th of April. MS PEPE: Thank you. MR HALL: All right. Now, you recognise that as being your journal for the 9th of April 1994?---Yep. And there's a name mentioned there. It was clearly the weekend and you were recalled to duty, and there's a name mentioned there?---Yep. And if we can then go to the public version in which that name has been blanked out, D1038148. All right. You were recalled to duty in respect of this person: "Attend to", does that say, "Attend to assault"?---"Attend to assault complaint on bus." Right?---"Interview re drugs in possession and supplier, G1, at South Hedland and three males from Perth re assault." Somebody charged, "possess cannabis, to lock-up" etcetera, and - - I can't read what time is off-duty. Right. Okay. Now, clearly you - - there was a complaint of an assault on a bus?---Yes. And you spoke to the complainant? Is that what I'm to - -?---My memory of that is - - is obviously pretty vague - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14681

A3/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - obviously pretty vague and it appears that - I would imagine, from reading that - to be recalled on a Saturday night at 8.30 at night, the uniform blokes have attended and subsequently called us to - - to go and give them a hand with the matter. MR HALL: Right. Now, it would seem that in the course of doing this inquiry, you came into some information about drugs being - - or the allegation was that the supplier was G1. Is that correct?---That's what it looks like, yep. Was that the first occasion that G1 came to your attention in that regard?---I've got no idea. Well, do you recall now that it was the complainant of the assault on the bus who raised G1's name with you?---If we - - if we take that page of the occurrence book at face value, you'd have to say well, it'd appear that he's the one that gave us the information. Whether he was or not, I - - my thoughts are he probably would, but accurate recollection's not possible. All right. Do you recall whether the name of G5 was ever linked to G1 in the course of your inquiries?---I'm not sure. I mean, throughout the - - while the Commission's been sitting here in this matter and that, obviously I've heard the name and - - and - - it's - - it's in my occurrences too. I - - I don't remember this chap at all, not at all. Mm. All right. Well, you may have heard when G1 was giving his evidence that he said G5 was permitted by one of his sons to stay in his house?---Yep. That didn't - -?---No. - - raise a recollection with you?---No, it didn't. Can I tender, Commissioner, the journal entries for the 9th of April? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 15th of April 1994 - - MR HALL: The 9th of April, sir. COMMISSIONER: Sorry, the 9th of April. The 9th of April 1994, barcoded D1021482, will be the private confidential exhibit 2054C. Could I have the barcode for the public document? MR HALL: D1038148. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14682

A3/3 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Is the confidential version the one that I gave? MR HALL: Yes, that's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER: Ending in 1482? MR HALL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER: And the public version, barcoded D10381 - - MR HALL: 48. COMMISSIONER: - - 48 will be exhibit 2054. EXHIBIT 2054C Mr Hall DATE 9.4.94 Confidential - extract from journal of D.R. Warnock. Barcode D1021482. EXHIBIT 2054 Mr Hall DATE 9.4.94 Edited version - extract from journal of D.R. Warnock. Barcode D1038148. MR HALL: Now, if we can turn to the 15th of April we can see the confidential version firstly, D1021483. You can see in the fifth and sixth lines of that entry there's again a reference to the same person who was mentioned in respect of the assault on the bus?---Yep. And then it looks like "at ROE." Is that Roebourne?---Well, I - - I guess it is. I - - I can't make head nor tail of that. All right. It says: "Then inquiry re" that person "at ROE, and then G1 at

Hedland." So - -?---The whole day looks like on duty, office duties and - - and information and inquiries re those two people and office duties and off at 4 o'clock. So my - - I can only offer you an opinion that I made some - - made some inquiries at the office in regard to those two. All right. Well, it would appear from that, at the very least, that you took the information you'd received from the person on the bus seriously enough to pursue some inquiries in respect of G1 - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14683

A4/4 POLICE MR HALL: - - - in respect of G1?---Obviously. All the information that you receive you'd conduct some inquiries on. Commissioner, can I tender that? The public version is D1038149. COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, could I have that again? D10 - - MR HALL: 1038149 is the public version. COMMISSIONER: 1031 - - MR HALL: 81 - - COMMISSIONER: 819. MR HALL: 8149. COMMISSIONER: 49. The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 15th of April 1994, barcoded D1021483, the confidential, private version is exhibit number 2055C. EXHIBIT 2055C Mr Hall DATE 15.4.94 Confidential - Extract from Mr Warnock's journal - barcode D1021483. COMMISSIONER: The public version of that document, barcoded D10318149, will be exhibit 2055. EXHIBIT 2055 Mr Hall DATE 15.4.94 Edited version - Extract from Mr Warnock's journal - barcode D10318149. MR HALL: Now, if we then turn to Monday, the 18th of April, and if we could look at the public version of this one, which is D1038150. Now, the entry I want to refer you to here is "ICW" - that's "in company with", I take it?---Yep. Yes: "In company with (...name suppressed...) to South

Hedland." Does that say "Liaise with locals"?---Yep. Yes: "Re G1. Attend to surveillance duties as required." WITNESSs: Yep. MR HALL: So were the surveillance duties in respect of G1?---Yep. What surveillance duties did you do on G1?---I can't remember .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14684

A4/4 POLICE exactly but it would've been to - - to follow him around town and see what he was up to, where he was going, who he was visiting. MR HALL: All right. You did that in company with (...name suppressed...)?---(...name suppressed...), yep. Do you remember anything about the surveillance?---Nothing specific, no. That's what I said. My memory - - I had no memory of this up until I read the journals and I've heard what's - - what's been said here at the Commission, and I've got some memories of it. I remember doing an operation and obviously my memory has been brought back a little bit by this matter. Obviously, we conducted an operation and it was serious enough to warrant going to Hedland to carry out surveillance duties on this chap. Commissioner, can I tender that journal in both versions? COMMISSIONER: Yes, the extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 18th of April 1994, the private and confidential version, is barcoded D1021484 and that will be exhibit 2056C. EXHIBIT 2056C Mr Hall DATE 18.4.94 Confidential - Extract from Mr Warnock's journal - barcode D1021484. COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version is barcoded D1038150 and will be exhibit 2056. EXHIBIT 2056 Mr Hall DATE 18.4.94 Edited version - Extract from Mr Warnock's journal - barcode D1038150. MR HALL: Now, turning to the 19th of April, can I firstly show you the confidential version, D1021485? All right, you can see that there's continued surveillance of G1 and there's a reference to one of his sons there?---Yep. You can see that that's the same first name as G6?---Yep. His son, G6. Okay, and then it says: "Sheds at Airport Kennels of significance" - and the house of (...suppressed...), which was know was G1's address at the time. Perhaps we can - - and then at the bottom of the page there was continued surveillance in regard to G1?---Yeah. Obviously, we - - as I said, while - - we do business in other people's towns. Some duties re a sexual assault account that person - - Yes?---And to the hospitals and doctor, etcetera, and then back to - - to G1 again. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14685

A5/1 POLICE MR HALL: All right. Now, what was the significance of the Airport Kennels in the surveillance of G1?---I don't know. I - - I thought perhaps you might have the running sheets that - - if we'd carried out surveillance I would have had a file on it and they would have been stored at Karratha, I would imagine. There'd be running sheets from surveillance and whatever jobs we did and that sort of stuff. Well, we don't have a running sheet. Was that your practice, to keep a running sheet if you did surveillance?---Oh, it depends on the size of the inquiry. I mean, not always, but if you did or you wanted to refresh your memory you'd keep some sort of notes on that sort of thing, and keep them in a file of some sort. Obviously if - - if we've taken the time to do this amount of work on the chap I would have had a file on him. All right. Well, looking at that, does that refresh your memory as to the Airport Kennels having some significance in respect of your inquiries into G1?---Not really. I mean, I've heard the Airport Kennels being mentioned by - - by G1 and also by another chap that gave some evidence here and - - Mr Pierce?---Pierce, yeah. But why, I've got no idea. Do you know what premises are being spoken about there?---The Airport Kennels? Yes?---Yeah. I know what the Airport Kennels are. Did you ever have to go there in the course of your duties?---We searched the kennels on the day of the search at (...suppressed...). Right. That was some time later?---I think it was in August, wasn't it? That's right. So do you know why it was that you searched the kennels? What the significance of those was to G1?---I can only surmise that G1 had had a particular interest or was living there or had premises there or occupied premises there or something. That's why that would have been searched as well. All right?---Or maybe our - - to say sheds at the Airport Kennels of significance, my thoughts are that at some time during the day either G1 or G6 must have been followed to that location. Right. Can I tender the entries for the 19th of April in both versions, Commissioner? .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14686

A5/1 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 19th of April 1994, the private, confidential version, barcoded D1021485, and it will be exhibit 2057C. EXHIBIT 2057C Mr Hall DATE 19.4.94 Confidential - journal extract of D.R. Warnock, barcode D1021485 COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version is barcoded D1038151 and will be exhibit 2057. EXHIBIT 2057 Mr Hall DATE 19.4.94 Edited version of journal extract of D.R. Warnock, barcode D1038151 MR HALL: Now, the entry for the 20th of April, if we could have that in the public version, which is D1038152. (TO WITNESS): All right. On this day you did further surveillance of G1 and then say: "G1 conducts lots of anti-surveillance techniques." WITNESS: Yep. MR HALL: "May be" - is that "suss - - "?---Yep. " - - to being followed"?---Yep. "Then G1 leaves and does not - - "?---"Return for 4 hours." " - - return for 4 hours. Job concluded." And then, "Decision not to execute search warrant." Is that "search warrant"?---Yep. Yep. And what's - - ?---"Further inquiry necessary. Return to Karratha." Right. Now, was there a warrant obtained in respect of G1 in April of 1994?---I've got no idea. It would be on the file if there was one. Maybe we - - if I've written "Decision not to execute search warrant" I may have had a search warrant with us. We may have decided not to go and get one. I really can't say. Right. Well - - ?---But obviously there was a decision made that we weren't going to - - weren't going to tip him over at that particular time. Well, Commission investigators have searched the files and there's no other search warrant in respect of those premises on the files. Do you recall now why that decision that's recorded there was made?---Nuh. As I say, it'd be in notes if I - - if I'd made some notes in a running sheet, but I can't say why. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14687

A5/1 POLICE MR HALL: And what does F-I-N - - "Further inquiries necessary"; what does that - - ?---That's what it means, yep. Yes, but what does that denote in these circumstances?---Exactly what it says. Well, do you remember what your intention was in respect of G1?---No. Why does it say "Job concluded"?---The surveillance was concluded. Right. So that doesn't mean your inquiries in respect of G1 were concluded?---Oh, certainly not. It says the job; this job was concluded. Decision not to execute search warrant. Further inquiry necessary. Obviously we go away and make some more inquiries about it. Obviously our surveillance over that 2½ days had not brought us to the decision that he was doing anything untoward that required our immediate attention. Well, there doesn't seem to be then a reference to G1 in your journal for some months. Is that because he dropped out of your - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14688

A6/2 POLICE MR HALL: - - - dropped out of your - -?---May have faded into obscurity. We may just never have had time to go back and finish that particular file off. I see?---That doesn't mean that he - - that the information that we received wasn't good or that he had stopped doing business, as it may be. It may be just that simply we were busy or we had other stuff to do. As you said, it's in another town, the Hedland detectives would have been aware of it, of what our outcome was and when we had time to do some more work on it, we would have done so. To say what we actually did in April 94 is not possible. Do you remember who it was in Hedland that you spoke to about the operation that you were conducting on G1?---It would have been (...name suppressed...), the (...suppressed...) of the office. Both him and myself spoke about matters almost weekly. Can I tender both versions of the entry for the 20th of April, sir? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 20th of April 1994, the private confidential version is barcoded D1021486, and will be exhibit 2058C. The public edited version, barcoded D1038152, will be exhibit 2058. EXHIBIT 2058C Mr Hall DATE 20.4.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of D.R. Warnock, barcode D1021486 EXHIBIT 2058 Mr Hall DATE 20.4.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of D.R. Warnock, barcode D1038152 MR HALL: Can we turn to the entry for the 28th of June 1994, the public version is D1038160, and it's really just the first three lines that I want to draw your attention to here: "Attend to inquiry - -" Does that say "account"?---Yeah, "account G1", yeah. MR HALL: "Account G1. Liaise with Detective Clay - -" WITNESS: Yep. MR HALL: "- - re same and job for G5." WITNESS: Yep. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14689

A6/2 POLICE MR HALL: Detective Clay - -?---Yes. - - who was he in respect of this matter?---Detective Tom Clay, and it's got "DS" next to it, Drug Squad. Right. Do you remember why you were liaising with Detective Clay?---No. Well, there's then a reference to G5. What information did you have about G5?---I've got no idea. Is there something on the page before or the page after that might help us? I can show you the page before, if you would like? There's a reference - - if I show you the public version, D1038153 for the 27th of June. There's a reference there to liaising with South Hedland CIB and Drug Squad re another person and G1?---Yeah. That was - - that's the day before the one we've just been shown? Yes?---Yeah. Does that help you at all?---It doesn't help me, but it obviously shows there's a line of inquiry there where I spoke to someone at South Hedland and Drug Squad regarding this chap and G1. Why would you be speaking to Drug Squad?---I've got no idea. Perhaps there was something going on in Perth that they needed to know about and they could tidy it up at their end. There may have been something happening between Hedland and - - Hedland, Karratha and Perth. I mean, I'm only surmising. I - - I've got no idea really. All right. Commissioner, can I tender the entries for the 28th of June in both versions? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 28th of June 1994, the private confidential version is barcoded D1037447 and will be exhibit 2059C. The public edited version, barcoded D1038160, and will be exhibit 2059. EXHIBIT 2059C Mr Hall DATE 28.6.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of D.R. Warnock, barcode D1037447 EXHIBIT 2059 Mr Hall DATE 28.6.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of D.R. Warnock, barcode D1038160 MR HALL: Can we then turn to the 17th of August, which is in the public version, D1038158? All right: "On duty. Office re annual inspection - - -" .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14690

A7/3 POLICE MR HALL: "- - - re annual inspection. Attend to office matters. Liaise with South Hedland CIB. Travel to South Hedland. Surveillance of G1 at - -" And the address that's been blanked out there is G1's residential address?---Yep. "- - and also shed at Port Hedland kennels. Followed

to various addresses, to JP for search warrant." All right. Firstly, it was Inspector Gibson, was it, who came to do the annual inspection?---Yeah, I believe so. I - - before this come up I couldn't remember it, but yeah, it was John Gibson that came up to do the inspection. Do you remember now the inspection, what was entailed?---Oh, not necessarily. It's an inspection of your books and - - and that, to make sure everything's up to date and - - All right. And who travelled from Karratha to South Hedland?---Myself, (...name suppressed...), Detective Kingma and - I think he was an inspector then - Inspector Gibson. Right. So everybody? Everybody went?---Mm. Yes. Did you all go because there was an intention of pursuing this job on G1?---Yeah, that was the idea. Inspector Gibson likes to catch up and speak to all of the troops together and that, and it just so happened that we had a job up there that - - to - - obviously this had been 4 months down the track and we'd done nothing about this. So the idea was to go up there, get rid of this inquiry and catch up with the Hedland chaps as well. All right. Had some further information come to hand about G1 that had caused this to come to a head?---I don't know. Do I understand from the entry there that some surveillance was done on the 17th of August - both on G1's home and the Port Hedland kennels?---Yep. Do you know who did that surveillance?---No, I - - I guess probably the three of us. Was it G1 that was the target of this operation?---It would appear so, yeah. You heard G1 say that he suspected that you were targeting G5 because G5 was living in his house and, he understood, dealing with drugs he subsequently found out from there. Was G5 your target?---Not that I recollect, no. G1 was always the - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14691

A7/3 POLICE from - - if you read the occurrence and that, G1's always been the main target. G5's not a person that I recollect, although as is said on that Saturday occurrence page, it says that I - - on one of them it said there's a mention there of his name. No, it's the one on the 28th of April, isn't it, that mentions I spoke to Perth about him? MR HALL: Mm. Well, there are other references to G5 as well in your journal?---Yeah, that's right, there is. So at some time during my - - the time that I was at Karratha I obviously spoke with this chap, but to say that I know him, no, I couldn't say I know him. All right. Well, "followed to various addresses." Must that be a reference to G1 that you followed?---Yep. And then "To JP for a search warrant"?---Yep. Just the one search warrant?---My thoughts on that are that - - that Detective Kingma got a warrant for the house before we left Karratha and subsequently we would have obtained another search warrant for the - - for the kennels. Is that something you have a recollection of?---No. It's just - - just reading it and thinking "Well, that's more than likely what occurred." Like I say, actual recollection of this event is very vague, as you can understand, but I'm doing my best from - - from these notes here and that to try and recollect what occurred. All right. But you would need two search warrants if you were searching two different premises owned by different people, wouldn't you?---Oh, yes. Yes. All right. Can I tender the entries for the 17th of August, sir? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extracts from Mr Warnock's diary dated the 17th of August 1994, the private confidential version barcoded D1021493, will be exhibit 2060C. The public edited version which is barcoded D1038158 will be exhibit 2060. EXHIBIT 2060C Mr Hall DATE 17.8.94 Confidential - Extracts from diary of D.R. Warnock. Barcode D1021493. EXHIBIT 2060 Mr Hall DATE17.8.94 Edited version - Extracts from diary of D.R. Warnock. Barcode D1038158. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14692

A7/3 POLICE MR HALL: All right. Your entry then for the 18th of August - - MS PEPE: Sir, my calculation is that it should be 2061. Is that - - 2060 was the 7th of June. MR HALL: I didn't tender that. It wasn't put in. MS PEPE: Oh, sorry. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: I didn't tender that page. MS PEPE: It's Mr Robbins' fault. MR HALL: Yes. The entry for the 18th of August 1994, the public version which is D1038159, please. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14693

A8/4 POLICE MR HALL: All right. "On duty to" - - does it say "to South Hedland office"?---Yes. "In company with others to" - and the address then is the address of G1?---Yes. Yes. "Execute search warrant." Does that say "Negative" - "Neg results"?---Yeah. Is that "Info obtained"?---"Re G2." "Re G2. Believed at Broome"?---Yes. "May be in possession of drugs"?---Yep. "Info passed to Broome CIB"?---Yes. "To office. Then travel to Karratha office"?---Yep. All right. Well, who went with you to execute the warrant at G1's home?---(...name suppressed...), Kingma and (...name suppressed...). Right. Who went inside the house?---(...name suppressed...), Kingma and myself. Was (...name suppressed...) given a particular job to do?---He was - - he was supposed to look after the outside of the property in case anybody came or went and he stayed outside. I don't recollect ever seeing him inside the house. He may have come in there, the same as our chaps may have gone out at some time, but I don't know for sure. All right, and who was at home when you went in the house ---G1. The son? G2? Did you see him at all?---Never ever, and that's where that information there - - it just says he's "believed at Broome" so my guess is whether - - whether he was lying or not, G1 told us he was in Broome. Did you specifically ask about G2?---Whatever I said in conversation I've got no recollection of but obviously we would've angled down that line somewhere. You wouldn't say to him, "Where's your son?" You'd, sort of, say, "Oh, nobody else here?" and, you know, make up some reason as to give him a reason to want to tell you where this person is. All right. Were any deal bags found in the house?---I can't remember. The search was insignificant and that's probably why we have no - - no great recollection of it. I've heard G1 say that he had 30-odd thousand dollars in the roof that he alleges was stolen. Believe me, if I found $30,000 in the roof I'd know about it and I'd remember it all right. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14694

A8/4 POLICE MR HALL: Yes. Now, G1 also says that there were some address books of his that were taken. Any recollection of that? ---As I say, really of the search itself I've got no recollection. It was insignificant. It was go in, had a look, didn't find anything, and obviously went to the kennels and had a look and then - - and took him back to his house, I suppose, and that was it. Was the roof searched - the roof cavity searched?---You would think it would be. That's a normal part of a search. Yes?---That's provided you can get into it, of course. But that's something that you would expect would be done in the normal course?---In the normal course of duties you would expect the roof cavity - - at least to have a cursory look anyway. And you're saying to us that there was no container found in the roof space?---No. Not by us anyway. No money - - ?---No. - - found?---No. No money taken from G1?---No, none at all, and he's mentioned in his evidence a wallet, but I don't even remember a wallet being produced by this person. My guess is you would've had a look in his wallet, in his personal possessions, but nothing of any significance comes to mind from that either. All right. And "Negative result" - do I assume that means that nothing was seized?---Well, it means no one was charged. Obviously, we've heard that there's a plant been found. Right, yes?---But - - but nothing of any consequence being found, no. When did you know that the plant had been found?---Only - - I didn't even remember it until it was brought up in evidence, and we've seen the public copy of the drug P11 book and the offence report attached to it, and it sort of - - my thoughts are that I was made aware of it when we went back to the South Hedland office. Well, was G1 ever questioned about the plant?---Not that I know of, no. Why not?---Well, if you listen to Detective (...name suppressed...)'s evidence, he - - I think he said the plant was found in the driveway, in a crack in the driveway. Certainly, that would never prove the elements of the offence of cultivating cannabis, and a .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14695

A8/4 POLICE plant that he says is - - I think he said a couple of inches in height, or a few centimetres in height, wouldn't meet the requirements of the THC levels to be a drug. It's just a weed - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14696

A9/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - it's just a weed, and certainly you wouldn't waste your breath talking to G1 in relation to something that's found in a crack in the driveway of a house. MR HALL: All right?---It - - you'd be looking like a fool. So if there's no need for G1 to be questioned about that, and the search has been negative, there was really no need for G1 to be questioned about anything, was there?---Well, if you're - - if you're going to go to his house and talk to him, then you're going to ask him about his dealings and where he is and what he's doing - - Sure?--- - - where his money's coming from, how he's making a living, where his son is, and obviously there was something that made us take him out to the kennels to have a look at there. You had to finalise the inquiry. Right?---You can't leave it open-ended. What makes you think he was taken to the kennels?---Because there was a warrant taken out, I think, for the kennels. Right?---So although it's not mentioned in mine, I - - I'm of the opinion that we went to the kennels and had a quick look out there as well. And you think took G1 with you?---We would have most definitely have taken him with us out there. You wouldn't go there on your own. All right. The search warrant was endorsed on the back by you, I think. I'll just show you that; D1037435. If we turn to the second page of the image document? Is that your writing?---Yeah. Firstly, it says executed the 19th, and we've seen that your journal indicates - -?---Yeah, it says the 18th. - - it was the 18th. Just a mistake?---Is that all that's on the back of that warrant? Yes?---Is that the complete - - nothing else on that page? No?---I can probably only offer you an opinion on that, because I don't recollect writing on it, but my thoughts are that - - if I'm allowed to go with that? Yes?---That we would've finished the job, it's a negative result, thrown the file on the back seat of the car and driven back to Karratha. It's not a matter where a bloke's been executed and there's drugs been seized and it needs to have the t's crossed and the i's dotted exactly there and then, and I think from my journal that the very next morning, early, .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14697

A9/2 POLICE both myself and I think (...name suppressed...) went straight to Tom Price for a sexual assault matter or an assault or something of reasonable importance. So that may - - that warrant may not have been back then and the file may not have been written off till probably early the next week when I thought, "Oh, we'd better tidy this up and file the warrant" and whatever. So it may not have been written off then. That would give rise to executed the 19th of the 8th. It's a typographical error, that I apologise, but - - MR HALL: All right. And then you say, "By DRW", that's you?---Yeah. "NAD", that's - - and - - ?---(...name suppressed...) and Peter Kingma, yeah. And Peter Kingma. Is there any reason why there's no reference to (...name suppressed...)?---No. I can't recollect why there's not. All right. Well, can we turn back to the journal for the 18th of August, which was D1038159? Now, while we're waiting for that, as you say, there's no reference there to a search warrant being executed at the kennels. You have some recollection, though, of going out to the kennels?---Not specifically. I think it's - - I think the other fellows have mentioned it in their book. All right?---As I say, these journals, I can't even remember which day of the week that was. Perhaps if you could just raise that up just a little bit? It's Thursday?---A Thursday. These journals certainly wouldn't have been written up that day because we're in Hedland and that, and as I said, (...name suppressed...), I think, and myself went to - - went to Tom Price the very next morning and then there probably would have been - - if we had weekly leave that day, Saturday and Sunday weekly leave maybe, and probably wouldn't have been written up until Monday or Tuesday of the next week, so although it - - the intention is that they be exactly accurate, it's obviously not the case in this part. Well, is it your understanding that the search at the kennels was also negative?---If it had been positive, it would have shown an arrest and something seized, yeah. Yes. In those circumstances, whilst you say, well, you would take the opportunity of talking to G1 whilst you were doing the searches, there'd be no need to take him into custody, to take him back to the station to interview him, would there?---No - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14698

A10/1 POLICE MR HALL: - - - to interview him, would there?---No. Was he taken back to the station?---Not to my recollection, no. I - - from my recollection he was spoken to at the house, would have gone to the kennels with us and then dropped home. Did you interview G1 in company with (...name suppressed...)?---Not that I know of, no. (...name suppressed...) was at his office. Right?---So it would have been with - - with (...name suppressed...) and Kingma. Or probably with (...name suppressed...) maybe and - - I don't know whether Kingma went back to the office with - - with (...name suppressed...) went back on his own. I'm not sure. Right. But G1; was he taken back to South Hedland Police Station?---No. Not to my recollection, no. Now, you know that G1 has given evidence that he was taken back there - - ?---Yep. - - left in an interview room for some time - - ?---Yep. - - and that after a period he was taken out in a car by you and (...name suppressed...)?---Yep. Did that happen?---No. He says that $2000 was returned to him whilst in a car while it was parked behind the squash courts. Did that happen?---Mr Hall, G1's evidence - - he says that - - no, it didn't happen, but he says that he's got $2000 that he can legitimately say is his; that he drew out of the bank before he went to Perth. Then for some strange reason he draws out another $200 at an ATM on the way back. He can legitimately say that that's his as well. I can't see how he can suddenly say, "The detectives took $2000 of me" that he can legitimately explain where he got it from. I mean, it seems strange that he took another 200 out as well, but he says, "Oh, they took the $2000 off me, out of my wallet, and then gave it back to me." Well, maybe he did have some money in his wallet and it was taken out at the house and given back to him - I don't recollect that - but - - and in mining towns it's not unusual for people to have quite large amounts of money in their wallets. Did (...name suppressed...) have anything to do with this particular inquiry?---None whatsoever, to my knowledge. He knew about it; he knew what we were doing and what we were doing there. But to my recollection he never accompanied us to the house. All right. Well, since we were last here on this matter, some .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14699

A10/1 POLICE further journal entries have come to light and I want to show you an entry for - - this is a duplicate copy for (...name suppressed...) for the Thursday the 18th of August. D - - 14700 only have this in the public? It hasn't been - - (TO WITNESS): I show you the confidential version firstly. D1041158. Yes. And there's a public version. I just want you to be able to see, if you can bring that up a little, that there's a reference to you on the fifth line, and on the sixth line, the beginning of that, there's a reference to G1?---I actually can't read it. I can read - - "Detective Inspector Gibson and" - something - "Karratha CIB" - something or other - "suspect account G1." MS PEPE: Can we have it on the screen, please? MR HALL: We'll have the public version on the screen, which is D1042131. Yes; it's 2131. Yes. No, it's not. Now, that's not going to be any easier for you to read, but I suggest to you that what it reads is: "Commenced duty" - I can't read the next two words -

"Officer" - something, and then the next line is - "as per OIC and continued annual inspection, Detective Inspector Gibson and liaise Karratha CIB account suspect account G1 - - - "

.07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14700

A11/2 POLICE MR HALL: "- - - account suspect account G1. Liaise re" -

another person - "re offender" - and that's obviously a separate matter entirely - "and then interview in company with Warnock account G1."

Now, this is the same day - -?---Yeah. - - the 18th. This is the day that you've gone to Port Hedland - - South Hedland - - ?---Yeah. - - with Inspector Gibson and the other officers - -?---A day after, actually. Yes, all right. The day after?---Yeah. But this is the day you've executed the warrant?---Yeah. And there's a reference in (...name suppressed...)'s journal to interview in company with you on account of G1?---Yeah. Now, you've just told us that (...name suppressed...) had nothing to do with this matter at all?---No. Does that assist your recollection?---"Interview, in company with - -" looks like something's been rubbed out and "Warnock" has been put in, but - - because it's a different text, if you can read it there? "Interview, in company with Warnock, account G1", but it doesn't say he interviewed G1. It just says account G1, so I don't know who he spoke to. And I can't read the rest of the - - I can't read what else it says there. Well, you said (...name suppressed...) had nothing to do with this, whether it means that G1 was interviewed or not?---Back at the office, he would have had something to do with it because obviously that cannabis plant's been put into a drug book and - - by (...name suppressed...) and Detective Kingma I think has raised an offence report in relation to it, so I mean, that's just housekeeping that I would have told them to do, so maybe (...name suppressed...) told me that (...name suppressed...) had brought a plant back and to get rid of it. I - - why he's written that, you'll have to ask him. Well, was anyone else interviewed in respect of this operation on the 18th of August?---Not by us, no. The only person you say you spoke to was G1, but that was at his premises or at the kennels?---Yeah. That he didn't come back to the station at all?---No. I tender that entry, sir, in both versions. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14701

A11/2 POLICE COMMISSIONER: That's the (...name suppressed...) one? MR HALL: Yes, the (...name suppressed...) one, sir. COMMISSIONER: The extract from the journal of (...name suppressed...) dated the - - what date is that? MR HALL: The 18th of August, sir. COMMISSIONER: The 18th of August 1994, the private confidential version is barcoded D1041158 and will be exhibit 2061C. The public edited version is barcoded D1042131, and will be exhibit 2061. EXHIBIT 2061C Mr Hall DATE 18.8.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1041158 EXHIBIT 2061 Mr Hall DATE 18.8.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1042131 MR HALL: Now, can I also, sir, tender the entries of Mr Warnock's journal for the 18th of August in both versions? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 18th of August 1994, the private confidential version is barcoded D1021494 and will be exhibit 2062C. The public edited version is barcoded D1038159, and will be exhibit 2062. EXHIBIT 2062C Mr Hall DATE 18.8.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of D.R. Warnock, barcode D1021494 EXHIBIT 2062 Mr Hall DATE 18.8.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of D.R. Warnock, barcode D1038159 MR HALL: Now, police records indicate that a pump was later found and it indicates that it was found at the kennels. Did you have any knowledge of that?---Nothing to do with us, that sir, no. Did your inquiries - - were they such that a pump found at the kennels was relevant to the inquiries that you were undertaking into G1?---No. When that came up earlier in the Commission hearings, I was here and heard that, too. No - - pardon me, no recollection of a pump and certainly our inquiries didn't go down that line. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14702

A11/2 POLICE All right. You were never told that such a pump had been found and that further inquiries had been undertaken into that?---It was nothing to do with us. MR HALL: There was never a suggestion that G1 was involved in cultivating cannabis?---Oh, I think earlier information - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14703

A12/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - I think earlier information we were aware that he - - that he probably had been at some time or other, but this - - this pump business has got nothing to do with our inquiry, and I certainly know nothing about finding one. MR HALL: The reason I ask you that is that an entry for (...name suppressed...) for Monday the 29th of August 1994, which the public version is D1042132, towards the bottom of the page. (...name suppressed...) has written in the last three lines here: "Dog kennels, seize motor" - and then some

abbreviation I can't read - "Officer and interview G1 re motor and drug suspect account" -

and I think that is a name - - the surname of G5 appears there. Now, if this pump was seized and G1 was interviewed in respect of it, that's something you would expect to be told about, isn't it?---I wouldn't think so. This is (...name suppressed...)'s journal, it's the 29th of August; it's got nothing to do with us. Yes, but you're the one who had been undertaking inquiries into G1?---Yeah. And those inquiries had previously taken you to the dog kennels?---Yep. I don't know what he's written and why he's written that here, Mr Hall. You'll have to ask him that. I can't say what his reason for writing that is, or I would expect - - I'm not asking you to?--- - - to be told about that, but he may have told me about it; he may not have told me about it. I'm not asking you what he means by it. What I'm putting to you is that on the 29th of August (...name suppressed...)'s journal is indicating that a pump was seized at the kennels and that G1 was interviewed in respect of it. Now, surely that is something that would be brought to your attention in the light of your previous inquiries. Do you not recall being told about this?---No, I don't. Nothing whatsoever about it. I mean, that's not to say that he didn't ring me and say, "Look, we've spoken to that fellow again, and - - and we've found a pump," or whatever there. Well, do you remember that G1's evidence was that he was brought in on an occasion as a result of a telephone call by (...name suppressed...) - - ?---Yep. - - and that he was strip-searched there - - ?---Yep. - - and on one of the occasions he was interviewed he said that there was some words put to him to the effect that he was to stay quiet about money having been taken from him?---Yep. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14704

A12/1 POLICE MR HALL: Now, are you sure that you do not know that he was brought in to the South Hedland station by (...name suppressed...) - - by (...name suppressed...) and questioned on the 29th of August?---No. I've got no recollection of that whatsoever. Can I tender that entry for the 29th of August from (...name suppressed...)'s journal, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER: The extract from (...name suppressed...)'s journal, dated the 29th of August 1994, the private, confidential version, barcoded D1041159 will be exhibit 2063C. EXHIBIT 2063C Mr Hall DATE 29.8.94 Confidential - journal extract of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1041159 COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, barcoded D10411 - - no; that's wrong. 1104 - - D1042132 will be exhibit 2063. EXHIBIT 2063 Mr Hall DATE 29.8.94 Edited version of journal extract of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1042132 MR HALL: Now, G1 was not charged with anything as a result of the search warrants that you conducted on the 18th of August?---No. To the best of your knowledge was he ever charged with anything as a result of this operation that you had been conducting on him?---No. Was there any continuing investigations after the 18th of August?---Not by me anyway. There was no further surveillance?---Not unless my journal says there was, but I don't seem to recollect there was. You'd by that stage committed some considerable effort into this man?---Yep. Travelled to Karratha on a number of occasions, conducted - - ?---Hedland. - - surveillance. Sorry; Hedland, on a number of occasions, conducted surveillance?---Yep. Why did the operation just stop on the 18th of August - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14705

A13/4 POLICE MR HALL: - - - 18th of August?---Well, it's not unusual to go and carry out surveillance and then, if you've got the evidence, get a search warrant and execute the warrant. Certainly, let's say, some people stop their business after a search warrant when they realise the police are looking at them, and looking at them very hard. They stop their business there and then. What he did after that I don't know. As I said, our information was such that we went and did the operation on him. Whether we received any more after that I can't remember, but probably the search warrant was to finalise the file, to finish it off. All right. Now, were you present when G3 gave his evidence?---Yes. Did you have a recollection of him before he appeared as a witness?---Some. Only from reading the newspaper a couple of months ago. Did you have a recollection of dealing with him when you were in Karratha?---As I said, some. What was your recollection of him?---I remember dealing with him in relation to his fraudulent activities at the Beagle Bay Aboriginal Community. It was quite a considerable inquiry that took up some time and resources, and I think we got the file because he moved into Tom Price, into our area and out of Broome. I remember him because when he was finally sentenced he made threats to myself and (...name suppressed...) at the court- house. That's at Broome?---At Broome, yeah. What threats did he make?---Specifically, I can't say exactly what he did say. I remember that he made threats towards us, re he'll square up with us or he'll get even with us or he'll have his day or whatever, but it was enough that I, sort of, thought, "Oh, righto." The first time you met him - was that in relation to the Beagle Bay inquiry?---Yes. And for that purpose you travelled to Tom Price?---I think that's the first time we spoke to him. Yeah, he was living in Tom Price. Right. Did Tom Price usually fall within Karratha's jurisdiction?---Yes. Detectives' jurisdiction?---Yes. So you travelled there on a regular basis?---Very regularly, yeah. Too regularly almost. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14706

A13/4 POLICE MR HALL: Now, who assisted you in the inquiries into Beagle Bay?---I think it was (...name suppressed...) most of the time. I don't think Detective Kingma had much to do with it but mainly (...name suppressed...). And for that purpose you had to meet with G3 on a number of occasions, didn't you?---I think that the inquiry was such that we were dealing with an Aboriginal women's group and the nature of the information from those ladies was - - I shouldn't say "non-specific" but it was airy-fairy and it took a long time to get to the - - to get to the actual crux of the matter. They knew money was missing and that cheques had been written out and that so, as sometimes happens, I think we interviewed (...name suppressed...) on one occasion and - - G3?---Sorry, G3, and - - on one occasion and I don't know whether we charged him then or not, and went away to make further inquiries, and we actually spoke to him on two or three occasions in relation to this before the actual charges were finalised. Right. Now, in the course of speaking to him did you become aware of him being involved in any other criminal activity? ---We were aware that he was dealing drugs around the place. How did you become aware of that?---Tom Price and Paraburdoo are fairly small towns. We've got other people that spoke to us and his name came up from time to time. So did you speak to him about that?---I think more - - not more evidence, more information came from the uniformed staff at Tom Price, who obviously know their own town and I think they were at some stage fairly keen to have a look through his house and see what he was up to - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14707

A14/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - was up to. In fact, I think they executed a couple of search warrants, or at least one, before - - before we ever were asked to go along and assist them. MR HALL: On G3?---Mm. There was an occasion when you were asked to assist the Tom Price uniform police officers?---I think - - I think the - - the date that's been mentioned earlier is around the 17th of October, if I'm right - - Yes?--- - - or thereabouts, and my recollection of that is that - - I mean, I may be wrong. It may be one of our warrants, but I thought that was a warrant that was taken out by the uniform staff at the station and we were asked to go along and assist them. I may be wrong, but that was just my recollection of the events. Well, did you have any involvement in any inquiries into G3's drug activities prior to assisting with that warrant?---How do you mean? Well, did you have any responsibility for conducting inquiries? Did you make inquiries, conduct an investigation?---Well, our - - our job obviously was criminal matters and - - and drug related matters in all of those towns. Yes?---So if something - - like with G1, if some information comes to hand, you make inquiries in relation to it. Yes. Well, what did you do about the information that G3 was involved in drug activities?---Oh, I can't remember. Not - - not open-handed like that. Something specific, maybe, but - - There are references in your journal, if I can show you the entry for the 21st of May 1994, which is - - I'll show you the confidential version firstly, D1037530. Now, by this time you have met (...name suppressed...) and interviewed him on a number of occasions by May of 1994. Do you accept that?---Yeah, probably have. Yep. And do you see that there's an entry there - - well, firstly, you "Liaise with Wickham and then with Tom Price re - -"?---Yep. A named person, and you - - does that say "speak with OIC"?---Paraburdoo. Yes?---"Then with informant (...name suppressed...) at Tom Price re speed from Darwin. Further inquiry necessary." .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14708

A14/3 POLICE MR HALL: Right. Now, that informant, the same first name as G3?---Oh, that - - that'd be him. It was him? Was he an informant - -?---Oh, I can't say, but only - - we were all talking about the same person. He was an informant of yours?---He's a bloke that liked to - - liked to talk a lot so we like to listen a lot. All right. But did you come to describe him in your journals as "an informant"?---I think in my journal I always put it down "Spoke to informant such and such" or "such and such." Yeah. All right. But is that a reference to G3?---I would say so, yeah. Did you ever have another informant with that name?---Not over there, no. Did the information that he provided you relate to the drug activities of other people in Tom Price?---Like I said, he - - he liked to talk a lot. He did know what was going on around the town but so did half the other town know what was going on. It's a small town. It's like Peyton Place. Everybody knows what each other's doing. He liked to think he knew what was going on, but whether he actually gave us anything concrete - - I can't really remember anything of any great significance. Other people in town did, but - - Well, how did it come about that he started to provide you with information about drug dealing in Tom Price?---I don't know exactly how. Probably - - I can only surmise when we were talking to him about the Beagle Bay matters, we would have spoken to him about other matters, because Beagle Bay also - - the Beagle Bay inquiry didn't relate to drugs, but there was a large suspicion that G3 was involved in drugs from Beagle Bay, out on the One Arm Point Peninsula. Well, did you offer some incentive to provide you information?---No, none whatsoever. He suggests that there was a deal done between you and he in respect of information?---Never so much as a deal, but like any person that comes in that's in that - - he's got charges pending against him; a number of people are offered - - offered the same spiel every day - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14709

A15/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - the same spiel every day, that "you do something for us and we may be able to do something for you at the end of the line." MR HALL: Right?---It just - - 98 per cent of the crooks that come into a police station are offered that deal. Okay. What was the spiel? What was it that you were offering him?---Exactly what I told you - - And what was - -?--- - - that "you help us out with matters, drugs matters and that around the place, and we may be able to do something for you when you come to sentencing time or whatever, for your fraud matters." That his information and cooperation with the police might be recognised?---It may be, yeah. At that stage. All right. Did the information he provided you lead to any arrests?---Not that I know of. I know he's written some names down on a bit of paper. I don't know whether - - Yes. Well, what's the exhibit number again - -?---My thoughts on that matter were that there were none of any significance anyway, nothing that we didn't already know about, so - - 1847C; I don't know if we have the original piece of paper? No? Can we bring this up as a confidential exhibit. Yes, D1038034. (TO WITNESS): I don't know if you can - - can you read that?---Yeah, I can read it. Well, I don't want you to read it out aloud?---No, no. Yeah. But I want you to look at those entries that G3 has made and they're not names, they're obviously descriptions?---But he - - yeah, okay. But he - - I mean, when he was asked - - when he was giving his evidence in-chief, he was asked to name these people who he allegedly gave to us that directly resulted from his information that led to their arrest, and - - I mean, you've got to agree with me, these are bit airy-fairy, you know; what's written here is just a brief description of some guy in an electrical trade that's caught with some - - with some drugs. Well, are you able, by looking at those descriptions, to identify anyone who meets the descriptions that are given there?---The second reference on the fourth line down, "one by - -" and there's a name there? .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14710

A15/2 POLICE MR HALL: Yes?---I think, if you look at my occurrence book, there's a name of that person there and he's written "same person arrested earlier for an implements." Was busted later on for something else. And that's the person that he described in his evidence as being present when the first warrant was executed?---Oh, I - - I don't know. All right. Well - -?---But I know a fellow by that name and if he was busted for an implement, it was more than likely uniform chaps and not us that would have done it anyway, and I mean, that's fairly insignificant, for a smoking utensil. And then something about a Maori guy. I think he's suggesting there that that same person was arrested later?---On for - - and I can't read it says. "Later on 3 weeks" or something. Yes, it just says 3 weeks, that he was busted later?---But in reality, he's given us nothing specific there. He's got himself out of gaol by writing a few lines here and not naming anybody. Yes?---And then something about some Maori guy and then something about some southern suburbs chaps, doesn't know the result, but - - None of that rings any bells with you?---And he mentions here their ethnic origins and then - - Well - -?---Yeah, he's certainly not been specific, that's for sure, and that to me is the way that G3 operated. Everything was airy-fairy to him. He - - he knew things that were going on around the place, but nothing he ever gave was specific, you know? He's a - - he's a conman. Let's have a look at his record, you know? He's an out and out conman. He conned the whole Beagle Bay Aboriginal community and he - - and that's the way he's done it the whole time. He - - he's nothing but a crook. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14711

A16/1 POLICE MR HALL: So does it accord with your evidence that he never gave you information that directly led to an arrest of another person?---No. No. Certainly - - and not looking at this here either. Nothing where he could say, "Go and see this bloke now. He's holding X amount of ounces of drugs and if you go there today you'll get a result." There's certainly nothing there. I mean, he - - he come along here and told us how - - what a wonderful person he was, and he - - he can't even name one of them except one - - one bloke by that particular name on there. And it's a Christian name, and - - and it's - - I think that's the same bloke that's mentioned in that journal of mine, and he was just a - - I think we got more information from that fellow than we did from - - from G3. All right. Well, at the end of the day when he was sentenced for the Beagle Bay matter, was his cooperation with you in providing information reflected in his sentence?---No. Certainly not. You didn't give him a letter?---Well, it's got to be pretty good information. Any - - any barrister would know that. It's got to be fairly good information that's got to have assisted in some fairly high way to enforce - - enforce the law for them to get a letter of recognition. And - - and this guy certainly didn't do anything of any - - anything. In fact, I think he went to the eastern states and was arrested on his - - on his return, and I think it was after that that he went to the Broome Court. So he certainly hadn't been doing anything for us; he'd been doing everything against us and running his own little criminal activities. But you went on speaking to him as an informant?---We talk to lots and lots of crooks every day, and we wouldn't get any information anywhere if we didn't talk to people. But you wouldn't waste your time with somebody who wasn't giving you information that actually assisted?---You're not always wasting your time, Mr Hall. There may be that one glimmer of hope one day when he just happens to say the right thing and it happens to give you the right amount of information. Commissioner, can I tender the entries from Mr Warnock's journal for Saturday the 21st of May 1994? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The barcode for - - MR HALL: Barcode for the confidential version was D1037530. COMMISSIONER: Yes. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14712

A16/1 POLICE MR HALL: And the public version is D1038181. COMMISSIONER: 8181. MR HALL: 8181 is the public version. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 21st of May 1994, the public - - the public journal is the 1038, is it? MR HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The private, confidential version is barcoded D1037530 and will be exhibit 2064C. EXHIBIT 2064C Mr Hall DATE 21.5.94 Confidential - journal extract of D.R. Warnock, barcode D1037530 COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version is barcoded D1038181 and will be exhibit 2064. EXHIBIT 2064 Mr Hall DATE 21.5.94 Edited version of journal extract of D.R. Warnock, barcode D1038181 MR HALL: Now, I want to show you the entry for the 10th of June, firstly in confidential version. It's D1021576. All right. You can see on this day that you again spoke to - - ?---Yep. - - G3, identified there only by his first name. So this is, I take it, because you're speaking to him in his informant capacity; yes?---Oh, just let me read the whole lot. Is there any - pardon me - any more in relation to him? But - - no; it just appears that we for some reason we spoke to him at Paraburdoo. Whether it was about the Beagle Bay matter or about something else I've got no idea obviously where it came - - Well, it was about Beagle Bay. You would identify him surely by his full name?---Oh, not necessarily. "On duty at Paraburdoo. Spoke to (...name suppressed...)." I know who (...name suppressed...) is. Right. But you've put it in inverted commas?---So? Well, whenever you've referred to that person as your informant it's been first name, inverted commas, whereas when you've spoken to G3 in respect of Beagle Bay you've used his full name. Doesn't that mean there that you're speaking to him as an informant?---May very well do. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14713

A17/4 POLICE MR HALL: The reason I ask is that you were on duty in Paraburdoo but you did go to Tom Price that day?---Yes. You did some work on a brief and then you arrested a person. So you then interview the person who is named there - - ? ---Yep. "Re same house, charged possession cannabis"?---Yep. Now, doesn't that accord with the description of the second person named on the handwritten list that G3 provided? ---Yeah, but if you go to the bottom of that occurrence book it says "Then attended service station and spoke with" that person there. Yes?---That's the same person. That is the same person as what?---(...name suppressed...) and (...name suppressed...) are the same person. Right, but you're speaking to that person afterwards. What's the relevance of that? Are you saying the information came from (...name suppressed...) - - ?---Don't know - - don't know where the information come from. It also says that before we did the search warrants we were at the office at Tom Price and I was with Sergeant Davey and we drove to Marandoo for some reason. Where the information came from to speak to these other two chaps with - - one was charged with a stealing offence, so it appears to me that those two chaps were at the Marandoo mine site and one might've been charged with stealing possess cannabis and a smoking implement, which seems to me to be what occurred out there. What I'm suggesting to you, Mr Warnock, is isn't it the case that on this day the reference to G3 having been spoken to by you indicates that he provided you with the information which led to the arrest of that person on possess cannabis charges - - ?---Oh, I think that's - - - - as he has indicated to us in his evidence?---That's a fairly broad - - a fairly long bow to draw really, to say just because I spoke to him and then we went and executed a search warrant that the information came directly from him. Well, he says that it did by providing us with that description on the handwritten information that he gave when he was in evidence here. Are you - - MS PEPE: Well - - WITNESS: Hang on, no, he doesn't. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14714

A17/4 POLICE MS PEPE: He certainly didn't give any of those details, and unless Mr Hall - - MR HALL: He did. MS PEPE: - - has got something else to back it up with he's drawing a very long bow from this journal entry. WITNESS: Which person does he say that he - - MR HALL: He didn't give a name but he did say - - ?---Yeah. - - the person charged was of a certain ethnic description? ---Yeah. And was charged with selling or possession of cannabis? ---Yeah. And here there is someone on this day in Tom Price charged with possession of cannabis on the - - ?---Yeah. - - same day that you've spoken to G3?---Yeah. Now, isn't it the case that that arrest was as a result of information that came from G3?---I've got no idea. It may well have been but I don't know. I can't remember it and I don't remember any of the names on there, to be quite honest, but he may well have said, "Go here and do that" but I don't remember it. All right?---And he's said that that person is of a particular ethnic origin and the person arrested here is of a particular - - the same ethnic origin, so you could draw the similarity but I wouldn't like to. All right. Well, I tender that entry, Commissioner, in both versions for Friday, the 10th of June. COMMISSIONER: The public version is - - what's the barcode of that? MR HALL: That is D1038182. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 10th of June 1994, the private and confidential version barcoded D1021576, will be exhibit 2065C. EXHIBIT 2065C Mr Hall DATE 10.6.94 Confidential - Extract from Mr Warnock's journal - barcode D1021576. COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, barcoded 1038182, will be exhibit 2065. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14715

A17/4 POLICE EXHIBIT 1065 Mr Hall DATE 10.6.94 Edited version - Extract from Mr Warnock's journal - barcode D1038182. MR HALL: Can I then show you the entry for - - in public version for Monday, the 13th of June. D1038183. All right. Do you see on the fourth line: "In company Detective Kingma travelled to Tom Price"?---Yes. "Liaised with Sergeant Davey"?---Yep. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14716

A18/3 POLICE MR HALL: "To"?---"LIA." What does that mean?---"Light industrial area." Right. "Re Grace Bros truck carrying amphetamines"?---Yep. "To - -" Is that "JP"?---Tom Price, "TP." Tom Price. "Then to Paraburdoo. Speak with informant." Again, that's G3?---Yep. "Re Grace truck and Perth connection"?---Yep. Now, do you remember receiving some information from G3 about a Grace Bros truck?---Oh, I may have done, but - - I don't remember it, but if it's written there then quite obviously we did. Do you know what the outcome of that was?---No. Have we got the next page? Yes. Can I tender firstly the entries for Monday the 13th of June, sir? COMMISSIONER: The public barcode? MR HALL: Is D1038183. COMMISSIONER: And the private? MR HALL: Is D1021577. COMMISSIONER: Sorry, zero one? MR HALL: 21577. COMMISSIONER: 1577. Yes. The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 13th of June 1994, the private confidential version barcoded D10321577 will be exhibit 2066C. The public edited version barcoded D1038153 will be exhibit 2066. Yes. The public edited version should be barcoded D1038183. EXHIBIT 2066C Mr Hall DATE 13.6.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of D.R. Warnock. Barcode D10321577. EXHIBIT 2066 Mr Hall DATE 13.6.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of D.R. Warnock. Barcode D1038183. MR HALL: Yes. The 14th of June is public version D1038184: .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14717

A18/3 POLICE "On duty at Tom Price. Attention to Grace Bros yard.

No - -" MR HALL: Sorry. Can you tell us what that is?---Yes. "No truck at 6.30. Surveillance re same. Then truck

arrives. Stopped and searched." somebody or other "spoken to. Negative result. To see informant" such and such "re same info may not be true. Further inquiry necessary."

I can tell you - -?---It's the other fellow. - - it's the other fellow, yes?---Yes. (...name suppressed...)?---Yep. Right. So you'd obviously received information from two sources about this. Yes?---Yeah, probably. Do you know what the ultimate outcome was?---Somewhere along the line - and it may not be on this occasion - we did eventually stop a truck coming into - - into Tom Price with the driver and we found some amphetamines on that truck. I - - from memory, and it's not that good, I think it was a regular - - it was a well known thing that the Grace Bros truck coming up used to bring amphetamines to town, and it was common knowledge amongst these guys that are in the drug scene. That's - - they know these things. Right?---Whether the information came all from G3 or from this other fellow or from various sources, but there was obviously enough there to warrant us stopping this particular truck. I think the Grace Bros truck - - is that a Wednesday or - - Tuesday?---A Tuesday. I think it came on a Tuesday or a Wednesday of each week, the one truck, and eventually I think we did stop a truck that did - - was carrying some amphetamines. Well, in those circumstances, wasn't the information being provided to you by G3 of some value?---Oh, yeah; some value. Certainly not worth a letter down the track or a pat on the back saying "You're a good boy." It - - Yes. Can I tender those entries for the 14th of June, sir? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The confidential version's barcode? MR HALL: Is D1037531. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14718

A18/3 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 14th of June 1994, the private confidential version barcoded D1037531, will be exhibit 2067C. The public edited version barcoded D1038184, will be exhibit 2067. EXHIBIT 2067C Mr Hall DATE 14.6.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of D.R. Warnock. Barcode D1037531. EXHIBIT 2067 Mr Hall DATE 14.6.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of D.R. Warnock. Barcode D1038184. COMMISSIONER: That might be an opportune time to adjourn. MR HALL: Thank you, sir. AT 11.19 AM HEARING ADJOURNED .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14719

A19/1 POLICE AT 11.49 AM HEARING RESUMED: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hall? MR HALL: Mr Warnock, if I could take you then to the 17th of October 1994, which is public version D1038197. If you could bring it - - is that the right one? Okay. If you could bring that down a little. (TO WITNESS): Now, the entry - - the second paragraph there I think reads: "1330 in company with (...name suppressed...), travel

to Tom Price re G3 and combined NCA/Fedpol Operation Castille?."

Do you recall what involvement the NCA and the federal police had with your investigations into G3?---I'm pretty sure it's two different - - two - - that's the reason we went to Tom Price. One was re G3 and the other was the other - - Oh, I see?---Two different matters. You wouldn't just go over there for one thing. Normally you'd - - Right?---Normally you'd - - unless it was a serious issue you'd wait until you had three or four issues to deal with over there and then go over, because you've got 300 kilometres of gravel to travel to get there. It's - - Okay. Well, then it says: "To JPs and in company with GD" - so that's general duties, is it?---Yep. That's the uniform officers?---Yeah. MR HALL: "Execute search warrant at - - " WITNESS: Wherever. MR HALL: - - and that's the address of G3. "Arrest of" - there's two people arrested there, one of them being G3. "Interview at length at office. Liaise with Coombs -

- " WITNESS: Yep. MR HALL: " - - NCA and Peter White." .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14720

A19/1 POLICE So that's in respect of the other matter?---I guess. I don't - - don't know what it's about. All right. Then towards - - in the next line: "Charge G3 possess cannabis." All right. Well, do you recall attending on the execution of a search warrant on G3 on this date?---No. Not particularly. The warrant; I think you've seen it, haven't you? It was taken out by (...name suppressed...)?---Oh, that's - - I wasn't - - I didn't know who had taken that; whether we'd taken it out or the uniform blokes had taken out. My recollection is that it was information that had come from the uniform staff at Tom Price Police Station and, I mean, it's neither here nor there who took the warrant out as long as there was a warrant in existence. No. But it looks from your journal as if you were travelling to Tom Price in respect of G3 in any event. It wasn't something that you found out when you got there that they were executing this warrant. You knew before you were going?---Yeah. Possibly did. I don't know. Unless there's something on the page before or the page after that - - that can enlighten us I really don't know. All right. Well - - ?---I suppose - - - - what do you recall of the execution of that warrant?---Nothing really. It says we executed it in company with the general duties chaps and he was charged with possession of cannabis. Well, it says that he was "interviewed at length at office". Do you remember what was seized?---No. You'd have to show me the - - the drug book to see what was seized. Well, he says that on the occasion of this warrant that there was 5 to 7 ounces of cannabis that was seized from him?---Yep. That's not what the police records show?---What do the police records show? Well, the police records show that he was charged with - - ?---Well, 5 to 7 ounces, he would have been charged with possession with intent to sell or supply at any rate, sir. Yes. Yes. The P11 form shows that it was approximately 54 grams, so substantially less than he is saying?---About 2 ounces, yep. Yes. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14721

A19/1 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: Well, if you have to look at that, that's not quite right, because there's 134 grams of seeds there which gives you the remaining ounces that you're looking for. MR HALL: I'm sorry? Where does it say that? MR O'SULLIVAN: There's a record in all of that of 134 grams of seeds. MR HALL: Not on the P11. Oh, I see. Seeds; yes. MR O'SULLIVAN: Which is 4½ ounces. MR HALL: Yes. Yes. MR O'SULLIVAN: Which gives you the extra ounces - - MR HALL: Yes. MR O'SULLIVAN: - - depending on what you're talking about. MR HALL: Well, Mr O'Sullivan's saying that there was another P11 form which said there was 134 grams of seeds?---Yeah. MR O'SULLIVAN: That's not right?. MR HALL: I'm sorry. I thought you were saying "seize", "seized". MR O'SULLIVAN: No. WITNESS: No. Seeds, yes. MR O'SULLIVAN: Cannabis seeds. MR TROWELL?: Cannabis plants growing. MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes. WITNESS: I can't offer an explanation, Mr Hall. All I can say is that - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14722

A20/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - all I can say is that G3's telling lies. He got charged with what was there - - what was there on that day. To think that you'd give him some drugs back is just ridiculous. MR HALL: Yes. Well, you remember that he says that he was taken back to the Tom Price Station and the box was placed in front of him and that he was left in the room and told to take what he needed from the box and he took - -?---You'd think he'd take the lot, then, wouldn't you and leave nothing on the table? If he's - - I know I would. MS PEPE: Can we suppress that? WITNESS: Would you? Certainly wouldn't leave anything on the table if you'd said he'd get charged with what's left on the table. In reality, he got charged with what he had in the house and there's two uniform blokes that were with us on that - - on that search. Surely they can attest to what was seized on that particular day. MR HALL: Well, he sought to explain why not all of it was taken by saying that you had said to him that because he had been arrested and brought back, it would be necessary to charge him with something, and that he was charged with a lesser amount?---It's all very well for him to say these things. It's easy for him to come along here and start saying, "Well, I can say anything I like at a Royal Commission and they'll believe me" and it's a chance for him to get back at us, to make the coppers squirm for what the - - what he's done. Are you saying that you understand him to have some motive to lie about you in these circumstances?---(...name suppressed...) and I sent him to gaol for 2 years. You think he's not going to have a grudge against us? Course he's going to have a grudge against us. Anybody would have. To say, "Oh, I bear no malice against the police" - - he's had 2 years to think about it and then he's just been pinched again lately for some other matters and he's got a massive monetary fine. Course he's going to be angry at all forms of law enforcement. But he's actually saying on this occasion that he had more cannabis than you charged him with?---He's saying we gave it back to him and then took his money as well. Yes. He says that you took $2500 that was hidden amongst some carpet tiles?---Right. Do you remember there being any carpet tiles?---No. I - - I remember that him and G4 had moved into a house right on the edge of town, a reasonably new State Housing Authority house. When you come in off the gravel, I think it was one of the .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14723

A20/2 POLICE first houses that you saw when you came in, but I certainly don't remember any carpet tiles there. In fact, I think - - I think we only went to the house on the one occasion. We never, ever went there again, and that was to execute this warrant. MR HALL: He also says that a statement was prepared for him which provided a false explanation for why he had the cannabis. Can I show you, please, the public version of exhibit 1840 which is D1037505? Can we just look at the bottom of the page?---Yep. A little further down? Is it your signature, the one on the right-hand side at the bottom?---Yep. All right. Do you recall this statement?---Not particularly, no. Well, he says in this that he's been told by (...name suppressed...) he doesn't have to say anything. He then goes on in the third paragraph: "I met a guy in the pub here in Tom Price on Saturday

night, had a couple of drinks, got chatting with him. He invited me back to his room for a smoke. I had a smoke. He asked me if I would like to get some of the mull."

Something about pricing there: "And I bought 2 ounces. One of the bags was a half-

ounce with six sachets which made up the full ounce. I paid him $480. The two ounce bags of mull that you found at my house tonight were the same bags that I got from this guy at the hotel. I have already smoked one of the sachets. I bought it all for myself, would've lasted me a while. The guy's name that I got it from was Tom - - -"

.07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14724

A21/4 POLICE MR HALL: " - - - from was Tom but I don't know his other name.

He comes from Karratha and drives a red Commodore. I don't know anything else about him."

Do you remember this statement at all?---No. Nothing about it?---No. It just seems to me that's a statement that some guy, in this case G3, would sit down and say, "Well, I don't want to get charged with possession of cannabis so I'm going to come along here and I'm going to tell the coppers that I bought it from some guy in the pub and it's all for my own use." It's a common story, isn't it?---Absolutely. And not a believable one?---That's his story. He says at the beginning, "This is my statement and that's what I want to tell you" and he's free to tell you what he wants to tell you. He admits ownership of it and that he's using it for his own personal possession, and at the end of the day that's the element of the offence. He says that this statement was effectively made up for him by you and (...name suppressed...) in order to provide him with an explanation for why he had the cannabis and would reduce the penalty. What do you say about that?---How do you know it's going to reduce the penalty? That's not up to us. That's up to the magistrate on the day. You certainly don't go around making up statements for these guys. If that's what he wants to say - - he was at liberty to sit there and say nothing, say, "Well, do your best. Prove it." Commissioner, can I tender Mr Warnock's entries for the 17th of October 1994? COMMISSIONER: Yes, the private and confidential barcode - - MR HALL: Is D1021510. COMMISSIONER: And the public is D1038197? MR HALL: That's right, sir. COMMISSIONER: The extract from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 17th of October 1994, the private and confidential exhibit barcoded D1021510, will be exhibit 2068C. EXHIBIT 2068C Mr Hall DATE 17.10.94 Confidential - Extract from Mr Warnock's journal. Barcode D1021510. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14725

A21/4 POLICE COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, barcoded D1038197, will be exhibit 2068. EXHIBIT 1068 Mr Hall DATE 17.10.94 Edited version - Extract from Mr Warnock's journal. Barcode D1038197. MR HALL: Now, can I then take you to Tuesday, the 24th of - - sorry, the 29th of November, in the public version, which is D1038207. Now, it's the entry which appears about the middle of the page. "Liaise with Ansett, Tom Price police and Drug Squad

at Melbourne re G3 returning on flight 1169 2200 hours 29th of the 11th."

Now, can you tell me what it was that caused you to start making inquiries about G3's travel towards the end of November 1994?---Well, he'd obviously left town. What date is this? The 29th? Yes?---My recollection is that he had been gone from Tom Price for some time. I think - I think - at that time there was probably a bench warrant in existence for him for non-appearance for, I think, the Beagle Bay matter. It may not be. It may be the drug matter, I'm not sure which one, and I think (...name suppressed...) and myself had spoken to G4 and her mother in relation to his absence from Tom Price and that he was actually over east, and he'd actually been - - I think by the 29th - - he'd actually been gone for a week or two by then. Right?---I think there's another entry, isn't there, where I spoke to a - - particular Drug Squad officers over east. There is, and I'll come to that in a moment. What were you asking the Drug Squad in Melbourne to do for you?---Oh, to say exactly I can't - - I can't recollect, but it would've been, "Look, this guy is in your patch" and I guess from - - because we had contacted Melbourne in relation to it we probably had a mobile phone number for him over there, because I seem to recollect that G4 had a contact for him over there, and obviously our information, if you take it on face value off of the occurrence book there, was that he was coming back and bringing some drugs back for him - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14726

A22/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - back for him. If there was a bench warrant in existence, well and good; they could arrest him or whatever, or tip him over for the drugs over there. MR HALL: Do you know where you got that information from?---No. Oh, I'd guess from G4. Did you try and contact him by mobile telephone?---No, not that I can recollect. No. Was there someone in particular that you dealt with in the Drug Squad in Melbourne?---I think their names are on the top of the occurrence book there - - on the top of that - - one of the pages very close to this one. There's one name mentioned further along, Sharon Stone?---There's two actually, isn't there? I'm told there may be reference to someone called Strahan?---I know Sharon Stone for the - - obviously similarity. I remember reading that only the other day. There's two detectives mentioned there. Right. Well, there may well be but not on the copies that I've got - -?---Oh, it's - - and I know it's at the top of the page where it says "Contacted Melbourne Drug Squad" or someone "Drug Squad. Detective Sharon Stone and - -" someone else. I spoke to them over there about it. Oh, yes. Glen Sadler? Does that ring a bell?---Well, they don't ring a bell. I've never met them, but they were obviously someone that I contacted; probably given their name from Perth to talk to or whatever, to ring them and let them - - or else I've just rung the Drug Squad over there direct and they are the people that I got put through to. All right. Did you have any success in locating G3?---Doesn't it say in the occurrences in the next - - ensuing pages that he failed to make the flight, or he had booked on the flight but failed to take it, or something? How did you find out that he was on a flight?---I guess I spoke to Drug Squad at Melbourne and - - and there it is, "Returning on flight 1160, 9.20, 2200, 29th of the 11th." To get that sort of information, I would have, I would think, had to get it from them but it says "Liaise with Ansett" so maybe I got it direct from the Ansett staff. They've got access to computers that can tell us where and when he was returning. All right. Can I tender the pages for the 29th of November, sir? .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14727

A22/3 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extracts from Mr Warnock's journal dated the 29th of November 1994, the private confidential version which is barcoded D1021513, will be exhibit 2069C. The public edited version barcoded D1038207 will be exhibit 2069. EXHIBIT 2069C Mr Hall DATE 29.11.94 Confidential - Extracts from journal of D.R. Warnock. Barcode D1021513. EXHIBIT 2069 Mr Hall DATE 29.11.94 Edited version. Extracts from journal of D.R. Warnock - Barcode D1038207. MR HALL: When he eventually did come back to Tom Price, were you still in the Pilbara?---No. I was back in Perth by then. You'd been transferred in - -?---Oh, my tour up there finished at end of 94. Yeah, I came back to Fremantle detectives office. Now, I want to ask you something about your journals. You heard the evidence of the other officers on the first day of this hearing, about approaches that were made to them - that's Detectives Clegg and Davies and Ranford?---Yep. Now, can I ask you this? How and from whom did you first hear that the Anti-Corruption Commission was looking for your Karratha journals?---I've got no idea. I've gone back and thought about it and thought about it. I think it was a rumour that circulated around. Like, as you'd be well aware by now, the police service is the greatest rumour mill that goes, and it just came up in conversation somewhere along the line. I don't even know how and I was aware some - - some time before this matter came up, a long long time before this came up, and I sort of thought "Oh, yeah. Right. Well, they'll find what they find" and left it at that, and I thought "If they want to talk to me, they'll come and see me." Okay. Well, what was it that you were aware of? Did you know that the ACC was looking for the journals?---Yeah, I think so. I think it was that the Anti-Corruption Commission had been to Karratha and were looking for journals and property receipts and whatever. Right. And did you know that they were looking for other people's journals, besides yours?---Yeah. All - - all of Hedland and all of Karratha. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14728

A23/1 POLICE MR HALL: Had you spoken to any of your former colleagues from Karratha and Hedland?---No. No. Did you have any idea why they were looking?---No. You must have made some - - must have had some concerns about it?---No. I'm a very busy man in a very, very busy shop and I don't - - and, I mean, we all know our telephones are bugged from time to time. They'd know that we - - if they took the time to bug mine they'd know that I don't talk to former officers and I don't make many phone calls and I don't go out much at all. Did you have any idea where your Karratha journals were?---No. I would have thought they'd all be at Karratha. When you left Rockingham there was - - you had some journals still in your possession at that time?---Oh, in the - - in the office. Yes?---Yep. Do you know where they were? Where they were put?---No idea. Where - - when I left Rockingham we were still in the old office. Between then and - - and now they'd moved in to a completely new police station. So my thoughts are that all of my bits and pieces I handed back and journals and that would have been taken to some archive centre somewhere where they were stored. It's not unusual, is it, if you get moved from one place to another that you might take your journals with you because you've got continuing court commitments?---Probably for court commitments, yeah, you'd - - you would request a journal be sent to you or something, yeah. So it wouldn't be unusual for you to have had some of your Karratha journals with you in Rockingham?---No. None whatsoever. But you don't have any specific recollection of that?---No. All right. Now, Sergeant Ranford; did you know him?---Yes. When you were at Rockingham?---Yes. Did he work in your particular area in Rockingham detectives?---I think I worked with him when he first came to Fremantle detectives and I don't - - I don't know whether he came to Rockingham before I left or not. I can't really remember. I know he was a nice chap; a likeable bloke and a reasonably good detective, from what I'm led to believe. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14729

A23/1 POLICE MR HALL: Now, earlier last year you were running a shop - a delicatessen - - ?---Yep. - - in, was it Waikiki?---Yep. From time to time police officers called in for lunch?---On the odd occasion, yep. There was an occasion when Sergeant Ranford called in?---Yep. But not to buy his lunch. What did he call in for?---I've got no idea. He came in one afternoon and my wife said to me, "There's a copper out there." I said, "How do you know that?" She said, "He just looks like one." So I went out and I spoke to Detective Ranford and it was quite clear he hadn't come to the shop to buy his lunch or anything. In fact, he used to just live around the corner and I used to rarely see him, except if I went to a get-together or a social occasion or something you'd see him. So what did he say that he wanted from you?---He said to me - - he said, "I'm - - I'm sitting in Mosco's chair," with a reference to Detective Sergeant Mosconi. He said, "We've been asked to collect up all the journals and to - - to catalogue them - names and dates and where they're from and that," and he said, "There's one of yours there from Karratha," which surprised me somewhat because I thought all mine were in Karratha, and he said, "It's in the corner of Mosco's office." He said, "It's from Karratha." And he said to me he was aware of the rumour that the ACC had been looking for journals as well. He said, "Do you want to have a look at it?" Obviously I said, "Yes," because forewarned is forearmed, as I've said before. And I said, "Yeah. I'll have a look at it." He said, "Well, I'll see what I can do about it," and left. But you're quite certain that this invitation to look at the journal came from him and not you asking him?---Mr Hall, I had no idea. I'd been gone from there for years. I had no idea where the journals were or what they - - what they contained, and I couldn't possibly know that they were in that new office down there. But the offer came from him to read it so I said, "Yep. Of course I'll have a read of it." And he said, "I'll see what I can do," and I never saw him again. I was busy with my business so I didn't give it much thought at all. Now, do you know when that was?---Nuh. Now, you say that the ACC was mentioned in the course of this conversation?---Yep. Was that by you or by Ranford?---Oh, I guess by Ranford. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14730

A23/1 POLICE MR HALL: You say you guess. Why do you guess that?---Because he told me - - he said that, "I'm aware - - " he came to me to ask me if I wanted this journal, and he was aware of the rumour that the ACC were looking for Karratha and Hedland journals. Now, you said that initially in this conversation he'd said something about gathering in the journals?---Yep. They were being all gathered in and recorded?---Oh, catalogued or - - I don't know what work he used. Catalogued?---But they were making an inventory of what journals belonged to which officers and at what stations, and I guess they - - I mean, it should have been done years and years ago, these things, but they were - - they were just thrown into a corner for - - as a keepsake. But there's no suggestion that that cataloguing related specifically to you?---No. No. No. Did he say why that was being done?---He didn't say it, but you can only guess - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14731

A24/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - but you can only guess it. The reason is because they can't - - they were looking for journals. There's ACC inquiries, there's a forthcoming Royal Commission and they'd want to know where all the people's journals were when they required them. MR HALL: Now, you told me a moment ago that when you'd first heard these rumours, you didn't make any checks with your colleagues; you weren't concerned about it. You did, however, when you say this proposition was put to you by Ranford, say yes, you would like to have a look at the journal?---Absolutely. Why?---Why not? Well, what was your concern?---What the - - well, if somebody comes to see you and you've had an opportunity to - - I mean, I don't know if this was a particular journal they were looking for, but you've got an opportunity to skim through it and refresh your memory from it. But you wouldn't know what you were looking for?---Exactly. What would be the point?---Why not refresh your memory from it? There was nothing sinister about it. I'm allowed to look at my own journal. He offered it to me. I didn't go down the police station and say, "Can I have that journal?" But that was something that you could always have done. You could have always asked, when you learnt about this rumour about the ACC wanting your journals, you're saying you could always have asked for them, to have a look at them and refresh your memory?---But I didn't - - wasn't aware there was a Karratha one at Rockingham. I always thought the Karratha ones were at Karratha. So was it just because it was convenient, it was close by?---Yeah, perhaps. He just said, "Do you want to have a look at the journal?" I said, "Yeah, of course I'll have a look at it." All right, but nothing was said about how this was going to be arranged?---Nothing at all. He said, "I'll see if I can organise it" and left, and I never spoke to him again about it ever. You were expecting him to get back to you?---I thought he'd probably get back in a day or two or give me a ring and say, "Look, you know, come down the station this afternoon and you can have an hour and read it after work" or whatever, and - - Well, did you ever think to contact him?---No. I was a very, very busy man. I worked from 4.30 am to 9.00 at night, seven .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14732

A24/2 POLICE days a week, and I was flat-out and I just didn't have time. In fact, I didn't even give it much more thought after that, so - - MR HALL: Were you here when Sergeant Ranford gave his evidence?---Yep. You know that his recollection of the conversation is at odds with what you've just told us?---Oh, he - - MS PEPE: Well, that's not accurate in fact, sir. He said he couldn't say conclusively whether he made the approach or whether Mr Warnock raised it. He couldn't say. MR HALL: I'll remind you of what he said. This is at page 1299 - - MS PEPE: Who's questioning? MR HALL: I'm questioning: Question: "How did the topic of the journals come

up?---It was - - it was raised by Warnock, that he'd heard that the ACC had been to Karratha.

"Can you recall the words he used?---No, not

specifically, no. "No, so he had heard, he had told you, that the ACC

were doing what?---Had been to Karratha. "Right, and in what respect had they been to Karratha?

Did he expand upon that?---To see some journals, I understand.

"All right. Do you know that he had served in

Karratha himself?---No. "Did he tell you that he did?---At the time, he

intimated that he had previously worked there. "Did he say what his interest was?---Well, what sticks

in my mind is he was unsure of what it was all about and didn't have a clue what was in the journals that was of interest to the ACC."

Now, is that last part accurate? You didn't have a clue what it was about?---He - - Mr Hall, he goes on after that, and he says that - - that that's his recollection - - Yes?--- - - but when it was put to him, he says, "Well, I might have raised it, but that's not what I recollect." That's right?---Yeah, that's right. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14733

A24/2 POLICE MS PEPE: That was when I questioned, sir, so if it's going to be put, it needs to be put fairly and accurately. MR HALL: It wasn't his recollection that he raised it. It was his recollection that you raised it?---Mr Hall, I didn't know the journal was at Rockingham. In fact, I mean, if you want to call my wife to come up here - - as soon as he went, I walked back out in the back room to her and she said, "What did he want?" and I said, "There's a Karratha journal down at Rockingham and he wants to know if I want to have a look at it", and she said, "Why would you want to have a look at it?" and I said to her, "Because the ACC were running around looking for Karratha and Hedland journals" and she wasn't aware of that. And I told her there and then that he'd come to me. There is no reason for me to know that that - - or, I couldn't have known that that journal was at Rockingham. The approach had to come from him because, as - - Well, unless you - -?--- - - he said he was sitting in Mosconi's chair and he said, "It's in the corner of the office." Unless of course you remembered that there was a Karratha journal there because - -?---How would I know it's in Mosconi's office and in the corner of the office? I wouldn't know that. Yes, but you could - - if that journal was at Rockingham, it must be because you took it there, mustn't it?---We're talking years after I've left the police service. Sure. Are you saying to us that you had forgotten about the existence of that journal?---Absolutely. Until it was raised by him. I was aware that my - - I was of the opinion all my Karratha journals are in Karratha. All right. Well, you know Trevor Fisher?---Yes. And you'd known him since you'd served together in Fremantle?---Yeah. He came to the shop some time after?---Yeah. Do you know how long after Ranford came?---Oh, it might be months, it might be weeks. I don't know. It was - - it was a considerable amount of time later. Now, what occurred when - - Fisher's daughter was working for you?---Yeah, she used to work for us on a Sunday. Right. Now, there was an occasion when you had a conversation with Fisher about the journal?---Yeah. I - - he was in the shop and we were just talking about things in general - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14734

A25/4 POLICE WITNESS: - - - things in general and - - and I brought up the subject to him. I said, "Look, Ranford has been to see me and there's a Karratha journal down at that office and he asked me if I could get a look at it" and - - and - - MR HALL: Sorry, you said, "He asked me if I could get a look at it"?---No, he asked me if I wanted to look at it. Right?---Sorry. Wrong terminology - and I said, "Can you refresh his memory or get hold of it so I can have a look at it?" and he only told me then, and I wasn't aware of it - - he said, "I don't work at Rockingham any more. I work at Armadale." That's how long since I'd seen him, but he says, "I'll see Brett and ask him if you can have a look at it or what's happened about it." Right?---And that was the last I spoke to him about it. Now, at some time past then, before you heard that Fisher had got into some trouble regarding - - ?---Look, that was the end of the conversation with Detective Fisher at that time. Some time went past and I hadn't seen him or spoken to him and that and he contacted me and he said, "Look, there's an Internal Affairs file about this matter" and he says - - he told me what had happened, that the fellows reckoned that he'd asked them to destroy a journal. Right?---And he said there was an internal file about and, I mean, he was - - he was very, very upset. Right?---As you would expect. Yes. Now, did he tell you that allegations were made against him not only by Clegg and Davies of an approach that had been made, they said, at Garden Island but also that Ranford was saying that he'd been approached by Fisher as well?---Oh, I can't remember exactly what he said. He said Clegg and Davies had made an allegation, they'd taken it to Brett Ranford and he'd gone to Mosconi who had gone through the chain of command and it had ended up at - - at Internal Affairs. All right, but in the context of him talking about this Internal Affairs investigation did he tell you that Ranford was also saying an approach had been made to him, an improper approach?---No, I don't think so. No. Well, did you raise with him about the conversation you say had occurred with Ranford at an earlier time?---I can't remember whether I did or not at that time. As I say, Trevor was very upset about the matter and that and he just said, "Look, it's been taken to them." I know some time, whether it was then or whether it was later on, I said, look, Ranford had .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14735

A25/4 POLICE been to me. "Ranford came to me and asked me if I wanted that journal to look at." MR HALL: You told Trevor Fisher that?---Oh, yeah. Whether it was then or whether it was later I can't remember. Because you appreciate that that might put a different complexion on things. If it wasn't you that initiated these inquiries but someone else had raised them with you, that might put a different complexion on things?---Brett Ranford raised it, don't worry about that. Yes?---I never asked him to look at that journal. But what I'm saying to you is did you appreciate that that might be a significant factor in the investigation that Trevor Fisher was presently under?---Look, absolutely. I mean, I've been saying all along this whole thing has been taken out of context. We're talking about - - Brett Ranford comes to me and asks me whether I want to look at a book, not whether I want it destroyed or not - that would be stupid, to want to destroy your occurrence book - and these two guys are relating something they've said when by self-admission at least one of them is 8 out of 10 drunk and the other one is God knows what stage of sobriety - - I'm not asking you to comment on those allegations which don't relate to you. I just want to know whether you appreciated when you were speaking to Fisher the significance of what you've now told us about the initial approach by Ranford. Did you tell Fisher that - about that?---I can't remember whether I told him or not. There was a lot said obviously at that time. He was a very, very angry and upset person and he's saying, "These guys have taken it out of context and I'm going to be stood down, and there's an internal file about it" and, I mean, he's an extremely worried and distressed person at that time so - - And he was a friend?---Yes, he was a friend. Yes. Well, bearing in mind what you've told us you say transpired between you and Ranford, why did you not bring that to Internal Affairs' attention - - ?---I did. When?---The very first time they came to see me. A chap named Bob Wilson and a fellow named Lockhart came to see me at the shop. They came at a time that it was not convenient for me to speak to them - I think it was a lunch-time on a Friday, when the shop is extremely busy. They spoke to me. I said to them, "Look, I'm really busy but I'll give you 5 minutes now." I spoke to them in the back room there. I asked them, I said - - the first thing I asked them, I said: .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14736

A25/4 POLICE "Has Brett Ranford given you a statement?" and they said, "Yes, he has", and I said, "Can I have a look at it?" and they said, "No. It's not our position to let you read the statement - - - " .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14737

A26/3 14738 WITNESS: "- - - read the statement." And I went through and I - - and I said to them, "Well, has he told you or has - -" I didn't mention names. I said "Has someone told you that an approach was made to me to read that journal first, that I didn't approach them?" and they went "No, they knew nothing about it." And I said "Well, this is the go with the whole situation." I said "The approach was made to me if I wanted this, and I never heard from him again" and I said "And I subsequently - -" and what I've told you here today is what I told them. They said to me "Will you give us a statement?" and I said "No, not at this time. I want to think about it first and I want to talk to Trevor Fisher first" and they said "Well, we'll get back to you" and the whole conversation took probably less than 10 minutes, and to this day I've never heard back from them since. MR HALL: Did you tell them that that approach was made by Brett Ranford?---Oh, they would have been able to draw that conclusion pretty easily from it. I didn't say it was Brett Ranford. I said "I want to see Ranford's statement" and then I said to them "Well, the approach was made to me first." Exactly what I said word for word I can't remember, you can appreciate - - Right. So - -?--- - - but they would have been able to very easily draw the conclusion that it was Ranford and surely any good investigator would have gone straight back to that guy and said to him "Did you go and see Warnock?" Well, why could you not say specifically "Ranford approached me first about this - -"?---Oh, you don't - - I suppose it's a bit late to say but you don't - - you don't want to get guys in the 'nure as much as you can. I said "Go back and do your job. This - - the whole thing is taken out of context." Lockhart's the one that amazed me. He's supposed to be doing an unbiased inquiry and he said "That guy Fisher should be out of a job. He'd be out there looking for a job tomorrow, if I had my way." He'd made up his mind about the whole inquiry right there and then. Just hang on. I understand what you're saying - you don't want to get a former colleague in the manure - but this was a situation where a friend who is also a colleague was in the manure and this was information that was relevant to the inquiry - -?---I told them to go back and do their job, go and see the fellow - - they knew who it was. They didn't have to be smart to know that, but to the best of my knowledge and from what I've heard since, they never ever made that inquiry, and - - and I know I - - I've heard how the file got written off too and I have - - I've never ever refused to cooperate with the Internal Affairs office ever and those blokes never ever approached me to come back and get a statement from me or to speak to me again. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN 14739

A26/3 POLICE MR HALL: Well, you refused, you just told us, to give a statement?---No, I didn't. I said "I don't wish - -" They wanted to get a voice - - a taped interview there and then. I said "It's the middle of our lunch hour. I'm not doing it now. I want to think about it" and they said "We'll contact you then" and I said "I'll think about giving you a statement" there and then, "but I'm not giving you one here today." Would you have given a statement about that issue?---Yeah, I would have. But you were never contacted again?---Never spoken to again, ever. Yes, all right. Thank you, Mr Warnock. COMMISSIONER: Yes, Miss Pepe. MS PEPE: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MS PEPE: MS PEPE: Mr Warnock, I firstly want to deal briefly with the Pilbara matters. It was put to you, when you were shown your journal entry for the 18th of August 1994 - that was the day that the search warrant was executed on the premises of G1 - was (...name suppressed...) there?---No. Was G2 there?---No. Was any money located?---Not the substantial amount that's been alluded to by G1. Whether he had some money in his wallet, in his pocket, I've got no recollection. Well, specifically, he said that $36,000 was located?---Yep. What can you say about that?---That's - - that's a lie, a total lie. Would you recall that if it was located?---I've already said here today that if I found $30,000-odd in the roof, you'd remember it all right. Do you have any independent recollection of that search?---I have some of the search. The conversation, I don't. It's memories that have been brought back through the evidence that's been given here at the Commission and the chance to look at my journals. Was there anything significant about that search?---None whatsoever. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XN XXN 14740

A26/3 POLICE MS PEPE: I need to put to you specifically the allegations that were made against you. It was sort of done, but Mr Warnock, did you steal money from G1?---No. Did you and (...name suppressed...) take him for a drive and return money to him?---No. There was also some evidence that a cannabis plant was located in the driveway of the premises of G1 and you talked about an OR, an offence report, and a P11. Now, we know that there was no charge preferred in relation to the cannabis plant, but can you just explain to the Commission why an offence report and a P11 is in fact still created - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14741

A27/1 POLICE MS PEPE: - - - in fact still created?---My thoughts are on that that the plant was taken back to the office by - - by (...name suppressed...) and when we got back there (...name suppressed...) would have said, "Look, you've got to get rid of this." And you can't just throw it into a rubbish bin; it's got to be disposed of properly. So I probably would have told (...name suppressed...) to put it in a drug book, or he may have just decided to do it on his own bat; put it into a drug book. But you can't just put it into a drug book and dispose of it, because every time there's an entry made into a drug book there has to be an offence report created to write that - - to write that offence off, because the possession of a plant obviously is an offence, if the elements of the offence fit. So there has to be an offence report raised to deal with that drug report, P11. And from the evidence you've heard, was the weight of the evidence anywhere near preferring a charge against somebody in relation to that plant?---Wouldn't get to first base. And you made some comment about the height of the plant?---Oh, I understand that a plant has to be, I'm told, in the old scale, 12 inches, 25, 30 centimetres, to have any THC value, which is the drug in cannabis. Anything under that it's just a weed. Okay. Could we please have on the screen D1042131? It's exhibit 2061. (TO WITNESS): This is a copy of an extract from (...name suppressed...)'s journal which - - have you ever seen this entry before?---No. Oh, earlier today. Yes, but prior to today. You said in your evidence this morning to Mr Hall that to your recollection (...name suppressed...) had nothing to do with the search on G1's premises?---That's right. Yeah. Is that still your recollection?---Yes. Okay. Was (...name suppressed...) the OIC of Hedland?---Yes. And you were the OIC of Karratha?---Yes. And you were in his territory, so to speak?---Yep. Would you have spoken to him about matters that you were dealing with in Hedland?---Yes, I did. So are you able to give an explanation as to that entry? It was put to you that - - you can see halfway down: "Interview in company with Warnock, account G1." WITNESS: Yes. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14742

A27/1 POLICE MS PEPE: Does that necessarily mean that yourself and (...name suppressed...) interviewed G1?---No. It can be read in another context too, there, that I've been able to ascertain: "Liaise PC McDonald re offender" - such and such -

"and interview in company with Warnock, account May." MS PEPE: G1?---So if you take it in that context, I've spoken with - - with (...name suppressed...) about May. The interview - - Sorry, Mr Warnock. We have to use the code names?---Oh, my apologies. About G1. It's quite clear that, looking at that, that the annual inspection was - - was happening on that day so Detective Inspector Gibson was at the South Hedland office, according to his diary here. And then (...name suppressed...) has spoken with PC McDonald re some offender, and interviewed him, or, "and - - " it's just got "offender" - such and such - "and interview. Then in company with Warnock, account May." So, I mean, I would have related back to (...name suppressed...) what - - what occurred and whatever. Because you were both officers in charge?---Well, it was - - we contacted each other weekly, if not daily sometimes about matters between the two towns. It was also put to you in relation - - a matter concerning an execution of a search warrant where a pump was located?---Yeah. And that was on the 29th of August 1994. Now, had you returned to Karratha by that stage?---Yep. Well and truly?---Yeah. And did you have anything to do with that job?---Nothing whatsoever. And it wasn't significant enough that you would have to keep in constant liaison with (...name suppressed...) about anything to do with G1?---No. Not necessarily, unless something major came up or a bit of information needed passing on. We'd - - we might speak on the phone about it but there's nothing that I recollect about it. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14743

A28/4 POLICE MS PEPE: Now, moving on to G3, you were involved in the investigation of a fraud at Beagle Bay?---Yes. Can you just explain in a bit more detail the nature of that fraud?---The Beagle Bay community is - - people will remember it for the church. It's covered in the flash oyster shells and that up there, that was run by the nuns and whatever. Beagle Bay community was trying to become, I think the right word is, "subsistent" and they had various committees, as they do, and they had a women's group and the women's group were responsible for various tasks of getting groceries and that for the community and purchasing different odds and sods for the community. G3 somehow or other formed a relationship with G4 and came to live at the community and gained the trust of these women. Kimberley Aboriginal women, especially the full-blooded women, are very easily coerced by their male counterparts and that up there, and I think G3 took - - very much took advantage of the situation, gained their trust enough to tell them that he was going to build a (... suppressed...) up there and was going to produce (...suppressed...) and give them all jobs and that, and they managed to get money from the government into an account and the money became the property of the Beagle Bay women's group, and subsequently he caused them to write out cheques payable to him for various amounts. I think in the end it was about $45,000, I think - - And are you able to - - ?---It was just pure deceit that he used to get the money for his own purposes. And are you able to say over what period?---I can't remember now. I think it was over a five or six-month period but I'm only guessing. Okay. Was G3 ever a registered informant?---No. So when you would make entries in your diary, spoke to - - I won't say his Christian name - - ?---Mm. - - or informant and his Christian name, in what capacity was he recorded?---He was a chap that you'd talk to, if you were in town you'd make a point - - that's our job. We're detectives. We're paid to find out the snippets of information around the towns and that, and you'd go and see this guy or you'd see somebody in the hotel or you'd make sure you bumped into them just to see what was happening, because this bloke liked to think that he knew what was going on in town and big-noted himself about it and you only had to walk up to him and talk to him and he'd start running off at the mouth and that, you know. He knew a bit about what was going on around town but so did plenty of other people. So when your journal entries refer to "informant" it doesn't .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14743

A28/4 POLICE mean that he was in fact a registered informant?---No, certainly not. MS PEPE: And were you present when he gave his evidence about all the dealers he'd tipped over in his dealings with - - ? ---Yes. - - yourself and other officers and that he would be able to name them and so on and so forth?---Yes. You've since had an opportunity to read the handwritten note of what he says is the information he gave to you as an informant?---Yeah. And are you able to comment on that without giving out any of the details?---Well, I think I've already commented on it. There's one name on there and the person is charged with possession of a smoking implement. Well, that's certainly not going to stop the drug trade in any town by any stretch of the imagination. The others are, I don't know, something that he could've learned from anybody around town. If somebody in town - - if the detectives came to town and arrested somebody for possession of a particular drug the whole town would know about it within the day and it's something that would have been common knowledge. And would you agree with me that at best it's vague descriptions of persons and that's about it? No names, no addresses?---No, I expected there to be all the names of all the people on there but there's - - there's anything but. It was also put to you that the NCA were involved in relation to G3, and I think you said that you weren't certain about that, but Operation Castille, which was an NCA operation - - were you aware that that was, in fact, G1?---No, I wasn't. I can't remember exactly what Castille was about but it didn't involve G3. Were you liaising at all with the NCA in relation to either G1 or G3?---At some time or other I think I had a chat with the NCA about G3. Just finally, Mr Warnock, in relation to your journals and this matter that was raised in Rockingham, have you ever been spoken to by the Anti-Corruption Commission?---No. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14744

A29/1 POLICE MS PEPE: Was there any bad blood between yourself and Clegg?---No. Davies?---No. Ranford?---No. Fisher?---No. And you said in your evidence that it was in fact Ranford that came to the shop and said, "Look, we've got this journal," and that was really - - and, "Do you want to have a look at it?" and, "Yes, I would." And that was about the extent of the conversation?---That was totally the extent of it. There was nothing untoward about the conversation or anything. It was just, "Do you want to have a look at it?" "Yes. I wouldn't mind having a look at it." End of story. There was no mention whatsoever of it being destroyed?---No. You wouldn't destroy your journal. That's - - that's your backstop. That - - that tells you where - - like in here; we can refer to our journal to say where I went and what we did on a particular day, and that we did speak to those people. You wouldn't want it destroyed. Were you present when Mr Ranford was cross-examined by me or questioned by me?---Yep. Do you recall that he in fact said he couldn't conclusively say that - - whether you asked him or he told you. He could have - - quite possibly have made the approach to you?---Yes. I - - he said his recollection was that I made the approach, but he - - it may be the other way round. And you made no efforts to chase up the location of that journal?---Nuh. And apart from that one occasion when Wilson and Lockhart came to your shop - them being the internal officers - - ?---Yep. - - they've never made efforts to contact you again?---No. Not ever. And would you have cooperated in an internal investigation?---Yes, I would have. Yeah. Thank you, Mr Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Mr O'Sullivan? MR O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, sir. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14745

A29/1 POLICE CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR O'SULLIVAN: MR O'SULLIVAN: I represent (...name suppressed...), Mr Warnock. Just firstly in relation to the search at G1's place in August of 1994, whose job was that, do you remember?---Oh, probably mine. Probably yours. You're the one who signed off the back of the warrant and so on on it?---Yep. Does that suggest to you that that would be right, that - - ?---Oh, yeah. Probably - - I mean, we all do the job but - - but I was probably the person responsible for ending the inquiry. Yes. All right. And you've told us that there was no money found there as far as you were concerned unless there was some smallish amount in a wallet or something that was dealt with appropriately?---That's right. All right. Mr Kingma was on that search, wasn't he?---Yes. Along with (...name suppressed...)?---Yep. And I think (...name suppressed...), who was from Hedland?---Yep. The rest of you from Karratha. Mr Kingma was an electrician, wasn't he - - ?---Yes. - - prior to becoming a police officer?---Yep. You said you would - - you don't have a great recollection of this particular search, but that the roof space would have been searched in the normal search?---Yeah. It's just - - Do you have any recollection - - ?--- - - a matter of course. Yes. Do you have any recollection of it being searched on this occasion?---No. I mean, sometimes you go to a house and you - - and - - well, we used to go to a house and you couldn't get into the roof cavity so you wouldn't get up there. If you could get up there you'd have a look and sometimes you can't. Was any particular use made of Mr Kingma's electrical expertise in searches where you went into roofs from time to time in a general sense?---Oh, probably as the junior bloke, so you're going to go up there and get dirty rather than you're an electrician and watch out for the wires, yeah. All right. So it was more that he was junior than that he was qualified?---That's it, pretty much. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14746

A29/1 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: All right. And roof spaces in that area in Hedland and so on; are they more or less dirty than you might find in other places?---Oh, hard to say really. They're iron roofs; 99 per cent of them are iron roofs so they're fairly tight. There's a bit of red dust around and that sort of thing, but they're normally insulated as well. So it's - - Do you have any recollection of who looked at the roof space in whatever manner - - ?---No. - - in this particular place?---Nuh. No. All right. You were then - - you've gone through some questions in relation to G3. Again, was G3 your job in the sense that it started with Beagle Bay and whatever happened after that tended to come under your control? Is that the way it went?---Oh, yeah. I would say so. (...name suppressed...) helped me, or (...name suppressed...) was my offsider on the job 99 per cent of the time, and he probably knew as much about it as I did. But at the end of the day it was my job. It's been put to you, and I think you appreciate that G3 was saying that in some way you had some sort of an arrangement with him that he would give you information and in some way you would do something to his benefit out of that. Was that the case or not?---No. Certainly not. Was there any arrangement where you, individually, or the police in general - an arrangement of which you were aware - would act in such a way that he would be left as the only controlling, selling dealer for drugs in Tom Price - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14747

A30/2 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: - - - in Tom Price?---No, certainly not. No. Did that happen? Did he end up the only person who was selling drugs in Tom Price, as far as you were aware?---He didn't. He left town. He left town?---He went soon after he - - the 17th of October I think it was that we searched his house and I think he said in his evidence that he was - - we were going and visiting him fortnightly after that and taking money from a stash of carpet in the side of the - - the house, but after the 17th of October, I think the next time we saw him, if I'm correct, is at a preliminary hearing that we had in Broome, so he wasn't in town and we were in Broome, and then very shortly thereafter that, at least by the 29th of November, he's already in the Eastern States and been there for a considerable amount of time, and when he next came back from there, I was already in Perth and I think it was around the beginning of February that (...name suppressed...) and someone else arrested him and charged him with possession of amphetamines. All right. So did he - - did you ever give him any sort of a letter to assist him with the - -?---No. - - Beagle Bay matter or any other matter?---He didn't assist us with anything. He told us peripheral stuff, I think, you know, just airy-fairy stuff that - - that other people knew about anyway. There was nothing major that would have caused us to give him a letter of comfort when he was sentenced, and we certainly didn't assist him in getting it. Without the benefit of having seen the list or description or whatever it was that G3 wrote out that you were looking at this morning, I think you said something about the second person on the list being the same as the person who was picked up with G3 on the 17th of October 94 when he was arrested?---I don't know who that person was. It was blanked out, the bit I saw. Someone called (...name suppressed...)?---It may be him, yeah. Mm. So was it simply the case that the person who was picked up on the 17th of October and charged with having a - - being in possession of a smoking implement, he subsequently told you something about him and he was picked up again, having something to do with it?---I think we probably spoke to that fellow on a few occasions when we were in Tom Price, the same as we spoke to this other chap. Yes. And G3 suggested that when you went there on the 17th of October, you picked up amphetamines as well as cannabis. Was that right or not?---No. If we'd picked up amphetamines, they'd be in the drug book and there's - - what did he say, 2 .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14748

A30/2 POLICE ounces of cannabis and a whole pile of cannabis seeds and that's - - that's the end of it. MR O'SULLIVAN: And the person who came to the door was described by G3 - - came to the door during your police raid was described by G3 as having the money in the hand and was trying to buy cannabis and not amphetamines. Is that right?---I don't remember that, but I think you'd have to agree, if there's two police cars in the driveway and one would be myself and (...name suppressed...)'s car which would be the four-wheel drive and the other one would be a marked police van from Tom Price, the guy'd have to be an idiot to roll up to the door with the money in his hand. Mm. All right. Now, the cooperation, as he was suggesting it, from G3, did that involve his nominating his supplier to you at any stage?---Did he nominate his supplier to me? Mm?---No. No. Or indeed, cooperate in the apprehension of any of his customers?---I - - I don't think that G3 ever actually had a major supplier. I mean, I think that's why he probably went to the Eastern States and to try and - - and he obviously did find a supplier in the Eastern States because he was apprehended when he came back to Western Australia. Mm?---This business of him having a supplier in Perth that he nominated and got taken out of - - out of the scene and that is - - I don't know whether it's a figment of his imagination or what it is, but - - Now, in relation to either one of those groups of incidents that we've had described in the evidence, firstly concerning G1, were you aware of (...name suppressed...) behaving improperly in any way or obtaining any pecuniary or other benefit in relation to the dealings with G1 in August of 94?---No. No? Or indeed, in relation to G3 at any of the time that he was with you and handling issues concerning G3 in 1994?---Whether he did anything untoward? Whether he did anything improper or corrupt?---No, no, he didn't. Or obtained any money?---No. Or you had any information that he had obtained any money - -?---No. - - or had behaved improperly? All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER: You'd sought information from G3, did you?---Yes. Yeah, that's our job as a detective, is to get .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14749

A30/2 POLICE information from various people, so if you spoke to him, "What's going on? What's happening around the place?" and this bloke had - - COMMISSIONER: Why did you bother? He is someone - -?---Because you never know, that one snippet of information - - Someone with a grudge against you?---Not at that time he didn't. It wasn't - - he wasn't sentenced on the Beagle Bay matter until well into 95 - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14750

A31/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - into 95. This is - - we're talking about 94, between - - oh, between February and October of 94 when he was on various charges for the Beagle Bay matter, and we hadn't got to the 17th of October where he was charged with the cannabis matter, and at that time I guess he thought - - well, I can only presume what he thought; that he thought he might be working his way to getting a letter of comfort down the line, but never - - nothing he said ever eventuated in that regard. COMMISSIONER: Did you raise the question of a letter of comfort with him?---Oh, probably not in so many words, but like all persons that come in when they're charged on a reasonably serious matter, they're always - - they're all offered that - - that offer. But he hadn't been charged at this early stage?---With the Beagle Bay matter, sir? Yes?---I think - - yes, he had. When we first interviewed him, he got charged with one or two charges, virtually just a holding charge. They were matters that we could prove straight off. I think what happened then is he gave us a story about what occurred. We threw some concern on the matter and we went away back to Beagle Bay and made more inquiries in relation to the issues that he had raised. We subsequently came back and spoke to him again and he was charged with the - - with the rest of the charges. Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr Laskaris? MR LASKARIS: Thank you, Commissioner. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR LASKARIS: MR LASKARIS: Could I just ask if document D1037584 could be brought up on the screen? Mr Warnock, I represent Mr Kingma. We're just waiting for Mr Kingma's police journal entry of the 16th of March 1994 to come up on the screen. See down the bottom of that page there's an entry that reads: "Inquiries with Ansett re air passenger - -" and the name's given. See the name of G3 there?---Yep. Mr Kingma was taken to this journal entry and asked if he recalled what it was about and he didn't - - he said he didn't have any direct recollection of it and then went on to say that he assumed that he was probably asked to make an inquiry with the airline regarding that person probably by you. Now, would it be uncommon for him to receive directions or instructions from you to do work on inquiries that you were conducting?---No, not uncommon at all. .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14751

A31/3 POLICE MR LASKARIS: And it is therefore possible and indeed likely that you may have given him an instruction to make an inquiry with the airline regarding G3?---In this particular instance, I'm of the opinion that (...name suppressed...) and myself were probably in Tom Price or Paraburdoo at that time and - - and to make inquiries with Ansett you have a particular line of contact and that would have been in Karratha, so it's fair to say that I would have rung Detective Kingma and said "Look, slip out to Ansett and make an inquiry whether this guy is on his way back or not" because obviously we'd had some information about what he was up to. Yes. Thank you. Now, during the period of time that you worked with Detective Constable Kingma in Karratha, did you receive, as the OIC of the office, any complaints in relation to any investigation that he undertook, or the way that he conducted himself?---No. No. Was there ever any suggestion by any other police or members of the public to you that he had engaged in any improper conduct in the execution of - -?---No. - - his duties?---No. Were you here when I led evidence as to Mr Kingma's character and his involvement with the community in Karratha during his time there?---Was that on the last day of his evidence? Yes?---No, I wasn't here, but I - - I can say personally he had a very good involvement with the community there. He was based with the local bowling club and different bits and pieces. His kids went to the local school. He was a well liked chap in Karratha and he left the detectives office up there and went back to the general duties section and stayed on in Karratha after we left. May it please you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Mr Robbins? MR ROBBINS: If I may just very briefly. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR ROBBINS: MR ROBBINS: With regard to Ansett security, was there an officer by the name of Mr Stan Wojtasiak who was in the Ansett security section, that you could use from time to time when you needed to?---Yep. So far as the NCA are concerned, when you went from Karratha to South Hedland, were you aware that there was an NCA FEDPOL investigation or inquiry regarding G1?---I'm of the opinion that I was told that there was another agency - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14752

A32/4 POLICE WITNESS: - - - was another agency having a look at G1 at that particular time. What the inquiry was and that I wasn't told, and I don't think I would've told the blokes about it. It was something between (...name suppressed...) and myself. MR ROBBINS: And so far as the extent of any holdings that the NCA or FEDPOL might have about G1 or, indeed, any intelligence information they had about G1, would you have been made privy to that or not?---No. And if it was the case that the NCA FEDPOL people were watching G1 and watching his activities to and from Melbourne, would it be the case that you were not necessarily privy to all that they knew about him and his activities in Melbourne?---I can't say what they would've done but I wasn't aware that they were looking at anything or his activities anywhere. Thank you. I just want to put to bed finally, if I can, did you ever meet with (...name suppressed...) at the Ponte Vecchio restaurant this year?---No. And did you meet there with anybody else?---I've never been to a restaurant in South Perth in my life. On the particular day that we're talking about - - Yes?--- - - I've gone back home and said to my wife - - well, she saw it on - - in the paper, I think it was. In The West Australian. On that particular day I was with her looking at transportable homes for a beach block in - - and I was looking at them in a place in Kewdale, I think it was, with my wife on that afternoon. And have you ever sought to discuss with (...name suppressed...) the details of any evidence that he might be giving in this Commission?---No, I haven't. With regard to the small plant that's been mentioned, in your experience was it sometimes the case that you - a police officer or anyone - might find a very small plant but the position was that if it was such a small plant, it was only one, there would be very little prospect of laying a charge against anybody if that plant was found unattended and apparently not cultivated?---If it's quite apparent to you that it's not cultivated - - I mean, if it's sitting in a pot on the guy's back doorstep and that then quite obviously he's going to know about it but, as I'm led to believe, a crack in the driveway, in the front driveway of a house - you're not going to get to first base with it. You wouldn't be able to sheet home to anybody - - COMMISSIONER: I don't think we need to worry about - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14753

A32/4 POLICE MR ROBBINS: Thank you very much. I'm obliged to you, sir. COMMISSIONER: - - the cannabis plant. MR ROBBINS: Yes, thank you, Mr Warnock. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Trowell. MR TROWELL: Briefly, sir. I think I'll finish before lunch. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR TROWELL QC: MR TROWELL: Mr Warnock, can I just ask you - - I act for Detective Sergeant Brett Ranford. Can I ask you this. You're firm in your recollection that it was he that approached you about a journal from your days in Karratha being at the Rockingham CIB office?---Yes, I am. All right. How well did Brett Ranford know you?---Brett Ranford and myself know each other reasonably well. I like the guy - - No, no?---He's a nice bloke - - At that time?--- - - but - - At that time?---At that time? Mm?---Yeah, we knew each other very well. Very well. Had you served together in any locations?---I think he worked at Fremantle when I worked there but he - - I think he was on the Gerard Ross murder inquiry at Rockingham when I was there. Right?---I've socialised with him and - - So you're not sure about those postings to Fremantle. You think that - - ?---I'm pretty sure he was at Fremantle Detectives while I was there. He would've been a particularly junior officer?---I think he'd just come into the detectives branch as a probationary detective. He may not have, he may have been - - You see, I ask you that because his recollection of what took place is diametrically opposed to yours. I think Ms Pepe suggested that there had been some equivocation on his part as to what was said, but I just looked at the transcript at page 12109 and he was quite firm in his recollection that it was you who raised the topic of the Karratha journal? ---Mr Trowell, I understand where you're coming from - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14754

A32/4 POLICE MR TROWELL: Well, don't worry about where I'm coming from. Just answer my questions?---I had not been at Rockingham Detectives Office for, I think, probably a couple of years at least. I couldn't possibly know the journal was there. I was of the opinion all my journals were in Karratha. But I just want to dissuade from any view that there's any equivocation on the part of Detective Sergeant Ranford as to who raised the topic of the journal. He didn't say that it could have been him - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14755

A33/1 POLICE MR TROWELL: - - - that it could have been him, and a reading of page 12100? I know will settle that issue. You see, I'm trying to look to see some motive for Ranford to approach you, out of the blue, and to tell you about a potential ACC inquiry relating to your activities in the north. Are you able to suggest any motive - - ?---No, I'm not. - - on his part?---I was as surprised as you. He walked into my shop. I didn't leave my shop. I'm busy working and he walked into my shop. And I do remember it must have been a hot day; he had a white, short-sleeved shirt on and a tie on. Because I was stunned when he walked in, and my wife said to me, "Who's that copper up there?" because I went up and spoke to him. She picks them out a mile away. Why did you say "stunned"? It's a bit - - ?---Oh, a bit - - - - overly dramatic, isn't it?---I don't - - it's contrary to what he says about coming in and getting lunch all the time. I might have seen Brett once prior to that, and maybe - - I don't think he ever came into the shop again after that. And I might have seen one of the other detectives once or twice. They didn't come there all the time to get their lunch at all. Well, why "stunned"? You used that particular word. Why "stunned"?---Oh, it's probably a wrong - - I just thought, "What are you doing here? Why are you coming to see me?" you know, so - - Curious perhaps, but not stunned?---Yeah. Well, probably the wrong terminology. Yeah. A bit too - - a slight exaggeration perhaps?---Perhaps. Yes. You see, Ranford's quite clear in his testimony. He says that you were the person who asked him to check to see if any of your journals relating to Karratha were at the Rockingham CIB office?---Yep. You deny that?---Absolutely. Do you know how he knew that you'd actually served time in Karratha? Because on your account you hardly saw him?---Because when he came to the shop he said to me, "I'm sitting in Mosco's chair at the moment" - reference to Sergeant Mosconi - "and the occurrence books are in the corner of the office, and one of them is a Karratha book." You see, what he's said about that, page 12099, was that at the time that he spoke to you in your shop he was not sitting in Mosco's chair, and it was only some weeks later that he had anything to do with journals. He said - - this is at page 12099. He was asked: .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14756

A33/1 POLICE "Did you know that he had served in Karratha himself?"

- that's you. He said: "No." "Did he tell you that he did?" His response was: "At the time he intimated that he'd

previously worked there." Then he goes on to page 12100, and he says: "Now - - so when you first went to the delicatessen -

this was where the conversation occurred - - " "Yeah." Ranford's asked: " - - you hadn't yet started doing

that job." That's Mosconi's job. He said: "No." "Is that what you're saying?" "Yes." "So did you know at that point in time whether any of

Mr Warnock's journals were still at Rockingham?" He said: "No, I didn't." He was then asked: "Did you come to know later?" "Yes, I did." "Do you recall when that was? How many weeks or

months later?" He said: "It was some weeks later." So what he's saying is that there's no question of him sitting in Mosco's chair at the time that he spoke to you at your delicatessen shop?---Mr Trowell, I can only tell you what was said to me, and I do remember it because, as I've said here earlier, as soon as he left I went and spoke to my wife about it, because she wanted to know what was going on. And I told her exactly what had occurred. Were you curious as to what the ACC may have been inquiring about your time in Karratha?---Of course I was. Yeah. Once it was raised again. When I first heard the rumour I thought, "Oh, yeah. Beauty. Let them go for it." And I gave it - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14757

A33/1 POLICE and I was a very busy man and I had nothing - - and I didn't pursue it any - - any way at all. I just let it go. And - - but when Ranford came and saw us I said, "Well, of course I'll have a look at the book." MR TROWELL: But you didn't follow it up, did you?---Nuh. Your curiosity didn't overcome your - - ?---I was curious at the time but, as I said, I was extremely busy and - - and probably a little overworked at the time and that, and he said, "Look, I'll see what I can do about it," and off he went. I never followed it up. Well, the ACC weren't inquiring about, for example, a speeding offence or something like that?---I had no idea what they were after. Well, you know generally by - - at least some understanding of what they're about and what they generally inquire into, don't you?---Of course. Yes?---So why shouldn't I refresh my memory from a journal. If I - - if there's one there - - I've no - - ?---I don't even know this is that journal. I've no criticism about that at all. I'm just wondering why you didn't?---I didn't - - I didn't have time, to be quite honest. I was very, very busy, as I've said, and I just never bothered to follow it up and I just let it go - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14758

A34/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - and I just let it go. He said, "Do you want to read it?" I said, "Yeah", "I'll make some inquiries." End of story. That was it. MR TROWELL: Why did you use Fisher as an intermediary?---His daughter worked for me and Trevor used to come in on a Sunday to pick her up. I thought Trevor was still working at the police station, at the detectives' office there. I didn't even know he'd been transferred to Armadale. That's how long since I'd spoken to him and I said to him, "Look, you know, there's a journal down there, any chance of getting a read of it?" and - - But you knew that from what Ranford had said, didn't you?---Yeah. Ranford said of course you could have a read to it?---Yeah, that's right. Why did you need to ask Fisher?---Because I hadn't seen Ranford again. Well, why didn't you just ring him up or go down to the - -?---I don't know why. It just came up in conversation, so it's not a crime. And I asked him and then he said, "Well look, I don't work there any more. I work at Armadale, but I'll see Brett and see what's going on" and that was the end of the conversation with him. Well, if you accept what those three officers, Davies, Clegg and Ranford said, the approach made by Fisher was an improper approach. He was asking - -?---If you accept it. Yeah?---If you accept it. I certainly don't accept the word of Clegg in the state that he was in. The other two, well, you can think what you like about it, but - - Well, you see Fisher, according to them, was asking them to destroy your journal. Did you ask him to do that?---No, I certainly did not. So if he had asked those officers to do that, it would have been without your - - without your connivance, your request?---That's - - I never saw Trevor Fisher again after - - after when I spoke to him about it, I never saw him again until he came to me and said, "There's an internal inquiry about it." Because according to those officers, he seemed to be pretty persistent in his approach. He approached Ranford first off. Ranford passed it off. And then he later approached Davies and Clegg?---Yeah. Well, whatever he did, that's something he's going to have to live with and he has to explain - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14759

A34/2 POLICE Yeah - -?--- - - what they did when they were drinking and I wasn't privy to those conversations so I can't offer an opinion on it. The big question, of course, is whether you asked Fisher to ask those officers to destroy the journal?---No, Mr Trowell, I did not. Yes. And do you think perhaps you're pushing Ranford a little bit too far away from you by suggesting that out of the blue he comes down and tells you this?---I - - I don't for one minute think that Brett Ranford's telling any - - any lies in relation to what those blokes told him. They think they heard something and he's passed it on in the chain, but I think he is - - Telling lies about the approach to you?---I don't think he probably remembers, or he doesn't want to remember. I wouldn't go as far as to say he's lying, but - - Well, you can't have it both ways. This is what he was asked by your counsel, page 12109: "Do you recall - - you say that he said to you that he

had heard the ACC had been to Karratha to see some journals?---Mm hm.

"And it's your recollection that he didn't have a clue

what it was about?---That's right. "Was it the case that you in fact said to him some of

your journals are at Rockingham?---No. "And that you asked him that he could read them if he

wanted to?---I said that I will have a look and see if I can find some and then you can - - of course, come and have a look at them and read them.

"So you're saying that he said to you, `Can you check

if there's any of my journals at Rockingham'?---Yes. "Not the other way around?---No. "Is it possible you might be mistaken?---That's my

recollection of the conversation." WITNESS: I know he goes on and says, "That's my recollection", but then when he's - - MR TROWELL: And then he says - - all right, let's look at that, then: .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14760

A34/2 POLICE "But it wasn't - -?---It was a long - - "- - a significant event at the time?---No, it wasn't,

and it was a long time ago. "So it could be the other way around, quite

innocently?---As I said, t was a long time ago." Now, I don't think you can take the interpretation that he's saying, "Well, everything I've just said previously is vague and uncertain and that's not my recollection" because he said, "That's my recollection of the conversation?---Yeah, but he - - he's having a dollar each way, too, my thoughts on that. He's saying, "Well, it possibly could've come that way around." Is that what you think he's saying?---That's what I think he's saying. Yeah, all right. Well, others will make that decision. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. MR MOEN: ...(indistinct)... I'm going to be a very short time - - COMMISSIONER: Yes, very well. MR MOEN: - - representing (...name suppressed...), if I could proceed? Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MOEN: MR MOEN: Mr Warnock, was (...name suppressed...) on the search at (...suppressed...)?---No. Thank you. Second of all, when you were there at the search, did you hear anybody performing the role of Santa Claus or a bingo caller in the sense did you hear the words, "Ho, ho, ho, what have we got here?" or "Bingo, look what we've got"?---No. Thank you. And importantly, when you went back, if you went back to the station, did you ever have any dealings with (...name suppressed...) on this particular day in relation to this search?---I don't ever remember seeing (...name suppressed...) on that day, but then, I mean, it's a long time ago. He may have come into the station or whatever. All right, and just finally, was anybody 6 foot 8 on this search that you were there, at (...suppressed...)?---6 foot 8? .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14761

A34/2 POLICE MR MOEN: Yeah?---(...name suppressed...)'s a tall chap, but I don't know how tall he is, but I don't think he's - - That's an exaggeration by G1?---A little, yes. Thank you. No further questions. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Mr Hall, do you have any questions? MR HALL: I do have just one, sir. RE-EXAMINED BY MR HALL: MR HALL: You were asked a question by Mr Laskaris about an entry in Mr Kingma's journal of the 16th of March where he'd made some inquiries with Ansett. Now, I showed you some entries in November, where some inquiries had been made with Ansett about G3, and I understood you to say that you believe there was a bench warrant out - - - .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. XXN 14762

A35/3 POLICE MR HALL: - - - a bench warrant out for G3?---Oh, I - - I'm of the opinion there was a bench warrant issued for him at some time, yeah. Right. Just the one?---I think he had a couple over that period of time. I think there was one and he came back and he got bail again, and I think eventually when he - - I think when he was arrested right at the end, after I'd left, that was on a bench warrant again; I think. Right. So there was an earlier bench warrant, was there, in March?---Yeah, I'm pretty sure there was a couple during the period. I think that's why we were watching for him to come back on the plane; that there was a bench warrant in existence for him, or he was cutting it very fine. Something to do with that, anyway. All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER: May Mr Warnock be excused? MR HALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER: Yes. You're excused from further attendance under the summons. Thank you, Mr Warnock?---Thank you, sir. WITNESS WITHDREW AT 1.11 PM HEARING ADJOURNED .07/07/2003 WARNOCK, D.R. REXN 14763

A36/1 POLICE AT 2.03 PM HEARING RESUMED: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hall? MR HALL: I call (...name suppressed...). COMMISSIONER: Yes. Could I have your full name, please, (...name suppressed...)? (...name suppressed...): My full name is (...name suppressed...). COMMISSIONER: Do you have any conscientious objection to taking an oath on the Bible? (...name suppressed...): No, I do not. COMMISSIONER: Thank you. If you'd take the Bible and read the oath out aloud, please. (...name suppressed...) sworn: COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Sit down, please. EXAMINED BY MR HALL: MR HALL: You are currently a (...suppressed...) in the West Australian Police Service?---Yes, I am. And how tall are you?---194 centimetres. What's that in the old scale?---Six foot four. Just probably a tad under. All right. Now, did you become aware in March of last year that the Anti-Corruption Commission had issued a notice for your journals?---I can't recall the exact date, but I was aware that the Anti-Corruption Commission had obtained some of my journals. I think it was prior to that date as well. Well, I think the notice is for March 2002, so - - all right. Did you become aware that they were also seeking the journals of other people?---I think I did, but I don't know how. Well, did you have any discussions with your former colleagues?---No, I did not. No. Now, did you maintain some contact with Detective Sergeant Warnock after he resigned?---And I regret this. No; not a lot. I may have seen him socially but I can't recall when that may have been. But as of a lot of the other fellows that you work with, once you don't work with them you get busy with the new sections and, unfortunately, I didn't see much more of Doug after he resigned from the job. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14764

A36/1 POLICE MR HALL: All right. In respect of your journals, after you became aware that the ACC were seeking - - you knew it was your Karratha journals that they were after?---Oh, no, I did not. You didn't?---No. How did you become aware of it?---I don't know. Well, did somebody ask you where your journals were?---At a time we had to account for our journals, and it was then that I realised that another agency had my journals, and I think I was able to work out which time periods they had the journals for. But I think prior to that - and that was fairly recently - I wasn't sure which time period whichever agency had my journals for, sir. All right. Well, at some stage though you became aware that some agency had taken your journals?---Yes. That's right. Yeah. Was that not a concern to you?---No. Not at all. And my journals - - I am confident that my journals reflect accurately my duties, and I have no concerns at all about yourselves or the ACC looking through them. Did you have any desire to look at your journals yourself?---Nuh. With respect to the hearings that have been conducted in this matter, we've heard from some of your other former colleagues that there were some discussions about - - amongst you about who was present and who wasn't; is that correct?---Could you break that sentence down? I don't mean to be argumentative but - - No. When this matter was last on for hearing - - ?---Yes. And (...name suppressed...) gave evidence? Yes?---Yes. Prior to that you'd all been in attendance here at the hearings?---Yes, we had. Yeah. There'd been opportunities for you to discuss who had been present and who wasn't present at the search warrant on G1's premises?---Yes. Do you recall having conversations with your former colleagues about that?---Well, I know we tried to work out firstly what the matter was about, and who was there and when it was, so - - but I don't recall the exact conversations. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14765

A36/1 POLICE MR HALL: Well, (...name suppressed...) told us that you had a conversation with him and told him that your journal showed that there had been an inspection on the day in question - the 18th of August 1994?---Yeah. That's right. I think that I was fortunate enough to be shown my journals and what I read of that date prompted my memory that the inspector was up for the annual inspections. Right. And what was your purpose in telling (...name suppressed...) that?---Well, because it jogged my memory - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14766

A37/4 POLICE WITNESS: - - - jogged my memory that the morning of the 18th of August 1994 (...name suppressed...) had said that he was staying at the office because he had something to do for the inspector and I wasn't sure if it was an inspection or if he had something else to do for the inspector, but that's - - that was my memory after seeing that journal. MR HALL: All right, and was it also your memory that because of that he didn't attend on the execution of the warrant? ---That's how I remember it, yes. By the way - - ?---Can I go on to say before you - - Yes?--- - - carry on that I have very little memory of the search warrants that we did that day. All right. Well, what is the memory that you have?---I remember, and I think it's prompted by my reviewing the journals and listening to the evidence given before the Commission, that (...name suppressed...) wasn't there that day because of his son's birthday. That rings true to me. I believe that (...name suppressed...) stayed at the office because he had something to do for the inspector. I don't remember much about (...name suppressed...)- sorry, G1 - or the search at (...suppressed...), and I remember going to a shed near the kennels at Hedland and that the shed smelt strongly of cannabis. That is my memory for that day. Right. Now, can you tell me how the shed came to figure in this particular operation?---Yes. From viewing the journals I know that Sergeant Warnock and I conducted some surveillance in Hedland and that a person or a vehicle went from (...suppressed...) to a shed at the Airport Kennels, and I believe that's how the shed first came to figure in that inquiry. What did you suspect was going on at the shed?---Had no idea. All right, so it was just the fact that G1 had gone there that meant that it was a building of interest?---Well, I can only recall from reviewing my journals and it's hard to say if it was actually G1 because we would've - - surveillance doesn't actually mean we positively identify a person. It's more likely that the sort of surveillance we would've been able to carry out, the two of us in one vehicle, is that we may have been able to follow a vehicle from point A to point B and it doesn't necessarily mean that the person in the vehicle was G1, but I'd say that the surveillance indicated that there was contact between (...suppressed...) and this shed at the kennels. All right. Do you have any other independent recollection of the search on the 18th?---At (...suppressed...)? .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14767

A37/4 POLICE MR HALLa: Yes?---No. I don't remember (...name suppressed...) being there and I have no other recollection. I don't even remember G1. When you say you don't remember (...name suppressed...) being there you're not denying the possibility that he was there?---Oh, no. I've listened to his evidence and it's apparent that he was there, but I don't recall him being there. Right. Who do you recall being there?---Well, I don't - - I do not recall the search, but I accept from reviewing my journals and listening to the evidence in relation to this reference - - I accept that there was Detective Sergeant Warnock, myself, (...name suppressed...) and Detective Kingma. All right. Well, do you recall how it was that G1 first came to your attention?---No, I don't. If we could have a look at your journal for the 9th of April, which is - - I'll show you the confidential version firstly. D1021469. You've got a hard copy, have you?---I have some copies. I suppose it's going to be a date that you're going to refer to. If it's easier for you to look at the hard copy you can certainly do so?---Sorry, the date again, Mr Hall? The 9th of April?---No, I don't have that. Okay. All right, then. Well, look at it on the screen? ---Oh, 9th of April? Look on the screen. All right, the part that I want you to look at is at the bottom, if we could just bring that up, thank you. It looks like you were recalled to duty - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14768

A38/3 POLICE MR HALL: - - - recalled to duty. This was a Saturday. You were recalled to duty at 2030 hours and a person who's named there had been assaulted on a bus, and it would look like "Then found - -" What's that initial?---It's the letters IPO. Which means?---Which stands for "in possession of." Right, "Then found in possession of cannabis." So the complainant of the assault was found in possession of cannabis. Is that right?---That's how that reads, yes. Then you interviewed that person with Detective Sergeant DRW. That's Detective Sergeant Warnock?---Dougley - - sorry. Douglas Rodney Warnock, yes. Yes. "And charged with one count of possessing cannabis.

The person did not wish to make a complaint of assault."

Now, do you recall receiving some information from that person on the 9th of April about where he was getting his cannabis from?---No, I don't. You were here obviously this morning when I put Sergeant Warnock's - - former Sergeant Warnock's journal to him?---Yes. And there was an entry there regarding the supplier and then the name of G1?---Yes, that's right. Does that not remind you that - -?---No, it doesn't. In this context, do you remember whether G5's name was linked to G1 at some stage?---No, I do not remember G5 being linked to G1. I do know G5 and I've arrested him on a number of occasions, but I - - I don't remember him being linked to G1. Was he somebody who was investigated for drug dealing?---Yes, I know that he was. That's G5?---Yes. Yes, he's a nasty little bit of work. All right. And was it for drug offences that you arrested him?---No. I first arrested Mr G5 for the felonious offences of fraud and serious assaults. Did you ever arrest him for drug dealing?---I can't recall. I may have. All right. Commissioner, can I tender the entries of (...name suppressed...) for the 9th of April? .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14769

A38/3 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. The one on the screen is the confidential - - MR HALL: Yes, sir. It is. COMMISSIONER: And the barcode for the other - - MR HALL: Public version is D1037593. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extracts from (...name suppressed...)'s journal dated the 9th of April 1994, the private confidential exhibit is barcoded D1021469, and it will be exhibit 2070C. The public edited version is barcoded D1037593 and it will be exhibit 2070. EXHIBIT 2070C Mr Hall DATE 9.4.94 Confidential - Extracts from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1021469. EXHIBIT 2070 Mr Hall DATE 9.4.94 Edited version - Extracts from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D137593. MR HALL: Now, can I then show you the entries for the 18th of April? If you have the hard copy of that I can put the public version on the screen?---Yes, I have a hard copy. All right. The public version is D1037594. Now, second paragraph: "Organise vehicle from Motor City and - - to travel to

South Hedland with Sergeant Warnock. Liaise with local CIB re target G1 (dealing amphetamine and cannabis.)"

Then, "Commence surveillance of target and obtain intel." So does that indicate that on this day you started surveillance of G1 in South Hedland?---Yes, it does. However, it may just mean that we started watching the house. We may not have sighted the target. Right. And "obtaining intel"? What does that mean?---Well, it can be as little as what cars are present at the house, or perhaps we had registrations of visitors, but I can't say, because I do not recall, what transpired or what we saw - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14770

A39/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - or what we saw, that evening. MR HALL: Did you liaise with the South Hedland detectives regarding this?---Oh, we would've, yeah. Why not simply pass the inquiry to them?---Oh, I don't know. It wasn't my inquiry and it would appear that for some reason we needed a vehicle that didn't look like a police vehicle and perhaps it required some detectives that weren't known in the local area to go to that town and perform these duties. Obtaining the vehicle that doesn't look like a police vehicle is what you doing at Motor City?---That's right. Are you saying that there was some reason to believe that the target, G1, might be wary of local police officer?---Well, not just the target, but you can't just rock up in your police wagon, park in a street of a country town and not have the whole neighbourhood know you're in town. That's - - you know, even going to Tom Price, you come through The Gap into town and the mine workers would let everyone know that the local detectives are on the way. But it would be very difficult, wouldn't it, to conduct an operation involving surveillance in another town?---And I don't say that we did an effective job. Had we had more resources, we would have done a better job. All right. Can I tender those entries for the 18th of April, please, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extracts from the journal of (...name suppressed...) dated the 18th of April 1994, the private confidential document is barcoded D1021470 and it will be exhibit 2071C. The public edited version is barcoded D1037594 and it will be exhibit 2071. EXHIBIT 2071C Mr Hall DATE 18.4.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1021470 EXHIBIT 2071 Mr Hall DATE 18.4.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1037594 MR HALL: Now, then the entry for the 19th of April, the public version is D1037595. All right: "Early start at South Hedland with DRW. To commence

surveillance of target in (...suppressed...). Target goes to shed at Airport Kennels. Continue surveillance. Target's son using motorcycle. Target returns to (...suppressed...)."

.07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14771

A39/2 POLICE So it would seem that it was at that stage you identified the shed at the Airport Kennels as being of interest?---That is how it appears, yes. MR HALL: Then the third paragraph: "Continue surveillance of target - -" Or is that "targets"?---Yeah, plural. Plural: "- - targets around South/Port Hedland." Is that "obs", observations?---Yes. MR HALL: "- - suspicious meetings with others, etcetera.

Target returns home. Nil activity." Do you remember what was suspicious about the meetings?---No, I don't. Right, but this was, you say, framing up at this stage as being an investigation into drug dealing?---That's correct. I don't - - I have no independent memory other than what I've been able to - - Sure?--- - - glean from my journal. All right. Can I tender the entries for the 19th of April, sir? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from (...name suppressed...)'s journal dated the 19th of April 1994, the private confidential exhibit, barcoded D1021471, will be exhibit 2072C. The public edited version is barcoded D1037595 and it will be exhibit 2072. EXHIBIT 2072C Mr Hall DATE 19.4.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1021471 EXHIBIT 2072 Mr Hall DATE 19.4.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1037595 MR HALL: The entries for the 20th of April, the public version is D1037596: "At South Hedland with DRW." Does that say "recommence - - -" .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14772

A40/1 POLICE MR HALL: - - - that say "recommence" - - ?---Yes. " - - surveillance of targets." Incidentally, the plural again. Who was a target here besides G1?---I can't recall. MR HALL: "Depart (...suppressed...) and behave suspiciously.

Possibly anti-surveillance. Target G1 departs and does not return for 4 hours. Search warrant - - "

is that what "SW" stands for?---Yes, it is. MR HALL: "Search warrant not executed as target not present.

Decision to suspend operation." Now, that suggests, doesn't it, that you had a search warrant for the (...suppressed...) address?---Reading that, that would be my interpretation of it, yes. And that a decision was made not to execute it because G1 was not present for 4 hours?---Yes. And the decision was made to suspend the operation. Can you recall why it was being suspended?---No. Was there any reason why? You obviously must have observed G1 returning to know that he was absent for 4 hours, or perhaps - - well, perhaps that's not the case. He hadn't returned after 4 hours. We don't know whether he returned or not, I suppose?---I don't know. Well, having got a search warrant, is there any reason that you couldn't have finished off this operation? Executed that warrant or another warrant on another day?---It could have been done another day, but why it wasn't or what developed over the next period of weeks I don't know. When it says, "Decision to suspend operation", was that to suspend it for that day or indefinitely?---I don't know. At least for that day. At the very least. If a search warrant is obtained but not executed, what's done with it?---Generally it will be on the file of search warrants. All right. Well, we've done a search of that file. We can't - - this doesn't appear to be on the file now. Could it be kept somewhere else?---If it's not on the file I don't know. Can I ask which file you searched? Yes. The search warrants file?---At - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14773

A40/1 POLICE MR HALL: At Karratha and at South Hedland?---All right. Because this warrant, as long as - - as well as another warrant is also missing - - Yes?--- - - which I have concerns about. Yes?---Yeah. Is - - ?---Do you people document which search warrants you seize? Yes?---So they were - - particular search warrant for (...suppressed...), search warrant for shed, search warrant for - - Yes?---That is receipted. In the - - yes, the - - ?---At the time of seizure. Yes. In the normal course all the search warrants should be kept on a search warrant file at the station that you come from. Is that right?---Generally, yes. Why do you say "generally"? What else might happen to them?---If - - search warrants may stay with the inquiry file until the end of the inquiry or the court case. Right?---At which stage they may be pinned to a brief. They may be forwarded to the DPP. They may be put back on the search warrant file. But that wouldn't be the case here because there were no charges ever laid?---No. That's right. MR O'SULLIVAN: Commissioner, just before my friend goes on, the question that was being asked of counsel, and the answer I didn't quite understand, seemed as though the question was being asked whether individual warrants were receipted when they were picked up by Commission investigators, and the answer might well have been that generally warrants are receipted. It's one thing to say you've received all warrants between 1995 and 1996, and another thing to say that you've actually received a warrant for a particular premises on a particular day. I'm not sure quite what Mr Hall's answer was. MR HALL: Well, the position is that we have conducted a search ourself by going to the station, and have searched the relevant files, and this warrant does not appear on those files. WITNESS: But have you receipted each warrant that you took from the file, or did you receipt the whole file. MR HALL: I fail to understand what the relevance of that is. Perhaps Mr O'Sullivan can enlighten us. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14774

A40/1 POLICE WITNESS: Perhaps I could enlighten you, and without being rude, I have some concerns about the conduct of the inquiry, and I think I've been denied natural justice. The - - your investigators have got to a witness during the lunch break. Your investigators have put words in people's statements. And now you say there are warrants missing from files. How can I get natural justice? MR HALL: Well, there are warrants missing from the files and I'm asking you whether you can explain where they might be?---They should be on a file. But - - And if they're not on the file, can you explain where else they might be?---Nine years later, no, I can't. All right. Thank you. Yes. Can I tender, Commissioner, the page for the 20th of April? .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14775

A41/4 POLICE COMMISSIONER: The extract from (...name suppressed...)'s journal dated the 20th of April 1994, the private, confidential exhibit, is barcoded D1021472 and will become exhibit 2073C. EXHIBIT 2073C Mr Hall DATE 20.4.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1021472. COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, which is barcoded D1037596, will be exhibit 2073. EXHIBIT 1073 Mr Hall DATE 20.4.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). barcode D1037596. MR HALL: Could it be the case that a warrant that's not served is simply disposed of, destroyed?---I don't say that it could not be the case but generally they should not be disposed of. They should just be put on the file as unexecuted. Now, you would expect that you would be liaising continually with Port Hedland when you were going there to conduct this surveillance?---I would expect that Detective Sergeant Warnock would have liaison with the local detectives. This matter with G1 was his inquiry and he - - he ran that but, yes, I would expect that would be the case. Did you have any liaison with anyone from Port Hedland?---Not that I can recall about this matter. Now, I want to take you to the 17th of August, which in public version is D1037600. Now, this reads, correct me if I'm wrong: "To office with Detective Inspector Gibson and

Detective Sergeant Warnock. Office inspection conducted by Detective Inspector Gibson."

Were you involved in the inspection?---I don't recall the inspection but I dare say that I would've been involved. All right. "Office duties and then depart Karratha and convey

Detective Inspector Gibson to South Hedland CIB office."

Now, is it your recollection that you all went?---I think we did. And: .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14776

A41/4 POLICE "Recommence surveillance of suspect G1 and follow to

various addresses. Obtain search warrant. Inquiries continuing."

So I take it then that you stayed in Port Hedland overnight on the 17th?---Yes, we did. MR HALL: Do you remember there being any briefing of the South Hedland detectives regarding what your intentions were? ---No. My - - my only memory is what's in my journals. Now, once again I say that I made these journals as I went along and I believe them to be an accurate account of my duties. All right, but you've had access to them now for some weeks. Has it not refreshed your memory about the events?---No, not really. Can I tender the pages for the 17th, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER: Yes, the extract from (...name suppressed...)'s journal - - WITNESS: Can I just say there that - - COMMISSIONER: If I can just - - ?---Sorry, sir. The private, confidential version is barcoded D1021477 and will be exhibit 2074C. EXHIBIT 2074C Mr Hall DATE 17.8.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1021477. COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, barcoded D1037600, will be exhibit 2074. EXHIBIT 2074 Mr Hall DATE 17.8.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of A. No comment.. Barcode D1037600. MR HALL: Was there something you specifically wanted to say about that entry?---Just that the entry, the last paragraph, where it says "Recommenced surveillance of suspect G1" - - As I said to you before, our surveillance capabilities were limited and it doesn't necessarily mean that we were able to positively identify G1. Well, you followed somebody to various addresses though? ---That's right, yeah. That would suggest that you did find G1, didn't you?---Well, it may suggest that we just followed a car. All right. Now, your entry then for the 18th, which in public version is D1038146 - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14777

A42/3 POLICE MR HALL: - - - public version is D1038146: "To the (...suppressed...) address, South Hedland.

Execute search warrant. Interview occupant G1. Nil results. With G1 to shed off NWCH."

Is that the North West Coastal Highway?---Yes. "Execute search warrant. Nil result." That would suggest you had two warrants - one for the shed, one for the house in (...suppressed...). Yes?---Yes. And that you asked G1 to accompany you to the shed?---It says "With May - -" Sorry, "With G1 - -" Yes?--- "- - to shed off North West Coastal Highway." It says that he was with us. It doesn't - - I can't draw conclusions as to invitations or offers or otherwise. Insofar as it says "Interview occupant G1" - this is at the (...suppressed...) address - do I take it that you've got no recollection of him being interviewed?---Yeah, you take it correctly. That's my standard way of writing "This is the person at that address and that person was spoken to." And I think it will appear in other places in my journal for other searches not related to this reference. And "Nil result"? Does that mean that nothing was found?---It means that there was no charges and yeah, it means there was nothing of interest found. All right. Well, you heard G1's evidence. He says that some deal bags were found with some residue in them, that some scales were found, some address books of his were taken. Is it possible that those sorts of things were found?---It's possible. I don't recall it. The fact that it says "Nil result" doesn't mean that those sorts of things were not found. It simply means that no one was charged?---No. The empty bags, a set of scales, is still a nil result. Yes, it's still a nil result - -?---Yes. - - although it might be of interest to you as a police officer?---It would give you an indication, yes. Yes. It might be of some intelligence value. It might indicate that somebody was dealing from the premises?---Yes, it may. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14778

A42/3 POLICE MR HALL: Yes. Can I tender those pages, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from A. No comment.'s journal dated the 18th of August 1994, the private confidential version is barcoded D1021478, and it will be exhibit 2075C. The public edited version is barcoded D1038146, and it will be exhibit 2075. EXHIBIT 2075C Mr Hall DATE 18.8.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...names suppressed...). Barcode D1021478. EXHIBIT 2075 Mr Hall DATE 18.8.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1038146. MR HALL: Did you hear later that a pump had been seized from the kennels?---I don't recall that. You've heard the evidence in that regard, that there was a pump - - there was record of a pump being receipted from Mr Pierce?---Yes, I've heard that. It was on the 29th of August. So about 10 days later?---Yes. You knew nothing about that?---No. There's also an entry in (...name suppressed...)'s diary, or the duplicates of (...name suppressed...)'s journal, that were produced this morning, indicating that G1 was spoken to about that. Did you know anything about that?---No. Was G1, to your knowledge, the subject of any inquiries by the South Hedland police?---I don't know. Well, if you were liaising with them, you would expect there to be an exchange of information, wouldn't you?---There would have been and the liaison would have occurred between Detective Sergeant Warnock and, I would expect, (...name suppressed...). Well, given that you'd executed a warrant on G1 on the 18th of August, wouldn't you expect that if he was spoken to subsequently about a pump found at the kennels - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14779

A43/2 POLICE MR HALL: - - - a pump found at the kennels, and given what you've told us that you felt there was some suspicion of cannabis at the Kennels' shed - -?---Yeah, I said? some - - cannabis - - - - is that not something that you would expect to be told about?---It may be something that would have been mentioned to you, but I don't think that it would be hot news off the press that would be relayed directly to you. I see?---It's of no great significance. Now, in respect of G3 - - ?---Can I just say before we go on - - Yes?--- - - that, and particularly, I take objection to the allegations made by G1 and I find a lot of the stuff he said to be unbelievable. And that - - that is my opinion, for what it's worth. Yes. All right. Well, your counsel - -?---And - - - - will get the opportunity to make submissions - -?---I'd like to tell you now, if you don't mind? COMMISSIONER: The submissions will come from your counsel?---Very well, sir. MR HALL: Look, I'll give you an opportunity now, to say - - to answer these questions; did you steal any money from G1?---No, I did not. Did you go up in the roof, in G1's premises?---I have no recollection of going up in the roof. Was any cash found at those premises during the execution of the search?---Not that I know of. All right. Now, in respect of G3, do you recall having dealings with him?---Yes. And did you first meet him in company with Detective Sergeant Warnock in regard to the Beagle Bay inquiry?---Yes, that's right. Did he come to be a person who provided information to the police regarding drug dealing in Tom Price?---As Detective Sergeant Warnock has said, G3 was a conman, he was a criminal. And he was a problem for the communities at Beagle Bay. He was a problem for G4 and her family. He was a problem to the community of Tom Price. I found him, over the period of time of dealing with him to be a blatant liar and a criminal and I arrested him on four occasions in the span of one year. Sorry, what was your question? .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14780

A43/2 POLICE MR HALL: Would you like to answer it now?---Yeah. Did he come to be an informant for police? Did he provide information?---Yes. After his - - probably his second arrest for the Beagle Bay issue, inquiry, I recall that he was given the option to provide information and perhaps get a letter of comfort for his charges in relation to Beagle Bay, and I consider that he probably did give information to Detective Sergeant Warnock, but I treat everything that fellow says with disregard. Well, you and Detective Sergeant Warnock went on meeting him in his capacity as an informant over many months, did you not?---Yes, we did. Yeah. If he was so unreliable, untrustworthy, so - - such a bad character as you describe him, why did you go on meeting him?---Well, unfortunately, Mr Hall, a lot of the people we have to deal with fit that description and those people can provide you, from time to time, with a valuable piece of information, as Detective Sergeant Warnock has told you. All right. So notwithstanding your view of his character, are you saying that you went on meeting him because he did provide valuable information?---Because he didn't? Because he did?---I recall that the fellow was speaking to Sergeant Warnock and he was providing some information, but I have no recollection of that information being of value, but yes, every now and then we would meet him. I wouldn't say it was regular, but as Detective Sergeant Warnock said, when we were in town, if we weren't locking him up we'd probably chase him up and see what he had to say. But if the information was never of any value, you just wouldn't bother, would you?---You certainly wouldn't act on the information without it being corroborated by another source. Do you remember whether any of the information he provided assisted in leading to a person's arrest?---No, I don't recall that happening. I think you've undertaken some inquiries of your own, haven't you, to try and identify anybody who might have been arrested as a result of information that came from G3 - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14781

A44/1 POLICE MR HALL: - - - that came from G3?---No. Right. Well, could I show you the handwritten version that G3 has produced, which was D1038034? It's a confidential exhibit. Are you able to read that?---Yeah. This is the first time I've seen this. Yes. I realise that. Now, read through it if you would, and answer this question; are you able to identify any of the people described on this document?---Yeah. Any more? No?---Oh. No, I can't. The Fremantle thing strikes a chord, but I think it was more a couple of fellows in Hamilton Hill, and I'm not sure if it was from the information that came from G3 and if it actually led to any result. Are you saying that G3 did provide you with some information in respect of the people who are described in the third entry?---Maybe. The - - I have a recollection of requesting some inquiries to be done in the Hamilton Hill area, but I'm not sure if that - - you know, it's 9 years ago. I can't positively say that it was information from G3. All right. I understand that. And the other two entries?---No. Are you able to identify any of those people?---No, I'm not. All right. Thank you for that. Now, G3 said that it was in the context of him being charged over the Beagle Bay matter that he was asked whether he could provide information. Do you accept that that's correct?---I accept that that would be right, yes. And do you remember exactly what it was was put to him by - - ?---No. No?---No. Now, G3 was never a registered informant, was he?---No. In those days, unfortunately, we didn't have the procedures that the agency has in place now in relation to informant management. Had those procedures been in place at that time then we would be able to produce the registrations and the contact advices, and I think that the agency has gone forward by now having such policies in place. All right. So at that time there was no register for informants?---No. Was there any procedure that you had to advise your superiors if you had an informant?---No. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14782

A44/1 POLICE MR HALL: Was there any mechanism for recording offers of this sort that were made? If you provide information it may receive an appropriate recognition when you are sentenced?---No other mechanism in the - - sorry; mechanism than the case officer keeping his own records. All right. COMMISSIONER: When did the new provisions come in?---I knew you'd ask that, sir. Two or three years ago, but I'm not certain of the date. Yes. Before that though we have heard in other segments that there was some sort of register or a book kept in the safe at some police stations. Did that exist in the Port Hedland or the - - ?---Not that I knew of, sir. But there is certainly a register now kept in a safe of registered informants. Yes. Thank you. MR HALL: Now, there was a warrant executed on G3's home on the 17th of October. You were the person who was the warrant holder. I can show you the warrant if you like; D1037440. Now, it's a little faint but can you see your name there as - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14783

A45/4 POLICE MR HALL: - - - name there as the person who swore the information - - ?---Yes. - - to take the warrant out? And this is a confidential exhibit but it shows the address of G3. Do you have any recollection of taking out this warrant?---No, I don't. On the back of the search warrant, which should be page 3 - - yes. Is that your writing?---Yes, it is. So: "Executed 1800 hours, 17 October 1994 by Warnock,

(...name suppressed...), Shellam and Huxley. Seized 54 grams cannabis."

Is that what it reads?---Yes. And Shellam and Huxley - were they uniformed officers from Tom Price?---Yes, they were. Do you remember how it was you came to obtain this warrant, on what information?---No. Now, where it says "Seized 54 grams of cannabis" do I take it that that was the total amount that was seized at those premises on that day?---No. That should also have the cannabis seeds that were seized as well. Well, why doesn't it?---I don't know. Well, isn't it proper practice for you to put down every item that's been seized at the premises?---Yes. So are you saying that there was also a quantity of seeds that were seized at the premises but you didn't note it on the back of the warrant?---That's right, yeah. Well, can you tell me why you didn't note it on the back of the warrant?---No. It's an error on my part. I've remembered the seeds now since listening to the evidence but why I didn't write it on the back of the warrant I've got no idea. Well, what do you remember about there being seeds there? ---Only from what I've seen in evidence in relation to this reference. Are you saying that you've got no independent recollection of seeds but you've seen a P11 referred to and that you're constructing from that?---Yeah. I don't have an independent recollection of the search on that day. At all?---No. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14784

A45/4 POLICE MR HALL: So the only reason that you're saying that there should have also been an entry for 134 grams of cannabis seeds is because you've seen a P11 form that says that seeds were seized on that day?---And in the typewritten statement that I made there's reference to the seeds, so really that is a mistake on my part but there is documentation properly done so by myself in relation to those seeds. I think the P11 is my handwriting and I entered, quite properly, the amount of seeds even though there was no person charged in relation to those seeds, as I did with the cannabis plant at Port Hedland. Yes, well, let's look at - - there's a P11 for 54 grams of cannabis, which is D1037442. Are you saying some of that is in your handwriting?---That's all in my handwriting except for the signature and notations of Detective Sergeant Warnock as the receiving witnessing member. Right, and this shows that the matter went to court in Tom Price, it shows a charge number, and there was an order for destruction made?---Yes, it does. 15 November 94. And then it was destroyed at Karratha on the 22nd of December 1994?---That's correct, yes. In the presence of - - it looks like a couple of JP? ---Priddeth is the inspector. There's two JPs. Yes. All right, and then there's a second P11, which is D1037443. And the handwriting there is yours?---Yes, it is, sir. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14785

A46/3 POLICE MR HALL: "Seized. Same address. Same date. No person charged." WITNESS: That's right. MR HALL: Why wasn't anyone charged?---Probably a little matter of evidence. What do you mean by that?---Well, particularly myself, if there's evidence that someone had it in their possession, if I could prove possession, I would have charged someone. So I can only gather now that there was insufficient evidence to charge someone with possession of those prohibited seeds. Well, they were seized at the same time, same place. What could possibly be the difference between the cannabis that was seized and the seeds that were seized?---Evidence of possession, Mr Hall. Yes - -?---We don't know where the cannabis seeds at - - were located at 214 Moonah Street, Tom Price. Well, what possible difference could there be between the evidence that relates to the seeds and the evidence that relates to the cannabis?---Evidence of possession. I don't know, because - - You can't help us further with that, because you can't remember the search?---No, no, but surely you're aware that possession, although it may sound simple, is not a simple issue and that drug dealers have walked away, after having ounces of powders found in their backpackers - - backpacks and been found to have no knowledge of possession. So possession isn't as simple as everyone - - Yes, all right. Thank you for that. But you've got no recollection - -?---No, but I've told you that - - - - of the search?--- - - probably we couldn't charge this fellow, and believe me, if I could lay a charge on this bloke I would have done it. COMMISSIONER: You can't say where the cannabis seeds were discovered?---No, that's right, sir. I can't. Or whether they were next to the cannabis, or near the cannabis?---They could have been outside by the bin. I don't know. Mm. Yes. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14786

A46/3 POLICE MR HALL: There was a statement taken from G3 which, in public version, is D1037505. Have you got any recollection of him being taken back to the Tom Price Police Station and interviewed there?---No. He says this statement was typed out for him. Any recollection of doing that?---No, but I do - - I do recognise the layout of the statement and that is my typing, because I - - I structured my statements in that manner at that time. The handwritten part at the bottom, is that G3's handwriting, or don't you know?---I believe it is his handwriting. And then your signature and Sergeant Warnock's signature?---Yes. All right. Well, there's no reference in this to the seeds at all, is there?---Except - - Sorry. "I don't know who owns the mull seeds that you found. I've never seen them before"?---That's right. That's - - that's the reference to the prohibited seeds. He refers to them as "mull seeds." Mm. But there's no - - no recorded interview that will assist us in determining what the difference was that you say must exist between evidence in relation to the seeds and the cannabis?---As in a video recorded interview? Or any other recorded interview?---There would have been notes of our conversation prior to the statement, but I'm unable to assist you with that. COMMISSIONER: There's no reference in there to where the mull seeds were found?---No, sir. There's only that one line. There may well have been questions asked of him prior to the statement being commenced. MR HALL: These notes that you said would have been taken, where would they have been recorded?---The investigate - - I can only say this from the standard practice. Yes?---You would ask a fellow questions, or a person questions. You may take notes. You would take notes of those questions and answers and you would lead into a confessionary statement, which this is. All right. But where would those notes be recorded? In what - - in a book, a notebook of some form?---Probably a - - on foolscap paper and they would remain in the inquiry file. So you would expect that they would still be on the inquiry file?---But they may be attached to the brief, but I - - I don't know. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14787

A47/2 POLICE MR HALL: All right. Your journal for this day, the public version is D1042111. Do you have a hard copy there?---The 17th of October? Yes, I do. Yes, good. It's the last paragraph, the largest paragraph that I direct your attention to: "Travel to Tom Price with DRW re drug info. Liaise" -

does that say liaise - "with local police." WITNESS: Yes. MR HALL: "To G3's address. Execute search warrant. Locate

cannabis. Return to office with G3 and another person."

WITNESS: Yes. MR HALL: Do you remember another person being arrested?---No, I don't. MR HALL: "PCs Shellam and Huxley interview the other person.

Interview G3, obtain statement and charge possess cannabis. Liaise with AFP and NCA re info obtained."

Do you remember what info was obtained, that necessitated you liaising with the AFP and the NCA?---No, I don't. And the other person was charged with possession of a smoking utensil?---Mm. Commissioner, can I tender that entry in both forms? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from (...name suppressed...)'s journal dated the 17th of October 1994, the private confidential version, barcoded D1042103, and will be exhibit 2076C. The public edited version is barcoded D1042111 and it will be exhibit 2076. EXHIBIT 2076C Mr Hall DATE 17.10.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1042103 EXHIBIT 2076 Mr Hall DATE 17.10.94 Edited Version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1042111 MR HALL: Now, G3 says, as I'm sure you're aware, that 5 to 6 ounces of cannabis were located at his premises, that he was .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14788

A47/2 POLICE taken back to Tom Price and that the box containing those items, along with other items that had been seized, was placed in front of him and he was left in a room and told to take what he wished. I take it that you deny that that occurred?---Oh, more than deny it. I find that absolutely ridiculous. That - - I'll tell you now, that said, there is no way that I would put a box of exhibits in front of a crook and leave him alone in the room with it. That is preposterous. It didn't happen, there was no money stolen, there was no amphetamine. It's rubbish. MR HALL: Yes. Well, he also said, as you're adverting to, that $2500 was taken. You deny that?---I do, yes. I deny that very strongly. Just answer me this; in respect of 5 to 7 - - what's the ounce, as opposed to grams rate? It's about 28 grams?---I'll answer you that. Yeah, it is 28 grams to an ounce, yeah. 5 to 7 ounces would take you over the amount that raises the presumption of sell or supply, wouldn't it?---For which drug? For cannabis? 100 grams?---Yes. All right. MR O'SULLIVAN: Not if it's seeds, though, necessarily, Mr Hall. MR HALL: No, no. I know they're seeds. No, I'm basing that on an assumption that it was all cannabis, which may or may not be correct. WITNESS: Mm. Assumption's a dangerous thing sometimes. MR HALL: Yes, they may be. Of course, if you're charged - - if you have got over 100 grams of cannabis and you're charged with simple possession, that will make a difference to the possible penalty, won't it?---Penalties range on the amount you have in your possession, yes. Yes, so if you're charged with less than 100 grams, if you're charged with a simple possession offence rather than possession with intent to sell or supply, that will have a difference on the sorts of penalties that you may - -?---That's right, yes. - - get?---That's laid out in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Yes?---Yeah. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14789

A47/2 POLICE MR HALL: Seeing this entry that you made on the 17th of October in your journal hasn't brought back any recollection for you of the events of that search - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14790

A48/1 POLICE MR HALL: - - - events of that search?---No, sir. It has not. You don't recall there being another person there who was arrested with a utensil? With a smoking implement?---No. If there was another person who was arrested with arriving at the premises with a smoking implement, wouldn't that raise a suspicion of dealing?---With a smoking implement? Yes?---Well - - If they were arriving at the premises?---Not necessarily, Mr Hall. Unfortunately, cannabis is used widely in the community and lots of people get around with smoking implements. Yes. But being a policeman you've got to have a suspicious mind about these things, don't you? You've got to be questioning?---Suspicious, but fair and open at the same time, sir. Now, just one final thing, sergeant. Have you had cause in the last month or so since this matter first has arisen at the Royal Commission to use your position as a police officer to look up some of the witnesses on the police computer?---Yes, I have, and I'd like to say that I've gone to extents to assist the Commission. I've provided journals, I've found briefs, I've found video interviews that, on your own statements, you didn't know existed, and I provided them to the Commission to assist the Commissioner. Well, let's just stick with my questions. You have looked up some of the names of the witnesses. You knew those names were suppressed - were not for publication - but you've looked them up on the police computer?---Oh, yeah. Yep. Yes. And what was your purpose in doing that?---Can I just go to the book that I was running at the time? No. You can tell me what your purpose was for looking up those names in the computer?---I wanted to find out their criminal history. And you, in the position of a currently serving police officer, were in a better position to do that than any of your former colleagues, weren't you?---(...name suppressed...) could have done that, and Peter Kingma could have done it. Peter Kingma, yes, sorry. But some of your former colleagues; (...name suppressed...), Warnock - they were not in a position to do that?---No. But - - Did you regard it as police business, looking up that information on the police computer?---I regarded it as Royal Commission business. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14791

A48/1 POLICE MR HALL: Yes?---Mm. Did you regard it as police business?---Yes. Did you tell any of your superiors that you were doing it?---I sought the approval of Detective Inspector Louise Ball of the Royal Commission liaison unit, and I was granted approval to check the police computer for their criminal histories, which had not been provided by the Commission at that time. Well, no one asked us?---Well, we can't wait for you lot to find everything. I see?---In all fairness, sir - - but - - So you thought you'd use the information available to you as a police officer to check up some of the witnesses who were being called before the Commission?---That's right. With - - with the consent of the inspector. Right?---And I - - I did what I was approved to do. You just looked up their offence histories, or did you look up other information about them?---No; other information. Why did you do that?---To find information to assist the Commission, because I find that the allegations made by these witnesses - - I take exception to them. They're untrue and, much as you may like to portray a shadow of corruption, I think that the truth should shine a light and should be brought before the Commissioner. Did you find any information that would assist the Commission?---In relation to - Did you find any information - - ?---Yes. Yep. Well, it hasn't been passed to us?---I've provided a brief of evidence in relation to G4 on which there are statements. No. No. I'm talking about your looking up information on the computer. Did you find on the computer any information that you considered would be of assistance to the Commission in this particular series of hearings?---Not that I can think of straight away. There was some vehicles registered to, or sold by G3. G1?---G3. G3. All right?---I made inquiries with the - - with another agency to find out if they still had records of the sale of vehicles. That's not the case. So, no; there's no information that comes to mind that can assist us further. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14792

A48/1 POLICE MR HALL: So you spoke to other people, did you, within the police service about these particular witnesses?---No. Who was it you spoke to? Someone outside the police service?---I made inquiries with the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, or something. They're now responsible for vehicle records. Right?---And I simply sought to find out if records of a certain date were still held. Right. And when making those inquiries you represented yourself as a police officer?---Yeah. Because they're not available generally to the public, are they?---No, they're not. No. Didn't you think that in the circumstances it was more appropriate to ask somebody who had the official responsibility for inquiring to do these checks?---Well, to do that I would then have to discuss the matter - - the reference with another person, and I find that there's nothing inappropriate in what I've done. I simply seek to assist your investigators that have struggled a little bit along the way, to provide them with further information. Yes. I'm sure you think that. All right. Yes. Thank you, (...name suppressed...). COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr O'Sullivan? CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR O'SULLIVAN: MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes. For example, (...suppressed...), you said that you were looking for vehicles that had been associated with G3. Was that one of the things you were doing? You were looking for any evidence of vehicles associated with G3?---That's right. Yeah. And was that because G3 had given evidence that there had been money taken from him which was - - by police which was subsequently given back to him because it was verified as being the proceeds of the sale of a vehicle and not the proceeds of the sale of drugs - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XN 14793

A49/4 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: - - - sale of drugs?---Yes, that's the evidence that he gave, yeah. And is that what you were endeavouring to pursue?---Yes. And that being an allegation which was made in respect of ultimately corruption allegations made by him against you and others?---That's right. Warnock in particular?---That's right. And you asked the appropriate officer - Inspector, is it, Ball - - ?---Yeah, Inspector Louise Ball of the Royal Commission Liaison Unit. Yeah. Yes, an officer who has a function particularly in the Police Service in relation to this Royal Commission?---That's right, yeah. And you asked her for permission to access adequate police records?---Yes, I did. And the purpose of that was to enable you to deal with allegations that were being made against you in this Commission?---Yes, and I consider that they relate to my duties. And you were given that permission?---Yes. And the allegations made against you were made against you as a member of the Police Service and not as a member of the public in general?---That's right. Do you feel that you have done anything wrong in what you have done in that regard?---No, nothing at all, and I hide behind nothing I have done throughout my entire career. And did you, indeed, in the course of endeavouring to investigate these matters - - you were asked a question, I think, by Mr Hall whether you had not tried to find out something about the people on that list that you told us you saw for the first time today. Did you make through me a request for that list to be made available to you so that you could check to see whether the allegations made by G3 in respect of the people on that list had any truth about them?---Yes, I did. Were you refused access to that list?---Yes. And was the purpose of your request for that list so you could look at your journals and see whether you could find by trawling through your journals any reference to anyone who may .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14794

A49/4 POLICE have been convicted as a result of any useful information provided by G3?---Yes, it was. MR O'SULLIVAN: And you were prevented from doing that until you were asked to do the exercise on the run today. Is that right?---That's correct. All right. How did that make you feel?---I feel that there has been a withholding of evidence and that perhaps - - I don't think the truth has been allowed to come out as it should have and I take exception to that. All right. Now, let's go back a little bit and talk a little bit about yourself and your career first of all. Have you prepared a curriculum vitae that relates to your work history, particularly showing how long you've been in the Police Service and what positions you've held, what qualifications you've got and various other highlights and so on of your police career?---Yes, I have. Do you have a copy of that document? Perhaps I'll give you these, if I could, please. There are three there. Perhaps one for the witness, Mr Commissioner, and one for Mr Hall. (TO WITNESS): Unfortunately, what was missing from the first page of it was your name and so I've actually written that on the top of there, (...name suppressed...), so we know who it is? ---Suppressed. Without going through all the detail of that, you commenced as a recruit, I think, with the Police Service - the Police Force, I suppose, as it was then - in (...suppressed...). Is that right? ---That's right, yes. And you've remained a police officer ever since?---Yes, I have. All but two of your Western Australian postings have been in the metropolitan area. Is that right?---That's right, yes. And the two exceptions are for the period (...suppressed...) to August (...suppressed...) you were a (...suppressed...) in Dampier. Is that right?---Yes, I was. And that would have been a (...suppressed...) position?---That's right. And then, of course, you were at the Karratha CIB from the 28th of December 92 to the 14th of January 96?---Yes. And it's within that period of time that the two particular matters that have arisen in this Commission occurred. Is that right?---That's right. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14795

A49/4 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: Otherwise, you've been a (...suppressed...) and then a (...suppressed...) effectively since August of (...suppressed...). Is that right?---That's right, yeah. And you had a term with the (...suppressed...) from December (...suppressed...) to March of (...suppressed...)?---Yes, I did. And just in relation to that, the particular relevance of that is that to take up that position with the (...suppressed...) you had to pass, I think, some rigorous investigation of your past history as a police officer and generally. Is that right? You were vetted for that position?---Yes, that's right. And found to be suitable and took up that position?---That's right. In the course of other movements within your career, have you been subject to vetting from time to time for your suitability, in regard to your suitability for those positions?---Yes, for positions and promotion. Yes, and at the moment you're with the (...suppressed...). Is that right?---That's right, yes. And you're a (...suppressed...) with that group?---Yes, I am. All right. Now, whilst you were stationed in Karratha were you - - perhaps before we go on I will just tender that curriculum vitae if I may, please, sir. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14796

A50/3 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. The curriculum vitae of (...name suppressed...) is barcoded D1043257, and will be exhibit 2077. EXHIBIT 2077 Mr O'Sullivan DATE (Unstated) Curriculum vitae of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1043257. MR O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, sir. (TO WITNESS): Whilst stationed in Karratha, were you involved in carrying out any internal police investigations?---Yes, I was, unfortunately. And why was it that, as a local detective, you were involved in that sort of activity? Why not specialists?---The superintendent of the region relied on us for - - to resolve difficult situations, including some internal inquiries, which we did as part of our duties. All right. Did those matters include the search and arrest of a traffic police officer's wife for a cannabis offence?---Yes, it did. A search and seizure of drugs from a police officer in Dampier?---Yes, it did. And an inquiry and an arrest of a public servant stealing money from the traffic licensing office in Karratha?---Yes, that's correct. All right. Later in this year, I think, in your present position, were you and (...suppressed...) used by the (...suppressed...) of the police service to execute a drug search warrant on the residence of another police officer?---Yes, we were. And were your group selected because the job required a certain amount of ethics, integrity and confidentiality?---Yes. And was that job successfully completed?---Yes, it was. Mm hm. Throughout your career and now do you have any problem of taking appropriate action against errant fellow officers who you may find to be corrupt, or acting improperly?---No, I do not. All right. In relation to the matters raised in this Commission, in which you've been named, have you behaved at any time corruptly or improperly?---No, I have not. Have you stolen or received any stolen money or drugs?---No, definitely not. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14797

A50/3 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: Have you planted any drugs or drug paraphernalia on G3 or anyone else?---No, sir. I have not. Do you know anything about such activities by then Detectives Warnock, Kingma, (...name suppressed...) or Callaghan - the ones who were named with you?---No, I do not. No, I don't believe that has occurred. Or indeed, (...name suppressed...), I think is another one?---No, I do not. No. All right. There were two investigations that the Commission has been involved in. The first one was some incidents - and Mr Hall's taken you through them today - in Hedland. In relation to those, during the course of some evidence that was being given, were you identified by one of the witnesses in this Commission, physically within the room?---No, I don't believe I was. G1 was asked if he could identify any of the persons and he looked back - - and because of his age, I don't know how his sight was, but I stood in case he wanted to identify me, because I had nothing to hide. And I think at that time you were sitting down the back, with another officer?---Yes. And who was that officer?---I think Detective Kingma. Yes?---And others, perhaps. Well, there were two of you sitting together, if you recall. There was yourself and Pieter Kingma. You're right. And the identification was on the basis, was it not, of which one was the electrician?---That's right, yes. And you were the person pointed out?---Well, either the person that was a giant, or the person that was the electrician, which apparently are the same person. I was more than happy to stand and see if G1 could identify me. Well, whether or not you're the giant - and I won't ask you if you've ever been 6 foot 8 - the situation is, you haven't ever been an electrician, have you?---No, I have not. No. All right. Well, in relation to that first matter - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14798

A51/1 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: - - - to that first matter - the Port Hedland matter - that involved the search of the house of G1 in August of 1994. You've told us that you were involved with that search of the house. Do you have any recollection at all of that other than what you've managed to glean from the evidence in the Commission and your journal?---No, I have no other independent recollection. And does that go to all that surveillance - - pre-surveillance in April and then on this day and so on?---Yes, it does. When you - - have you, in the opportunities you've had to look at your journal and refresh your memory - - have you been able to activate any part of your memory that tells you anything about the search on that house in August of 94?---No. There's nothing about that search that sticks in my memory. As I said, I remember the shed smelling of cannabis, but there's nothing about the search at (...suppressed...). And I'd like to say that had we seen or seized a large amount of money, I would remember that. The allegation is that you somehow saw and seized between you the sum of $36,000?---The allegation is a crock of lies. Yes. All right. Did you ever receive any money that came from a source such as that?---No. I've never received money under those circumstances. In relation to that $36,000 that was alleged to have been in the roof at the time, have you endeavoured to conduct some inquiries to discover whether indeed Mr G1 was - - I nearly said it; Mr G1 was actually in a position to have had that sort of money?---Yes. I made some basic inquiries with another section. And did those inquiries lead you to the Proceeds of Crime Unit of the police service?---Yes. I wonder, does the Commission have the proceeds of crime file in relation to this man, G1? MR HALL: Not that I know of. MR O'SULLIVAN: All right. SPEAKER: What's the answer? MR O'SULLIVAN: No, it seems. (TO WITNESS): You have in front of you, I think, a copy of what is described as a job sheet write-off form from the Proceeds of Crime Unit; is that right?---Yes, I do. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14799

A51/1 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes. And perhaps I'll hand, if I may, a copy to the Commissioner and Mr Hall. This of course is by no means the file, but simply what it says it is; a write-off sheet which gives you a little summary of the investigations into the financial circumstances, I think, of G1. Does that look right?---Yes, it does. Yep. Mm. All right. The document can speak for itself, but in particular I think there is a paragraph towards the foot of page - - the first page of it, second-last paragraph. Could you just perhaps read that to the Commission, please, (...name suppressed...)?---The report is compiled by Detective Sergeant Van Aken of the Proceeds of Crime Unit, and it's dated July 16 1991. On page - - well, the first page of his typewritten report - - Just don't use the name in the paragraph?---Yeah: "An inspection of G1's residence and business showed

that he does not appear to be a person who has any valuable assets. Most of the vehicles that form a part of his business are in poor condition and would not be worth what he owes on them."

MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes. I think otherwise the report goes through the various assets and so on of G1; is that right?---Yes, it does. As they were in 1991?---That's correct. Yeah. And the reason for that being the date is that that's the date when the Proceeds of Crime Unit were interested in him for his involvement in the crop matter in Broome; is that right?---Mm. Yeah. It's prior - - probably prior to him going to prison, or about that time. Prior to then. Yes. All right. I tender that document, thank you, Commissioner, if I may. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The report of Detective Sergeant Van Aken, dated the 16th of July 1991, in relation to G1 and his wife, barcoded D1043258, will be exhibit 2078. MR O'SULLIVAN: That may need to be edited or kept as a confidential matter, sir, because the name certainly appears. COMMISSIONER: Yes. That will be a private and confidential exhibit. MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes. It's not of our concern but - - COMMISSIONER: So it will be 2078C. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14800

A51/1 POLICE EXHIBIT 2078C Mr O'Sullivan DATE 16.7.91 Confidential - report by Det Sgt Van Aken regarding G1, barcode D1043258 MR O'SULLIVAN: Thank you. And was the reason for your seeking out that sort of material to see whether you could check the bona fides of G1 in relation to his allegation that he might have $36,000 of legitimate money which he had somehow managed to acquire from the sale of legitimate businesses at that particular time?---That's correct. Because I found that the evidence given by G1, the story was very unlikely. It's an amazing story of moneys hidden in a sea container - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14801

A52/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - in a sea container, unlocked and left unattended, and then put in a roof and left in a house with persons of the ilk of G5 and together with dates of money circulation, and just the general appearance of G1 and his mate, Mr Pierce - - they don't strike me as successful businessmen. So I really did seek to assist and shine a light on the truth of the matter. MR O'SULLIVAN: Another aspect of the evidence of G1 in relation to this, he seemed to vacillate somewhat in the evidence, but one view of it might be that he said that all of the notes which were forming part of his $36,000 in the roof were the proceeds of legitimate businesses acquired before he went to prison in the matter, and included some $50 polymer notes?---Yes. Have you made an inquiry as to when the $50 polymer note became available?---I caused inquiries to be made with the Reserve Bank and I ascertained - - or the information that I have received is that the polymer $50 notes came into circulation on the 4th of October 1995. All right?---So therefore they couldn't have been around in 1994. Right. Okay. It was suggested - - I've been asked to ask this question by Mr Moen who can't be here this afternoon, on behalf of police officer (...name suppressed...). It was suggested (...name suppressed...) at one point was at the search. Do you have any recollection of (...name suppressed...) being there? I think you've probably dealt with this?---No, I believe that (...name suppressed...) was not there and it's the evidence given by (...name suppressed...) that he stayed home that day for his son's birthday - - strikes a chord with me. Do you have any recollection of him being at the Hedland Police office after the search, involved in any interview process or around in any way, G1?---No, I do not. No. All right. Thank you. Do you have a recollection of recording the small cannabis plant as you've been taken through this afternoon, the one that was found in the driveway by (...name suppressed...)?---No, I don't have any independent recollection of that, but it's obvious that there was a - - COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't think we need to pursue that. MR O'SULLIVAN: No. All right. (TO WITNESS): Did you go back to Port Hedland at any time after that occasion on the search warrant and have occasion to be involved in an interview with (...name suppressed...) with G1?---No, I did not. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14802

A52/2 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: You were presumably living in the Karratha area in the time that you were up in Karratha?---Yes. Is that right?---Yes. In the event that you did go to Hedland or Tom Price, as later became relevant, is that - - put it this way. Firstly, on police business, is that always recorded in your journal?---Yes, it is. All right. If we can move to the Tom Price matter, the second matter involving the investigation, were there any CIB detectives stationed at Tom Price in 1995?---No, there were not. No, so just uniformed officers?---That's right. And was it within Karratha detectives' area of operation?---Yes, it was. Yes, all right. Now, you've told us about the Beagle Bay matter which is Mr Warnock's matter; is that right?---Yes, it was Doug Warnock's inquiry. Yes. All right. So on the 17th and 18th of October when you were dealing with G3 leading up to his arrest for the cannabis amount, the thing that we've just talked about, the Beagle Bay investigation was well under way, was it?---Yes, and he'd been charged twice, arrested and charged twice in the months leading up to October. And by that time, had the discussion, such as it was, taken place where he would have been led to believe that if he could assist police, that maybe a letter of comfort might be forthcoming to him?---I believe that that had been put to him prior to the 17th of October. Before, yes?---Yes. All right. Okay. Now, you dealt with him on the 17th and 18th of October and in relation to that, he was taken back to the police station and charged and you've denied the various allegations that were made in relation to that. Would he have had any opportunity of removing any of the seized substances or paraphernalia if anything else was taken while he was at the police station there?---No. There were other police officers than yourself and Warnock involved in that execution of that search warrant?---Yes, there were. Uniformed officers?---That's correct. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14803

A52/2 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes, and I think you've told us that they dealt with the other person who was around at the time?---That's - - that's what's in my journals and - - All right?---Well, we've seen what's in my journal and that's - - And it was being put to you that - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14804

A53/4 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: - - - put to you that somebody turning up at the house who happened to have a smoking implement would be evidence that could be used against Mr G3 for charging the higher offence of possession with intent in relation to the cannabis you had got. What do you say about that?---Well, it's been suggested but it wouldn't carry weight, I believe, in a court of law. COMMISSIONER: Well, I think it's - - MR O'SULLIVAN: All right. Well, he wasn't charged anyway? ---No - but, believe me, if I could have charged something with G3 - - G3 with something else I would've done it. All right. Now - - ?---The man was a nuisance. Now, G3's evidence was that on the 17th through to the - - the event of the 17th and 18th of October when he was dealt with, or when he was the subject of the search warrant - the 18th of October, I think it was - the money was taken and that you and Officer Warnock - you at least by inference, I suppose, and Officer Warnock - came back regularly and took sums of $2000 from a pile of carpet tiles which were in his house. Do you have any recollection of any carpet tiles?---No, I do not, and I say that we did not do that. All right. Now, you were there on the 18th of October in relation to that matter. Have you subsequently had a look at your journals to see when you were back in Tom Price after that?---Yes. When was the next time after the 18th of October that you were in Tom Price?---Can I just say that in the start of November we were in Broome with Warnock for a preliminary hearing with (...name suppressed...) - - Yes?---Sorry, G3. And that was in relation to the Beagle Bay matter?---Yes. All right?---Yes. So that was the first few days of November?---And I was next in - - But there was no suggestion that you took anything, I think, from Mr G3 in Broome?---At the court-house at Broome? No. No?---There's been no allegation of that. So you see him in Broome at the end of October, early November. When is the next time that you - - ?---The 14th of November. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14805

A53/4 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: The 14th of November?---I was in the area of Tom Price. All right?---Conducting inquiries re a series of safe breaks. Yes, all right. Is there any reference in your journal there to talking with G3?---Only on the 15th of November 94. Mm hm?---Which is when we attended Tom Price Court of Petty Sessions with Warnock and in relation to the hearing of G3. And that relates to the charge that you put on him in relation to the 18th of October matter, does it?---I believe so, yes. Yes?---The 17th of October 94, yeah. The 17th of October?---Possess cannabis, and there was a breach of bail and he was convicted of that. Yes, all right. So you're there then on the 15th of November. When are you next in Tom Price?---20th of November. Yes?---It's for a matter - - another matter altogether. Any reference there to Mr G3?---No. It looks like we had a pretty solid day in relation to a fellow charged with indecent dealing of children. When are you next after that in Tom Price?---21st of November we're there. Yes?---I think the 11th of January 1995. The 11th of January 1995 is the next time, is it?---The 10th of January 95. The 10th of January 95. All right?---Sorry. Make that the 9th. So between - - ?---The 9th of January 95. So between the 17th and 18th of October you see him in Broome on the 31st of October and then there are two further times, is it, when you're in Tom Price in the month of November? ---The 15th of November, it was the court hearing - - Yes?--- - - and I believe I only saw him at the court-house. Yes?---That is, G3 at the court-house. Did you take any money from him at that time?---No, I did not. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14806

A53/4 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: Were you aware of any money being taken from him at that time?---No. No. The next time?---The 20th of November. I was at Tom Price in relation to another matter, and it was quite substantial by the look of the charge. There's no mention of G3. Did you take any money from him at that time?---No, I did not. Were you aware of any money being taken from him?---Not at all, and at that time I don't believe that G3 was in Tom Price. All right. Okay, and when did you next then see G3? .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14807

A54/3 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: And was that when you arrested him?---That's right, yeah. All right. Okay. He has said that you and - - you by inference, at least, and Mr Warnock were regularly, every fortnight to a month, taking $2000 from him on your visits to Tom Price. Were you visiting Tom Price other than is recorded in your journal?---No, I was not. Either privately or - -?---No. - - professionally?---I never went to Tom Price or Paraburdoo other than for work purposes. All right. How far is Tom Price from Karratha?---It's around 300 kilometres and - - What's the road like?---You drive a very bumpy and hilly road. It's a railway access track that you drive down. It's the Hamersley Iron rail access road. Is it a sealed road - -?---No, it is not. - - or a gravel road?---It's a dangerous road if you're not familiar with it. All right. Okay. Did you at some stage discover that G3 seemed to have left the Tom Price town?---Yes, we did. Do you remember when that was, when you first found out that he'd gone?---Not exactly, but it would have been after the 15th of November 1994. All right. And do you know - - he was then on bail of course for the Beagle Bay matters?---Yes. Yes. Do you know whether any bench warrant was issued in relation to his going missing from Tom Price?---I'm not sure about that, but I know that we were - - see, his surety was the mother of G4. Yes?---And we were seeking to have her withdraw the surety because it was my opinion that he would not come back. All right. Okay. Did G4 know where he was?---I think she did, yes. Did she appear to have contact with him?---At some time. All right. Did you subsequently learn that on the 24th of December in that year, G4 was arrested by the Tom Price police in relation to some drugs, some amphetamines that had been sent to her from G3 in Melbourne?---Yes, I did learn of that arrest. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14808

A54/3 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes?---And made some further inquiries in relation to that. That is the brief of evidence that I provided to the Royal Commission. All right. Perhaps - -?---For their assistance. Do you have a copy of that there?---Yep, somewhere. Yes. Perhaps if I can find the two of them up then, thank you. That particular event was handled by the uniform police in Tom Price, was it not?---Yes, it was; Sergeant Davey. Yes, and Sergeant Davey and Senior Constable Shellam conducted an interview with G4. Is that right?---Yes, they did. It's a - - a typed record of interview. Yes. And was that the way in which interviews were conducted in Tom Price at that time in the normal course?---It was for the local police at that time, yes. Yes, all right. And I think if one looks at page 5 of the statement of Mr Davey, he says: "I put questions to her in some instances. I also

showed her certain things during the interview. There are no facilities at Tom Price to conduct a video interview."

Is that - -?---Page 4. Page 4, I'm sorry?---Full statement of - - I was looking at the one - -?--- - - Ivan Edward Davey. Yes. Turn over the page. You're right. Page 4, "...no facilities at Tom Price to conduct a video interview." Was that the case at that time?---That was the case at that time. Yes, all right. Okay. Now, in relation to that interview, which otherwise speaks for itself, at page 7 at the foot of the page, was the question asked of G4, "Where is - -" and the given name is given there, but: "Where is G3 at the moment?" "Melbourne." "How long has he been there?" "Three, going on four weeks." "Why did he go over there?" and so on. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14809

A54/3 POLICE WITNESS Yes, it was. MR O'SULLIVAN: So contemporaneously G4 was stating that G3 had been in Melbourne for 3 to 4 weeks as of Christmas Eve in that year?---Yes. Yes, all right. I tender that statement of material facts and brief of evidence, thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The statement of material facts and brief - - it seems to be undated. It will be exhibit 2079C. It will be a confidential exhibit. It's barcoded D1043259. EXHIBIT 2079C Mr O'Sullivan DATE (Unstated) Confidential. Statement of material facts. Barcode D1043259. MR O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, sir. (TO WITNESS): Now, were you and Karratha CIB generally then endeavouring to find - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14810

A55/2 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: - - - endeavouring to find and eventually get back Mr G3 for the Beagle Bay matter?---Yes, that's correct. So there were inquiries about his whereabouts; is that right?---Yes. And did you eventually receive some information that he had returned?---Yes, we did. And as a result of that information - - by the time you got that information, by the way, was Detective Warnock still at Karratha?---No, he was not. I think he told us that he left in I think it was December, or towards the end of the year anyway; is that right?---Yes, he did, yeah. All right. So were you then involved in the apprehension of G3 in Tom Price?---Yes, I was. And do you remember when that was?---The 3rd of February 1995. The 3rd of February 1995. And did you have a partner at that time?---Yes, I did. And who was that?---Detective Sergeant Callaghan. Detective Sergeant Callaghan, all right. Now, in relation to that particular matter, you heard G3 say that he was arrested at gunpoint when he was asleep, and woken up. Is that - - do you remember whether that was the case?---I don't recall that, no. Would it have been justified?---Quite probably, yeah. Quite probably, all right. He was found with a certain amount of drugs; is that right?---Yes, he was, yes. He was charged with those and there was also I think some paraphernalia, drug paraphernalia that was found; scales, Glucaden and plastic bags?---Yes, that's correct. Is that right? All right. And did you manage to find in your investigations the record of the holding order and the property tracking receipt in relation to the paraphernalia of that matter?---Yes, I have. And a note from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the officer in charge of the Proceeds of Crime Unit indicating that G3 appeared before Gunning J in the District Court at Perth on the 9th of June 1995 and the holding order was made in relation to that paraphernalia?---Yes, I've found those documents, yeah. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14811

A55/2 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes, all right. And I'd seek to tender those, thank you. Those documents contain at the back of them a description of the paraphernalia that was seized. The address - - COMMISSIONER: The letter - - MR O'SULLIVAN: I'm sorry, sir, yes. COMMISSIONER: - - from the Director of Public Prosecutions to the officer in charge of the Proceeds of Crime Unit dated the 28th of August 1995, together with a holding order with a list of property, barcoded D1043260, will be exhibit 2080C - - MR O'SULLIVAN: And that again probably has some references in it, sir, and may need to be confidential at this point. COMMISSIONER: Yes. That will be a private and confidential exhibit 2080C. EXHIBIT 2080C Mr O'Sullivan DATE 28.8.95 Confidential - Letter from DPP to OIC Proceeds of Crime Unit, holding order and list of property, barcode D1043260 MR O'SULLIVAN: Thank you. (TO WITNESS): Now, in relation to the arrest of G3 in February of 1995, did you interview G3 in Tom Price?---Yes, I did. At that time was there in Tom Price, in general sense, a room set up for the video recording of interviews?---No, there was not. Was there video recording equipment available in Tom Price generally?---Well, no, not to my knowledge. No. Had you made some special arrangement whilst you were in Karratha in relation to the video taping of interviews in your area?---Yeah. But as a senior detective, I was experienced with conducting video interviews prior to my posting to Karratha and upon arrival at Karratha, I identified that these facilities weren't available to country stations so I made arrangements for us to obtain a portable video. It was a pretty simple arrangement, but we were then able to carry on - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14812

A56/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - able to carry on or introduce to the country policing the - - the standard operation procedure of doing video interviews. And I - - I spoke with Detective Sergeant Warnock in relation to this matter and we obtained a portable video camera. We had to borrow it from our regional office. So it wasn't always available, but it meant that when we went away we could do video interviews of suspects. And that - - MR O'SULLIVAN: In relation to - - ?--- - - that was to improve the accountability of our office and the police force generally in the country regions. All right. In relation to this particular matter you told us that you had a partner up there, Mr Callaghan - - Callaghan, was it?---That's right. Yeah. Was he available to do this interview with you?---We had a hectic couple of days. I notice we've been at Exmouth and had a disturbing sexual assault matter to attend to. We'd raced back to - - COMMISSIONER: Well, do we really need to go into this? MR O'SULLIVAN: Well, was he with you, or is there a reason why he was not with you?---He was with us when we searched the house, but had to leave to Paraburdoo to attend to another urgent matter, so we split our forces and I stayed and did the interview of G3 with a constable. That's a uniformed officer there, whose name I think was Kara?; is that right?---That's what I've got written in my journal, yes. Yes. All right. Okay. And was that interview then recorded by you and conducted as we know interviews to be conducted today, effectively?---Yes, it was. Probably an amateur attempt, but recorded nonetheless. All right. Do you remember how long that interview takes?---18 minutes-odd, I think. It's a little less than that. About 15 minutes. I understand the Commission has a copy of that and I'd ask that it be played, Mr Commissioner. It is just short of 15 minutes. MR HALL: Mr O'Sullivan did raise this with me, but it does of course have, I assume, the name of G3 on it. MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes, it does. MR HALL: So that would present a problem. We would either have to close the hearing room for it to be played in the absence of the public, or the video would have to be edited, .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14813

A56/1 POLICE which can't be done immediately, or it could simply be tendered and you, Commissioner, could watch it at some other time, which seems to me to be the most appropriate course. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR O'SULLIVAN: I raised this with Mr Hall quite a long time ago, and these difficulties were mentioned. The Commission's officers have had quite some time to edit the video if that's what they wished. The editing, of course, is not of direct concern to the witness. He's more concerned that you actually see in the same environment that you saw the witness give his evidence, the way in which the witness was performing in relation to an allegation that's most serious against this man, that on this particular occasion he took something around about $20,000 from him. It is an interview that shows quite a number of things, including the way in which the officer and the individual relate, which is really at the base of this whole allegation. COMMISSIONER: Well, it certainly can't be done tonight, and I'm perfectly happy to view it, of course. MR O'SULLIVAN: I of course completely accept your under - - well, it's not an undertaking, but that you would actually look at it. The problem is, from the witness's point of view, he would like to see it done in the open environment in which he was accused. COMMISSIONER: Well, that's not possible at the moment. MR O'SULLIVAN: Well, I'd seek to tender it in any event, sir - - COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR O'SULLIVAN: - - at this point and we can perhaps see about its being played later. If that might be done; if it can be given a - - I have a copy of it. MR HALL: We also have a transcript. I don't know if Mr O'Sullivan has seen this but - - MR O'SULLIVAN: I haven't seen the transcript but I trust that it's the best effort. MR HALL: Well, the Commission has prepared this because Mr O'Sullivan's adverted to our previous discussions, and my understanding of them was that we would prepare a transcript and perhaps that could be used rather than the tape being played, to overcome this problem. But clearly we have a difference of recollection in that regard. But if you're happy for the transcript to be tendered that may be of assistance. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14814

A56/1 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: Yes. Well, certainly if both can be tendered. But we do stress the need to look at the video. It is not enough - - COMMISSIONER: Oh, yes. MR O'SULLIVAN: - - just to take it off the transcript. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The video recording in relation to G3, which is barcoded D1043261, will be a private and confidential exhibit, exhibit number 2081C. EXHIBIT 2081C Mr O'Sullivan DATE (Unstated) Confidential - video recording of G3 interview, barcode D1043261 COMMISSIONER: The record of interview taken from the tape, barcoded D1043262, will be a private, confidential exhibit, and it will be exhibit 2081C - - 82C. EXHIBIT 2082C Mr O'Sullivan DATE (Unstated) Confidential - transcript of video of G3 interview, barcode D1043262 MR O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, sir. (TO WITNESS): (...name suppressed...), the allegation has been that you took on the occasion of your arresting G3 on the 3rd of February in 1995 anything up around about the order of $20,000-odd from him that he brought back with him from Melbourne, or at least he had there. What do you say to that allegation - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14815

A57/4 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: - - - to that allegation?---Once again it's false. I take exception to the allegation and what he says in the video, your Honour, contradicts that he came back with any money at all. And in relation to that video, he refers to the amphetamine which he's found with as something to be for his own use which he's got to get over a heroin addiction that he acquired in Melbourne. Do you remember him saying that?---Yes, that's right. He has this explanation that an ounce of amphetamine is for his personal use and he goes on about that. You may recall that in his evidence he also denied ever being addicted to any substance. Do you remember that?---I'm not sure about that. There's a suggestion by G3 in the course of the interview that police planted the plastic bags which were found and were the subject of that holding order which is the recently tendered exhibit - that they were planted when you previously went to see him. You choose not to argue with him about that. Was there any reason why you didn't?---Look, perhaps if I can just say that there wasn't a suggestion - - I asked him about some empty plastic deal bags found at the place and he replies, "Those are the ones that you left at my place last time." He doesn't say, "They're the ones that you took away in your box and I took home again", and I said to him, "Well, that's not true, is it?" So straight away I've just said, "No, that's not true." Yes?---And he's said, "Yes, it is." I've decided not to argue with him because the matter of empty plastic bags is of no relevance, and I go on with the interview. All right, thank you. Were those bags planted at his place on any occasion by police?---No, they were not. No. Indeed, the previous occasion that you'd dealt with him you dealt with him for cannabis on the basis of its being for own use, not for dealing. Is that not right?---That's right. All right. Now, when he's asked the usual questions about any threats or promises being made he says, he answers, "Not this time"?---That's right. I asked him - - I go to the section where I asked him if he's taken part in the interview of his own free will, which he agrees he has, and I say, "Do you agree that no threats, promises or inducements have been made to you to take part in the interview?" and he says, "Not this time." All right. Was there any time when you had been involved in the making of threats or promises to him?---No. None at all. .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14816

A57/4 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: Is there anything that that might refer to in your knowledge?---The only thing that I can put it down to is that there was this understanding that if he came up with some information that was of any value - well, of considerable value - that he may be assisted at his sentencing time for the Beagle Bay issue. That is the only thing that he could be referring to, but at this time - - I'd dealt with this fellow for a while and I just - - I knew him to be just a born liar. Was it your decision that this interview should be video recorded in the way that it has been as against dealt with in some other way?---That's right, yeah. Section 570D of the Criminal Code, which required videoing in the short term I think came into effect on the 4th of November 1996. Is that right?---That's right, yeah. Well after these events?---That's right. I could've chosen if I'd wanted to to revert to a - - just a verbal interview or a handwritten statement or a typewritten statement, but I wanted it on video. Were there occasions when G3 chose not to answer questions during the course of the questioning process?---I think there was actually. I'm not sure. He had been cautioned in the normal way?---He had, yes. G3 claims that he told you the names of a number of persons who were subsequently arrested. Do you have any recollection of any names that were given to you that subsequently - - or information given to you that subsequently led to an arrest - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14817

A58/2 POLICE MR O'SULLIVAN: - - - led to an arrest?---No, I do not. Okay. Have you ever heard G3 express any ill-feeling towards you or Mr Warnock or any other officers, for that matter?---Yes, I have, particularly Doug Warnock and myself, at the Broome Courthouse when he was sentenced in 95 for the Beagle Bay matter. All right, and what did you hear him say?---I can't remember his - - just general threats, mostly directed at Warnock, that he'd square up, he'd fix us up. Things like that. I don't know the exact words used by G3. Mm hm?---And his Legal Aid solicitor was with him at the time. Yes. Did you take the threat seriously?---No. All right. Okay. When did you first hear of these allegations made by G3?---When I came here, as a witness in June this year. No foreknowledge of any suggestion from him that you'd taken any money from him or been involved in the taking of any money from him?---No, not at all. Did you ever take any money from him?---No, I did not. Or know of anyone taking any money from him?---No. No. And similarly in relation to G1, when did you first hear of those allegations that G1 has made?---Again, when I came here and G1 gave evidence. All right. Okay. Now, you have - - or there is in place in relation to you a suppression on your identification for reasons which have been disclosed to the Commission and have to do with the job you do. Are those reasons still valid, do they still apply?---Yes, they do. And do you ask that that suppression order continues?---Yes, I do. All right. COMMISSIONER: Well, there's no need for a separate order. MR O'SULLIVAN: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER: There's no need for a separate order. MR O'SULLIVAN: No, no, no. I just wanted to establish on the sworn evidence that the need for it remains, Commissioner. (TO WITNESS): Just finally, how have these allegations .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14818

A58/2 POLICE affected you professionally and personally?---Leading up to my - - to the matters being opened, the reference being opened, I had no idea what it was about and that caused me some concern. Once I heard the allegations, I realised they were rubbish and I was very angry. MR O'SULLIVAN: All right. Thank you. That's the evidence, thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Ms Pepe? MS PEPE: Mr Commissioner, I don't have any questions, thank you. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PEPE: COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Mr Laskaris? MR LASKARIS: Thank you, Commissioner. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR LASKARIS: MR LASKARIS: (...name suppressed...), you served with Mr Kingma for a period of time while you were in Karratha?---Yes. Were you in the well of the Commission hearing room when Mr Kingma gave evidence?---Yes, I was. Did you hear the evidence that he gave, that was led in relation to his character?---Yes. What do you have to say about his character? Do you know him well enough to be able to pass a comment?---Oh, I do, and I concur with the evidence given. He's a very good person in the community. He works hard, I know, for children's sports, other associations, fundraising matters. And as a country policeman, I think he's an exceptional example of community policing and just good old-fashioned police work. What do you make of the suggestion that Mr Kingma, if he found a quantity of $36,000 in cash in the roof of a suspect's house during the course of the execution of a search warrant would partake in its illicit distribution between himself and other police officers?---No. I find that suggestion ridiculous. Yes. May it please you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr Robbins? MR ROBBINS: Thank you, sir, briefly. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR ROBBINS: .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14819

A58/2 POLICE MR ROBBINS: Can I just take you very briefly to the search of the house at South Hedland?---Yes. (...name suppressed...) has given evidence that he did not go into the house. What's your recollection of what (...name suppressed...) did that day, that you can recall?---I really don't remember (...name suppressed...) being there, as I've said, and that would concur with the evidence given by (...name suppressed...) - - - .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14820

A59/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - by (...name suppressed...), in that he probably did not - - MR ROBBINS: He says he was at the house but didn't go inside, into the house itself. COMMISSIONER: I think that's the only evidence, isn't it? MR ROBBINS: No, but I just want to - - that is the only evidence? COMMISSIONER: That's the only evidence as to his movements. MR ROBBINS: Yes. If that fact is accepted, I won't pursue the matter any further. COMMISSIONER: No, there's no need to pursue it. MR ROBBINS: Thank you. (TO WITNESS): There have been two investigations into allegations made by G1. One was - and you may have seen these transcripts through your counsel - Mr Fred Gere, Mr Cope and Mr Richard Lane. Have you seen any final report in relation to their investigations?---No, I have not. Could I call upon the Commission to provide to me, if there is one, a final report of Messrs Fred Gere, Cope and Richard Lane? (TO WITNESS): Secondly, there's transcript provided to us of an interview between certain persons at the ACC and G1, and I take it that that would have been made available to you by counsel. Do you know of any final report from the ACC pertaining to their investigation as to the complaint made by G1, if any?---No, I do not, and the ACC have never sought my assistance in relation to that matter. Could I call upon the Commission in due course, if there is any final report in relation to any complaint that might have reached their purview, to provide me with any such report? I have no further questions of the witness. MR HALL: I assume Mr Robbins wasn't here, because I did deal with that matter. The IAU investigation was never brought to a conclusion, as I have previously said, because the matter was removed to the ACC under section 14 of the ACC Act. There was no final ACC report. However, I did tender - it's exhibit 1882 - a memo from the ACC dated the 25th of May 2002, which dealt with their findings as to the outcome of that matter. So I have already dealt with that matter, and I have no other questions for (...name suppressed...). .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) XXN 14821

A59/3 POLICE NO RE-EXAMINATION COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. That completes your obligation under the summons which has been served upon you?---Thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear, sir. Thank you. WITNESS WITHDREW COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hall. MR HALL: Commissioner, finally, before completing this segment, I did refer in the course of evidence today to some additional pages of journals being located. They are the duplicate copies that were sent down from the Pilbara and, notwithstanding that we'd issued notices to the police service, we decided to conduct our own searches and found copies of (...name suppressed...)'s and (...name suppressed...)'s journals, or some pages that were relevant. I tendered two pages of the duplicates of (...name suppressed...)'s. There are two other pages that I would seek to tender. The first of those is for the 17th of August 1994 and it is barcoded D1041157. There is, I think, a public - - COMMISSIONER: That's the private - - MR HALL: That's the private version. Yes, sir. Yes. The public version is D1042130. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The extract from the journal of (...name suppressed...) dated the 17th of August 1994, the private confidential exhibit is barcoded D1041157 and it will be exhibit 2083C. The public edited version barcoded D1042130 will be exhibit 2083. EXHIBIT 2083C Mr Hall DATE 17.8.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1041157. EXHIBIT 2083 Mr Hall DATE 17.8.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1042130. MR HALL: That page was tendered simply because it indicates that - - I read from it: "After the annual inspection, liaise with Karratha CIB

re drug suspect G1." .07/07/2003 (...name suppressed...) 14822

A60/4 POLICE MR HALL: And then on Saturday, the 3rd of September, the private and confidential version is D1041160 and the public version is D1042133. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: May I tender that. COMMISSIONER: The extract from the journal of (...name suppressed...) dated the 3rd of September 1995, the private, confidential exhibit, barcoded D1041160 will be exhibit 2084C. EXHIBIT 2084C Mr Hall DATE 3.9.95 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1041160. COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, barcoded D1042133, will be exhibit 2084. EXHIBIT 2084 Mr Hall DATE 3.9.95 Edited version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1042133. MR HALL: That page is tendered because there was a reference in it, and I quote: "To South Hedland Kennels, Account G1 re pump.

Further information necessary and liaised De Grey Station."

There's also some entries, three entries, from (...name suppressed...)'s diary. Firstly, Wednesday the 17th of August 1994. The private version is D1041162 and the public version is D1042127. COMMISSIONER: The extract from the journal of (...name suppressed...) dated the 17th of August 1994, the private and confidential exhibit, barcoded D1041162, will be exhibit 2085C. EXHIBIT 2085C Mr Hall DATE 17.8.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1041162. COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, barcoded D1042127, will be exhibit 2085. EXHIBIT 2085 Mr Hall DATE 17.8.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1042127. MR HALL: That page is tendered because there is a reference in it, and I quote: .07/07/2003 14823

A60/4 POLICE "At office with Detective Inspector Gibson re annual

inspection. Liaise Karratha CIB re drug suspect" G1. Thursday, the 17th of August 1994 - - COMMISSIONER: The 18th, isn't it? MR HALL: Sorry. Sorry, that should be - - it should be the 18th. It's clearly the following day. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: And there's been a - - it's clearly an error and it should be the 18th of August, which in the private version is D1041161 and the public version is D1042128. COMMISSIONER: Yes, the extract from the journal of (...name suppressed...) dated the 18th of August 1994, the private and confidential exhibit, barcoded D1031161, will be exhibit 2086C. EXHIBIT 2086C Mr Hall DATE 18.8.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1031161. COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, barcoded D1042128, will be exhibit 2086. EXHIBIT 2086 Mr Hall DATE 18.8.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1042128. MR HALL: And finally, extract for the 29th of August 1994. The private version is D1041163 and the public version is D1042129. COMMISSIONER: Yes, the extract from the journal of (...name suppressed...) dated the 29th of August 1994, the private and confidential exhibit, barcoded D1041163, will be exhibit 2087C. EXHIBIT 2087C Mr Hall DATE 29.8.94 Confidential - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1041163. COMMISSIONER: And the public, edited version, barcoded D1042129, will be exhibit 2087. EXHIBIT 2087 Mr Hall DATE 29.8.94 Edited version - Extract from journal of (...name suppressed...). Barcode D1042129. .07/07/2003 14824

A60/4 POLICE MR HALL: And, Commissioner, that page is tendered because of entries which read: "To South Hedland dog kennels re water pump. Further

information necessary." And then: "To dog kennels, seize water pump. Interview" G1 "re

pump and drug suspect" G5. Commissioner, in respect of these entries, because they weren't available at the time (...name suppressed...) and (...name suppressed...) gave their evidence, it is my intention to provide copies of those to both of those people and ask them if they wish to submit a statement in respect of any additional evidence that they would wish to give about those entries. If they wish to do that then consideration will be given to tendering that statement as part of the evidence. Alternatively, they may make submissions in respect of those entries when submissions from counsel assisting us into them. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR O'SULLIVAN: Commissioner, Mr Trowell is not here and he did ask me to do some small job in relation to (...name suppressed...). I suppose his position should be regarded as reserved in relation to those. I don't know what's in them and I don't know what he would make of them but obviously he's going to have to have the opportunity of dealing with the (...name suppressed...) matters. COMMISSIONER: Yes, that's right. MR O'SULLIVAN: My learned friend didn't say what the middle one was there for, the 18th. MR HALL: I can tell you, I'm sorry. The middle one has an entry which reads: "Liaise Karratha CIB re suspect" G1. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: And that concludes the evidence on this particular segment. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Yes, thank you. We will now adjourn. AT 4.12 PM HEARING ADJOURNED UNTIL 9.45 AM WEDNESDAY, 9TH JULY 2003 .07/07/2003 14825

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 7th day of July, 2003 Counsel Assisting Mr S.D. Hall Appearances Mr L.B. Robbins appeared on behalf of (...name suppressed...). Mr S.W. 0'Sullivan appeared on behalf of (...name suppressed...) Ms J. Pepe appeared on behalf of D.R. Warnock. Mr P.G. Laskaris appeared on behalf of P. Kingma. Mr M.T. Trowell QC appeared on behalf of B.M. Ranford and W.A. Mosconi. Mr D.P.A. Moen appeared on behalf of (...name suppressed...). Copyright in this document is reserved to the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia. Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the Attorney General is prohibited. .07/07/2003 14826