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 23rd day of October, 2002 Counsel Assisting Mr P. Hastings QC Appearances Mr W.M. Bryant. 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. .23/10/2002 3670

C1/4 POLICE AT 9.48 AM HEARING COMMENCED: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hastings? MR HASTINGS: Commissioner, I wish to call Mr Michael Reilly, please. MICHAEL REILLY called: COMMISSIONER: Your full name, Mr Reilly? MR REILLY: Michael Reilly. COMMISSIONER: I wonder if you would take the oath again and read out the oath? MICHAEL REILLY sworn: COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Sit down, please. EXAMINED BY MR HASTINGS QC: MR HASTINGS: Mr Reilly, when you were last here I asked you a number of questions about some telephone intercepts and suggested to you that they reflected some dealing by you in ecstasy tablets, a suggestion which you denied. Do you recall that?---That's correct. Since then the Royal Commission has made public some evidence given by a witness, B3, to the effect that on an occasion you had approached him with a proposal that you had some two or three thousand ecstasy tablets for sale, a sample of which you provided which eventually went to a person called B13. Are you aware of that evidence?---I'm aware of parts but I'm not fully conversant with it all, no, because I wasn't here. All right. Why weren't you here?---Because there was no necessity for me to be here. Even though I had foreshadowed that there might be evidence which would be adverse to you? You didn't want to hear it? ---It's not a question of not wanting to hear it. I was - - I think I attended on the first day and made inquiries whether I'd be required for that week as a witness and I was told I wouldn't, so I didn't return. I see, and even though you were on notice that adverse evidence about you might be given you didn't regard it as being in your interests to be here to hear it?---Well, I'm attending here and assisting as a witness. Yes. You weren't interested to cross-examine or challenge any .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3671

C1/4 POLICE witnesses who gave evidence which was adverse to you?---Well, I had no idea what was going to be said about me. MR HASTINGS: But you were on notice that the evidence was going to be adverse to you, were you not?---I received a letter. They asked me to attend here on - - I can't remember the exact date. Whether it was the 25th or the 26th of August, I can't remember, and I attended on that day. Well, a letter was subsequently written to your lawyer, was it not, asking whether you wished to cross-examine or provide evidence in reply to evidence which had been given against you, and a reply was received indicating that you did not? ---I think I was invited to come back on another day if I wished to. Yes?---And I declined it. You were also in the letter given the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses whose evidence had affected you. You were aware of that, were you not?---Well, I wasn't aware of what evidence would affect me, and with discussions with my solicitor, Mr Momber, not being aware of what was going to be alleged or having any access to any documentation or disclosure to any documentation, that invitation was declined. No, Mr Reilly, that was after the evidence had been given. Your attention was directed to the fact that evidence adverse to you had been given in the hearing room, you were invited to come forward and cross-examine them if you wished or to give evidence in response to that evidence, and you declined? ---That's correct. Why?---Well, for the reasons I've just explained. Well, it was wrong because you had your timing wrong. Now that I've put the picture to you accurately, reminding you that in fact the evidence had already been given so there was no question of not knowing what it was, why was it that you didn't want to come forward and challenge those witnesses? ---I had no idea what was going to be alleged about me. It was not before. The evidence had been given. After that evidence had been given a letter was written to your solicitor inviting you to cross-examine those witnesses, who would be recalled if so required, and inviting you to give evidence in reply to the allegations which had already been made and which were on the record?---Oh, right. Well, in that case, I declined it. Why?---In consultation with my solicitor it was declined. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3672

C1/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Well, I don't want to know what your legal advice was but you are aware of the fact, are you, that even though whatever you say in these proceedings cannot be used against you in any civil or criminal proceedings, that does not prevent the evidence which has been given being used against you in other administrative contexts? Do you understand that - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3673

C2/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - you understand that?---I understand that, yes. And for example, somebody like you who is a licensed inquiry agent under the Security and Related Activities Control Act, a condition of which is that you are of good character and a fit and proper person, and which can be revoked by a licensing officer, may be the subject of action based upon evidence before this Royal Commission. Do you understand that?---What, are you threatening me there, are you? No, I'm telling you; do you know that to be the position?---You've just told me that; yes. Right. Did you know that previously?---What you've just explained to me? Yes?---In relation to what? Did you know that evidence in this proceeding can be used administratively by someone such as a licensing officer under the Act, to revoke your licence?---I'm not aware of that, no. I see. And, of course, by failing to challenge the witnesses or give an account yourself, all that is left on the record is the version given by the witnesses. Do you understand that?---That's correct. So that any licensing officer who reviews the evidence given before the Royal Commission, only has that version to base their decision upon. Do you understand that?---Well, if I receive something from that licensing officer, I'll attend to it. I see. And what account will you give for your failure to challenge the witnesses in the witness box?---That's what he'll be asking me, is it? Well, it may be relevant?---Well, you know, it's all hypothetical. If it happens, it happens. I'll address it then. I see. Well, as long as you understand that there is some practical effect of the evidence which is being led before the Royal Commission. You understand that?---Oh, obviously. You understand, do you, that to hold a licence under the Security and Related Activities Control Act, you need to be a person of good character and a fit and proper person?---That's correct. I see. You have such a licence, do you not?---I do, yes. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3674

C2/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: You obtained it on the 27th of June 2000, did you not?---I couldn't give you the exact date, but if that's what you've got there. That was, in any event, while you were still an officer of the police service?---That's correct, yes. Did you seek permission from any superior officer in the police service to obtaining a licence?---Well, at that stage, I was suspended. I had no police powers. I attended at the Commercial Agents' office there; I think it's on Hay Street. I filled out all the relevant forms. I disclosed everything, my position, and I was granted the licence. I made that application to the Commissioner of Police. I see. Now, we take it from that, that you did not seek any approval from a superior officer to engaging in secondary employment?---As in submit an application? Yes?---No, I don't think I did. Was there some reason why you did not?---I didn't think it necessary. You don't bother with these sort of formalities? Is that your general attitude towards your job?---Well, let's put it in its right perspective. I was stood down from any police duties. I had no police powers. I went down and applied for a licence, like everybody else does. I'm looking to the future. I put - - filled out everything that was needed to be filled out in that form. The Commissioner of Police knew my position. He granted me the licence. I see. But you, at that stage, were still seeking the resumption of your police career, were you not?---I was, yes. And have you practised as an inquiry agent since receiving the licence?---I have, yes. Have you practised also in the Northern Territory?---I have, yes. Do you hold a licence in the Northern Territory?---Yes, I do. When did you get that?---I couldn't give you the exact date, but probably within the month or so, thereabouts. Prior to that, you had practised as an inquiry agent without a licence in the Northern Territory, had you not?---I attended in Alice Springs, yes. In circumstances where, to act without a licence, was an offence?---Well, my understanding of it was when I - - when I .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3675

C2/2 POLICE attended there, the person who was employing me to go there advised me that, having been licensed in Western Australia and working for the company that they dealt with, that was all that - - required. When I attended there and I made inquiries into it, I was of the opinion that you took your West Australian licence up there, they would stamp the back of it, and they give you a permit to operate for a week, whatever it would be, as similar to like a driver's licence, whatever. The last time I went up to Darwin, when I went into the Consumer Affairs office up there, I had discussions with the people up there and they told me that the - - the way they used to do it, where you stamp the back of the licence is no longer in vogue - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3676

C3/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - no longer in vogue. You can't do that any more. And providing you attend there, you have a valid West Australian driver's licence - - beg your pardon; West Australian investigator's licence, you can make the application, you pay the fee and you're entitled to act as an investigator. MR HASTINGS: When you went to Alice Springs on the first occasion did you go through the procedure of having the back of your licence stamped?---No, because that wasn't the case. That was no longer the case. You couldn't do it. I thought you said you found out that later in Darwin?---Yes, that's right. Well, what about on the occasion when you went to Alice Springs? Did you do what you thought the proper procedure was then?---No, I didn't. No, I didn't. Why not?---Well, I just explained that. The person who employed me told it wasn't necessary. When did you find out that the procedure was to get the back of the Western Australian licence stamped?---Oh, I think that was about 12 months ago or something. I think that was the case. Did you do something about that between then and a month ago when you found out that that procedure was no longer available?---Did I do something about what? Getting the back of your licence stamped?---No. Because I don't do it any more. Or did you then make an application according to the alternative procedure which was outlined to you before, about a month ago?---No. No. When - - the way I understood it, that when I was going back to Darwin I rang up and made inquiries; you can attend there on the day, produce your West Australian licence, pay the appropriate fee and you can go about your business as an inquiry agent - an investigator in Darwin - and that's what I've done. Yes, but you also went there for a while and worked without a licence, didn't you?---On which occasion. Well, the occasion that you claim some reimbursement from the Royal Commission for working as an inquiry agent in the Northern Territory when you didn't have a licence?---I put a claim in to the Royal Commission. I've never been paid it. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3677

C3/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: No?---And I intend to go and see Mr Johnson, I think his name is, and sort it out with him. What happened was, when I - - when I was coming here in - - I think it was the 1st of July or thereabouts when the Commission started and I received my summons. I had work I could attend to in Darwin as an investigator, okay. I made the inquiries and found out what was required to be done. I spoke with people at the Commission here and I was told I couldn't go and do that work because I was required to be here. I beg your pardon; I didn't speak to anyone here at the Commission, because I had my summons; the amount of time I was going to be away was going to overlap with the time I was required to be here, okay. So in that case I had to forego that work. My claim I put in to the Commission is for that work I had to forego. The hours that I could have worked up there. And correct if I'm wrong; I can't remember the gentleman's name - Mr Johnson, whatever his name is - executive officer here. Is that correct? I can't think of his surname. There is someone by that name?---And I spoke to Kylie Anderson about it, and they sent me a letter and they turned round and told me that because I hadn't - - didn't have the appropriate licence at the time they weren't going to pay out anything they considered wasn't lawful activity, which wasn't the case. It's just a matter of me getting off the plane, going down to the Consumer Affairs, paying my licence fee, which I intended to do, and I could work. Simple as that. I mean, he - - he brought in all these propositions about having to give I think 14 days' notice in the newspaper and wait for objections and all that sort of stuff. Well, that's not the case. There's a - what do they call it - mutual recognition policy up there. If you're the holder of a licence in another state they will address - - they will let you work in that state providing you pay the fee. They'll make the subsequent inquiries and if they want to knock it on the head, well, so be it. There's another process you can go to about objecting to it. But you'd been working in Darwin this year, had you not?---I've worked up in Darwin, yeah. Without a licence?---No. Not - - in Alice Springs. I went there and did a job in Alice Springs. Mm. Without a licence?---You could say that, yes. I've already told you that. And you didn't know anything about licensing when you wrote to the Royal Commission and asked them for reimbursement of the work that you claim you'd had to forego, did you?---I knew everything about the licensing. It was only after you got the letter from the Royal Commission pointing out that you didn't have a licence to do any such .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3678

C3/1 POLICE work that you then embarked upon a process of obtaining a licence?---That's not correct. MR HASTINGS: In any event, can I take you back to the evidence of B3? What do you say about his evidence that you have a large quantity of approximately 2000 ecstasy tablets bearing a butterfly motif - - ?---It's not true. - - which you offered to him, and a sample of which you gave to him so that the person called B13 could try them?---It's just not true. I see. Well, can you understand, or can you explain why he would fabricate an account such as that?---I've got no idea why he'd do it. I see. Has there been some history of acrimony between you and B3?---Well, I suppose the - - B3 has a history of - - I think he was involved in a false pretence. He was involved as a complainant. That's initially how I got to know him. Now, there's a lot of events that happened with B3 that the dates and the times and places I'm not - - I can't recollect - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3679

C4/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - can't recollect, but the last lot of dealings that I remember I had with him was in relation to his - - his brother, I believe, had been beaten up. He wanted to know if I could help him out, do things for him. He knew my position, that I'd been stood down. I'd explained all that. I mean, he would have read it in the paper. And I think he was a little bit dark on the fact I couldn't do anything for him, but I told him to ring the Melbourne people, whoever - - wherever his brother lives. I told him to ring the Murdoch detectives, explain what his concern is there. He - - you know, this is only straight from the memory of what he was telling me. He'd been threatened by two blokes over from Melbourne to break his legs. He needed some money, wanted me to help him. I just told him "Look, the position I'm in, I can't do anything for you" and the next thing I know his panel-beating shop got burnt down and I believe that he was possibly a suspect for that. I don't know, and I don't know what happened about that side of the inquiry - who got charged with it. I know people got charged in relation to threatening him. I don't know what happened to the arson. I don't know what happened to the insurance payout on his business. Actually, no, I do know what happened to the insurance payout. He was never paid out on it, I don't think. The building was owned by another entity, but his interest in it was - - I don't believe he was ever given the payout for it. MR HASTINGS: Well, out of all of that, the only matter which could possibly cause him to have some dislike for you seems to be the fact that he made a request to you for assistance in relation to his brother and you didn't assist?---Well, you know, you just asked me what - - to come up with a reason. I don't know what goes on inside his mind. I asked you whether there'd been any - -?---I've got no idea. I asked you whether there'd been any acrimony between you and him?---And you know, I've attempted to explain it. You know, the last time - - I can't even think the last time I met with the bloke, and that's about what I remember of it. It seems to be something of a coincidence that one can infer from the telephone intercepted conversations from January 1999 that you seem to be dealing in ecstasy and in March of 2000 B3 went to the Anti-Corruption Commission, making an allegation that you'd approached him with a large quantity of ecstasy tablets?---When - - when did I allegedly make this approach to him? Could you tell me that? Late in 1999?---Well, you've no idea when? Just the late part of the year? Yes?---Well, I would have been under suspension then, so - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3680

C4/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Yes?--- - - I've got no idea why he'd say what he said, but I can tell you now I've never given him any tablets; I've never dealt in it. Right. And you're aware of the fact that B13 gave some support to B3's version, are you not, in that he was there and was told contemporaneously by B3 that he'd received the samples and the offer of the larger quantity from his "cop mate", referring to you?---Is that - - And that - -?--- - - what he said, was it? B13? And that B13 then sampled the butterfly motif ecstasy tablets which B3 had?---I'm not - - I'm not familiar to who B13 is, and I'm not too conversant what he said about me, but does he nominate me? Does he say it's me? He says he was told it was you by inference, yes. Just have a look at the list of code names which is now being shown to you, which has B13 on it. I'm not suggesting that you actually had any direct dealings with him, but you may know him?---No, I don't know that person. It's not suggested by either of them that he dealt with you direct. The combined version is that B3 was approached by you with the offer to sell 2000 ecstasy tablets and that B3 approached B13 to see whether he was interested and, at a time when you provided a couple of samples, B13 was told almost straight afterwards by B3 that he'd received those samples from a person whose description referred to you?---So to put me to this B13 is through B3, is it? B3 said I gave it to him and B3 gave it to 13. Is that right? Yes?---Is that what's alleged? Yes?---It's just not true. The other matter of apparent unusual coincidence is that the allegation which is made - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3681

C5/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - which is made based on the telephone intercepts is that your involvement in what appeared to be ecstasy dealing was in conjunction with your brother, Kevin, and with Silvio Cinquina and there's now been evidence before the Royal Commission that Cinquina has been said by two witnesses to have approached them in relation to deals relating to ecstasy, so there seem to be a combination of coincidence that two partners in this suggested joint venture associated with ecstasy have independently been referred to by quite separate witnesses as being involved in ecstasy dealing. Do you see the force of that significance - of that coincidence?---No, I don't. I was not - - I can only talk for myself. I was not involved in any drug dealing with B3 and, I mean, if B3 has been taken on board as a witness of the truth, well, he certainly isn't, and as far as the other people in Kalgoorlie go, I've got nothing to do with them. Well, you have in the sense that I've just indicated, that it's quite clear - - ?---No, I've got nothing to do with them. - - from the phone conversations that whatever business you had was being dealt with in conjunction with Silvio Cinquina? ---I've got nothing to do with anyone in Kalgoorlie. But you did have at the time, didn't you?---Like who? Silvio Cinquina and your brother, Kevin?---I know Kevin and Silvio, yeah, but as far as C - - through to whatever they are, I don't know them. On the last occasion I asked you in very general terms about your response to the allegation made by Trifon, and supported by the witnesses who were given the codes K1 and K3, that K1 had had some morphine tablets stolen from him as a result of a visit made by you, O'Reilly and O'Keeffe on the 26th of June 1998 and you denied the allegation, did you not?---You've got it right. It was just a visit to his house. I never stole anything from that bloke. Could I just have a look at that K1 and 2 people again so I know who's who? Thanks. Does that remind you of who the people are?---Yeah, I'm aware who's who now, yeah. Okay. I just want to ask you about that in a little more detail to give you the opportunity to deal with the allegations that have been made. I think in general terms your explanation starts, does it not, with the claim that your brother, Kevin, had given you some information about the person K1 having some medication and maybe being at risk from others because of his possession of these drugs?---Yeah. In my recollection of it, he was being threatened to have them taken off him, words to that effect. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3682

C5/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Right, and you'll recall that eventually an information report was put into the system, was it not, which recorded the information that you received from your brother? ---That's correct. But I think the explanation is that - - because that entry into the system is dated the 1st of July, whereas the visit to the premises took place on the 26th, the explanation is that there was a handwritten document created contemporaneously with the receipt of the information, and the typed entry in the system was put in later by a member of the staff?---No, the information I got was on the Friday, which was the 26th, I think. So then the Saturday and the Sunday I had a day off. The Monday, from memory, my journals - - and I don't know whether I went to a meeting or not, but Monday was a busy day. I know on the Tuesday I didn't even go to my office because I had to attend at Maylands on a course, and then on the Wednesday - - you know, like, we're going back 4 years here. Obviously, it was still sitting there; it hadn't been entered on the system, and I think the system shows that I actually entered it on there. That's right?---On the Wednesday. Right?---And I know a lot of mileage was made out of the fact by Internal Affairs that I'd let it go for some 6 days, but that wasn't the case, you know. I had other things to do; there was a weekend included in that, and when I discovered it hadn't been put on the system it was put on the system. But part of that explanation is, is it not, that in fact you had handwritten a version of the report - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3683

C6/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - version of the report contemporaneously with receipt of the information from your brother, and when you came to put the entry into the system, it was merely a formalisation of your handwritten version?---Well, they would have been notes written down at the time, when I got the information from Kevin, yes. I can't remember who, but either Mr O'Keeffe or Mr O'Reilly have indicated that they, when they came to your office in Curtin House that morning, saw you in possession of what seemed to be a handwritten version of an IR. Is that consistent with your recollection?---Like you said, it's hard to remember, isn't it? I mean, you can't remember whether it was O'Reilly or O'Keeffe, but I know one of them - - whoever one said - - I agree with you, yes. Can I have brought up, please, the public version of the information report, which is D1005001, exhibit 12? You'll see when the document comes up that it has a part blacked out, but you can assume that's the name and address of K1. It reads: "A man called" - and then K1's name and address

appears - "is on medication and I think he is giving some of his tablets to friends and he's getting pressured to give the tablets to people. I know he's driving around in his car now. He had a red Ford sedan. He has the tablets with him. I'm worried that he may be attacked or harmed by people to get his tablets."

Now, does that remind you of the information report that you eventually submitted?---That's - - that's not the original copy. I mean, it's not exactly it, because the date on the bottom's got August 23 1999 on it. Yes. That was when it was printed off by Internal Affairs, but you'll see a third of the way down, the right-hand side, "date entered and date received"?---That also is not correct, either. I see. Why is that?---Because at the time of going back to - - when was it, June 98, that "date entered and date received" wasn't available. It wasn't on the computer. Well - -?---So that's not an original copy of what it is, but there isn't a - - there is an original copy floating around, because I gave that - - handed it in with my section 8 notice, and yet we always seem to refer to this one, which is not - - which is not the genuine article. All right. Are there significant differences, do you say, between the original and this?---Well, just the fact it's not the original. I mean - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3684

C6/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Well - -?---I mean, my name appears down there and it's August, you know, 99. Well, I wasn't even at work then, but that "date entered/date received" facility wasn't available then, but if you're going to ask me about the contents there under the information, I wouldn't argue with that. Well, you might look at this document which seems to be a copy taken off a copy of your section 8 response. Is that the original, or a copy of the original, about which you were talking?---Well, it appears to be more accurate than the one you've got on the screen, yes. Well, you can take it from me it's come off the back of your section 8 response. Is that the document that you've referred to as the more accurate one?---That's right. Yes. Yes. Commissioner, I'll tender that document, having had it barcoded. On a confidential basis, Commissioner. It hasn't been edited. It has the name of K1 and his address in it. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The information report which is dated the 1st of July 1998, barcoded D1004647, will be exhibit 531C, and accessible only to officers of the Commission and to counsel assisting. EXHIBIT 531C Mr Hastings DATE 1.7.98 Confidential - Information Report Barcode D1004647 MR HASTINGS: Could that go back to the witness, please, Commissioner? (TO WITNESS): The document can remain on the screen, but because you obviously place some reliance on your version of it, I'll ask you questions directed to it. It bears the same date as the version I produced, does it not, July the 1st 1998 - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3685

C7/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - July the 1st 1998?---It's got the - - yeah; got a date on it. Yep. One difference seems to be that on your version there is a date of the 26th of June 1998, which indicates when it was received, does it not?---Well, that - - But without a time?---On my version where it's got the date only - - No time?---Yeah. Where it's got the date only on my version of the information report, the reason for putting the date entered and the date received on, because when the operators were doing this and there was a need to go back and find out when phone calls were received, they could never give an accurate indication of, "Was that the date you took the phone call or is that the date you entered it on the computer system?" Right?---That's why that date entered, date received facility was put on there. But looking at your original document, the line starts, "Received by Michael Reilly" and your number, and then the date, 26 June 1998 is an indication of the date when you received the information, is it not?---It would be, yes. The difference seems to be, however, that on the original document that you produced there is no time, whereas by some process or another in the version later printed off, the date received has the time, 1300 hours alongside it?---That's right. Yeah. And I don't know where that time's come from. I see. Otherwise the text is the same, is it not?---Yes. I agree with that. And other information is the same in that it shows the information coming from Kalgoorlie detectives, it shows the name of the caller - - well, sorry; the gender of the caller to be female in both?---That's correct. The information, of course, came from your brother, Kevin, did it not?---That's what it says on the bottom. To you?---The comments down there; "Information supplied ex Kalgoorlie detectives". Yes. The information came to you via your brother?---That's correct. Yes. And did you understand that he'd obtained the information from a female who'd spoken to him?---Well, just going back to that now I can't. He must - - he must have indicated to me in some .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3686

C7/1 POLICE form, you know, he was talking to a female, or I've, you know, misunderstood it or whatever; I don't know. Because I've ticked the female box at the time. MR HASTINGS: In any event, the text of the report insofar as it is in the first person, is a reference to the informant rather than your brother, Kevin, is it not?---Well, it's just the way I've written it up. Yes. I'm not criticising you for that. I'm just asking you to agree with the fact that insofar as you say, "I think" this, or "I know" this, or "I am worried that", that's a reference to the informant - - ?---Yes. Yeah, I would agree with that. - - providing information rather than your brother expressing his thoughts or concerns about the position?---I would agree with that, yes. The message is recorded in sort of contemporaneous current terms, is it not? It's not historical. It purports to refer to some events which are taking place at the time?---Well, then again, that is how you - - you know, all the IRs get put on the system like that. When people ring you up you try to get the operator, in which case would have been me, to write it down and record it the way it is given to you, and that's how I've done it. Yes. But if someone was referring to an event which had taken place a month earlier, you wouldn't say, "I know he is driving around in his car now," would you?---No, you wouldn't. You'd say, "A month ago he was driving around in a red car," or words like that?---Well, I suppose, yes. All hypothetical, isn't it? Right. But the only point I'm making, which is not of great moment, is that the information which was then being conveyed to you was current - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3687

C8/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - was current, in that it purports to refer to the fact that the person at that moment was apparently driving around in his car and the informant - - and had tablets with him?---That's correct. And the person is apparently concerned that he may be attacked or harmed by people to get his tablets. Again, that seems to be a current concern?---Yes. And it was that information, was it, which was the trigger for what you did thereafter?---Well, again, you know, it's not a trigger for anything. I mean, my brother rang me up and asked if I could go out and see this bloke, find out, you know, was he under any sort of threat, was there any problem with him, and we'd take it from there, and that's what I did. Yes. Well, it was a trigger in the sense that if your brother hadn't rung with this information you wouldn't have done anything, would you?---Well, obviously not. But because he rang and gave you this information, you then took some action?---Well, because he rang. He asked me to go and attend at that person's house. That's what I did. And I think you say, do you not, that you made some attempts to interest other police in responding to the information, by ringing - -?---Oh, when I was - - when I was interviewed by Internal Affairs, I said to them "Yeah, there's a good chance I would have done." Mm?---Who I spoke to, I don't know. Whether I rang someone and their phone didn't answer, or said they were too busy or what, I don't know. As it transpired, O'Keefe and O'Reilly were there. We went out there. It was a 5 minute job; go out and ask the guy did he have any problems. Yes? No? Take it from there. That's all it was going to be. And I think you say it was just a matter of chance that O'Keefe and O'Reilly happened to be in Curtin House and in your office, which caused you to enlist their assistance in responding to the information?---Well, I don't think it was a matter of chance. I'm not too sure. I don't know whether it was pre-arranged that O'Reilly or O'Keefe come, or we were going to lunch, or something like that, or they came in to see me about some other matter. No. It certainly wasn't pre-arranged that they were to come in and assist you with this inquiry, was it?---No. And it was just a matter of chance that they happened to be there, for whatever reason, and you were able to enlist their assistance to go out to the address to respond to the .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3688

C8/3 POLICE information?---Well, you know, I don't like the term - - you know, the "chance" that they popped up there. I mean, if the bloke was in the office when I spoke to him there, and if they've read it and we decided to go out and have a look at it, that's what happened. MR HASTINGS: Mm. You're aware, are you, of the general effect of the witnesses who gave evidence generally under codes beginning with "B" in relation to activities of police associated with Brentwood and later Murdoch Police Station? That there was a practice - -?---I'm not conversant with all they said. I've read bits in the paper, spoke to a couple of people. I'm aware of some of the things. Mm. And there was quite a body of evidence by a diverse group of people that persons associated with Brentwood, which included you, O'Keefe and O'Reilly, had on more than one occasion - in fact, on a number of occasions - gone to persons' houses and stolen drugs and/or money?---Oh, I'm not familiar with anyone who accuses me of doing that. I see. You're not aware of the fact that B3 suggested there was something of a system working, whereby he was able to nominate people who were dealing so that people could go and - - police from Brentwood could go and rip them off, steal their drugs and give him a share?---No, I'm not. No. I see. In general terms, again there would seem to be something of a striking similarity between the allegations made in relation to what happened on the 26th of June with regard to K1 and the allegations made by those witnesses with the code beginning "B" of the practice of entering premises and stealing their drugs. Do you see the similarity?---Well, I can tell you in relation to K1 - - I mean, I've spent a fair bit of time reading his transcripts that he gave to the Anti-Corruption Commission and I'm sure you'd correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know whether it was four, five or six times he got interviewed, and on every occasion he changed his story. You could say he gave false testimony to the Anti-Corruption Commission and I - - from memory I know, and it sticks out like a beacon, I think. The last paragraph of the interview he had with them, they accused him of being nothing but a liar. So if you're going to put any weight on what he says - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3689

C9/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - weight on what he says, I don't see how you can do that. MR HASTINGS: I see?---He's certainly not a witness of the truth. I mean, he gave his evidence here and he certainly didn't come across as a witness of the truth. Right, but what about my point, that there seems to be something of a striking similarity between the evidence given by him and K3 and Trifon, to some extent, with the evidence given by the B witnesses, of a practice of detectives at Brentwood, of going out to - -?---Well, I can tell you about - - - - drug suspects and ripping them?---Well, I certainly didn't rip off B3 for anything. All right. Well, the evidence was more general than that, that there was a practice of B3 providing the information which enabled detectives, including O'Keeffe and O'Reilly, to go out to premises of the persons that he nominated, in order to steal their drugs, part of which were later given to him as his reward for providing the information. That seems to have something of a striking similarity, does it not, with the allegations - -?---Well - - - - made by K1 and K3?---Does he say I was involved in that, B3? He does give you some mention, yes?---Well, it's not true. I see. And what do you say about the similarity?---What, he's made a similar allegation? Well, a number of people did?---Oh, good luck. That's the best explanation you can give, is it?---Well, you know, when I was first confronted with Mr K1, and I think it was your opening address, you said out of all the people that come before us here, in relation to the morphine, that he is a person that could be believed. Well, I know that's not the case because I've sat down and I've read all the interviews in relation to K1. I haven't seen any interviews in relation to any other people. Why they've come forward, how many times have they been interviewed, what they've had to say, whether they've been promised something like K1 obviously was promised, but, you know, why they're coming forward, I don't know. I can only tell you what I know. While we're looking at the documents, I might just take you, then, to your report in response to the information which is barcoded D1005006, which is exhibit 14 in its public version. Are you able to read that?---Yes, I can see it. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3690

C9/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Again, there's a blacking-out of the name, K1. Was that, in effect, a report that you sent back to - -?---What's the - - - - Detective Sergeant Kevin Reilly as a response to the action you took - -?---What's on the screen now - - - - over the information?--- - - is the fax - is that the one? Yes?---Yeah. With a message?---Yeah. "Please find attached information", so and so, yeah. And was the information report which was attached to the document which we saw earlier, that you compiled recording the information that you'd received?---Was it attached? Yes?---I can't remember. Well, it says here, "Please find attached information report"?---Oh well, then, it must have gone with it. Right. And the message in response was: "We have spoken to him on Friday, 26 June 98, also

Monday, 29 June 98. Insufficient evidence to proceed. Inquiries with his doctor did not assist. For your information. Regards, Mick Reilly."

The information that had been received on the Friday, the 26th, was concerning the safety of K1, was it not?---Concerning his safety? Yes?---Oh, yeah, and the matters about the tablets, yeah. That's right. Right. Because the information report recorded that he was getting pressured to give tablets to people and the informant was worried that he may be attacked or harmed by people, to get his tablets?---That's basically it, yeah. Right, but you didn't address that issue in your response to Kevin Reilly, did you?---What, here, you mean? On this fax? Yes?---I just sent to him what I thought was relevant. Yeah, but it didn't respond to the information that had been given, did it?---In what way? .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3691

C10/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Because the information you received was an expression of concern about the safety of K1 because people might be putting the hard word on him to get his - - ? ---I just put on - - - - medication, as a result of which he may be attacked or harmed?---I put on there that we spoke to him on the Friday and the Monday, there was no evidence to assist, and we had made inquiries with his doctor. That's what I did. No, no, you said "insufficient evidence to proceed"? ---"Insufficient evidence to proceed". That's right. Right. Well, where is any response to fears about the safety of K1?---Well, what do you think, I should send him a bloody 5-page report telling him what I went and did? No, I suggest you - - ?---I would've talked to him on the phone. I told him exactly what I did. I attended at the bloke's house; he had no complaint to make. I made inquiries with his doctor; he was entitled to have his medication. It was given back to him. Well, what about - - ?---Simple as that. Yeah, what about the fears about his safety, which was the matter which was brought to your attention?---Well, K1 didn't have any concerns. Did you say that in your report back to Kevin Reilly? ---Obviously not. It's not written there, is it? Because that was always a fiction, wasn't it?---That's absolute rubbish. Is it? Well, why didn't you address that issue in your report back to Kevin?---Because I might have spoken to him on the phone. I don't know. Well, if you'd spoken to him on the phone - - ?---I just - - - - why send him a report at all?---I sent him a copy of the IR. Yes?---I faxed it through to them. And then you put - - ?---They put it on to their intelligence base in Kalgoorlie. I don't know what he's going to do. And then told him the result?---No, I didn't say there was a result. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3692

C10/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: You did?---Was there a result sheet with it? You said: "Spoken to him" on those dates, "insufficient evidence to proceed. Inquiries with the doctor did not assist"?---Exactly. That was the outcome you were claiming of the investigation? ---That's it. Right, but what about addressing the substance of the matter which came to you in the first place - namely, some threat to the security of this person?---Well, if Kevin's got that back there - - if he had any concerns he'd ring me back. Any other policeman who gets a report back like that - - they'd be more than happy with it. Would they?---That's it. I see. Even though it doesn't address the information which has been forwarded?---Well, it has addressed it. Where does it address the issue of safety?---Oh, you're just splitting hairs. That's all you're doing. I'm not splitting hairs. The issues are chalk and cheese. The original information report as you recorded it indicated that this man is in some form of threat?---No, the information - - No suggestion in the information report that he may be committing an offence, was there?---It says "insufficient evidence to proceed", okay? Now, that could be proceeding with giving the bloke a reward who came, to go anywhere with the inquiry. To proceed with it. It's as simple as that. You've tried to make it into something that it's not. Well, I'm trying to make it into an obvious point that this information report was just a fiction because there were never any concerns about the safety of K1. It was always a job to go out and see if he had some drugs and, if you could, relieve him of them?---No. As I say, you know, Internal Affairs took that as a fiction. They reckoned this report never even existed, and yet they knew it was there, electronically recorded in the computer. It took them 8 months to find it. What's that got to do with it?---Well, because they've got the same mindset you're trying to put over now. Okay, well, we've - - ?---That was - - - - now got the report, right, and we can see - - ?---I beg your pardon? .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3693

C10/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: We've now got the report and we can see that your report back to Kevin Reilly had absolutely no relationship with the issue which he'd drawn to your attention?---No. The thing is, we've got the report now which corroborates what I've said from day one - that it did belong and it was on the system, I did report back to my brother, I did tell him what we did; and it's recorded there in black and white. When I said this to them before no one believed me. Well, now we've got the document, unfortunately for you it doesn't make any sense, does it?---Well, I'll tell you what, it's a lot better having the document than when I didn't have it - - Even though - - ?--- - - because they reckoned it never even existed. Even though when the other document is produced the two don't go together. Is that what you say?---Well, they do. COMMISSIONER: Can I ask what the purpose of going to the doctor was?---Sorry, sir? What was the purpose of going to the doctor?---My recollection of it - - where we found - - where the tablets were located in his car and the quantity, whether he could have 100 tablets, whether he was entitled to that many tablets. To confirm, you know, that he was entitled to them and I didn't know whether they were there, you know, lawfully or he'd taken them from somewhere else. They weren't in any packaging, they were - - they - - and this is again from memory. I think they were in the console of the car which aroused our suspicions at the time. I mean, if they'd have been in his medical chest, you know, we would've walked in and out the door full stop. I wouldn't have bothered going to see the doctor. MR HASTINGS: But what inquiries did you make about his safety?---What inquiries did I make about his safety? I'd have just spoken to him. Speaking of records, the other difficulty which you are now aware of in sustaining your version comes from the telephone records - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3694

C11/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - telephone records; you're aware of that, are you not?---I'm not, no. I see. Well, on your account you received the information on the morning of the 26th. You've tried to enlist the interest of some other police, or you may have, without success. O'Keeffe and O'Reilly happen to be there, for whatever business they had. You recruited them to come with you and you went out and did the job; correct?---Yeah. That's probably about it. Except that that account is not supported by the telephone records. You understand that, do you not?---Is this - - are you getting to where I made phone calls from my mobile phone from that area the day before or something like that? Mm. Yes?---Is that where we're going with this? Yes?---Yep. What about it? Well, because it's inconsistent with your story, isn't it?---Well, how is it? Because you went out to the area the day before?---Well, I don't know that - - where I made those phone calls from, and I'll concede it was from me, you know. It goes back to that phone, but I'll concede no one else might have used that phone, but I'm willing to say I was out in that area. What I was doing and where I was going I don't know. But no one's ever told me, "Can you pinpoint exactly" where I was. Right. Well, that's only part of the story, because if one looks at the call charge records in their entirety, there's a whole pattern of calls between Trifon and Farrell, Trifon and your brother, Kevin, Kevin and you and then you going to this area adjacent to K1's premises, and then you ringing Kevin back?---Where's - - where's adjacent to his premises? Where's that? Well, you know the suburb he's in, do you not?---I'm - - I - - Well, it's Alexander Heights?---Mirrabooka, Koondoola, Alexander Heights. I don't know; which one is it? Well, Alexander Heights was where he lived?---Right. All right. And do you have some explanation for that pattern of calls?---I don't know what the pattern is. I've just told you?---What; between Farrell and Trifon? What's that got to do with me? .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3695

C11/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Trifon to Farrell, Trifon to Kevin Reilly, Kevin Reilly to Mick Reilly, Mick Reilly going to the area, Mick Reilly ringing Kevin Reilly?---On what day? The 25th?---The day before. Yes. And then again on the morning of the 26th?---Right. When you say "the area", where did I go? Well, the nearest - - well, there are two towers in the vicinity of where you were - Koondoola and Malaga - both of which were not towers relevant to Curtin House. In fact, on the 26th, if you want to move to that - - ?---Well, let's deal with the first one. You said I was adjacent to it the day before. I'm asking you where was I? Well, the same place, as far as I can tell. Well, as you well know, the area can't be pinpointed. It's a matter of - - the precise suburb can't be pinpointed. It's a matter of the area?---Well, no. I'm not aware of that. I see?---See, I've never - - I've asked for these things in the past and it's never been given to me. When did you ask for them last?---When - - when I put in my section 8 response I was told about telephone networking, and this tower does this and that, and I said, "Okay. Show it to me," and I've never been shown it. I see. Have you asked the Royal Commission when you were given the invitation to have access to material to enable you to cross-examine?---No. I never asked the Royal Commission. Why not?---Well, let's do it now. Well, what's the point of complaining about not having access to the material when you were given the opportunity to seek it and you didn't take it?---No. I'm not complaining. I thought you just did?---I'm just telling you as it - - you know, as things took place. Can I have brought up, please, barcode D1005009? Well, maybe I can't. Has it been edited? Okay. Just on the private screens first, please. (TO WITNESS): While this is happening, do you have any recollection of being involved in anything to do with this matter the day before the 26th of June?---With K1? Yes?---No, I don't. Do you have a recall of having anything to do with this matter on the morning of the 26th of June - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3696

C12/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - morning of the 26th of June?---No, I don't. Do you have any recollection of going out to the vicinity of K1's suburb at about 11 o'clock on the morning of the 26th?---No, but I believe that my phone, Crime Stoppers phone, made a phone call from there. I believe. Is that correct? Yes. Well, I'm asking you whether you have any recollection of going out there?---No, I don't. No?---But when you say, "out to his suburb", I don't know. Is it in that suburb or where - - what - - the tower that this phone call gets made to, what other suburbs does that cover? I mean, what other area could I be in? Well, where did you go on the morning of the 26th?---I don't remember. I see. Did you leave the office at all?---Well, obviously I did, because my phone was used out there, and I'm saying, I'm conceding, yes, it would have been me out there. Right. And you've got no recollection of what you were doing that morning?---What, 4 years ago? Yes, but you've been asked about this before, have you not?---Yes, I - - About what you did on the day of the 26th?---And I think I gave that answer. I don't remember. Whatever you did, presumably you would record it in your journal for the day?---No, I don't. Why not?---I don't record everything I do in my journal. You know, you say "out to..." this fellow's house in - - sorry, K1's house in Alexander Heights, but what other suburbs does that area cover? I mean - - Can you just answer my question - -?--- - - does that tower cover - - Did you - -?---Well, if you - - - - record what you did in the morning in your journal?---Just let me finish and I - - No. I asked you that question. Did you record what you did in the morning in your journal?---I would have done, yes. I see. All right. Let's have a look at what you recorded. Can I have brought up on Mr Reilly's screen, barcode D1003986? .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3697

C12/2 POLICE I'll endeavour to improve the clarity in a minute, but are you able to tell the - -?---Yeah, I can read it. I can read it. MR HASTINGS: It seems to be your journal for the relevant day - -?---That's all right. - - the 26th of June 98?---Yep. Well, you might be able to read it, but I can't. It seems to indicate - -?---We're doing this on the - - we're doing - - to the 26th now, not the 25th? The 26th - -?---I thought we were doing the day before. No, no?---No? I was asking about the 26th of June, and whether you'd made an entry in your diary for that date. It seems to record that you worked between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm, does it not?---That's what it's got there, yes. Right. Could you read it, please?---The guts of it, or the whole lot of it? The whole lot. "Commence duty", I can work that bit out?---Okay. I was going to start with my name at the top: "Crime Stoppers, Friday, the 26th, the time.

Commenced duty office. General duties" - general office duties, sorry - "attention correspondence and re cabling channel CH" - which is channel Nine, 10 and Seven - "and technology" - or terminology or something "re vignettes and liaise ex-office re EEIO. Return - - "position". Sorry. "Return position ex-Bree?" - I think Bree was a constable that was at Crime Stoppers - "General office duties in company with O'Reilly, Detective O'Reilly, O'Keeffe and surveillance, 8 - -"

Well, I won't give that address. Will I leave that? Yeah, thanks?---K1's address: "Re information ex Kalgoorlie detectives. Interview

occupant. Locate tablets in vehicle. Further inquiries necessary with doctor and informant. To office" - I think that's - "Murdoch detectives re above. Further inquiries necessary."

Right?---And then it goes on - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3698

C13/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - it goes on: "Saturday, Sunday is weekly leave" and a summary of hours worked, overtime and - - not claimed and what-have-you inside. MR HASTINGS: Can we just go back to the opening few lines? What is that a reference to? "Commence duty, office - -"?---"General office duties. Attention correspondence" and then - - Sorry, where do we get "General office duties"? Oh, I see - -?---Sorry. On the top line. Righto, yeah, "Attention correspondence", yes. "Re - -"?---Well, it's got "Attention correspondence." Then it's got "Re cabling, channels Nine, 10 and Seven" and - - Can we infer from that that was the correspondence was in relation to the cabling?---Well, it could well be, or it could have been I've attended out there. It says "Attention correspondence re cabling"?---Well, you know, it's got "Attention re correspondence" and I think it's got a full stop. All right. We'll just assume there's a stop, "Re cabling channels Nine, 10 and Seven" and what's the next word?---Yeah, it is a bit hard to make out. I don't know whether it's "terminology re - -" "terminology re - -"?---"- - vignettes" or - - yeah, "technology re vignettes", either one, and "liaise - -" What's "vignettes"?---"vignettes"? Mm?---It's to do with - - Crime Stoppers put a - - a vignette on the Channel Nine in relation to a crime of the week type of thing and I think it was at that particular stage there we had one that went a little bit - - well, they showed the wrong person, or we showed the wrong person. Then it says "Ex office" indicating you left the office?---"Channel - - re vignettes and liaise, ex officer" maybe, or "office" it could be, "ex office re expressions of interest position ex Bree." Right. And then "General office duties"?---And "General office duties" after that, yes. What's "ICW"?---That's "in company with." Right. So does that in some way indicate to you that you recorded what you did in the morning when you left the office?---That just gives me a brief outline of what I did on that day. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3699

C13/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Yes, and does it record what you did when you left the office in the morning?---Well, it just says what it says. Yes. Well, does it tell you what you did when you left the office in the morning?---I don't know whether it tells me anything at all, really, when I left the office - whether I went to Channel Nine and 10 and Seven, or not. I see?---But I think there's a vehicle book. I would have signed that out, perhaps. I don't know - - I don't think that ever got located. All right. Do you know what the problem with "cabling" was?---I think, from memory, it was to do with the cost of it. Do you think "cabling" and "technology" went together, being related topics?---Yeah. The cabling was, I think, who was going to foot the bill to send the cabling down from the roof of Curtin House down to the - - whatever floor we were on in those days. I don't know, fourth floor, and it was quite costly; about who was going to pay for it. All right. So can you tell me again what that tells you about what you did when you left the office in the morning?---Well, it doesn't tell me a lot, does it? I don't know. It's your - -?---Well, it doesn't tell me a lot. It's your entry. You tell me what it tells you?---Well, exactly that. Well, what?---About what I did. What did you do when you left the office then?---I probably went to Channel Nine and 10. I don't know. Nine, 10 and Seven?---Nine, 10 and Seven, yes. You know, I might have left the office, gone out there - - or only gone to one, turned around and not come back to the other. I don't know. I see - -?---Gone there, turned around. The person I wanted to speak to wasn't there. I don't know, but I can say - - if you tell me what other suburbs that tower covers? You know, maybe I went and saw a family member, maybe I went and saw another police officer out there. I don't know. It might have been something of really no significance and I didn't even note it down. Well, the "Tower, Koondoola" covers Alexander Heights, Marangaroo, Girrawheen, Ballajura and Mirrabooka. Does that assist you - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3700

C14/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - that assist you?---Ballajura, was it? I'm sorry; yes?---Well, I know people who live round there. Right. What; you might have gone out on a social visit, do you think?---I may well have done. Even though you're on duty at the time?---Exactly. Yeah. Is that what you did as a police officer?---At times. If I was driving out somewhere I pulled in. I might have dropped off something, I don't know. It could have been about this vignette. It could have been seeing about - - someone about the Crime Stoppers thing. I mean, I didn't note everything I ever did. I might have even called in to the police stations out there, I don't know. But I don't - - you know, I certainly don't write down, "Drive out to Ballajura. Drop off 10 water bottles to the school," or "Drop off 50 caps to the community policing bloke" out there, or something like that. I just go out and do it. I don't record that. Why not?---Because I don't think it's necessary. Isn't the point of your journal to record what you do during the day?---Yes. And if I was to write that down in my journal I'll be writing a novel every day. I see. It would avoid a situation like this, I suppose, wouldn't it, if someone later calls you to account for what you did on a day. If you had detailed entries in your journal then you'd be able to give them an account?---I am. I am giving that account. All right. What did you - - ?---I'm saying if I was out at - - What did you do on the morning of the 26th of June when you left the office?---Exactly what I did? Yep?---I can't answer that, can I? Exactly. I mean, you don't have to be a detective senior sergeant, I imagine, to understand what the journal is, because the instructions inside the cover tell you that: "The object of these diaries is threefold." The third point is: "To protect and assist on all occasions of future

reference to their conduct." .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3701

C14/1 POLICE You understood that, did you?---Well, I've been filling out a journal like that ever since I joined the CIB, and no one's ever brought it to my attention that I was doing it incorrectly. MR HASTINGS: When you were out and about did you have any reason to speak to Geoff O'Reilly?---Out and about when? On the morning of the 26th of June 1998?---Well, you know, if - - if there's a phone record there to say I rang and spoke to him, well, so be it; I spoke to him. Do you know what that was about?---I've got no idea. Did you have any reason while you were out and about to speak to Paul O'Keeffe?---What; on that particular day? On the 26th of June 1998 in the morning?---No. You know, I could - - I could give 100 reasons why I would ring them up. I see. Seems to be again of some striking coincidence that given what happened in the afternoon, which you say followed the receipt of the information, whereupon you just happened upon O'Keeffe and O'Reilly at Curtin House, and you went with them out to K1's premises, that in fact when you'd been in the same area in the morning you'd spoken to both of them on the telephone. Seems to be an unusual coincidence, does it not?---Not really. No. I mean, I - - I would speak to those blokes regularly. And, I mean, on other days. Is there anything sinister about that? The fact is that we go to this bloke's house, allegedly steal 1000 tablets that don't even exist. I mean, I've sat here and heard all this, I've heard what the doctor had to say. There's never been established that these 1000 tablets even existed. I think when K1 gave his evidence and he referred to the police officer, he said the police officer never told him how many tablets he had. His wife's never seen them. His son's never seen them. The only person who's seen them is him, and he comes up with about four different versions of how they came into his possession. He had 100 tablets at his house. He was given a receipt and he was given them back; simple as that. What also seems to be of some significance is that according to the phone records upon your return to Curtin House at 11.43 am, you again contacted Geoff O'Reilly. Do you have any recollection of that?---Well, you know, when I rang him the first time did he answer his phone? Well, you must have been hanging on for a long time, because it took a minute?---So I spoke to him for a minute, did I? Right?---Yep. Well, yeah, look, I'm not arguing with that. You know, I'd ring the guys all the time. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3702

C14/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: No. I'm not - - ?---But I don't see why we have to make that an issue. Because, according to you, simply by chance O'Reilly and O'Keeffe happen to be in the office at Curtin House after you got the information from Kevin Reilly, you enlisted their assistance and went out to the address of K1?---What; and then stole 1000 tablets that didn't exist? When the records indicate - - ?---I don't think so. - - that you'd been in - - you'd been out to the same area in the morning before and from there had rung both O'Reilly and O'Keeffe, and then rang O'Reilly again when you returned to the office?---Yeah. Which means nothing. Well, it seems to mean nothing to you. To some it may indicate that you'd been out in the morning planning the job and had reported to O'Keeffe and O'Reilly while you were out there?---Yeah. Well, look, planning to steal what? The drugs that you'd been told by your brother - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3703

C15/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - by your brother, who had been told by Trifon, that K1 had in his house?---What, the drugs that don't exist? Well, just answer my question?---Well, I'm trying to, but the thing is this - we're going all around his - - I can remember reading out, "What did you wear that day?" "What" - - "Did you do this?" "Who opened the door?" "Who closed the door?" I mean, as an investigator you go there. "Is there something capable of being stolen?" "No, there's not." Why are we going down this road? I didn't steal anything from K1. We took 100 tablets from him, made inquiries with his doctor. I mean, even that - - I was told, you know, I made brief inquiries with his doctor, and it wasn't until, you know, whatever it was, 2 years later when I got access to documents - - the phone call I had with the doctor lasted 20 minutes. You know, people try to - - "Well, what did you do about it?" Well, I did a bit about it. Why do you think K1 complained within minutes of you leaving the premises that some drugs had been stolen?---Well, K1 never complained that he had drugs stolen minutes after when I left the door. He rang his son - - ?---That's right. - - and told him that people who he didn't actually believe were police at all because of the way they had behaved had taken away his drugs?---No. My understanding of what he said and what the son, K2, said was: he rang and said the police had been at his house and took his medication. That's exactly what we did. And K1 also rang K3, the female, and made the same allegation, that the drugs had been taken. K3 then rang Trifon, Trifon then rang your brother, Kevin, and Kevin rang you?---Yeah, well, what K1, K3, Trifon or all the rest of them concoct about that I've got no idea. I see?---I can only tell you what I did. Well, I suppose what difficulty you face is that they did it so quickly. I mean, one might think - - ?---I mean, you know, the difficulty I face is that I'm being accused of stealing something that doesn't exist. Yes?---It's as simple as that. Well, that's what you say?---Well, that's - - you know, that's not what I say - - You might explain how it was that those - - ?---That's what .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3704

C15/4 POLICE this investigation - - and that's what the Internal Affairs and the ACC investigation have established. MR HASTINGS: Well, this is a different inquiry with different evidence?---I'm sure this inquiry will establish the same thing then. Well, we'll see?---You can't steal something that doesn't exist. We'll see, but what you might like to explain is how quickly it could be that this group of people could fabricate a story? ---How can I explain the actions of other people? Well, it's the same as these other persons whose evidence I brought to your attention. How is it that all of these people just seem to be wrong or lying - - ?---Well, I can't talk for them. - - when they come to give evidence about you?---I can only talk for myself. I can only talk for myself. The call charge records also indicate that when you returned to the area in the afternoon, shortly before entering the premises, you communicated with your brother, Kevin. Do you remember that?---Could you tell me the time they were? What time was that? 12.56 pm?---Okay, and I've rang Kevin. Is that right? Yes?---What, from my phone to his phone or has he rang me? No, he rang you - - from your mobile to his mobile?---So I rang him, did I? Yes?---Okay, yeah. Right. Do you know why you did that?---I think my recollection is when we first arrived there there was no car there, so all I can say to you is that I've rang up and said, "Look, Kev, there's no" - - you know, "The car's not here" or whatever, words that effect. You know, "Am I wasting my time? Will I hang around? Will we go?" or whatever. All right?---I rang him a few times to tell him what was happening there. Well, the records also indicate, as you probably know, that within a minute or two Kevin then made a number of computer checks in relation to K1 and his vehicle. Had you asked him to do that?---I might well have done. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3705

C15/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Contemporaneous with that, Gavin Farrell rang Trifon. Did you have any knowledge of why that would take place?---I've got no idea what Trifon and Farrell - - I can only talk for myself. All right, and then again at 1231 in the same Koondoola base area you are recorded as ringing Kevin and speaking for a minute and 30 seconds. Do you have any recollection of that?---Yeah. Probably did, yeah. Could that have been because he was giving you information that he got off the computer system?---I don't know what it could've been. I mean, what time was that first one? 1256 and the next one was at 1231 - I'm sorry, 1331?---So about a half an hour later, and then is there another one after that? Yes?---How many more? One at 1334, 3 minutes later, where Kevin rang you - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3706

C16/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - where Kevin rang you?---Yeah. Thirty seconds. Do you have any recollection of what that was about?---Probably asked me if the car came back yet or had we gone inside yet, or rang and told him what we'd found. I don't know. And at 1405 there's another one, a call from Kevin to you, for 30 seconds?---Right. Have any recollection of what that was about?---I answered that, did I? Can we tell that? It went for 30 seconds? It went for 30 seconds, unless you're holding on, listening to messages for 30 seconds?---Oh, I might've just told him, "Kev, I'm busy. Ring me back" or something. I don't know. Short and sweet, isn't it? And then a bit later, at 3.30 pm, Kevin spoke to you again for 30 seconds. Have any recollection of that?---Not really, no. And at 3.42, Kevin spoke to you again for 30 seconds. Have any recollection of that?---No. The only significance in those calls may well be the fact that by then, the balloon had gone up because the complaint had been lodged about your conduct?---Well, your terminology, "the balloon had gone up", I don't know what - - who that's supposed to impress, but the fact is if K1 has rang up and told his son that the police had been there and took his medication, that's exactly what happened. Okay? And then the son, K2 - - I think he rings - - clearly, you'll have to tell me - it's either VK or one of the others - to find out if the police had been round there, and then a uniform car attended at those premises, and we went back to those premises, when the uniform car was there. Right, and why did you go back?---To talk to K1. Why?---Because we couldn't find the doctor. I see. Well, the other part of the picture at that stage was that K1 had told K3 of what had happened, and K3 had rung Trifon, and Trifon had told Kevin Reilly?---Oh, the girl? Sorry, I'm with you, yeah. That they were upset because - -?---Who was upset? That K1, K3 and Trifon were upset, because instead of just going and turning him over, in fact the drugs had been stolen?---But who says that? K1, K3 and Trifon?---Oh, you know, they've got no credibility whatsoever. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3707

C16/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: I see. So we just forget what they said, do we?---No, but you proved just - - what I'm saying to you is this; we're going through all this about these 1000 tablets that don't exist. I see. What if they do exist?---Well, I certainly didn't steal them. I see. Wasn't there some subsequent dealing in relation to the sale of the pills that had been taken from K1?---By K1 and K3, you're talking about? Didn't Trifon go through a series of negotiations with Gavin Farrell initially, and then with your brother, Kevin, to try and arrange to buy the morphine tablets which had been taken from K1?---There was never any morphine tablets taken from K1. Right?---There was, there was 100 taken from him and there was 100 given back. All right?---Which he signed a receipt for. In late December that year, did you become aware of the fact that Trifon would be going to Kalgoorlie?---December 98, are you talking about? 98, yes, or early - - the first couple of days of 1999?---The only thing I know about Trifon is - - since all this started. I don't - - I've no dealings with him, I don't know what he looked like, I had nothing - - anything to do with the bloke whatsoever. But you knew who he was, didn't you, in late 98, early 99?---No, I didn't. I see. Well, the evidence is, from Trifon and to some extent from - -?---But I - - just, on Trifon, I thought you said, you know - - he's not to be believed, but now we're going to rely on something he says? Thank you. Can I finish?---Certainly. Thank you. The evidence is, from Trifon supported by telephone intercepts, that there'd been negotiations taking place between him and Gavin Farrell and Kevin Reilly in relation to him coming to Kalgoorlie - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3708

C17/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - coming to Kalgoorlie to do a deal in relation to buying the morphine tablets which had been stolen from K1. Do you understand that?---Well, it couldn't happen, could it, because there was nothing stolen from K1. So you say?---Well, so we know it to be fact. Well, part of that evidence indicates that whatever was to happen was to happen in Kalgoorlie shortly after Christmas 1998. Do you follow that?---I hear what you're saying, yes. For that to happen, the drugs apparently had to be in Kalgoorlie so that the deal could be done?---There was never any drugs. Do you follow that?---Well, I'm - - I can't. I find it hard to follow something where there was never any drugs stolen. How can you offer something for sale - - how can you be buying something that never existed? But you follow the effect of the evidence that I'm summarising for you, do you?---This hypothesis, yes. No. This is evidence which has been given, Mr Reilly?---Well, it's not truthful evidence, is it? I see. For the deal to be consummated, the drugs had to be in Kalgoorlie. If the allegation is correct - -?---Well, it's not. - - that you had taken the drugs from K1, then something had to be done for you to get the drugs to Kalgoorlie?---Well, the allegation's not correct. I see. Well, let's listen to a phone call, which is barcoded D1003075, which is, I suggest, between you and your brother Kevin on the 30th of December 1998. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that you speaking to your brother Kevin?---It sounds like my voice, yes. And do you have any recollection of what it was that you were talking about?---Well, I had this phone call put to me before. Yes?---When was that? I'm sorry?---When was that? When was - -?---When have I had this phone call put to me? The last time I was here? .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3709

C17/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: No?---When I got interviewed? Yes?---Yep. Well, I'm not emphatic about that, but I assume you were, because you were asked about a large number of calls, but anyway that doesn't matter. What do you say now about the effect of the call?---Well, I can - - all I can say now is that - - is what I would have said when it was originally put to me, because that's the best my memory would have been. Well, when you were asked about these things previously, you had no memory then?---Is that what I said? Mm?---Well, that's what I say now. I see. Well, I can give you a hint, but eventually it leads to a conversation in which you seem to be talking about a Christmas present which seemed to be due to arrive on the Air Wing plane on the 30th of December 1998. Does that refresh your memory at all?---Oh, I've heard that phone call a few times, yes. All right. The time of the later call is some 3 hours later when Kevin announced that he had "got it", so in this call where Kevin is saying "Still waiting for him. Still waiting to hear" and you say "He's going to be arriving there soon. Let me know", that could well be referable to the arrangements that were in place for the Christmas present to be sent to Kalgoorlie, could it not?---I mean, at this stage here on the 30th of December, I - - you can assist me? I mean, had Trifon been paid money for these tablets at that stage? It would just be of more assistance if you answer the questions?---Well, I'm trying to. I'm trying to get the picture right, you know. I mean, had he been paid money for these tablets? That has absolutely nothing to do with it?---If the Internal Affairs are monitoring these calls, and they believe that these morphine tablets are on this plane, when it lands in Kalgoorlie I think the most obvious thing to do would be go and open the package up - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3710

C18/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - open the package up. MR HASTINGS: I see?---But, you know, they - - you know, for some reason they don't do their job. You know, if it's as sinister - - they're listening, they're monitoring, Trifon's got the money, he's handing it over, all the rest of it, these morphine tablets that don't exist are on the plane going up there. Why don't they just open it up when it lands up there? Simple task. They don't do it because they knew it wasn't true. Have you finished?---Yeah, I have for the moment. Yeah, thanks. Can we go back to my question?---Go ahead. I see. Having heard the call, do you have any recollection of what it is that you're talking about?---No. I can only tell you my answer to these phone calls when they were freshest in my mind and when they were put to me before. And I can't sit here and go through a memory test; "What did you say at this time when you got interviewed? What do you say now?" If it conflicts then they'll be saying, "Oh, you're telling lies." I can only tell you what I remember. There's hardly any danger of any conflict because you've never given an account for these calls when you were interviewed?---What; this one here? I've never - - never put them to me. They've never been put to me, have they? You've always claimed that you couldn't remember?---No. I've had phone calls put to me - - Right?--- - - and I've given explanations for them. I see. Well, I suppose you don't have any recollection of what it was that you were referring to when you said, "Let me know when you've got it"?---Well, if you take me back to when I answered it initially I can probably help you out. I'm not asking you what - - just answer the question, Mr Reilly. We'll be here for weeks if you keep making speeches. I'm asking you if you have any recollection of what it was that you were referring to when you said, "Let me know when you've got it"?---Okay. And I'm answering that by saying, when it was first put to me that's how I'd recollect it. Now you're asking me to go back, you know, nearly 4 years ago to say what was I talking about. A yes or no answer will do, not a speech, Mr Reilly. Can you remember what "it" was that you were referring to in this call?---Well, as I answered it a few minutes ago, I said I'd no recollection of it. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3711

C18/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: All right. And it's no good talking about what you've been asked about before, because these calls have been retranscribed and are now different to those which you were asked about previously. Do you understand that?---Well, that makes it all the more confusing, doesn't it? Not really, because you've now got a much clearer transcript of what was said?---I disagree with that. The next call I want you to listen to follows later on the same day, which is barcoded D1003076. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that you talking to your brother, Kevin?---Sounds like it, yes. Do you know what you were talking about?---That's the same as all the other conversations. If I'd had it put to me before - - I don't want a speech, Mr Reilly. Just - - ?---No. I'm not giving a speech. - - do you know what you're talking about?---No, I don't. I don't recollect it. I see. Do you remember what Christmas present you gave Kevin?---No, I don't. I see. Do you know why it would be until the 30th of December that you were sending him a Christmas present?---Well, you know, when I attempt to answer it you're going to cut me off - - No. No. If you're giving - - ?--- - - or am I allowed to go into a bit of depth now? Or just a yes/no answer? If you respond to my question I'll be grateful?---Right. That's what I tried to do a minute ago and I was told not to make a speech. No. Just answer this question?---Fine. Give me the question. Was there some reason why it took until the 30th of December for you to give your brother his Christmas present in 1998?---Well, I'm not saying it is a Christmas present I sent him. I see. What was it then?---I don't recollect what it was. I see?---I mean, I sent up a number of things to Kevin. Such as - ?---Merchandise equipment from Crime Stoppers - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3712

C19/4 POLICE WITNESS: - - - from Crime Stoppers. I remember going out there one day with a whole box of it, a whole lot of lapel badges. All the staff out there were given one. There were caps, there was water bottles. All that was put on the plane. Maybe that's that phone call. I don't know. MR HASTINGS: I see?---I took out another thing that - - a gift he brought back from when he went overseas that he'd left at my house. That was a pewter thing, that was a blue thing, but I'm talking about the train - - the plane now. I don't know. I can't give an answer to that. And I think the other time my brother - - my other brother went up there and I think when I was initially interviewed about this by Internal Affairs I gave them that explanation. Do you recall now why there was any - - or whether there was any sense of urgency about getting your Christmas present to Kevin Reilly in 1998?---No, and the question - - you know, the answer to this is, you know, it's 4 years ago. I don't remember those things. There does seem to be some pressure, does there not, for Kevin to get whatever it is that's coming to him?---I don't know. Well, he says - - or you say to him, "Go out there and see if the plane's there." He was supposed to apparently go out there on spec to see if the plane had landed with whatever was being brought to him. You'd agree with that, would you not? ---Well, like I said, I don't recollect these phone calls. No, but I'm asking you now based on the words that are recorded as having been spoken by you?---It's very difficult now to tell you something that happened 4 years ago - you know, whether it was urgent or what it was. I don't even remember what it was. But you're a former detective sergeant of police? ---Exactly - former. All right. You're quite capable of listening to words and drawing inferences, are you not?---I can listen to words and draw inferences, certainly. All right, and when you said on this occasion, "Go out there and see if the plane's there" that would indicate to you, would it not, that there was some degree of urgency to get the hands on whatever the package was that was coming up on the plane?---But, you know, you're talking about inferences. I mean, the inference is that these morphine tablets were on that plane. Can you just answer - - ?---Well, we know that's a nonsense. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3713

C19/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Can we not have speeches and could you just answer my question?---Well, you know, I tried to say something before. Am I going to get cut short every time I want to speak? No. If you answer my question we won't have any difficulty at all?---Well, I've just answered it. You did not. The question I asked you was whether you agree from the words "Go out there and see if the plane's there" that there was an obvious inference to be drawn that there was some urgency to get out to the plane to get whatever was on it?---Well, I can't draw no inference from something I don't recollect. I see. Let's go to the next call then, which is barcoded D1003077, which is again in the evening of the 30th of December, some 30 minutes after the last call. More than that - 50 minutes. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Given the sequence of the calls that I've just played you on the evening of the 30th of December 1998 do you accept the fact that these calls were leading up to that last call which records the reference to the Christmas present? ---I don't recollect these phone calls. I didn't ask you that. I said having heard the calls do you agree that these calls lead up to this conversation referring to a Christmas present?---You can say that. All right, and you would agree, would you not, that when you said that it's a nice Christmas present that seemed to be something of a joke?---I laughed about it, yes. Right, because it was a joke?---Because I laughed about it. Because - - ?---Yeah, perhaps it was. I wasn't expecting - - Because it wasn't a Christmas present at all?---I beg your pardon? Because it wasn't a Christmas present at all?---Well, how can I answer that, because I can't remember what it was. Well, you can remember if it was the morphine tablets being sent up in a package. That would be a bit of a joke if he referred to that as a Christmas present, wouldn't it?---The whole morphine fantasy is a joke. Right?---The bloke never had a thousand tablets to steal, and .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3714

C19/4 POLICE if these people are listening to these phone calls and they believe it was there, all they had to do was go to the plane and open the parcel, so they obviously didn't believe it either. They're monitoring it. Let's remember that. MR HASTINGS: Can you just stick to the question?---He's being paid money for drugs. Can you just stick to the question?---It's very hard to stick to the question. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3715

C20/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: It's a simple question; it's a proposition that suggests that if you're in fact sending up morphine tablets, to refer to them as a "Christmas present" would be a joke?---Well, it's a proposition that goes against everything that's come out, because there was never any morphine tablets to send the bloke. What was the Christmas present that you sent your brother?---I can't remember. No idea?---Oh, I could have a guess. What was it?---But, you know, if that's what it's about - - a guessing game, is it? No. Well, you were asked about this on numerous occasions during - - well, not numerous; you were interviewed about this in 1998?---Okay. Did you nominate what the Christmas present was then?---Can't remember. What did I say back then? You couldn't remember?---That was my answer, was it? Yes?---Well, that's what it is now, then. I see. Even though the matter assumes some importance, does it not?---Well, not to me it doesn't, no. What, even though there are allegations being made about you being involved in a morphine tablet rip-off, and the subsequent supply of it, you don't regard it as of importance to you?---Well, there's no morphine rip-off. Can you answer my question?---I just answered it. You didn't. I asked you to agree whether it is of some importance to you, because of the allegations which have been made about you?---I don't agree, no. Whereupon I might suggest you might try a little harder to come up with an explanation which is better than the one that I've put, which is that it's part of a morphine deal?---Well, I don't agree with you, and you ask me to come - - a bit harder. I've given my explanation. It's hardly likely to be Crime Stoppers documentation, is it?---I never said anything about documentation for Crime Stoppers. No. Can you just answer my question?---Well, no, no - - The conversation in - -?--- - - it wouldn't be Crime Stoppers documentation, no. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3716

C20/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Right. So, why was it a bit of a joke to refer to it as a Christmas present?---I told you, I don't recollect it. I see. If it was a Christmas present, can you explain why there was this series of calls which seemed to relate to some difficulty in getting possession of what was on the plane?---What series of calls are they? The ones we've just heard?---From Kevin to I? Yes?---How many was it? Well, we've heard three?---Three? Right, just to pick up a Christmas present off a plane?---Just to see if he's got it, yes. Right. And why was it of such a pressing nature that it had to be contemplated going out to the airport to wait?---I don't know. Like I say, I don't recollect it. Just to get a Christmas present. Why would one have to go to that trouble to get their hands on a Christmas present?---I'm not saying. I don't recollect it, so how can I comment on something I don't remember? Well, you could give me an explanation?---Well, I've already given you one, but you don't want to accept it. All right. Just going back to the visit to K1's premises, at that stage, you were officer in charge of Crime Stoppers, were you not?---That's correct. Right, which is effectively a desk job?---Well, I disagree with that. I see. And you disagree with your inspector, do you, who described your role as "non-operational"?---Which inspector was that? Napier?---I don't know whether Inspector Napier was my inspector at that time. I see. You're aware he's made a statement, are you not?---Oh, I've seen it, yes. Right?---And that's what he describes the position as, yes. Yes. Well, in the statement, Inspector Napier said you reported directly to him. Is that correct, or was it correct at the time?---Well, I'm not too sure whether it was Inspector Napier at that time, but you know, I would concede that. I .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3717

C20/2 POLICE think during that 12 months I was at Crime Stoppers, or say the initial 6 months thereabouts - - I think I reported to about six different inspectors over a period of time. MR HASTINGS: All right?---Oh, sorry, not inspectors; from inspector above, superintendent, assistant commissioner. And you're aware that Inspector Napier said in his statement that, "Detective Senior Sergeant Reilly occupies a supervisory position. His position is non-operational and he is not normally involved in front-line or operational policing"? You're aware of that statement?---"Not normally involved"; that's what he said, yeah. Right, do you agree with it?---No, I don't. I see. Why would he be wrong about it?---I'm not saying he's wrong. I just said I'm not agreeing with it. In what way do you disagree?---Well, can you just repeat the part you just said then? "His position is non-operational and he is not normally involved in front-line or operational policing"?---Oh, not normally involved. I consider the fact that I've been a detective, you know, for a long period of time, and the mere title of being a detective - - I don't see anything wrong with going out and knocking on a bloke's door and asking if he's got a problem. That's all it was. I see, you - -?---I've never taken out - - it was never - - I think it was the terminology used to me, I went and raided his house. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3718

C21/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Yes?---That's an absolute nonsense. Inspector Napier said: "If Detective Senior Sergeant Reilly was becoming

involved in operational duties I would expect that he notify me beforehand of those matters."

Do you agree with that as a general statement?---Yes. But when it's - - I don't know in what context it was put to Inspector Napier. I mean, if it was put to Inspector Napier I'd gone out and raided this bloke's house, I'd expect him to say that. But if it was put to Inspector Napier that I'd just gone out there to check the bona fides of an IR, I - - you know, he might have had an entirely different answer. And Superintendent Lampard had a different answer to that, from my recollection. Did you notify Inspector Napier before you went out to visit K1's premises?---No, I didn't. It was an operational duty, was it not?---Well, you know, we're getting down to tic-tac here. I mean, I went out there just to check the bona fides of an IR, not to raid the house. I didn't take out no search warrants, nothing like that. I mean, it's all been this - - you know, it's all been portrayed that we went out on this calculated raid, to go and raid the guy's house. Yes?---I've got no - - no doubt that's the way it was portrayed to Inspector Napier, but it was nothing like that whatsoever. I asked you whether it was an operational duty, and it was, wasn't it?---Of - - of my position, you mean? As the OIC of Crime Stopper? When you went out to attend to the IR by going to K1's premises, you were carrying out an operational duty, were you not?---I'd say yes. It was - - Right?---It wasn't - - it certainly wasn't an administrative matter, no. No. So did you tell Inspector Napier before you went that you were about to leave the office and go out on an operational duty?---I've just answered that. You have not?---I said no; I never told him anything. Right. Inspector Napier says: .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3719

C21/1 POLICE "During his" - that is your - "time as officer in

charge of Crime Stoppers, Detective Senior Sergeant Michael Reilly has only spoken to me once before concerning operational duties he wished to perform. This request involved assisting Brentwood detectives. From my recollection of that conversation it was to assist with interviewing a person with whom he had previous dealings and had established a good rapport. I believe that person was involved in the motor trade and had a business."

Is that a correct statement?---I don't recall that, no; MR HASTINGS: Was it correct that you'd only spoken to him once about involving yourself in operational duties that you wished to perform?---Oh, you know, going back 4 years ago - - I would have spoken to him thousands of times. But the point is, Mr Reilly, that by involving yourself in operational duties you were outside of your bailiwick, weren't you?---Outside of my what, sorry? Bailiwick?---Bailiwick. It's not a familiar term to me. Isn't it?---No. Or jurisdiction?---Jurisdiction. I'm familiar with that. Okay. And you were outside your duties, were you not, as the manager of Crime Stoppers?---Well, I wouldn't consider that, no. I mean, I've always considered myself a hands-on, operational detective. Even as manager of Crime Stoppers?---It was a simple task - - can I answer the question? Yes?---It was a simple task. My brother rang me; would I give him a hand to go out and ask this bloke was he under any pressure, okay. I went out there and I did exactly that. Right?---The fact that these tablets were in a position we suspected - - you know, he aroused our suspicions, so we took them, he was given a receipt. I satisfied myself at a later date he was entitled to the tablets. They were given back, he signed the receipt. Even though none of that had anything to do with your functions at the time?---As the OIC of Crime Stoppers? Yes?---You could perceive it to be like that. Is that a convenient time, Commissioner? .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3720

C21/1 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. We'll adjourn till 12 o'clock. AT 11.32 AM HEARING ADJOURNED .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3721

C22/2 POLICE AT 12.01 PM HEARING RESUMED: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hastings? MR HASTINGS: Mr Reilly, when I read to you from Inspector Napier's statement, you might remember he referred to his recollection of the only matter which you'd told him about, which involved operational duties, "...being to assist with interviewing a person with whom he had previous dealings and had established a good rapport. I believe that person was involved in the motor trade and had a business premise in Willetton". Presumably, that was a reference to B3, was it?---I don't know. Was there somebody else in the motor trade who had business premises at Willetton that you'd involved yourself in operationally while you'd been working at Crime Stoppers?---I know other people in the business trade in Willetton, but if - - if - I beg your pardon - Inspector Napier promotes it like that, I was going out to see that person, I don't know if he believes it was B3 or not, but I probably did go out and speak to B3. I wouldn't deny that. I'm asking you whether that was the matter which you'd discussed with Mr Napier, an involvement with B3?---Well, do you know what date that was at all, or anything like that? No. He says that's the only matter that you discussed with him, concerning operational duties that you wished to perform. Would that have been in relation to B3?---Could well have been. B3, the person who's given evidence that he had a corrupt relationship with you?---I never had a corrupt relationship with him. I see. Was that the only basis upon which you entered into operational duties when you were at Crime Stoppers, to be involved in corrupt activity?---I don't understand your question. Well, B3, if that's the other operational matter in which you were involved, said that there was a corrupt relationship with you?---I didn't have a corrupt relationship with him. Insofar as you left the office to become involved in this operational matter, involving K1, it is said that that was done corruptly as well?---No. I mean, if I've spoken to Inspector Napier about going to speak with this B3, well, I don't know what I did. Did I go out and interview him, or what was it about? I got no idea. I said, I had no corrupt relationship with him. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3722

C22/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: I need to correct what I said to you this morning in relation to the phone records indicating that you had been in the vicinity of K1's premises on the day before the visit, namely, the 25th of June. I was a victim of my own coding. I will direct your attention to the records relating to the 25th of June, and suggest to you that they do have a significance, nevertheless. The document is exhibit 33, if that could be brought up, please? Do you need the barcode? Perhaps if I can have the unedited version on Mr Reilly's screen, please? The point that I suggest will emerge from this is, it is quite remarkable that in the space of 1 hour and 12 minutes, the eight players alleged to be involved in the rip-off of K1's drugs communicate between each other - not all with each other, but - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3723

C23/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - with each other, but within an hour and 12 minutes on the day before the raid, it seems remarkable that the eight people involved are communicating. The hour and 12 minutes that I pick commences at 1447, if you look six or eight lines down the summary now in front of you, which you will see is a call from Trifon to Gavin Farrell at 1447. Between there and 1559, commencing with Trifon speaking to Farrell, you'll see in the next call Trifon then speaks to Kevin Reilly. The next call is - - the company name which is shown is in fact Trifon's business. There's a contact from his business to K3. Next there's a contact from Trifon's business to Kevin Reilly. Next, K3 contacts K1?---Did you - - sorry. Did you just scroll the page there, or what happened with it? There's another page now, is there? Sorry. Yes. We've jumped?---Oh. Just flick it back then? I just lose track, sorry. Yes, we will?---Yep. Okay. I'm at 1523 and 34 seconds where K3 contacts K1?---No, can't find it. The one with the - - the only one - - well, the first of the calls - - if you go down the time column - -?---Yeah, I see the 1447 one. Is that where we're starting? Yes, that's where we started but I'd got to the 1532 and 34 seconds - -?---Oh, 34. I thought you said 23. Sorry. Yeah, I'm with you now. K3 ringing K1. You then come into the picture. You ring Kevin and there are two other calls that don't matter. Then K3 rings Trifon. You ring Paul O'Keefe. Paul O'Keefe rings Geoff O'Reilly. Trifon's business rings K3 and Paul O'Keefe rings Geoff O'Reilly. So between 1447 and 1559, which on my calculation is an hour and 12 minutes, Trifon, Farrell, Kevin Reilly, K3, K1, yourself, Geoff O'Reilly and Paul O'Keefe are all in contact with various members of this group. That was what I was referring to earlier as being an intriguing pattern of communication between all the relevant players on the day before the 26th. I don't suppose you have any explanation for that?---I can only talk about, you know, what I do. I mean, there's three calls in that hour - - four calls made by me, to - - three to my brother and one to O'Keefe. Right?---And they go for what - 18 seconds, 30 seconds, 2 minutes? And the one to O'Keefe goes for a minute. Right. And you've no recollection of what those calls were about?---I've got no idea. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3724

C23/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: No recollection presumably whether they related to the business of the 26th of June?---Business? There's no business on the 26th of June as far as I'm concerned. Well, there was some official business, was there not?---I attended his house, yes. Right?---I attended at K1's house. Yes?---Yeah. And presumably you can't recall whether those calls that you were involved in on the 25th had any connection with what you did on the 26th involving K1's house?---I've got no recollection of what those calls would be about at all. All right. Can I go back then to the events of January 1999? I've drawn your attention to the calls of the 30th of December leading up to the Christmas present joke. I'll skip over a number of other communications and move to the 14th of January. The significance of that day is that on the previous day your brother Kevin had been contacted by the woman calling herself Sue Lowe who made suggestions that she was connected to a man called Chris and paid money for pills and so forth. You're aware of the general effect of that call, are you, between Sue Lowe and your brother Kevin - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3725

C24/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - your brother Kevin?---I'm conversant with some of those calls, yes. Yes, and Kevin brought that call to your attention, did he not?---Well, that particular call I don't really know. Certainly - - ?---He brought things to my attention, yes. He brought to your attention the fact that he'd been contacted by this female person?---Well, the exact conversation or the text of it I can't tell you, but in a broad outline it was that he'd been contacted by a female and she was - - it was a bit of a drama; reckoned he was going to buy some drugs off her or words to that effect, and he asked me could I go to the Court Wine Bar next door to the CIB office - - Right?--- - - and grab a hold of this person. Unbeknownst to me, he'd never made that arrangement with this woman. No. When you say - - ?---And I went down there. I went down - - When you say "grab a hold of this woman" - what were you going to do?---Well, "grab a hold of her" is just a terminology. Have a look, go and talk to her, find out what's it all about. I see?---But the first thing I think he wanted to establish was, if this woman had fronted, I would go and front her. And do what?---Find out what she's all about. I see. In your role as a police officer?---Well, obviously. Yes, and as it turned out that didn't happen?---No. I attended the Court Wine Bar, from recollection. You know, I'd go there a number of times a week, have a coffee with different people and things like that, sit there, and I remember saying to Kevin - - he was talking about if he could do anything about it and I said, "Look, the nearest place to my office is next door" and he was to ring the Court Wine Bar and if - - call this person - - was called out over the bar or whatever, and she went to the phone. I'd go and approach her. I spent a bit of time there and - - but unbeknownst to me he'd never ever contacted this female person to front up. Did he advise you that there seemed to be some association between the female and Chris Trifon?---I don't recollect that. Did he tell you that at that time Chris Trifon was undertaking to assist in relation to the identification of some drug dealers in Kalgoorlie?---Look, I don't remember a lot of the conversation. I remember it didn't - - at the time it didn't .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3726

C24/4 POLICE concern me greatly, you know, because I said I'd go there, because nothing came out of it didn't really talk to him. I didn't have a lot of concerns about it because Kevin seemed to have it quite under control. There was no problems with it. MR HASTINGS: When you went - - ?---And the next time I think was on the Friday night. He asked me to do the same thing again, to go - - and I said to him, and without going into the exact text of the conversation, words to the effect that I couldn't do nothing now because of the lateness of the night. I said, "You get her to go to the local pub. I might be able to get a rego number. You can track it back that way", but all that again was, you know, all hypothetical because it never happened. Mm?---Because he rang me back later and said he'd located her at - - I can't remember the name of the pub, but that turned out to be the wrong person anyway. Same name but the wrong person. What did happen was that you went to the Court Wine Bar though?---Yes, I did go there. And presumably you took a fellow officer with you, did you? ---I think probably a few people were down there. I can't remember. Who did you take with you?---I don't recall. Did you have someone there to support you?---Well, you know, it's sort of like - - it was like a regular occurrence to go to the Court Wine Bar and have a coffee with blokes - - Yes, but not to grab someone?---No, but he never communicated it back to me. So if he'd said to me, "Oh, look, Mick, it's on" for such-and-such a time or whatever, yeah, okay. I would've done something about it. But you said you went to the Court Wine Bar - - ?---Yes, I did. - - to do what he had anticipated happening?---No. Namely - - ?---I went to the Court Wine Bar to see if it was going to happen. - - which as far as you were concerned involved grabbing the woman?---Well, if he'd have rang me back and said, "Oh, Mick" - - you know, whatever you want to call her, the female - - I've forgotten her name at the moment, but if she was going to front there then I would've made some arrangement for it, but as it was I just did the normal thing - sat down there for a .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3727

C24/4 POLICE while, had a coffee, had a yak, whatever, and went back. Nothing came of it and it wasn't until a lot later I think he told me, after all this happened, that he'd never even contacted this woman to go there. MR HASTINGS: Did you tell Inspector Napier or whoever your boss may have been - - ?---I don't think I - - - - at the time that you may have had some operational duties to carry out on the Court Wine Bar?---No, because it was all hypothetical. It never happened. But you went there to the wine bar - - ?---Yes. - - to wait for it to happen?---No, I went to the wine bar expecting that it might happen. Right?---That's all. So did you tell your boss what might happen?---No, I said that. I've answered that. I said, no, I never told him. Did you tell any other police officer what might happen? ---I don't think I did, no. Did you tell anyone in the Court Wine Bar what might happen while you were there with somebody else?---Well, I'd hardly go and tell anybody that, would I? Why?---What's the point? Well, this is some police function, is it not?---No, he just rang me up and asked me to go there. It was all up in the air whether it was going to happen or whether it wasn't. I mean - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3728

C25/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - or whether it wasn't. I mean, the only reason this has come to light because I volunteered it. I told the Internal Affairs what I was doing. If I had something sinister I was hiding I would never have told them. MR HASTINGS: You've agreed that by going there with the possibility of grabbing her, that was in the course of your duties as a police officer?---I agree with that. I went there, yes, and I would have grabbed that woman if she'd have fronted, yes. So did you tell anybody else while you were there that this might happen?---Not that I recollect, no. No. Because it wasn't part of your function as a police officer at all, was it? You went there as a member of a group who was organising the sale of the morphine tablets, which was under threat by the sudden appearance of a female who seemed to be unexpected?---There was never any morphine tablets for sale. Did you have any knowledge then of the possibility that this person might be associated with Trifon?---The female person we're talking about? Yes?---No. I don't think I even knew about Chris Trifon till later. Right. And as far as you were concerned, what had happened involving the woman had no relationship to any operation that Kevin was running in Kalgoorlie?---No. You see, I'm answering questions now on - - on my recollection of things. Now, whether it's something that I read at the time, something I've been told, something I've heard, I don't know. But I can tell you on a broad outline of what I did and what I was party to. Now, I recall - - and I don't know whether I heard it said here or it was read somewhere, that Gavin had some association with a job from the NCA, and I don't know whether Kevin told me that, and he thought that Gavin's informant, whatever you want to call it, had something to do with this woman; I don't know. I can't remember. I can't be specific like that. It's very confusing about what takes place. I can say yes, I attended at the Court Wine Bar, nothing happened. I agreed to attend the local hotel; nothing came of that. I didn't have any real concerns with it. Would you listen to this call, which is barcoded D1003207. D1003207, which is recorded on the evening of the 14th of January, which was the Thursday, I think. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3729

C26/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Was that a call in which you and Kevin seemed to be discussing the arrangements for getting the female to a place where you could be to make certain observations?---Yeah, well, I say I've got no independent recollection of this phone call, but it appears to go down that course, yeah. You said earlier that you volunteered to Internal Affairs that you'd been to the Court Wine Bar, without which they wouldn't have known about it?---That's right. And the fact is, it's perfectly clear from these calls, that arrangements were being made for you to be at a place to observe the female, isn't it?---I've said that already, yes. Yeah. Well, you seemed to be making the point earlier that you volunteered the fact that you'd gone to be where you could observe the female?---Well, I did. Yes, but except it was perfectly clear from these phone calls that that's what you did?---Well, yeah, I'm not deny - - I'm not arguing with you. Would you listen to this next call, please, which is barcoded D1003209? This is between you and Kevin on the evening or afternoon of Friday, the 15th. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Insofar as the call seems to refer to ringing and you going to a place, again, this seems to be a further communication between you and Kevin about getting the female in a location where you would be, does it not?---Yeah. Just, this phone call was obviously made before the other one, was it, the one that was just played to me? No, it's after. It's the next day?---This one here? Yes. The last one was on the 14th, and this one's - -?---Oh, sorry, I thought you said the 15th. - - on the Friday, the 15th?---I thought the last one said the 15th? Well, it did, but if you adjust it for Eastern Standard Time, by taking 3 hours off, it's - -?---Oh, I beg your pardon. Sorry. - - on the evening of the 14th?---Yeah. Right, so this is in fact the next day, in the afternoon?---Yeah. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3730

C26/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: But, in any event, it does seem to be a further discussion, does it not, about making an arrangement for you to be at a place where the female would be?---Yeah. Right. Towards the end of the call, you say, "Yeah, but fucking get Porchie to do something"?---Gavin Farrell. Porchie was a reference to Gavin Farrell?---Gavin Farrell, yes. What did you want him to do?---Just what it says. Talk to that other person?---That other person, yeah. Right. Who was the other person?---Well, that's it. Now, my recollection of events is that Kevin told me that Gavin was talking to someone who was doing work for the NCA, or words to that effect, and I can only surmise that's what it's about. Go and talk to that person. That is, Trifon, the person you now - -?---I've got no idea who it is. I had no idea who it was. No, but the person you now know to be Trifon?---If that was him at the time. I don't know. And then you go on to say: "Without getting too specific about it, we'll just" -

I'll leave out the profanities - "if he's - - if Porchie tells him that, you know, `Yeah, you're right to roll', sort of thing, `let's get on with it'"

To what was that a reference? .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3731

C27/3 POLICE WITNESS: I can only surmise it's to get on with - - if this woman's going to front somewhere, just get on with it. MR HASTINGS: Mm?---I don't know who was - - you know, like, who was manipulating who, who was doing what. It could also be a reference to the morphine tablet deal, could it not, when you said "Yeah, you're right to roll. Let's get on with it"?---Well, it's obviously not embracing the morphine deal because there was never any morphine tablets to steal - - I see?--- - - and there was never any morphine tablets stolen from K1. Right. You might listen to this call, which is D1003218, which is about an hour after the last call on the Friday afternoon. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: That seemed to be a report by Kevin to you that he'd been unsuccessful in locating the person called Sue Lowe in Kalgoorlie. Correct?---It appears to be that way. All right. And at the end of the call, Kevin said "I'm not worrying about it any more, Mick. It's off. Finished." And you said "Yeah, righto." Did you know to what that was a reference?---Well, like I said, you know, I can only go back to the time when it was happening and I was sort of thinking, you know, "Go to the Court Wine Bar." I was going to go to the local pub. "I've finished. Don't worry about it any more, Mick" you know? "You don't have to worry about doing anything for him." Or "It's finished. He's not going to go and ring the girl again" or not do anything else, you know, for the rest of the night. I don't know what - - I just interpreted it, "Finished. Forget about it." Right from the outset when he rang me with this - - with this girl, I didn't have a real lot of concerns about it because I couldn't see where the problem was. Or was it that the morphine tablets deal was off, finished?---Well, there was never - - you know, this morphine tablet deal - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3732

C28/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - this morphine tablet deal; I can't steal something that doesn't exist. There was never a morphine deal. I never entered into stealing anything from anybody, offered any morphine to anybody else. Just not a party to any of that. MR HASTINGS: Excuse me a second. I've cut you off several times on the contention that you're not answering the question, but I don't want you to feel that you have had an insufficient opportunity to say whatever you want to say by way of explanation for the allegations that I've put to you. Is there something else that you wish to say that you haven't been able to say yet?---In relation to - - Anything that I've put to you today or on the last occasion when you were here?---Not at this stage. Similarly, I've made a couple of sweeping assertions that during your interviews with IAU in relation to when anything - - anything significant, you were unable to remember what happened, if you wish to point to some aspect of your interview with Internal Affairs in which you did indicate that you had a specific recollection, feel free to bring that to the attention of the Commission?---I'm just here; if you want to ask me a question I'll answer it. Yes. But you understand, for the reasons I outlined earlier, that certain consequences might flow from the evidence that's been presented to the Royal Commission which affects you. You understand that, do you not?---Well, then I'll have to deal with those consequences when they come, I suppose. All right. I'm also giving you the opportunity for you to add to the record, if you wish, any other matters which you say are necessary in order to give a more complete picture of what happened. Do you understand that?---I understand what you're saying, yes. I just want to ask you about some additional dealings with B3. You know who I'm referring to?---Mm. You're aware, are you not, that on the occasion that he gave evidence in the hearing room he made mention of a situation in which he had done some repair work on your son's car, and the balance of the repairs were paid for by an insurance company, but the excess was covered by you arranging for him to receive a payment from Crime Stoppers. You're aware of that evidence?---Read that in the paper. Right. Are you aware of the fact that yesterday there was tendered a further statutory declaration from B3 dealing with that matter in more detail?---No, I wasn't. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3733

C28/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Well, just before you go I might just bring them to your attention in case you want to say something about it. He says there were three occasions on which he did some repair work on your son's car?---Just on - - just on that, I think the car is my car, licensed in my name. I see. But driven by your son?---At times, yes. So if we can just refer to it as my car; there's no need to bring my son into it. But your son was the one who had the accidents, wasn't he?---He did, yes. Right?---But he never had any dealings with this bloke. Right. But it was a car driven by your son?---That was in the accident, yes. Well, this car, he says, he repaired three times. Do you agree with that?---Well, when you say "three times", what sort of repairs? Well, I'll tell you. The first time he now says in the statutory declaration - - ?---So he's saying something different to what he said before, is he? No. He's expanded on it?---Expanded. Oh, that's fair enough. Right. Do you follow that? He says that you brought it into the workshop around the time your son got his licence, and at that time the boot lid was damaged, which he repaired with filler, and then cut and polished the vehicle and removed some rust around the doors. And he had to paint the vehicle as well; it was blue. Remember him doing that?---The vehicle's always been blue. Is he saying he painted the whole car? You understood the question, didn't you?---Well, that's - - yeah; that's what I'm asking you. Want me to read it again?---Yeah. Go ahead. He said at that time the boot lid was damaged, which he repaired with filler. He cut and polished the vehicle and removed some rust from around the doors. "I had to paint the vehicle as well." Do you remember him doing that?---He may well have done, yeah. .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3734

C29/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: All right. Did you pay him?---Yes, I would've paid him. He says, "I don't recall being paid for this, as it was just a job for a mate"?---Oh well, if he - - if he considers our relationship as a mate, he's a mile off the mark. I was never his mate. Right. Was there an occasion when he repaired a vehicle owned by you, for which you made no payment?---No. I can only refer - - I mean, I'm not conversant what he said, that day he was here, but I know he said, I think it was, in March 98, that - - that March 98 he repaired my car and I paid him via Crime Stoppers for the repairs to that car, and that it was involved in an accident, and my answer to that is, that accident - - Happened in 1999?--- - - wasn't until December 99. Right, yes?---That's right. Now, why did - - you know, it's a simple phone call to ring up the Traffic Branch and ask them when the accident was, so that doesn't correlate at all, does it? No, but do you want to hear what he now says?---Yeah, I know, it's convenient for him to change his story now, though, isn't it? I see: "The second time", he says, "I saw the vehicle was

when his son had crashed the car and damaged the front of it. I think he'd hit a tree in front of the Riverton Hotel, Perth."

Did that happen?---Oh, that's an absolute ripper. No, never happened like that at all. I see. He says: "I repaired the damage and I think I replaced the

bonnet, front grille and fender." Do you remember him doing that sort of repair work to the car?---The car - - it was damaged, yes. On the front grille and fender?---Yeah, I'll explain that, yeah. He says: "This work I did for the $750 payment which came from

Crime Stoppers." .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3735

C29/2 POLICE Did you arrange for him to receive a payment from Crime Stoppers?---Well, when did he receive that Crime Stoppers payment? MR HASTINGS: Did you arrange for him to receive a payment from Crime Stoppers as payment for the repairs to the car?---Certainly not, but can you ask that question - - can you answer my question? I'll ask the questions. On the third occasion, he said - - I'm sorry, the third occasion he said he did some work on a white Fairlane or LTD for you. It had a dent in the boot. Do you remember that. Did he do any work for you in relation to a Fairlane?---No idea what he's talking about there at all. A white Fairlane? Or LTD, which had a sticker on it, "Proudly sponsored" by something, he could recall, and it had a dent in the boot which he fixed, free of charge, for you?---I don't own a car, and I don't think I know anyone who's got a car like that. Right?---A white LTD or a Fairlane, was it? That's what he said?---No way. Do you want to say anything about why he may have said that about you?---Well, I can't say why he said it, but I can tell you the circumstances of what it all occurred in, okay? Yes?---Now, if you'd - - if you will tell me when he got paid that reward; will you tell me that? Why do you need to know that?---Well, I can demonstrate to you that he's not telling the truth. Well, just tell me what happened?---Oh, Mr Kennedy, can I be told that, or not? COMMISSIONER: I think if you just say what happened?---Okay, then. All right. So, the car was damaged, I think it was, in December 99. If he says it was involved in an accident outside the Riverton Hotel, that's just absolutely scandalous. I don't know where he got that from. The car was involved in an accident while my son was driving it on his way to work. It was reported to the police. It was investigated. I took the car to two other panel-beaters and they wanted to write it off, and I spent a lot of money, like, mechanically-wise, doing it up. I took it out to the - - the insurer over in Osborne Park and they said, look - - they'd just write it off, I'd get whatever it was, market value. I couldn't remember. It wasn't very much because I told - - you know, it had a new radio, new tyres; quite a lot of money had been spent on it, and the insurer told me if I could get someone to repair it, then to go ahead and get it done. That's when I approached .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3736

C29/2 POLICE that bloke and asked him if he'd do it. He said, "Yes", and the repairs, I think, amounted to about $1000 or $900, that the insurer paid. The excess that I had to pay - - oh, because of my son's age, I think it was $600, and that was in - - the car was damaged in December 99. That's when it was repaired. It was around about Christmas time, and I subsequently phoned my insurance company to find out about that, and they confirmed, yes, the repairs was about $900 - I think they said $980, something similar to that - and that he was paid that cheque by the insurer in, I think it was, February 2000 and I paid him the $600 in two lots of $300, for the work he did on that car - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3737

C30/4 POLICE WITNESS: - - - on that car. The car was involved in another accident some, I think, maybe 12 months later or even later than that and that car was repaired by another - - another smash repairer, not this same bloke. So I've got it in my mind that he alleged that he was given this reward in March - I think it was March 98. Well, that just makes a mockery of the fact that he was paying the excess because the car accident wasn't until 18 months later, so it was certainly nothing to do with that, and $750 worth - well, the excess was only $600, so none of that matches in. So, you know, if I can be told when that was - I'd just like it for my own benefit. MR HASTINGS: Right. Do I take it from that there's no doubt that B3 did the repair work on the car driven by your son? ---B3, did you say, sorry? Yes?---Yes, he did the work. And I think what he says now is that you told him that the money came from Crime Stoppers but the money was deposited into his account with the National Australia Bank, the inference being that he otherwise didn't know how the money got into his account?---Well, when was he paid it? Well, whenever the repair work was done which, as you said, I think, was in 1999?---So he got paid the reward from Crime Stoppers in December 99, did he? He says you told him it was from Crime Stoppers?---What, so I paid him back in March 98 for something that's going to happen 18 months later? I don't think so. He says that the payment in 98 was for the work which I described earlier, for which he was paid $750, I think he says?---Well, you know, that's a lot of repair work. And then on the - - ?---If he reckons he just did the bonnet on the car and that bit of rust on the door - it's never worth $750. That's an absolute bloody nonsense. On this occasion when there was an insurance claim involved he seems to be asserting that you told him that the money was coming from Crime Stoppers but the money went into his bank? ---So I've paid him twice then, have I? Well, maybe in fact the money actually came from you?---Well, you know, I'm trying to help you and I've asked, you know, when did he get paid the money from Crime Stoppers. I won't be told that. Now you're telling me there's another time that he got the money from Crime Stoppers. Do you want to give me a date? .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3738

C30/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Well, I think you're right. He was paid some money from Crime Stoppers in 1998?---Well, when? March 98?---Well, that was pretty hard work, wasn't it? Pulling teeth. No - - ?---All right, so March 98 - - Thank you. We don't - - ?---I don't have the accident until December 99. There are two accidents - - ?---So how could that work out? Can you understand this? There are two accidents. Do you follow that?---Well, when is the second one? In 99?---There was only one accident in 99. But he says there are two?---But the other accident was, I think, 12 months or so later. He had nothing to do with it. He says - - ?---It was repaired by another company. - - when the vehicle was first acquired it was brought to him for the repairs which I described to you earlier?---It was never in an accident then. It wasn't a question - - it was rust, remember?---Well, it could well have been, but you just told me there were two accidents and I said there wasn't; there was only one. Well, two - - if you want to be precise, two episodes of him repairing the car - one, the first one I read to you, which had rust in the doors and rust in other places - - ? ---Can you - - - - and the second - - ?---Do you know the date I acquired that car? No?---Nor do I off the top of my head either. I see?---But it's not too hard to find out. Right. Well, would you like to find out and let the Royal Commission know?---I'll do that, will I? Well, if you wish to?---It takes you 2 minutes on the phone. It'll probably take me about five letters and 3 weeks later. But haven't you got some records relating to the car?---All my records were stolen. I had a lot of stuff in my car when I .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3739

C30/4 POLICE went to my tax accountant. It was left there and the car was broken into and it was all stolen. MR HASTINGS: Oh, your records were all stolen?---Things like that were, yes. I see?---But anyhow, I'll go back and have a look. Good?---But, you know, isn't it more convenient, Mr Kennedy, that I can be told that now? You're an inquiry agent?---Okay, let's play the game. Yeah, all right. I'll do it. Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Is there anything else you wish to say, Mr Reilly, in accordance with the invitation given to you by Mr Hastings?---Well, Commissioner, I probably won't go and find out about the day I got that car and brought it back unless you direct me to do it, and then I will do it. Well, if you would it would be helpful?---Well, I will do that, sir, yes - and am I excused from my summons, sir, now? Yes, you're excused from your summons now?---Right. Thank you very much. Thank you. WITNESS WITHDREW Counsel Assisting: Mr S. Hall. Mr M.I. Crispe appeared on behalf of Mr D.J. Waters. MR HALL: Commissioner, before calling the next witness I wish to just make some opening remarks about the nature of the evidence that you're now about to hear. Now, on the 14th of October, last week, Mr Hastings made an opening statement in which he made reference to the need for police officers to maintain the appearance of integrity. He referred to the need for police officers to maintain public confidence and respect in order to be able to carry out their duties with appropriate authority. This authority can be significantly undermined if officers associate with known or suspected criminal identities or groups - - - .23/10/2002 REILLY, M. XN 3740

C31/1 POLICE MR HALL: - - - identities or groups. It is now intended to adduce evidence which is specifically related to that issue, but before doing so I wish to make some opening comments regarding this area. The importance of avoiding undesirable associations is recognised in current police operating principles. In particular in Human Resource Principles 18.1.3 and .9 of the police manual. In particular, HR 18.1 states that - - it relates to: "...the responsibility of personnel to act with

integrity by avoiding commitments that may bias their judgment or comprise the performance of their public duty."

Now, HR 18.3 indicates that: "It is the responsibility of personnel to develop and

maintain an environment that is free from fear or favour and is open and accountable and impartial."

And 18.9 deals with conflict of interest, and imposes upon personnel: "...an obligation to avoid situations in which

conflict of interest either exists or has the potential to be created."

That principle goes on to say that: "Officers are obliged to openly declare matters of

private interest that may conflict with the performance of their public duty."

And that they: "...are obliged to act with integrity by avoiding

commitments that may bias their judgment or compromise the performance of their human resource duties."

In the past, it has been considered that cultivating contacts was an acceptable means by which police officers could gather information that would assist them in the understanding of the environment in which they were working. It's important to draw a distinction here between the use of informants who provide information on criminal conduct to a police officer and more general associations. Informants are covered by the Informant Management System which includes elements of registration, supervision and contact records which, together, ensure that there are safeguards to protect police officers and to ensure that they .23/10/2002 3741

C31/1 POLICE are not compromised or seduced into corrupt or criminal behaviour. The risks of this are self-evident. In attempting to reinforce trust and encourage more information, police officers will be exposed to the temptation to accept money or favours to protect their source, or others connected with them; the temptation to conceal or fail to report crimes in order to win the confidence of their contact, or, at worst, a temptation to themselves participate in criminal conduct, though that may be acceptable in circumstances where there is a strictly controlled operation but not otherwise. Where the association is not strictly classified as a registered informant relationship, the safeguards referred to do not exist, but the risks remain. It's clearly undesirable for officers to associate with known or suspected criminal identities, or with those who have been the target of a sustained police attention. Those associations may include socialising or forming business relationships, or even maintaining regular telephone contact which is inconsistent with operational requirements. There are several problems that can arise from such associations. They may tend to put at risk public confidence in the police, they may undermine operational efficiency in that such associations may raise questions within the police force itself as to the trustworthiness of a particular officer, such trustworthiness being essential in carrying out, in particular, covert operations. And further, they may expose officers to the risks that their integrity will be compromised and that they will be lured into criminal or corrupt conduct. It is now generally accepted that such associations are undesirable. Indeed, in some cases officers have been directed by their superiors to disassociate from persons whom they have been observed with in public. This is regardless of whether corrupt conduct has actually occurred. The risks associated with such apparently friendly contact are so great as to outweigh any perceived benefits unless that association is closely controlled - - - .23/10/2002 3742

C32/2 POLICE MR HALL: - - - is closely controlled. In addressing the problem of police corruption, it is inadequate to look only at the end product. The causes and risk factors must also be addressed so that corruption can be prevented and not merely punished. Can I proceed to call John Waters? DAVID JOHN WATERS called: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Crispe? MR CRISPE: May I please seek formal leave to appear on behalf of Mr Waters? I've been involved in some liaison in the last week or so for him coming over from the Eastern States. COMMISSIONER: Yes. That leave is granted, Mr Crispe. MR CRISPE: Yes. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER: Could I have your full name, please, Mr Waters? MR WATERS: David John Waters. COMMISSIONER: Do you have any conscientious objection to taking an oath on the Bible? MR WATERS: No. DAVID JOHN WATERS sworn: COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Sit down, please? EXAMINED BY MR HALL: MR HALL: Mr Waters, I think you are still a serving officer of the Victorian Police Force?---No, I'm not. When did you resign?---I didn't resign. When did you leave?---I've been off on sick leave since April 2000. And you remain on sick leave?---I'm on a pension. Right. So you are still a police officer?---No. Can you explain that to me?---I'm on a pension. But you have, then, left the force, have you?---Yes. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3743

C32/2 POLICE MR HALL: When did that happen? When did you go on a pension?---I think formally, in April this year. And before that, how long had you been on sick leave?---Two years. Now, prior to that, you'd been in the Victorian Police for how many years?---I joined on the 31st of January 1978. And after that, you had postings at Collingwood, in 1980?---Yes. And then at Hawthorn CIB in 1985?---84, yeah. Right. And then at Malvern CIB in January?---Melbourne? Malvern?---Malvern. January 98?---Yes. Sorry, 88?---88, yes. And then you were in the Major Crime Squad?---Yes. And you were in the Major Crime Squad for about 2½ years?---Yeah, nearly 3, I think. Right, and then from November 1990, you were at Fitzroy?---December. December?---The Christmas, I arrived. Okay, and then in 1992, about September of 92, you were at the St Kilda CIB?---Yes. And you were at the St Kilda CIB until you went off on sick leave?---In - - yes. All right. When you were with the Major Crime Squad, did that involve, from time to time, liaising with police officers from other States?---Yes. And the Major Crime Squad: did that do armed robbery-type investigations?---No, there was an Armed Robbery Squad in Melbourne. There was an Armed Robbery Squad as well? All right. Did you meet and become friends with any West Australian police officers during your time with the Major Crime Squad?---I'd probably have met them before that. Right. Any in particular who have - - you have continued to maintain a relationship and friendship with over the years?---I'll cut it short. I know quite a lot of police in Western .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3744

C32/2 POLICE Australia, going back to prior to when I was in the Major Crime Squad. Socially, as you know, I'm married to a Western Australian girl who was a former police officer. I met people socially through that, as well as through my job when I was in the Police Force. MR HALL: Right. Amongst the police officer who you maintain a friendship with, West Australian Police Officers, or former West Australian Police Officers, a David Nugent?---Yes. Does he continue to be a friend?---Yes. Robert Orr?---Yes. Gavin Farrell?---Yes. Ron Adams?---Yes. Kevin Reilly?---I don't know him that well. But you have met him?---I have met him, yes. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3745

C33/1 POLICE MR HALL: What about Mick Reilly? Michael Reilly?---Yeah. I've met him, oh, probably half a dozen times. Now, I think you have a brother-in-law who works in Kalgoorlie as a publican?---No. He used to be. Right. But he did work for some years as a publican in - - ?---That's right. - - Kalgoorlie. And I understand you have an interest in racing - horse racing?---Yes. And you have gone to the Kalgoorlie round a number of times?---Probably seven times. You've owned racehorses yourself?---Yes. Is that an interest that you have in common with some of those West Australian police officers I've mentioned?---Not owning racehorses but being involved in racing. You know, I'll go to the races once or twice a week, and obviously people over here, you form relationships because they've got the same interest as I have in that respect. But I never owned racehorses with them. Right. Of those police officers I mentioned, did you first meet them in the course of conducting inquiries in common? For example, David Nugent; did you meet him because he was conducting some police inquiries?---No. I - - I met him just - - I can't remember if I was over here socially or he was over in Melbourne socially, but I've never done any work in Western Australia as a policeman, or for them, you know, that I can recall. For any of those people mentioned?---I don't think so, no. Okay. I think you have a nickname, don't you?---Yes. Docket?---Yes. How did you come by that nickname?---I was charged by the Homicide Squad in 1982 as a 22-year-old policeman. I was involved with a girlfriend and another policeman; we were off duty and we were attacked by 15 people in Lygon Street, Carlton, and, as a result, a fellow was stabbed. I was charged by the Homicide Squad and subsequently I spent two nights in Pentridge Prison on remand, and I was acquitted before a jury at the County Court in Melbourne. Right. And what's the significance of "Docket"?---In Melbourne, people who've got records are called dockets, because before they had computers they used to have pieces of paper called docket sheets. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3746

C33/1 POLICE MR HALL: Right?---So you'd see someone who looked - - you know, had tattoos or whatever else or - - they'd say, "There's a docket." So it was just the sick sense of humour back when - - as I say, I was 22 years of age, and it just caught on, and it's hung on ever since. Right. Now, like many people, I suppose you can recall what you were doing on the 11th of September last year? Where you were?---Yes. Yes. Where were you?---I was in Western Australia. I came over - - I can't think if it was - - it was before the race round, and I was at a funeral, and then I went to a wake after the funeral, and then after that - - the wake, I ended up in town. I can't remember what part of it it is. Maybe Northbridge or - - Northbridge?--- - - something like that. Yes?---And I went and had drinks with people in Northbridge. Right. Was that an arrangement that had been made, or - - ?---No. What - - what happened was - - oh, well, sort of, I suppose, but we were at the funeral and the wake, and the wake was going on at the Raffles Hotel and it was getting a little bit melancholy. There was drunken people there that had been very upset about it. It was Don Hancock's funeral. Mm hm?---Right. As I say, there was a lot of people getting upset and talking about, you know - - just - - it was getting depressing. So basically I said, "Look, I'm getting out of here. I've been at the funeral all day, sitting here listening to all these people talking and all the stories and all this sort of stuff." I said, "I'm going somewhere else for a change of environment." So I went up to Northbridge, and I said to a couple of other blokes, "If you want to come with me I'm going up there for a drink." Right. Do you know who it was who went with you? Can you recall?---No, I can't remember. I think there was about three or four of us. I can't - - All right. Well, can you remember Gavin Farrell going with you?---Yeah. I think he was there. Right. And David Nugent?---Yes. I think so. Right. And were you planning to meet with anyone in Northbridge?---Yes. Who?---John Kizon. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3747

C33/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Why is that?---Because when I was in Melbourne a fellow I know over there said to me - because he knew that I was going over here for the funeral and that - - he said, "If you're over there, a bloke will take you out and buy you a drink," and that was it. So I went - - I'd never met the bloke before. I went up there, fronted him, spoke to him man to man, had a drink with him and that was it. Who was the bloke in Melbourne who put you in touch with Mr Kizon?---Mick Gatto. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3748

C34/3 POLICE MR HALL: That's Domenic Gatto?---Domenic, yes. Yes. He has something of a reputation in Melbourne, doesn't he?---Oh, I suppose so. Would that be a convenient time, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER: Yes. We'll adjourn now until 2 o'clock. AT 1.01 PM HEARING ADJOURNED .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3749

C35/4 POLICE AT 2.05 PM HEARING RESUMED: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hall? MR HALL: Mr Waters, just before lunch I was asking you about the meeting which you had on the 11th of September in Northbridge. You met with Mr Kizon and some others and you said you'd been put in touch with Mr Kizon by Mick Gatto? ---That's right. Is Mick Gatto - - would you describe him as a friend of yours?---No. What's the nature of your relationship with him?---He is an industrial relations negotiator, I suppose you'd call it. He works for a builder who employs me to do his earthmoving work. Right. So do you have any business relationship with Mick Gatto?---No. Have you ever done any work for him?---Earthmoving work? Yes?---No. Any work at all?---No. Have you ever acted as a broker or an intermediary for him? ---Probably not. Not in that sense. All right. Perhaps I can explain what I mean by that. You're a person, I think you would agree, who has a wide circle of friends and acquaintances around Australia?---Yes. You know people who are police officers and former police officers from Queensland to Western Australia?---Yes. And if the need arose for someone to be put in touch with someone in Western Australia you'd be the sort of person who could perhaps bring people together?---I suppose I could, yeah. Have you ever done that - acted as a broker to introduce people to each other in order for them to do some sort of business transaction?---No. You've never done that for Mick Gatto?---What sort of business transactions? Any sort of business transaction?---No. Not that I can think of. So how did it come about that Mick Gatto effected this .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3750

C35/4 POLICE introduction to John Kizon? Did he just give you the name? ---He - - from recollection, he said to me he knew - - he knew that I was going to Western Australia and I'd bumped into him somewhere, I can't even remember where, in Melbourne and he said to me, he said - - he said, "What are you going over there for?" and I told him and he said, "Oh, that's no good", you know, "Commiserations", because a friend of mine had been blown up, and he turned around and he said, "Oh, while you're over there, if you want a bloke who'll take you out and, you know, buy you a drink and, you know, look after you if you want" - - so that was all it was. So I went over and that's the purpose of it. MR HALL: So had you never spoken to John Kizon before you came to Western Australia on that occasion?---No. In September last year?---No. And did you ring him before you went to Northbridge?---Yes. And an arrangement was made to meet at a particular time? ---Yeah, well, I - - I didn't know the area and I just said, well, you know, what - - he told me where to go or whatever so - - Right, and were you meeting at a particular place?---Oh, yeah. Where was that?---I think it was a pub. Rosie O'Grady's?---Yeah, it could've been. Did you tell Gavin Farrell and David Nugent who it was you were going to meet in Northbridge?---No. So what did you say to them when it came to the point where you were leaving the wake and going to Northbridge and said, "Come along with me"? Did you tell them where you were going and why?---From recollection, as I say, it was getting pretty morbid. There was a lot of drunken members and ex-policemen there. As I say, it was getting depressing. Now, I turned around and I said, "Look, I'm going to go somewhere else", so they turned around and whoever came with me - - as I said, I know those two were there. I can't remember if anyone else was. I said - - I said, "Look, we'll go with you and have something to eat." Right, so you didn't tell them at that stage that you were expecting to meet Mr Kizon?---No. At what point did you tell them?---When he walked into the pub. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3751

C35/4 POLICE MR HALL: All right, and what was their reaction when he walked into the pub?---Well, they didn't say anything to me. But did you introduce them?---Yeah, I introduced them. Like, it was the first time I'd met the bloke as well - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3752

C36/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - I met the bloke as well. MR HALL: Right. Was there anyone else besides the people that you'd brought and Mr Kizon and yourself? Did he come with anyone?---I can't remember. Have you ever heard of Fabian Quaid??---No. Didn't meet him?---I don't know. What about, I think it is, Dominic Kolisanti??---I don't - - the name doesn't ring a bell. All right. So, you had a drink at Rosie O'Grady's?---Yeah, the pub where we were. Yes. How long would that have taken?---Oh, I've got no idea. And you had a chat?---Yeah. What were you chatting about?---Just general stuff. What sort of general stuff?---Well, he was asking - - or, talking about what I was there for, in relation to the funeral and all the rest, and once again, he offered commiserations as well. As I say, there was just a lot of talk about nothing, and that was it. Like, I don't even know the bloke at this stage. All right. No doubt, having first met each other, there's some idle chit-chat about what sort of occupation you're in?---As far as me? Yeah?---Yeah. And you've got, I think, a bob-catting business?---That's right. Earthmoving business. Earthmoving business; and you told him about that?---Yeah. And you were still in the police force, at that time?---I was not a serving member of the police force. I was being paid by the insurer. I was not a member of the police force. All right, but you hadn't been pensioned off at that stage?---No, but I was no longer a policeman. Did you mention that to him?---Yes. Why?---It just came up in the conversation. What about Gavin Farrell and David Nugent? Did you or they mention that - - well, Gavin Farrell, I think, had resigned by .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3753

C36/2 POLICE that stage, but David Nugent was still a serving police officer. Was that mentioned?---I can't remember. I thought he was a real estate agent, but he - - I - - I don't know what he spoke about. MR HALL: Well, he might have been working in real estate at the time, but that was because he was on leave - that's David Nugent?---Oh, I don't - - you'll have to ask him. Right. What about Mr Kizon? What did he say about himself?---He just said he was a businessman and that was about it. Oh, there was some fellow there who was a boxer, I think. We were talking about boxing, because I'm a - - I go to the boxing all the time in Melbourne. Right. So, that was somebody who was an acquaintance who'd come along with him?---Yes. That's right. There was - - Right. But you can't remember that person's name?---I don't know his name, no. All right. Was there any business interest that you had in common?---No. There wasn't any discussion about things that you might be able to do together in the future?---No. No deals that out of this discussion looked like they might be a prospect for you and Mr Kizon to get together in future and bring to fruition?---No. Did that ever happen?---No. Did you have any other dealings with Mr Kizon after that night?---I think I met him once - - once again. Yeah, I couldn't tell you when it was, but I did meet him once again. Right, and where was that?---In Perth. But as far as the dates and that, I think it was this year. I can't remember. Again, was that a social meeting?---Social, yeah. What, you got together for a drink and a meal?---A drink. And, again, there was no discussion about possible deals that you could do together?---Nothing. No business interests in common?---No business. What about telephone contact? Have you had any telephone contact with him?---I think I may have rung him that night, before I went and saw him. Right, in order to arrange - -?---To go and see him, yeah. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3754

C36/2 POLICE MR HALL: - - the meeting? Right. What about after that? Did you have any cause to stay in telephone contact with him?---No, I don't believe so. Right. So, there was no reason for you to be ringing him to discuss any business?---No. Right. Okay. Now, I might just show you a video of the evening of September 11, if we could show that, please?---Where do I watch it? On this screen? Everywhere. Is it coming up on your screen?---No. It should - -?---Oh, yes it is. Now. VIDEO PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3755

C37/1 POLICE MR HALL: Now, this is the interior of Rosie O'Grady's. You can see a dark - - a figure with his back to the camera?---I can't see a thing on this. Can't you? Well, perhaps if you look at - - well, I can see it on my screen. COMMISSIONER: Very difficult to see. MR HALL: Yes. It's dark. But you can't see a figure with his back to the camera with a ponytail?---I can see a shadow. I can see someone looks like they're having a drink. Yes. Did you have a beard at the time?---I don't think so. Have you had a beard from time to time?---Yeah. Over the years, yeah. Right. Is that any clearer?---Nuh. You don't recognise that figure who's facing towards the camera?---No. You mean that bloke here at the till? No. I mean that bloke. That bloke on the right-hand side of the screen with the pale shirt on, light-coloured hair?---I can see what looks like someone standing there, but I can't make it out who it is. All right. Well, in a moment or two we'll see those people walking down the street and you might get a better appreciation of them then. Are you able to fast forward to the street? (TO WITNESS): All right. Now, you can see Rosie O'Grady's there on the corner?---Yep. That's the pub that you went to that night?---Yeah. Could have been. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3756

C38/3 POLICE MR HALL: Now, this is outside and it's a little difficult to see, but there's a couple of people waiting there on the street. Do you recognise them?---No. Is that John Kizon there in the middle? I think not. Is that you on the left-hand side?---Well, I was at the back. What about that? Is that you?---Yeah, that could be. Right. Talking to Mr Kizon?---I can't see. Do you recognise those people at the back?---If you can put it back again, I'll have a look. Can we put that back a bit and try and stop - - right. Can we stop there? We can't freeze a frame? MR HASLEM: No. MR HALL: All right. Well, perhaps we'll just play it then. Can we just play it? (TO WITNESS): Does that look like you and Mr Kizon?---That looks like me. I can't really pick up the other - - oh, yeah, it could have been. And then there are two people following you. Does that look like Gavin Farrell and David Nugent?---He's got the build of David Nugent but I can't see his face. He's got his hand over his head. Does it look like he's speaking into a mobile telephone?---Is that what he's doing? I think so. Could be? Could it be Gavin Farrell and David Nugent?---I didn't see the - - as I say, it's got the build of Dave Nugent. Right. And there's someone next to him, dark hair, stocky build - -?---I can see someone next to him, but I couldn't pick it up. But is it your recollection that Gavin Farrell was there that night?---I've already said that. Well, I think you said you thought he was?---No, when you mentioned his name, I said "Yeah." All right. Can I tender that video, Commissioner? It's barcoded D1004648. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3757

C38/3 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. The video barcoded D1004648 will be exhibit 532. EXHIBIT 532 Mr Hall DATE (Unstated) Video, barcode D1004648. MR HALL: Now, as you were leaving Rosie O'Grady's, I understand that Mr Kizon said to you words to the effect "Yeah, I know him. He's a good bloke." Was there someone who you were asking about, inquiring about, as being someone you wanted to do business with in Western Australia - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3758

C39/4 POLICE MR HALL: - - - in Western Australia?---I've got no idea. If you tell me the name it might help me but - - Well, I can't tell you the name. I thought you might be able to help me?---No, sorry. I just don't remember it. Did you have a mobile telephone with you that night?---I'd say so. You're a pretty heavy user of the mobile telephone, aren't you?---Both ways. After leaving Rosie O'Grady's we see you walk down the street. You went to the Sorrento restaurant?---Could've, yeah. You had a meal there with Mr Kizon and his associates?---I don't - - as I say, I can remember there was a fellow there who was a boxer or something like that, because conversation was around boxing, but as far as anyone else there, I don't know if they were specifically with us or in the restaurant saying "Hello" or whatever else. Right. Do you remember using your mobile telephone during the course of the evening?---I probably would've. At about just after 11.00 you phoned the CFMEU. Do you know somebody who works for the CFMEU?---Plenty of people. Is that a union that you have some business dealings with? ---Yes. What sort of business dealings?---I'm a member. Right, but apart from being a member do you transact business for that union?---No. Who from the CFMEU was it? Someone in the Forestry division?---Dean Dando? Are you asking me or telling me?---Well, if it's Dean Dando he's a good mate of mine. The fact the phone is owned by the CFMEU is because he works there but he's a mate of mine. So there was no union business that you needed to contact him about on that night?---Well, I think at 11 o'clock I would've made a few phone calls because I think that's when they had on the television about the planes crashing into the buildings. Yes?---And I probably rang about 20 people. Right. Friends, relatives - - ?---Exactly. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3759

C39/4 POLICE MR HALL: - - your wife?---Yeah. And Mick Gatto?---Did I ring him? Yes?---Yeah. At half past eleven?---Yeah. Why were you ringing him?---Well, I was sitting there watching the thing on the television and I rang and said I was with his mate and "Did you see what happened on the bloody news?" Right. So it was just a social call?---Yeah. It had nothing to do with anything that you'd discussed with Mr Kizon that night?---Not that I recollect, no. All right. Where were you staying at that time while you were in Perth?---I can't remember. I'd say it would be the Raffles at a guess, but I think it was only for a night or something like that. All right. Well, after leaving Northbridge you went back to the Raffles, so that would make sense?---Yeah. With David Nugent?---Yes. All right, and the next day, the 12th of September, you travelled to Kalgoorlie by train. Do you recall that?---Yes. I can't remember. I went on the train 1 year or 2 years up there. I can't remember if that was the year. All right. In Kalgoorlie you met Kevin Reilly. I don't mean "met" for the first time, but you saw him there?---I probably did, yes. Did you go to the Foundry Hotel when you were in Kalgoorlie on that occasion?---I'd say I would have, if he was working at the Foundry at that time. Right, and you say you would have because the Foundry is a hotel that you've been to many times?---Yes. And because he was working there? You mean he in fact was running that hotel, wasn't he?---I don't know. I know he was working there. I don't know what he was doing there. What was he working there as? What was he actually doing when you saw him?---He was pouring drinks. Behind the bar?---Yeah. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3760

C39/4 POLICE MR HALL: So you would go to the Foundry because he was there and you could have a chat with him - - ?---Yeah. - - while you were having a drink?---Yeah. And he is someone that you have an interest in horseracing in common with?---I know he likes a bet. Now, in January of the following year - in fact, January of this year - was there any business that you were transacting that involved Mr Nugent, Mr Farrell and Mr Kizon?---No. There would be no reason for you to be - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3761

C40/1 POLICE MR HALL: - - - no reason for you to be talking to Mr Kizon at that time?---Not that I can recall. Or talking about him to Mr Nugent and Mr Farrell?---Not - - there's no recollection for me. But can you positively say that you weren't doing any business with him? I mean, it's not something you're likely to have forgotten since January of this year?---I've never done business with Mr Kizon. No. And there'd be no reason for you to be talking about him to Mr Farrell and Mr Nugent?---The only thing, his name may have come up in a conversation. How it's come up I don't know, but I can say I've never done business with him. Right. But only come up in conversation as being someone that you drank with on that occasion back on September 11. There'd be no other - - no other reason to mention him?---No. Not that I can think of, no. No. All right. But you would speak on a regular basis with David Nugent? He's someone you speak to quite often?---Yeah. Well, if - - regularly; maybe once a week, once every 2 or 3 weeks. Sure?---Just depending. And to Gavin Farrell. They're the sort of people that you do ring quite often?---And they ring me. Just for general chit-chat, having - - ?---They ring me about horseracing, asking me for tips in Melbourne, depending what the racing season - - what stage we're at or whatever. Yes. Can we play, please, D1014706? I'm told there's a problem with the audio, Commissioner. It needs a couple of minutes to fix it. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: I wonder if we can have a short adjournment. We apparently need an adjournment, Commissioner, if that's possible. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Very well. AT 2.33 PM HEARING ADJOURNED .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3762

C41/2 POLICE AT 2.41 PM HEARING RESUMED: MR HALL: Yes, I apologise for that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: We should now be able to play D1014706. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3763

C42/1 POLICE MR HALL: On the third page of the transcript you say: "Yeah, mate. And it's about to blossom. Life's about

to blossom all right, and I'm going to tell you now, all right, you're on the ground floor. Read the papers shortly, all right."

What was David Nugent on the ground floor?---I've got no idea. Well, was there some business that you were transacting that he was going to get in on the ground floor?---Well, it sounds like whatever time that is here, you've got it at 1 o'clock or 9.30 or whatever - I can't see. Mm hm?---Put 3 hours on that, and I'm at the Men's Gallery in Melbourne, after drinking all day and night, and I'm sitting there talking to some girl on a table top. It's 9.30 Melbourne time?---9.30 - - well, either way, mate, I've got no idea. It just sounds like a lot of drunken garble to me. Right. The man that's "made 10 fucking books" would be - - he's about to come crashing down. Chopper Read?---Could be. Yeah. What was about to happen with him?---I - - when is this? This is January this year - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3764

C43/2 POLICE MR HALL: - - - January this year, the 16th?---Oh, he's meant to get charged. I heard that, earlier this year. You heard that from friends who were serving police officers?---I can't remember. I did hear. It was just talk. Right. Then, on page 5, Nugent says this to you: "So, things are looking just good, are they?" and you say: "Mate, you know, yeah. Mate, I got that sorted out.

Anyway, yeah, so we got a big go on at the moment, and you wouldn't believe it, it's a beauty, mate, an absolute beauty. I had that inquest today and, ah, this week finished up, you know, that - - yeah. Yeah. So, the man over there, you know, where were you on the 11th of September? Yeah. Yeah, mate, sweet as a nut. He's been ringing up, trying to find out when I'm going back over there and all that sort of shit."

Now, you're a friend of John Kizon, aren't you? The man from September 11th?---I can't say that. Well, "the man over there", Nugent's here, you're in Melbourne - -?---I think I'm talking about Don Hancock's matter. Right: "Yeah, mate, sweet as a nut. He's been ringing up." Mr Hancock could not be ringing up, could he?---No, no, but that's what I think I was referring to. Well, who was ringing you up, trying to find out when you're coming back over there?---I've got no idea. You see, what this reads like is that it was Mr Kizon, the man from September 11th, who'd been ringing you up, wanting to know when you were coming back over there?---Well, he's never rung me up and asked me if I'm coming back. He's never rung you up?---To ask me when I'm coming back. Has he ever rung you up about anything?---Not that I can recall, but he's never asked me when I'm coming back over there. Right. And then after asking him what he was doing, you say: "We're all in the gang now, you know?" .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3765

C43/2 POLICE MR HALL: What gang was that, you were talking about?---We're all out-of-work coppers. Because he was now on leave without pay?---Yeah. On the foot of the next page, page 6, you say: "Just (inaudible) the gang with us, all right?" Nugent says, "Okay." "I mean everyone, oh, that bloke on the September

11th? "Yeah? "Can fucking get on his hands and knees and bow to

this gang here, right? Do you know what I mean?" Is that a reference to John Kizon?---No. But it's someone who's still alive, clearly? You're talking about somebody - -?---When I'm read - - listening to that in the context of the tape, I'm sitting at a table at a strip joint in Melbourne. I fully understand where you are?---And I'm sitting there and I'm talking about a girl who's in front of me, and as I say, that's what the general context of the conversation is to me. Mm. But the bloke from September 11th is Mr Kizon, isn't it?---No, I can't say that. Well, who else could it be?---I've got no idea. Well, can you make some suggestions as to who it could be?---No, I can't. I'm blind drunk, in a strip joint. I've been drinking. I bet it's a Friday afternoon. So do you think you're just referring to this person because you're so drunk you can't remember their name?---I'm just waffling on. That wasn't a code that you used, to refer to John Kizon, the man from September 11th?---No. Did you ever use that on any other occasion?---Look, I'm putting it in the context of this conversation, and as I say, I'm drunk at a strip joint in Melbourne. And I suppose you can't help me with who "the gang there" was, in Melbourne?---Would have been the blokes that are sitting there drinking with us on the night? .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3766

C43/2 POLICE MR HALL: I see. All right. Well, can we then play D1014707? This is a call 2 days later, on the 18th of January. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3767

C44/4 POLICE AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HALL: All right, that's you speaking to a mate. Yes? ---Mm - - Well, you know who it is, don't you?---Who's that? The person who describes himself as your "mate from September 11th"?---Who's that? Yes, who is it?---I don't know who that is. It's John Kizon, isn't it?---Oh, all right. Is it?---Well, you're telling me. I don't know. Well, can you confirm that?---No, I can't. Well, you knew who it was at the time. He says, "It's your mate from September 11th." "Eh?" "Your mate from September 11th, mate." "What number are you ringing me on?" and then you proceed to give him a number. Have you forgotten who that could possibly be since January of this year?---Yeah, I - - as I say, if you're telling me it's John Kizon I'll say that you're right. Do you have a recollection now of him calling you?---No. Would it help if you heard it again?---No, I'll take your word for it it's him. As I say, I have no recollection of it. Well, do you have a recollection now of him being referred to by you and by himself, indeed, as "your mate from September 11th"?---Yeah, that's what he's referred to himself as. Right. Why? Why would he be doing that?---I don't know. Why would you be referring to him when speaking to Dave Nugent as your "mate from September 11th"? What's the secrecy? ---I've got no idea in relation to the phone call you played previously. As I say, I would've been blind drunk. I can't even recall that conversation. Now, as far as this goes if he's referred to himself as that, well, ask him. Would you like to hazard a guess as to who "Mick" is? ---Well, if you're saying that's John Kizon that "Mick" would be Mick Gatto. Now, on the same day, the 18th of January, in the evening - - can we play D1014708, please? AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3768

C45/3 POLICE MR HALL: Now, that's you speaking to Gavin Farrell?---Yep. And on the second page of the transcript you say: "Mate, I spoke to that bloke that worked at September

11th as well." "Hey?" "I spoke to that bloke with September 11th - -"

WITNESS: "that worked at September 11th." MR HALL: Yes. That's what you said to start with. So does that help you remember who it was you were speaking about?---No, not by saying he worked at the September 11th. Well, see, this is the third conversation I've played you where you're referring to somebody as "the bloke from September 11th, a bloke who worked at September 11th." It's obviously a term that's been used continuously. Tell me who it is?---I can't say off this because, as I say, when the bloke ring - - rang me before - - like I say, all right, if he referred to himself as "your mate from September 11th" that's fine, but this "work at the September 11th", I don't know. You've just got no recollection of who it was you were referring to as "the bloke from September 11th"?---Not - - not in this conversation. Or at all. Do you recall who you've ever referred to as "a bloke from September 11th"?---No, only - - when the bloke rang me, obviously I acknowledge that's what he said. Do people often mysteriously ring you, not identify themselves except by some code, and you hand out numbers of associates of yours?---People ring me all the time, yeah. And people ring and say - - talk like that; that's just how I talk. Yes, but you - - they don't have to give you their names because you recognise them. You recognise their voices?---Well, not always. Generally, I'll pick it up as I go. Mm. And you're saying you didn't pick it up as you went, in that last call I played you, as being Mr Kizon?---This one here? No, the previous one I played you?---No, I didn't recognise it. Well, somebody - - that bloke with September 11th, you said on this occasion you'd spoken to him and he had given you - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3769

C46/1 POLICE MR HALL: - - - and he had given you a reply, "No worries." You go back to that topic on page 3, at the bottom, and Gavin Farrell says, about two-thirds of the way down, "Were they - - how big was that?" "I spoke, mate, and big time - - " "Yeah?" " - - and said that, um, it was you." So it would seem that you've spoken to this man from September 11th and said something about Gavin Farrell. Does that help you recall who it was?---I'm taking that in the context, from the top of the page, and we're talking about a princess - "Beautiful. She's a trump" - laughing, and I'm talking about, "Get her fat bum out of me - - from behind me." Well, if you go on, look, you - - Gavin Farrell said, "And yeah - - yeah. And what did he say"?---Oh. "I'm still sporting, mate." "Yeah." Then over the page, "Yeah. But, um - - yeah. Turned around and was rapt. No problems, mate." So you're obviously not talking about the princess. You're talking about someone who you've spoken to about Gavin Farrell, aren't you?---Yep. Now, does that help you recall who it was?---Nuh. "Oh. Okay. No worries," he says. "But I got the giant's from this side." Now, the giant; that's a name that you use for Mick Gatto, isn't it?---The giants? The giant. You call him the giant?---I've said "giants from this side". Yes. I think that perhaps there's an apostrophe that should be there. But do you call Mick Gatto the giant?---The giant? Yes?---Yeah. "Yeah," he says. "I turned around and said that, um, you know, fucking 1 million mile an hour." What's that about?---I've got no idea. He says, "Yeah." And you say, "And fucking sweet as a nut." So it sounds like there has been some discussion with the man from September 11 in which Gavin Farrell has been referred to, and the man from September 11 is content. None of this helps you?---No, it doesn't. "Yeah. No worries," Gavin Farrell says. "Too easy, mate." So obviously he knows what's going on then. Now, he's obviously talking about the person you've spoken to. You say, "Oh, mate, I said - - I said - - and he said - - he said he's got a whisper already. I've - - I've spoken to him." "Yeah." And he said, "I said, 'Well, mate, you haven't got a whisper. Don't talk shit. It's about this, this and this. Nowhere .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3770

C46/1 POLICE near that. Sweet. Thanks very much.' And I said, 'It comes from the fireman.'" Obviously talking about Gavin Farrell. You know he's working as a fireman at the time?---Yep. MR HALL: And the person you spoke to, the man from September the 11th, was sweet with that, and you then say, "I was just about to go out with the giant anyway. I'm just going to catch up with him now." So this was a night when you were just about to go out with Mick Gatto. Yes?---Can you tell me what the time is on this? I can. It's half past eleven?---At night. Yes. So?---Well, I don't think I'd be going out with the giant, or with Mick Gatto. That's what you said?---Yeah. Well, as I say, half past eleven at night, obviously I've been out all day again, and by the tone of the conversation I'd say I was very heavily intoxicated. So?---Well, I can't recall what this is about. All right. Were you doing any business with Mick Gatto at around that time - 18th of January?---Not that I can recall. Do you know whether Mick Gatto was doing any business with John Kizon at that time?---I don't know. Can we then go to D1014709? This is a call 1 day later, at 9.45 in the morning. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3771

C47/4 POLICE MR HALL: Who's "the red-headed bloke"?---That's a friend of mine. Who? What's his name?---Robert Mather. And "the sheila that works for us" - is she a police officer? ---No. Was she a police officer?---Yes. Probably 2 or 3 years ago. Why do you call her "our man on the inside"?---It's just a nickname she was given. Was she given it when she was working for the police?---No. Was she given it by you?---No, by a friend of mine. It was in relation to - - she played netball with a group of girls and a friend of mine was asking her about some of the girls and she was telling him. Okay. Now, on page 4, towards the foot of the page, you come back to this subject of "the gang from the September 11th". This is 9.45 am, in the morning. I suppose we can confidently assume that you're sober?---Yes. And you're at home when the conversation begins?---Yes. Right. Now, you say, "Yeah, all right, pal. I'll get going, but that was done and, um, was mentioned as well." He seems to know what you're talking about. "Yeah. So, ah", and he says, "mate, I'll see if I can find out some more things." So what was Gavin Farrell finding out things about?---I've got no idea. Well, it sounds like he was finding out things for you and passing that information on, and that was information that you in turn were passing on to somebody in Melbourne. Ring any bells?---No, it doesn't. You never received information from Western Australia that was from a police source in January of this year?---From a police source in Melbourne? No, a police source in Western Australia?---No. Was Gavin Farrell somebody who you had ever asked to provide information from the police system here?---Not that I can recall. I appreciate he wasn't working as a police officer then but you knew that he still had friends who were in the police. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3772

C48/4 POLICE MR HALL: You knew that?---Yes. I presume he would've, yeah. All right. So he says, "Mate, I'll see if I can find out some more things." You say, "Yeah, sweet, mate, but it was quite happy and, ah, yeah, no worries. I went around and I said, you know, the gang from the September 11th and, ah - - around - - and he said, 'Ah, shit, yeah, sweet' and I said, 'No longer' and he's gone, 'Yep' and 'I'm with you and, ah, that was it, mate.'" Okay, so who's "the gang from September 11"?---I can't recall. That doesn't make any sense to me or ring any bells. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3773

C49/2 POLICE MR HALL: Well, this is the fourth call I've played you where a phrase, or something like it, has been used and this is not one you can dismiss as being drunken ramblings, but you're still using this terminology. You must have some recollection of who it's a reference to?---No, I can't recall what that's in relation to. Why would there be any need to be using a code about somebody, a code name?---Well, I don't know if it even is. It's just talking, like, it's how we talk. But this is being used consistently. It's not just a lapse of memory. It's not, "whatsisname" from September 11th. This is consistent use of this terminology, to refer to somebody. Come on, Mr Waters, help me?---Well, I can't recall. It doesn't ring any bells to me. As I say, I can't even understand what it - - reading it here, in this context - - Well, I can tell you that not only is this not the first - as you've seen - time that you've used this, but you use this terminology continually. It beggars belief that you don't know who it's a reference to. Who is it?---I can't - - I could only assume that the gang from September 11 would be me, Gavin, and Nugget?, and whoever else we were with on September the 11th. Now, it doesn't specify anyone in particular. And clearly the man who rang you, and wanted Mick Gatto's number, on the 18th, remember that call that I played you?---Yes. "Your mate from September 11th." Do you want me to play you that call again - -?---No. - - because it clearly wasn't - -?---You've said to me that that was John Kizon, and I'll take your word for it. No, I suggested that to you. If you want to hear it again, I can, but it clearly wasn't David Nugent, was it?---No. And it wasn't Gavin Farrell?---No. All right. Who else could it be?---Well, as I say, I'll take your word for it that it's John Kizon. I'm not asking you to take my word - -?---I can't recognise his voice. - - for it. I want you to tell me?---I don't know. I don't recognise his voice. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3774

C49/2 POLICE MR HALL: All right. On the top of page 5, after saying, "The lines are still open and we'll keep going", Gavin Farrell says, "Yes" and you say: "Said he wants to catch up with me and you, and that's

no worries." So, who was it at this time who wanted to catch up with you and with Gavin Farrell on the 19th of January?---I can't recall. All right. Six days later, on the 25th of January, can we play D1014710? This is at 1.31 in the afternoon. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3775

C50/3 POLICE AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HALL: All right. That's you speaking to Gavin Farrell?---Yeah. And you make inquiries about Craig Martin. Why?---There's a friend of mine in Melbourne who came to me with the prospect of a mine at a place called - - I think it's Wiluna, and he said he had friends over here. They had a lease in relation to that mine and they had, like, 3 years worth of ore or whatever to be extracted and he had the opportunity to put trucks and machinery in there. Now, he wanted me to see if I would be interested in putting in an excavator and, in relation to that, he told me who was involved in relation to that mine. He gave me the names. I'd never heard of them before and I rang up - - in relation to this call here, I rang Gavin to ask him who they were and I asked him if he was mixed up with - - that JK there is John Kizon, because as I say I wanted - - because the bloke over there told me they had nothing to do with him. They'd had a fight or a falling-out or something at a pub, and that's what I was trying to clarify when he was talking to me about this deal over in Melbourne. Is JK - - that's a nickname that you've used for John Kizon before?---Yes, that's what I refer to him as. You know him well enough to call him JK?---No. That's what I just refer to him as. Right. What does it mean when you say: "Do you know this name here? Hang on, what's the

bloke he brought at the Raffles?"? What does that mean?

WITNESS: I think you'll find that's "fought at the Raffles." MR HALL: "fought at the Raffles"? Right. So the person you'd spoken to in Melbourne had told you that Craig Martin had had a fight at the Raffles. Is that right?---I asked him because he - - I - - when he told me about him, I said "Has he got anything to do with that bloke?" He said "No. He had a fight with him." I thought he said "at the Raffles." And then at the bottom, Gavin Farrell tells you: "Martin's been using too much gear, mate. Martin's on

the gear." That's a reference to using heroin?---(No audible response) Yes?---Oh. Or drugs. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3776

C50/3 POLICE MR HALL: That's what you understand?---Yeah, drugs. Yeah. Drugs. "I'll tell you the bloke to speak to. He's Kev's

mate. Kev sees him all the time." "Does he?" "He's in Kalgoorlie, mate." So this is for you to find out whether you want to go into a business in which Craig Martin is involved?---The bloke's put the prospect to me and told me - - well, I asked him, "Well, who's got the lease? What's the - - involved in it?" and he's told me the names. So I'm clarifying who these people are before I start going into any sort of a business venture. Right. And you say, after being told he's in Kalgoorlie: "What, he's - - like, what's got colours?" That's a reference to whether he's a bikie, is it?---Yeah. Okay: "No. He - - he speaks - - yeah, he's always been

worked on and that Docket, like, you know, down here." .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3777

C51/1 POLICE MR HALL: Did you understand that to mean that he's someone who is watched by the police? He receives lots of police attention?---(No audible response). And then you go on to say, "Yeah. Who'd win the blue? Huh? Who'd win the blue?" Now, that's meaning who would win between John Kizon and Craig Martin; is that right?---That's - - yeah. Why are you asking that?---I was asking, you know, like, does the other bloke have anything to do with controlling him, or is he on his own? Can he stand up for himself or - - Hadn't you already found out enough to know whether you wanted to go into business with this guy?---No. Well, I'm still inquiring, on one - - one phone call with him. What difference would it make as to who would win the blue between John Kizon and Craig Martin?---I was just asking, as I say, to see whether he had any control over him or whatever. "Yeah. But he's tied up with another bloke named Johnny Dowch." "Johnny Dowch? Yeah. Yeah. Sweet." "Does that bloke know him?" Farrell asks? "Yeah. Sweet. Yeah." Who's "that bloke"?---That's the bloke I was standing with at the time. How did Gavin Farrell know who you were standing with?---Well, you can hear a bloke in the background. I see. So who was "that bloke"?---Big Jim. And "that bloke" knew Johnny Dowch, did he?---Yes. Johnny Dowch being someone who was a resident of Kalgoorlie?---Or Perth. I don't know. Well, he's a resident of Kalgoorlie, I can tell you. So is Big Jim from Kalgoorlie?---No. Do you know what sort of line of business Johnny Dowch is in?---No. Did Big Jim tell you?---No. Was it of any significance at all, this name - Johnny Dowch - to you?---No. So what was the outcome of that? Did you decide not to go into this business venture?---No. At the moment there - - apparently there's a lease or something which has been taken out, and there's 8 months or something before it can start, but they wanted a machine, and I import machinery from Japan. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3778

C51/1 POLICE MR HALL: Mm hm?---And they wanted me to get a machine, and I inquired about a machine, even just for their purposes, to sell it to the bloke in Melbourne and he could use it over here. Right. So none of this information that you got about Craig Martin had any influence ultimately on your decision to buy that machinery and onsell it?---Well, I haven't bought the machinery yet, but the options there. Yes?---If they want to buy it. Not - - the bloke in Melbourne can buy it and do what he likes with it. All right. Do you know Roger Rogerson?---I've never met the man. Have you ever spoken to him?---No. You know who he is, don't you?---Yeah. And he lives in Sydney?---Yes. Have you ever jokingly referred to yourself as the Roger Rogerson of Melbourne?---Oh, I don't think so. Have you ever jokingly introduced yourself as Roger Rogerson?---I've left messages for people. Calling yourself Roger Rogerson?---I've left - - yeah; when I've rung the place I used to work at and stuff like that. Yes?---Left a lot of names. And what about friends? Have you ever rung up and said, "It's Roger Rogerson here"?---Oh, I may have, yeah. What's the joke?---Well, I think it's quite humorous. Why?---Well, I ring up and say, "It's Bob. Ring Bob Hawke back," or ring whoever. Right. But why Roger Rogerson?---Well, it's someone that people know. Is it someone who you relate to?---No. I've never met the man. And you've never spoken to him?---No. Can you listen to D1014711, please? This is a call on the 28th of January this year. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3779

C52/4 POLICE MR HALL: Would you care to reconsider your answer as to whether you've ever spoken to Roger Rogerson on the phone? ---Yeah, I have spoken to him on the phone but I've never met him. He didn't even know who I was. You were arranging to meet him?---No. You were going to have a coffee?---I wasn't. I was in Melbourne, he was in Sydney. Well, it says you were going to have a coffee?---Yeah, I was arranging to talk to him the following day. Did you?---I think I did. On the phone?---Yeah, on the phone. Did you ever meet him for a coffee?---No. What did you speak to him about the following day?---I heard that someone up in Sydney had spoken to him concerning the Building Royal Commission and my name had been mentioned, and I knew that he was involved in the building industry and people up there and I wanted him to find out if that had been the case. All right. Did you have any concerns at all speaking to a man of his reputation?---It was on the phone. I realise that, but did you have any concerns associating with a man with his reputation?---I wanted to ask him a question and through a friend of mine I got him to ring me. All right, but as somebody who was an ex-police officer and is still on a police pension it doesn't seem to be something that troubles you to associate with people with criminal records? ---I haven't associated with him. What about Mick Gatto? You associated with him?---I would speak to him very occasionally. I don't associate with him. But is it something that troubles you, to speak to and associate with people who have got criminal records?---I'm just a member of society now, a citizen. It doesn't worry me who I talk to. Now, on the 31st of January, D1014712, you have a conversation with Kevin Reilly at 2.46 in the afternoon. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3780

C53/2 POLICE AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HALL: Right. We don't need to hear the rest of that particular call, but do you recognise that as being Kevin Reilly who you're speaking to?---Yes. I'm not sure whether he describes himself as "Squizzy" or - - is Squizzy a nickname that he used - -?---Not that I know. Could be Spielly. Perhaps Spielly. Do you know him by the name Spielly?---I think - - yeah, Spiel or Spielly, or something. Right. Now, if I could then take you forward to D1014714. Now, this is a call made on the same - - no, sorry, on the 13th of February 2002 at 1.21. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3781

C54/3 POLICE MR HALL: Right. We don't need to hear the rest of that call, but that was one of your little jokes, was it? Introducing yourself as Roger Rogerson?---Yes, of course. Do you recall this? There was an occasion where a friend of yours had taken off, driven across Australia, and you were asking Kevin Reilly to look after him?---What I can recall is that I was going to catch up with him, because he'd been - - like, someone told me that he was just, you know, not himself. So he was a good friend of mine and I was going to catch up with him. I rang up and he told me he was in Kalgoorlie and I was worried for him, as I say, because he - - he'd taken off just - - and driven across Australia. You described him - this friend of yours - as being staunch. What did you mean by that?---He's a good bloke. Well, you've already said he's a good bloke, but you said "staunch" as well as him being a good bloke. What did you mean by that?---He's just a good bloke. He's a champion. I'm just wrapping the bloke up. "Staunch" meaning someone who could be relied upon, someone who wouldn't inform, wouldn't dob?---No. Just a wrap for the bloke. On the 16th of February you spoke to Gavin Farrell. This is D1014715, at 8.21. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3782

C55/4 POLICE MR HALL: We don't have to listen to the rest of that, but that part we just heard about "those blokes in Kalgoorlie, Craig and that", that's another reference to Craig Martin, isn't it?---Yeah. So a couple of weeks later you've still got some interest in receiving information about Craig Martin?---No, I had no interest. Oh, I see. So you weren't seeking it but you were content to listen?---Yes. All right. You've mentioned a couple of times the Building Industry Royal Commission and I think you said that's why you were speaking to Roger Rogerson?---I've mentioned it once. Yes. Did you have some expectation that you might be called to the Building Industry Royal Commission?---I heard a story in Melbourne - - Right?--- - - about it and that's - - that was all I heard. That you were going to be summonsed?---I heard that they were making inquiries about me. Right, and you weren't called as a witness?---No, no. Were you interviewed?---No, no. But you're aware that Mick Gatto was called as a witness? ---Yes. And he received quite a lot of media attention at the time, didn't he?---Yes. And you're aware that he got some media attention in Western Australia as well at the time?---I don't know. Well, perhaps when I play you in a moment a call from Gavin Farrell you will recall that Gavin Farrell told you that "the giant" had been in the paper. I can show you D1016152. This appeared in The West Australian newspaper on February the 23rd 2002. "Kizon Link Called To Probe" and it says in part: "An interstate associate of Northbridge businessman

John Kizon has been called to give evidence to the Cole Royal Commission. Mr Gatto was an associate of murdered Melbourne underground figure and Mr Kizon's friend, Alfonse Gangitano."

.23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3783

C55/4 POLICE MR HALL: Did you know Mr Gangitano?---I had met him. Once or more than once?---A couple of times. Was he simply an acquaintance or was he a friend?---No, I raided his house once. I see. Had you met him after you had left the police force? ---I think he was dead by then. You never met him at an introduction by Mr Gatto?---I can't recall. As I say, I met him during the course of a raid on his house, and - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3784

C56/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - a raid on his house, and you'd see him around. He was at every, you know, place in Melbourne where - - to be seen, so - - but I can't remember specifically being introduced by Mr Gatto. MR HALL: Right. It says here: "Mr Gatto was convicted in October 1996 of assaulting

a police officer during a brawl at a Northbridge nightclub involving associates of Mr Kizon and two off-duty Drug Squad detectives."

Did you know about that?---No. You didn't know that Mr Kizon had been convicted for assaulting a police officer?---No. MR HALL: "Two weeks after the incident, Mr Gatto returned to

Perth for the wedding of Mr Kizon's friend, Craig Christian."

And then in the next paragraph: "He has been involved - - " Next column: "He has been involved in negotiations, arbitrations

within the industry in the past" - this is Mr Gatto's lawyer, George Defteros, speaking - "but I'm not sure what they actually relate to."

Is that your understanding of what Mr Gatto does? He's involved in negotiations and arbitrations within the building industry?---He's got an industrial relations company. He's sort of a building industry peacemaker?---No. He's got an industrial relations company. I don't know how he conducts his business, but that's what he's got. Right. Is that the service that he offers? That he ensures industrial peace?---I don't know what his services are, but that's what business he's got. All right. On the 26th of February there was another article, which is D1016153. If we can bring the picture on to the screen. That's Mr Gatto?---Very complimentary, but yeah. It describes him there as "Melbourne industrial troubleshooter, Domenic Mick Gatto," and he gave evidence at the Building Industry Royal Commission, and it says in the .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3785

C56/1 POLICE first column under the picture: "Mr Gatto, whose criminal record in Victoria includes

convictions for burglary, assaulting police and deception and - - "

MR CRISPE: I must rise at this stage. I don't really want to interfere with my friend's cross-examination but it after all is simply a newspaper article. I just wonder what the relevance of presenting - - if the facts are intended to be relied on, presenting this sort of information to this witness in this way, based on a newspaper article in The West Australian, with all due respects to the authenticity of what a reporter may print, it seems a very unfortunate way of presenting such information, if I could just put it that way. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: The relevance, Commissioner, is that in a telephone call made shortly after this there is a reference to newspaper coverage in the week before, but not to Mr Gatto by name, and it is clear, I think, from looking at these articles and then listening to the tape that the tape is a reference - - the telephone call is a reference to these articles. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Very well. MR HALL: Did you know about Mr Gatto having a criminal record in Victoria?---Oh, I knew he'd been involved with the police, yes. Did that ever trouble you in your dealings with him?---No. And there was a further article which we needn't show, but on February the 27th also in The West Australian, mentioning Mr Gatto. If we can then listen to a call on the 1st of March, which is D1014716, between you and Gavin Farrell, just after 1 pm. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3786

C57/3 POLICE AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HALL: All right. So that's clearly a reference to those newspaper articles that I referred you to a moment ago?---Yeah. Is there any reason why you wouldn't use the name of Mick Gatto when you're speaking to people like Gavin Farrell - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3787

C58/2 POLICE MR HALL: - - - like Gavin Farrell?---Well, as I said before, that's what I refer to him as. Right, and clearly, when you're speaking to someone like Gavin Farrell, they know who you're talking about, when you say "the giant"?---Well, I presume they do. Have you ever introduced Mick Gatto to Gavin Farrell?---No, I don't think so. Gavin Farrell has been over to Melbourne, hasn't he?---Yes. Right. You haven't taken that opportunity to introduce them?---No, not that I recall. All right. What about Dave Nugent? He's been over to Melbourne as well?---Yes. Has he met Mick Gatto?---No, not that I recall. I asked you a little while ago whether you'd ever received any information that you knew was from police records, since you've been out of the police, and I think you said you hadn't? You can't recall?---I can't recall - - No? You've never sought to receive information from the West Australian Police computer records?---Not that I recall. Or to receive information about current operations that the police were then doing here?---Not that I recall. Right. Do you know Rick Lewis?---From - ? Melbourne?---Yes. Lewie, I think you call him?---Yes. Right. He's a serving police officer in Victoria?---Yes. And also, I think, an investigator for the Australian Football League?---He's the prosecutor for the AFL. Yes, he investigates matters as well?---Yes. Yes, and have you spoken to him from time to time about footballers and some of the difficulties that they're facing?---Oh, I think I spoke to him about an incident involving some Western Australian footballers. I can't recall what the details were. I think he asked me about - - Yes. He asked you to get him some information, didn't he?---I think, from memory, there was an incident involving some Western Australian footballers and he was going to go over to .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3788

C58/2 POLICE Western Australia or something like that. He wanted to know if I knew anyone over here. MR HALL: Mm hm?---And because he was going to come over for, you know, for the AFL or whatever. But didn't he ask you to see if you could get some information for him?---Oh look, he may have. Right. And hadn't you in fact already received some information from someone that you knew in the Drug Squad here, in about December or January?---No, I don't recall that. All right. Well, can I suggest to you that you'd received some information from someone who was in the Drug Squad, or the "Druggies"? I think you would call the Drug Squad the "Duggies"? That's a term you'd use?---If I said, "In the Druggies", yeah, or if I said "the druggies", it'd be different. If you said, "He was in the job, in the Druggies", you'd mean someone who was in the Drug Squad, wouldn't you?---Yeah. That could be read that way. All right. Now, having said that, do you recall getting a telephone call from somebody who was in the Drug Squad in Western Australia, who told you something about the identities of some footballers who were allegedly associated with a particular drug dealer here in Perth?---I can remember there was some incident involving some blokes from here - - yeah, from here, who had come under notice in the media or something like that, in relation to, I don't know what, and I remember Rick Lewis at the time was - - asked me - - now, from my recollection is, can I put him in contact with someone over here, or do I know someone over here, because he was going to come over on behalf of the AFL to find out what it was about. Sure. Now, he was speaking to you about that in March of this year, but I'm taking you back before then, to December or January, before there had been any naming of these people in the press, because they were named in Victoria, weren't they, in "The Age"?---Yeah, but I think there were - - before that, there was a thing on - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3789

C59/4 POLICE WITNESS: - - - a thing on - - it was blown up over there in - - by one of those investigative journalist - - MR HALL: Right?--- - - things on the radio. There was some big thing going on or whatever. All right, but you had - - I'm suggesting to you that you had a call in December last year or January of this year from a mate who was in the Drug Squad, who told you that they were doing a current operation and that some names of footballers had come to their attention in the course of this operation as being involved with the target of the operation. Do you recall that?---I can't recall that, no. Can we listen, please, to D1014717, which is a call made on the 13th of March 2002, and before that's played, Commissioner, can I indicate that there will be names mentioned in the course of this call and a subsequent one which I'll be asking be suppressed. COMMISSIONER: Yes. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3790

C60/1 POLICE MR HALL: Who was the person from the Drug Squad who called you in late December or early January with that information?---I've got no idea. Try harder?---I've got no idea. At the time, that was already in the papers in March. Yes, but it wasn't in the papers in late December, early January?---I've got no idea. Well, you see, it's not just simple information about who has been the subject of some adverse media publicity. You know a lot of details here. You say it's from telephone intercepts, it relates to the object of a target that the Drug Squad have been looking at. The deal is off in a big job, and these particular footballers have been caught on the TI intercepts. Now, who do you know in the Drug Squad who could provide you with that sort of information?---That information was already in the paper. Not in January and December?---No. At the time of that phone call there - - Yes?--- - - it was in the paper. Not the names?---I don't know, as I say, when the names came into it, but, as I say, that stuff was already in the papers. I already read it in the paper in Melbourne. But it wasn't in the papers in January and December?---No. But at the time of the phone call that was made to me by Lewie it was. I was reiterating what I'd read in the paper. But you've just said to him: "It was a good month and a half ago, mate. It'd be

easy, yeah, January or maybe even late December. They were doing a big number on him in the Drug Squad."

You're telling him that you've had this information since December or January, aren't you?---That's what I'm telling him, yeah. Yeah. So who was it?---I've got no idea. Well, who could it be? Who do you know well enough in the - - is there someone you know well enough in the Drug Squad?---I don't know anyone in the Drug Squad here. I didn't know anyone in the Drug Squad here in those - - in that time. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3791

C60/1 POLICE MR HALL: Do you know somebody who could obtain information for you from the Drug Squad?---Not like that. Well, can you account for this call?---This call here? Yes?---The stuff that I'm telling him there - - Yes?--- - - I'm reiterating what's already in the media at that time. So when you tell him that you had this information from January or even late December from someone who was in the job - in the Druggies - is that true?---No. So this is just you big-noting yourself; is that what - - ?---Big-noting. - - you're asking us to believe?---And reiterating the fact what's in the paper already. It goes on there - - later on I say I've just got a phone call about this. Nothing about anything to do with specifics. You'd have that phone call if it was there. Not necessarily. Well, you weren't just big-noting yourself about your suggestion that you'd had a source of information back in January/December. You in fact offered to get him some more information, didn't you?---If he wanted it, yes. Yes. The name of the other footballer, which was not yet in the public forum - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3792

C61/3 POLICE MR HALL: - - - the public forum?---I can't remember if it was or wasn't. Well, if it was, Rick Lewis would hardly need you to find out for him, would he?---Whether he wanted confirmation or not, I don't know. I just offered it if he wanted it. Well, it's never been published in Western Australia. Okay? It's only ever been published in Melbourne and hadn't been published at that time?---Sorry? And had not - - the name had not been published at that time. Who did you intend to ring to find out the name of the other footballer?---I can't remember who - - I could make a guess but, as I say, I can't remember who I rang or what I did about it. All right. Well, you were pretty conscious that the release of this sort of information was potentially a source of serious trouble for a serving police officer, weren't you?---(No audible response) You knew it was wrong. If a police officer had in fact done this - provided you information - you knew that that would be a wrong thing to do?---You don't have to find out officially. There's enough gossip and rumour and talk around people here, what's going on, to make an inquiry that way. There's nothing illegal with that. All right. But you were telling Rick Lewis that it might not be a good idea for him to be seen around members of the Drug Squad because they were under investigation for passing it to the football club?---That was in the papers. Sure. So you were saying "I'll find out the information and pass it on to you, so that you won't get any of the Drug Squad members into trouble." That's what you're saying to him?---Or himself. Or himself. So - -?---I don't have to find out officially. I can ring someone and ask them what have they heard about this. There's nothing wrong with that. But someone who would be in a position to know. That's what you're offering to do, isn't it?---I'm asking - - I'm offering to ring and ask someone who would be in a position to have heard something or hear what's going on over here - - Someone in the police force?---Not necessarily. It could be anyone. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3793

C61/3 POLICE MR HALL: Why would Rick Lewis need to contact you as a source of unsourced rumour? That's not what he's looking for from you. He's looking for confirmation, isn't he?---He'd be looking for me, because he knows I've got friends over here and friends in other places. If I want to - - if it had something to do with Brisbane, he would have asked me to ring up someone in Brisbane. It would have been the same scenario, and I would have rung someone up there. I wouldn't have asked anyone to go to any computer records, pull out any files, or do anything like that. People hear what's going on in their own state better than I do in Melbourne, or he does. But the sort of friends that you have in mind are friends who are in the police service?---Not necessarily. It could be ex-members. But that's the impression you were certainly trying to give Rick Lewis, wasn't it? That's why you mentioned "this guy who was in the job, in the Druggies"?---(No audible response) That's the impression that you were giving him; that you had good sources, wasn't it?---Yeah, but I don't say I'm going to go and get computer records or do anything official. I just say I can make a contact and find out. If it was operational information, it doesn't matter whether it's from a computer or not. It would be quite wrong for a police officer - -?---You could find it down the local fucking pub if you wanted to. Someone would have it and talking about it. I'd ask someone down there too. Rick Lewis could go to the pub himself, couldn't he?---But not in Western Australia. You were purporting to give him an opportunity to find out from a reliable source through you?---That's what he wanted. Yes. So who was your reliable source?---I - - I don't know. I can't recall what I did, but as I say I still could ring up and ask anyone what they've heard over here about it, or what's going on about it. That's what I would have done. I would have never asked anyone, nor have I ever asked anyone, to go and release any confidential documents, information that is, you know - - to a current operation or anything like that. This was in the paper in Melbourne at the time. And so all of this about you speaking to someone in the druggies is just rubbish?---Just rubbish. When you said you could find out the name of the other bloke, all you ever intended to do was ring up a friend here and find out what rumour was circulating?---Or if they knew the name of the person. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3794

C61/3 POLICE MR HALL: And you don't now remember what friend it was you rang?---I can't remember, no. Could it have been Gavin Farrell?---Yes, it could have been. Can we play D1014718 please, which is a call on the - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3795

C62/4 POLICE MR HALL: - - - call on the 13th of March, the same day, an hour and a half later at 10.33. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HALL: So it looks like it was Gavin Farrell that called? ---Mm. And there had been a picture in the paper but no names, I think, at that stage. At least in Melbourne?---I can't remember. No. You hadn't seen the paper?---Yeah, I had. You had?---Yeah. But nonetheless you needed to confirm who it was?---Yeah. Who the other person was. Did you pass that information back to Rick Lewis?---Yeah, I presume I would've. I can't recall doing it but - - All right. Yes, can I then take you to D1014719? This is a call made to Gavin Farrell on the 28th of March at 7.45 pm. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3796

C63/2 POLICE MR HALL: All right. We don't need to hear the rest of that call, but that's you speaking to Gavin Farrell?---Yeah. And you're referring to the al-Qaida man, and you say the September 11th man, so you've just been watching television, and on the "7.30 Report", you'd seen someone, and I would suggest to you it's not Osama Bin Laden who you were describing as the al-Qaida man. Who is it?---In that context, I'm referring to John Kizon. Right. And you go on to say he's the September 11th man, and then there's reference to the Royal Commission. He'd been on the "7.30 Report", you remember that?---Yes. So, seeing that, does that now remind you that those earlier calls that I referred you to were these discussions between you and Nugent and you and Farrell and you and the person who rings up on the 18th of January, must all relate to John Kizon?---No, I don't say that. No. So, there are different people you might refer to as the September 11th man, are there?---Yes. How would anyone know who you were talking about?---Well, it's the same as people talk to me about things, and half the time I don't know what they're talking about either. I just listen and talk, "Yeah, mate. Yeah, sweet. No worries, mate. See you, yeah" and that's it. Right. Who else do you refer to as the September 11th man?---A number of people that were there on the day of the funeral, at the wake. There was another time I refer to a bloke, there was a little bit of an incident at the hotel, a bit of a scuffle. Right, and you've referred to him as the September 11th man, have you?---I have, that September 11 incident, the man. Anyone else?---Oh, anything that was relevant to that time, I'd refer to that. It must get very confusing?---Yeah, it does. Do you think those earlier calls were a reference to the man who got in the scuffle, at the Raffles?---I can't say. I - - I can't even recall having those phone calls. Seeing that again doesn't remind you that there was some deal that you were brokering between Mick Gatto and John Kizon in January?---I've never brokered any deal between - - I know that for a fact. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3797

C63/2 POLICE MR HALL: All right. Can I then ask that you hear D1014722? This will be the last call, Commissioner. WITNESS: Mr Hall, could I just talk to my counsel for 5 seconds? There's no relevance to what's happening here, I can - - MR HALL: Yes?---Just that - - I can do it here. If I can leave the witness-box, sir? COMMISSIONER: Yes. Certainly?---Thank you. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3798

C64/1 POLICE MR HALL: We don't need to listen to the rest of that. Another reference to Mr Kizon as "the September 11th bloke"?---In that context I can say that's him because of that - - Yes?--- - - other part of that. Because it's a reference to him falling out with "the Marty bloke"?---Yes. "With the Craig bloke"?---Yep. All right. And Gavin Farrell goes on to talk about, "Remember that JD fellow?" and you say, "Right. Yeah. Yeah. I'm with you." You remember on a previous occasion you'd referred to John Dowch?---Yeah. Going back on what I saw before. Yes. So that's a reference to John Dowch, isn't it, clearly - "that JD fellow"?---Dowch, is it? Yeah. Yeah. But you knew who he was talking about?---Yeah. Because of the context of what it was put with the other bloke's name. Right. Why was there any need to use initials - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3799

C65/4 POLICE MR HALL: - - - to use initials?---I don't know. That's just the way he was talking. Right, but at one stage he appears to slip and says "Dowch" and then says, "Remember that JD fellow"? It's at the bottom of the transcript, page 4?---I don't know what page I'm on here. It's got no number on it. Well, that's 4 that's in front of you there. It says "No ...(inaudible)... Remember that JD fellow?" and Gavin Farrell there says, "No. Dowch". You can hear it on the tape. Then it says, "Remember that JD fellow?" So he reverts from using the name to the initials. Was there some secrecy about this? Some need not to refer to people by name?---It's just the way he talks. I talk the same. Yeah. Why?---It's just habit. That's how you do it. Why?---That's the way you talk. No reason. Is it easier to say "that bloke from September 11th" than "Kizon"?---That's just the way I talk all the time on the phone. Is it because you don't want people to know what you're saying?---No. If I didn't want people to know what I was saying I wouldn't talk on the phone because I'd know people would be listening to it, but I was just talking like that because that's how I talk. But if you've got to use the phone, one way of avoiding anyone knowing what you're saying is to use codes?---But that's just the way - - I talk like that in person when I'm with people. In the course of your work as a police officer have you overheard drug dealers talking?---I've interviewed them. Listened to tape recordings and telephone intercept material? ---No, I haven't. No. You've never heard them using code names?---I've spoken to people from all walks of life and, as I say, I don't have any trouble walking into a hotel, standing there and talking to people, whatever their work is or whatever their background was or is or whatever. I talk like that to everyone. Is there any reason why you couldn't have used John Kizon's name?---Like I said, it's just how I talk. So there's no reason why you couldn't use his name?---No reason. .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3800

C65/4 POLICE MR HALL: And there's no reason why you couldn't use John Dowch's name?---No. I - - I didn't use his name. No, but there's no reason why you couldn't have said, "Do you mean John Dowch"?---I'd sound like a bit of an idiot, wouldn't I? I just said, "Yeah, mate, no worries." I've just gone along with the flow of the conversation. That's how I talk. And you go along with the flow even on those occasions when you don't know what the other person is talking about? ---Look, I go along with the flow in those conversations when I've been out drinking all day and night and I just still sit there and just carry on a conversation like I do. As I say, I talk like that when I'm in person with people. That's how I talk. All right. Just one last thing. You were aware from discussions that you had with Gavin Farrell that this Royal Commission was going to be investigating the matter involving the alleged theft and attempted sale of some morphine tablets, weren't you? You were aware of that general topic?---I think - - I can't remember where I heard it from but I did - - I might have read about it. I can't remember. All right. It was one of those calls that I didn't continue playing to you, but there was some discussion between you and Gavin Farrell about this Royal Commission and what we would be looking at. Do you remember that?---He might've told me what he was doing or whatever. I can't - - Can you remember ever being asked about the undercover operative, Sue Lowe? Do you remember the name?---I can't recall specifically being asked about it. It doesn't mean anything to me as I sit here now. You have police contacts in Queensland, don't you?---Yes. Ever been asked whether you could try and find out who that undercover operative was?---I can't recall being asked, no. You would be aware as a police - - an ex - - former police officer that trying to find out who an undercover operative was is not something that you would expect properly a police officer from another state to need to do. Why would you need to do that?---Well, it could be part of a defence thing, I don't know. I'd have to ask someone who asked me, if they did. I can't recall being asked, I can't recall - - the name doesn't mean anything to me as I sit here. But there's no legitimate policing reason why you would need to find out the name of an undercover operative, is there? ---From someone else to - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3801

C65/4 POLICE MR HALL: Yes?---No, as I say, unless it's part of a court case or a defence, I don't know. But in operational terms though the general procedure is that those officers remain anonymous, don't they?---Yes, I think so. Yes. And if you were asked to find out - - - .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3802

C66/3 POLICE MR HALL: - - - to find out who an undercover operative was from another state, would you feel comfortable about doing that?---Depends on the circumstances. If it was by someone who was no longer in the police force, would you feel comfortable about doing that?---It would depend what it was about as well. Do you recall ever being asked whether you could find out who Sue Lowe was?---I can't recall being asked, no. That's all the questions I have for Mr Waters. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: I have referred to a number of transcripts and also some newspaper articles. I have a list of those documents which I could hand to you rather than reading out all of the numbers, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Which is the transcript on which the names of the footballers appear? MR HALL: Oh, yes. The first of them is D1014717 and the second one is D1014718. I'd ask that the names of those two men be suppressed. COMMISSIONER: I direct that in relation to those two transcripts the names of the two footballers should be suppressed, not be published. Mr Crispe, are there any questions you have? MR CRISPE: Thank you, sir. No, I haven't got any questions. Is that the end for this witness? I think he was booked to - - NO CROSS-EXAMINATION COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you, you're excused from further attendance under the summons?---Thank you, Mr Kennedy. Thank you?---Thank you. WITNESS WITHDREW MR HALL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER: We'll adjourn now until quarter to ten tomorrow morning. AT 4.47 PM HEARING ADJOURNED UNTIL 9.45 AM THURSDAY, 24TH OCTOBER 2002 .23/10/2002 WATERS, D.J. XN 3803