brothel gate day 7 am

8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM

1/93

MR DEVRIES: The matter's still proceeding, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thanks, Mr Devries.


2/93

going to have to happen. If we debate that now we'll

lose time like we have every other time.

MR DEVRIES: I'll be out of the jurisdiction for part of next

week, Your Honour. It's unavoidable.

HIS HONOUR: I'll be sitting. I'm sorry, Mr Devries, but this

case will sit until we finish it.

MR DEVRIES: If Your Honour pleases.

HIS HONOUR: But hopefully we can finish it this week whatever

we do and if necessary, well, I'll extend out further. I

see no reason why we can't if we stop debating these

minor issues and focus on the major ones.



3/93

my learned friend and his instructor may need to discuss

some of the contents with their client to get

instructions, and by all means but I ask that no copies

of these documents be left no capacity for copies of

these this document be left with the plaintiff to take

a copy or obtain possession of a copy outside the court.

I think that's a fair request, Mr Devries.

MR DEVRIES: I only wanted it for the purposes of examination

sorry, cross-examination of Mr Johnson. I may need a

photocopy until I've finished my final address.

HIS HONOUR: For your purposes?

MR DEVRIES: For my purposes and also my instructor's purposes.

I'm happy to give an undertaking to Your Honour that I

will not show any part of the document to anyone other

than my instructors and perhaps my learned friend,

although I can't see myself showing it to my learned

friend. I'm also happy to give an undertaking that when

I've finished my sorry, after Your Honour's handed down

your decision in this matter that whatever copies my

instructor and I have taken will be either returned to

Mr Johnson or destroyed.

HIS HONOUR: Thanks, Mr Devries.

MS SOFRONIOU: If it's any comfort, Your Honour, I don't need

to see them.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Ms Sofroniou. (To witness) Now, you've

been asked to produce the document?---Your Honour, yes.

May I also say that Your Honour gave Mr Devries

considerable latitude in cross-examination last night.

Going into areas which I myself had doubts as to

relevance. I did not get an opportunity to give

evidence-in-chief specifically on this tax return, so I'm

.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy

238

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


4/93

just asking for and and I fully expect that Your Honour

will allow me a similar latitude in re-examination - - -

HIS HONOUR: I won't allow you latitude but you'll be entitled

to address any matters that are raised in

cross-examination. If you need to clarify them in

re-examination you'll be able to do so and Mr Devries?

---Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I have no concern with

Ms Sofroniou having a copy of the tax return either.

At the moment she hasn't asked to do so.

MS SOFRONIOU: I don't need them.

WITNESS: Thank you. May I tender?

HIS HONOUR: At the moment all that is required is if you could

provide a copy to Mr Devries for him to look at?---I said

I'd tender it as an exhibit in evidence, Your Honour.

That was what I said during evidence-in-chief.

I think that's right actually. He did. Yes, before he

completed his evidence-in-chief my recollection or it

might've been while he was under cross-examination he

offered to tender it?---It was before the lunch break,

Your Honour, and I agreed to locate a copy and produce it

after lunch.

MR DEVRIES: I'm just calling upon him to do that, Your Honour.

I agree with that, Your Honour, and that's my

recollection as well. (To witness) Do you have multiple

copies of that exhibit?---I do, Mr Devries, including a

copy for Ms Sofroniou if she would like to - - -

HIS HONOUR: Thanks, Mr Richards.

#EXHIBIT 45 - Individual tax return of the defendant,Harold James Johnson, for the financialyear ending 30/06/08.

WITNESS: Forgive me, Your Honour, I don't recognise the

exhibit numbering. I thought it would be Exhibit K.


239

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2728293031

32

33

12


5/93


6/93

you produce it to Mr Devries?---Your Honour, do those

rules apply to witnesses generally or defendants under

cross-examination or to me as a special case as an

officer of the court of 18 years plus good standing.

Mr Johnson, you have complied with the request made of you by

Mr Devries to produce your licences, you have brought

them to court, you say you have them in your possession,

it applies to any witness, would you produce that now to

Mr Devries?---Thank you, Your Honour.

I regard your conduct this morning again as being a repetition

of yesterday's and you do yourself no credit in my eyes?

---Your Honour, I just wish to understand - - -

Would you produce it please?---I wish to understand if I was

under a lawful obligation and if so what was the basis.

Would you just produce it please?---As defence counsel I

question the relevance. I have several documents out of

my pocket.

You have been asked to produce, as I understand it,

your - - - ?---I would like to raise - - -

- - - motorcycle licence and your motor vehicle licence.

MR DEVRIES: Yes, I had specifically asked for the motorcycle,

but I was then going to move on to the driving licence

but if he's got both if he can produce that as well?---I

don't have the driver's licence but I will hunt this

evening.

Did you hunt for it yesterday evening?---I did, I actually

looked this morning but it wasn't immediately to hand.

HIS HONOUR: Do you not carry it on you?---I carry the learners

permit with me, Your Honour, and the number is the same.

The photo is closer to how I look today than when I did

back in - - -


241

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


7/93

How do you get to Geelong?---There are various means including

a train service.

Do you drive?---On occasions, sir.

Do you carry your licence with you when you do that?---Not

always, Your Honour.

Mr Richards, could you hand that licence to Mr Devries?---May I

hand all four of these please. I would ask they go in as

exhibits, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: I don't know why I have been handed three

extraneous documents Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: What document answers the call?

MR DEVRIES: The learners permit.

HIS HONOUR: The other three documents can be handed back, the

extraneous ones are extraneous to the call.

MR DEVRIES: I am quite happy to hand back the learners permit

Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Now, you wish the learners permit to be

tendered do you Mr Johnson?---I wish all four of these to

be tendered, Your Honour.

What are the other documents?---The one is a Medicare card

which is ancient which lists all of the residences - - -

No, you haven't been asked to produce that but so far as the

document answers the call and it's been inspected by

counsel, that can be tendered. I will receive your

learners permit as Exhibit 46?---Thank you, Your Honour.

May I just say that the document Mr Devries - - -

Just a moment.

#EXHIBIT K - Learners permit no.032685419 of thedefendant.

Thank you, Mr Devries.

MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, if I can put you fairly and squarely


242

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27282930

31

32

12


8/93

on notice that I will be submitting to His Honour when I

get to my address that your failure to produce your

drivers licence should be inferred by His Honour as

meaning that the document does not assist you with

respect to your evidence concerning your addresses. I

will be submitting to His Honour that you are trying to

hide that document from the court; do you understand?

---My answer is that that is totally incorrect. I hope

to bring it with me to court tomorrow morning Your

Honour.

I am putting you on notice, I am not asking you to comment.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Devries is simply putting you on notice of a

submission he will make in final address under the rule

of Jones v. Dunkel?---I have said twice this morning I

hope to bring that drivers licence to court tomorrow

morning Your Honour.

Right?---I will hunt several places tonight to find it Your

Honour.

MR DEVRIES: While we are on issues of Jones v. Dunkel,

Mr Johnson, I understand that you don't intend to call

any of you ex-employees to court, is that correct?---My

understanding is that the plaintiff has to prove their

case - - -

Is that correct?---I don't need to disprove her case.

Is that correct or incorrect?---That is correct, Mr Devries.

So you want be calling the office lady that you had who could

have given evidence to His Honour about you using the

Bourke Street premises as your residence?---I repeat I

don't have to disprove the plaintiff's case, the

plaintiff has to prove her case.

HIS HONOUR: Will you be calling that lady?---No, Your Honour.


243

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


9/93

What is her name?---Kathleen Doogan.

Is she in Melbourne?---I have not had contact with her since

she ceased my employment in June or July 2007.

Thank you.

MR DEVRIES: But as part of your employment records you would

have records of her address, her phone number and other

means of contacting her if you so wished, wouldnt you?

---Yes.

Be aware, Mr Johnson, that in the spirit of Jones v. Dunkel,

I'll be asking His Honour to draw the appropriate

inferences from you not calling her?---I shall read that

case this evening, Mr Devries. May I have the citation,

if you have one handy?

HIS HONOUR: It's in the Commonwealth Law Reports. The

principle which it adopts is this. If a party fails to

call a witness or adduce a witness who that party might

be expected to do to support that party's case, then the

court may infer that that witness, or that evidence,

would not have been of assistance to that party. The

court is not entitled to speculate what that missing

witness might have said, it can simply draw an inference

that that witness would not have been of

assistance?---I'm indebted for the explanation, Your

Honour. Thank you.

MR DEVRIES: You said to His Honour during your evidence that,

your ex-girlfriend, Stella, is still a good friend of

yours. Is that correct?---I spoke with - - -

Is that the - - -?---Yes, I spoke with her yesterday.

Is that the evidence that you - Mr Johnson, do you have a

difficult this morning in understanding my

questions?---No greater difficulty than the day before,


244

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


10/93

Mr Devries.

Can you tell His Honour why you are choosing not to answer my

very specific questions which very specific answers

directed to those questions?---I believe I answered your

question, yes, I am still good friends with Stella and

added the detail that I spoke with her yesterday. It was

actually the evening before - - -

Did I ask you any questions about when you last spoke to

her?---(No audible response.)

Did I?---If I've done it wrong, I apologise, Your Honour and

Mr Devries.

Mr Johnson, I'm hoping to get this cross-examination through

fairly quickly and I request you, earnestly request you

just to answer the questions I'm asking you. You're not

calling Stella to give evidence, are you?---No,

Mr Devries.

And she could give evidence about where you lived during such

relationship as you had with her, couldn't she?---Yes.

And she could give evidence as to the nature of your

relationship; when it started, when it ended, couldn't

she?---Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Is Stella in Victoria?---Yes.

MR DEVRIES: And she's still in Melbourne, in fact, isn't

she?---Yes.

And as you've just volunteered to His Honour a little while

ago, you're still in contact with her, aren't you?---Yes.

Is there any reason why you can't - couldn't call her if you so

chose?---If we had a trial duration of three to four

weeks, that would certainly be a possibility, but again,

I question the relevance of that witness' evidence.

Would you like to answer the question that I asked you?---I


245

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


11/93


12/93

question again the relevance. What relevance to

Ms Cressy's assertion - - -

Just answer - - -?--- - - - of a domestic relationship between

Ms Cressy and I and what relevance do Ms Cressy's

assertions that she contributed financially to my

livinglihood (sic) or to my property portfolio. I see no

relevance, Your Honour.

Are you objecting to my question - - -

HIS HONOUR: The defendant has in fact given an answer in an

implied way. He is not calling her because he does not

consider her relevant to his case.

MR DEVRIES: If Your Honour pleases?---And we are under a - a

false estimate of a two day trial, Your Honour. I'm very

conscious of that and I said at the outset, I cut my list

of witnesses down from about 30 - - -

HIS HONOUR: Mr Johnson, you have shown no consciousness of the

time constraints this court is under at all.

MR DEVRIES: If Your Honour would just bear with me, I'm trying

to locate a document. Sorry, Your Honour. I advised

Your Honour that I would produce the affidavit, or one of

the affidavit wherein Mr Johnson made the serious

allegations against Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer, including

the allegation of corruption and I intend to produce

that, one of those documents now, Your Honour. (To

witness) Mr Johnson, can you have a look at this

document?

HIS HONOUR: What issue does this go to?

MR DEVRIES: I'm sorry?

HIS HONOUR: What issue does this go to?

MR DEVRIES: Well, Your Honour, Mr Johnson in his evidence said

that he had a high regard for Federal Magistrate O'Dwyer;


247

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


13/93

I put some questions to him and, as I understood it, the

situation was that I was going to produce the document

where Mr Johnson had made those allegations. It goes,

apart from anything else, to the credit of his evidence,

Your Honour.

WITNESS: Your Honour, I believe this is of low relevance, but

I'm happy for that affidavit, plus all of the supporting

exhibits, to come into Your Honour's body of evidence

provided I'm given the same latitude in re-examination

and submissions, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: I don't intend to produce the exhibit, Your

Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I'm not prepared to accept the affidavit. You can

ask a question in relation to it, and if you get the

right answer it's on an issue of credit, and that's it.


HIS HONOUR: You can put the document - - -

MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, did you file an affidavit in the

Federal Magistrates' Court on 20 August this year, being

an affidavit of two pages with a large number of

exhibits?---May I have a quick look at the document, that

application?

HIS HONOUR: You're asking the witness about a document, he's

entitled to look at it.

MR DEVRIES: I've got a spare document. I have a spare copy

for Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I don't want to look at it. If you wish to ask

Mr Johnson if he said a particular thing in the

affidavit, put it to him. If it's in black and white no

doubt he will accept that he said a particular thing and

we can move on.


248

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


14/93

MR DEVRIES: Yes. (To witness) Is that your signature at the

bottom of p.2?---Yes.

And that's an affidavit that you filed in the Federal

Magistrates' Court on 20 August 2008?---Yes.

And the affidavit was sworn on the same day?---Yes.

And Subparagraph (2)(h) refers to, quote, "The improper,

unlawful, prejudiced, biased and corrupt conduct of

Mr Justice[sic] O'Dwyer in these Federal Magistrates'

Court proceedings", does it not?---Yes.

HIS HONOUR: You may put the affidavit down?---I'm sorry, Your

Honour?

You may put it down. You're finished with the affidavit?

---Yes, I wish to deal with this in re-examination and on

that basis I would ask that the affidavit, plus the

exhibits it's basically - - -

At the moment I won't proceed it's purely on an issue of

credit; you've accepted you've said something and it

simply goes to an issue of credit. I do not accept

collateral evidence on issues such as that, particularly

in a case where we ought to be focusing on the main

issues.

MR DEVRIES: If Your Honour pleases. Thank you, Your Honour.

(To witness) Now, Mr Johnson, you said to this court at

the very beginning that you would not become bankrupt for

at least seven days, is that correct?---I made the

statement, which could be interpreted as an undertaking

from the Bar, that I would not file a bankruptcy petition

voluntarily before today, I think, I may have said

Wednesday.

Is it your intention to file for bankruptcy, Mr Johnson?

---Mr Devries, I am doing everything possible to avoid


249

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


15/93

taking that step, and I have avoid done everything

possible to avoid that step for the past year or more.

Is it true that you said, by way of an affidavit filed in this

court sworn on 11 July, that you had filed for

bankruptcy?---No, that's not true, Mr Devries.

You exhibited this document, didn't you?---Once again, we're

exhibiting one document out of a whole section of

material - - -

Did you, or did you not, exhibit that one page which you said

was your filing for bankruptcy in your affidavit?---No, I

believe I said in the words in the affidavit, I was very

careful on this, bit of Lewis Carroll creeping in there,

I was very careful on this; I said, "attached is a

debtors petition."

Signed by you, you said, didn't you, in your affidavit?---Yes,

but I have also said in several of the Practice Court

trials, I did not go on and file that debtors petition.

Why did you exhibit that document if you did not want the court

to believe that you had filed for voluntary bankruptcy,

Mr Johnson?---I gave viva voce evidence several times in

the Practice Court that I had not filed that document, it

was my intention to do so. I had had enough and the

prospect of looking at a three to four week trial, two to

three years from now, having this hanging over me all

that time; it was too much. I was thinking I will just

put the properties to a bankruptcy trustee and/or their

first registered mortgagees and let them deal with it. I

would take the pain of being an undischarged bankrupt for

three years, not fully knowing what that meant, and

having the permanent mar of being a discharged bankrupt

on my record thereafter. I had organised with an


250

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


16/93

insolvency practitioner to be my bankruptcy trustee. I

prepared this document when I called to make an

appointment with my bankruptcy trustee - - -

You have more than answered my question, Mr Johnson.

HIS HONOUR: Well, no, you asked a pretty wide question.

MR DEVRIES: I'm sorry, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: He's explaining the circumstances in which that

document came into existence, if it's got any relevance

in this proceeding.

WITNESS: I think it would assist if I continue the story now,

rather than re-examination. When I rang the insolvency

trustee who was aware of my financials I got the

impression - - -

MR DEVRIES: This is hearsay now, Your Honour.

WITNESS: - - - (indistinct) of the telephone conversation.

HIS HONOUR: Well, it might not be because it goes to his state

of mind.

WITNESS: That my financial position was so grim see, the

problem was I had no funds to engage legal counsel to

represent, as is obvious, whereas the bankruptcy trustee,

having first claim on the assets, could use the assets to

engage legal representation. The impression I got,

looking at my own financials and from my conversation

with the insolvency practitioner, the manager within that

accounting firm, was that they were so worried that my

assets were so diminished, even in gross value, that they

being personally liable for their legal fees, they may

not recover sufficient - - -

HIS HONOUR: So what did they do?---They basically gave me the

brush off.

All right?---And that opened an opportunity, I thought things


251

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


17/93

through again and I thought well, look things are so

grim, what have I got to lose by continuing with the

proceedings on my own, although I did continue even up

until October this year seeking to get independent legal

representation, including meeting with the President of

the Law Institute and I got some advice, commercial not -

- -

You have gone beyond the relevant period now in relation to

what is the question you have been asked with the exhibit

of that document.

MR DEVRIES: There is a relevance to the question, Your Honour.

Mr Johnson, I put it to you that firstly you intended the

readers of that affidavit, including this honourable

court and my instructors and my client to believe that

you had filed for bankruptcy, is that true or untrue?

---That's untrue.

I put it to you Mr Johnson that it is your intention should

these proceedings go against you to file for bankruptcy

in order to frustrate my client's outcome in this

proceeding should she get a positive outcome?---That is

not true. May I explain or should I save the explanation

for re-examination?

HIS HONOUR: If you have denied the allegation it is

sufficient?---Thank you, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: You gave evidence regarding Gibson Court - I think

it's Gibson Court, Gibson Street, page 579 of the

transcript. You were seeking to have the caveat lifted

from Gibson Street, at least to buy you some breathing

space so you could continue your generous financial

support, et cetera. Do you recall giving that evidence?

---Yes.


252

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


18/93

On page 581, Your Honour, line 30: "My objective was to have

the caveat withdrawn from - " - it says "Dixon Street"

but it obviously means Gibson Street, "so that I could do

a refinancing to keep the sinking ship afloat." Do you

recall giving that evidence?---Yes.

You requested the caveat to be lifted, you requested my

client's previous solicitors to have their caveat

lifted?---Yes.

But your request didn't say that you wanted to refinance, what

it said was that was to enable a sale of the property to

proceed, didn't it?---No.

HIS HONOUR: If you have got a written document you had better

show him the document?---It's Exhibit 15 Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: And Exhibit A as well, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Exhibit A is sufficient. Could the witness

be shown Exhibit A please?---I have Exhibit A here Your

Honour.

Do you have a copy of that there?---I have it right here, Your

Honour.

Thank you. That's your faxed letter to Mr Hanlon of

29 October?---Yes, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: That's the letter of 29 October 2007 I believe

Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR DEVRIES: Have you got a copy in front of you Mr Johnson?

---I do Mr Devries, yes, excuse me.

Does it say about two thirds of the way down in bold letters:

"Gibson Street is under contract and is past due.

Settlement will proceed within three business days of

withdrawal of caveat by your client. Settlement must

occur on or before 7 November 2007 or I will suffer


253

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


19/93

further and substantial ongoing losses and damages." Are

those your words?

HIS HONOUR: They are obviously on the letter?---Yes, and - - -

The important question is were they true?---And yes they are

true, and this letter has to be read in conjunction with

the other four pages of attachments and the other four or

so letters that I sent to Mr Hanlon at Harwood Andrews

around that date.

MR DEVRIES: The other four - - -

HIS HONOUR: Just a moment. At that time was there in

existence a contract that you had entered into to sell

Gibson Street?---No, and I never asserted that there was

a contract in the nature of a contract of sale, Your

Honour.

MR DEVRIES: What were the four documents that were attached to

that letter? The four pages of documents.

HIS HONOUR: It's Exhibit 15?---Exhibit 15 Your Honour.

Perhaps if Exhibit 15 could be shown to the witness?---I have a

copy Your Honour.

Could I have a look at them please Mr Richards.

MR DEVRIES: Could I have a look at the copy, the witness has

got it, he says he has got another copy, if I could have

a look at his - - -

HIS HONOUR: Do you have a spare?---I have a spare copy Your

Honour.

Thank you, could you show that to Mr Devries.

MR DEVRIES: Thank you, Your Honour. What you have given me is

page 2 of a document, page 1 presumably is the front page

of a sale note for the sale of the Gibson Street

property, is that correct?---Sorry, can I have a look at

the page.


254

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


20/93


21/93

the Practice Court trials on two occasions.

If you don't agree Mr Johnson - - - ?---Should I do that in re-

examination or should I do it now?

If you don't agree Mr Johnson say you don't?

HIS HONOUR: You can answer the question rather shortly.

Firstly, you gave evidence that ultimately you settled

the purchase of Gibson Street by yourself in June 2006,

is that right?---Yes, Your Honour.

By October 2007 that contract had been well and truly settled,

hadn't it?---Yes, Your Honour.

What contract are you referring to there? "Gibson Street is

under contract, it is past due. Settlement will proceed

within three business days." What contract was that?

---The contract I was referred to were the loan and

mortgage contracts. Perhaps I should have said contracts

plural, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: "It is under contract and is past due." That

clearly was intended to tell Mr Hanlon and any other

reader of that letter that it was under contract of sale,

Mr Johnson?---I disagree and I would love to explain, I

disagree totally.

That can be handed back to Mr Johnson. Mr Johnson, on

21 January 2008 you wrote letters both to Challenger

Mortgage Management and Royal Guardian Mortgage; is that

correct?---Yes.

I believe, Your Honour, that one of those letters to be an

exhibit.

HIS HONOUR: It was around about 38 or somewhere around there.

MR DEVRIES: I think it might be 35, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR DEVRIES: What you say there, Mr Johnson, in the penultimate


256

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


22/93

paragraph is: "While I have funds available to meet

outstanding mortgages, I have been advised that the

prudent course of action is to conserve my cash and allow

the mortgage payments to capsize if the mortgagee will

agree to this. The reason is that this makes better use

of the sale proceeds so that there are smaller net sale

proceeds from each sale which will remain subject to the

caveat claim." Are those your words?---Yes, and they're

100 per cent accurate, Mr Devries.

You wrote in similar terms to Royal Guardian Mortgage Company

in respect to two other loan accounts, is that correct?

---Yes, I did, one of those letters is one of my

exhibits.

We've identified one as Exhibit 35. I will show you a copy of

the other one to Royal Guardian?---And if Your Honour

pleases I am happy for this to be made an exhibit as

well, if that would assist Your Honour. It can be my

document or the plaintiff's.

HIS HONOUR: Just a moment Mr Johnson. This is not your court,

I am conducting this court. Just have a look at the

document?---Thank you, sir. It's the first page of a 17

page fax, Your Honour, again I am concerned about 16, 17

of the document not being shown to me.

MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, that is a letter from you to Royal

Guardian Mortgage Corporation, isn't it?---Yes,

Mr Devries.

That is your signature at the bottom?---Yes, it is Mr Devries.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you?---Your Honour, I ask that the remaining

16 pages of document be tendered also.

You may do so in re-examination?---Thank you, Your Honour. If

I remember to I shall.


257

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


23/93

#EXHIBIT L - Letter by defendant to Royal GuardianMortgage Corporation, dated 21/01/08.

MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, by those actions - I'm sorry. By

those two letters you clearly were taking action, I

submit to you, to frustrate any claim that my client

might succeed sorry, any judgment my client might

succeed in obtaining from this honourable court?---I

totally disagree. And may I explain in just one sentence

why I disagree?

I'll move on.

HIS HONOUR: You may - - - ?---Explain it in re-examination.

In re-examination?---Certainly, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: Well, perhaps so that I'm not taken by surprise,

what is your one sentence explanation?---I was unable to

pay the mortgage payments, I had a little pool of moneys

over from the Gibson Street refinancing, which was in my

Commonwealth Bank. Mr Devries has seen copies of those

bank statements of mine which show how that money

disappeared. It wasn't a lot of money, it would have

been barely enough to catch up all the mortgage arrears

as of that date in January, barely enough. So in that

Bill Clinton type example, "Yes, I did try marihuana, but

I did not inhale", it was technically correct; I did not

want to give any suggestion to any of my mortgagees thatI was unable to pay my debts as and when they fell due,

but I had for six months been relying upon borrowed

moneys to meet those obligations, including significant

sums of moneys borrowed from family and friends to keep

the mortgages up to date more or less as of November

2007. What I was seeking to do was liquidate my assets

so that - - -


258

123

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2526

27

28

29

30

31

32

12


24/93

You've gone beyond the one sentence?--- - - - the pool of

assets would maintain their value and not be diminished

by further interest only mortgage payments that I could

not fund. And with hindsight, and even with foresight,

that was an intelligent thing to do. If the plaintiff

had had any interest legitimate interest in my pool of

assets there should have been some negotiation about

quitting those properties at their best price rather than

having the mortgage payments continue to chew them up.

At that point my net equity across my properties as a

group was about 500, 600,000.

HIS HONOUR: Which point is that?---21 January 2008, when I had

the contracts for Altona which I needed to discuss with

Mr Hanlon on behalf of Miss Cressy because I had never

charged her caveat over that property; I never did an 81A

application and I had the two contracts for the Point

Cook properties which was the roof over my own head that

I was saying. As has transpired because I was frustrated

in my attempt to maintain the cash value of that pool of

assets in dispute, it's gone down from about 600,000 to

based on the information that Mr Devries led on Tuesday

or Wednesday of last week, maybe 70,000, Your Honour, and

that's in the space of less than 12 months.

So you calculate your remaining equity in the properties

as - - - ?---I count the hills, and there's two hills;

there's Altona, which back in January 21, 2008, would be

about quarter of a million. That's dropped to about

70,000.

Yes?---And the other little hill is my current address of

record, 10 Hawkhurst Court, Hoppers Crossing. The legal

fee in there is about maybe 30,000.


259

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


25/93

Well that makes 100,000?---Does it?

Seventy and 30 - - - ?---No, no, I'm sorry, it's 50 50 and

30.

Fifty and 30?---Forty-eight 48, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: You had said 100,000 earlier on in these

proceedings, Mr Johnson, so what's changed over the space

of the last two or three days?---If I could clean up

according to what the agent told me, and my reason for

booting my tenant out of Hawkhurst Court was twofold; (1)

I could make it available by negotiation for Miss Cressy

and her children to move into. It's the least valuable

lowest mortgage of all my portfolio. And, secondly, by

cleaning up the mess from the last tenant my agent

advised me that I would get an increased value of maybe

20,000 from it. I've not had time to put that energy

into the house is in the same horrible site state it

was when I moved in. If there's diminution in value of

my pool of assets in dispute the hills, Your Honour

sorry, global value maybe 600,000 as of 21 January 2008,

and I could have liquidated that and that money could

have been - - -

HIS HONOUR: All these are based on guesstimates as to values.

You don't produce any valuation - - - ?---I have binding

unconditional sale contracts in exhibits, Your Honour,

for Dorrington Street, Inverloch Drive and Queen Street.

Yes, but you don't have current valuations?---I have the

hearsay from the Herald Sun - - -

Yes, well that's hearsay?---Yes.

Anyway, I think that's let's get back to the point.

MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, when did you - - - ?---Sorry, I was

explaining the hills, I can tell you what hills - - -


260

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


26/93

Mr Johnson, - - -

HIS HONOUR: I think you've done enough explanation now - - - ?

---I'll need to come back to the valleys in re-

examination, Your Honour.

Mr Devries?

MR DEVRIES: I should never have asked him to elaborate on one

sentence. (To witness) You borrowed from the

Commonwealth Bank to purchase 7A Endeavour Drive,

Torquay, didn't you?---I did a global funding application

- - -

HIS HONOUR: The answer is yes, isn't it?---Yes, but it was

when - - -

Mr Johnson, you're now becoming evasive. In my view it is such

the short answer to that question was clearly yes.

MR DEVRIES: When did you make that application to the

Commonwealth Bank?---The application for Endeavour Drive

refinancing Gibson Street and the two Breezy Street,

Brunswick off the plan apartments, it was the four

properties - - -

HIS HONOUR: When did you make the application, was the

question?---That initially would have been maybe, I'm

guessing, about July or August 07.

MR DEVRIES: You gave them information in December 2007 as to

your financial situation, didn't you?---Yes, the initial

application got (indistinct) and I had to resubmit

material.

Yes, and was there much change between your financial position

in December 2007 and your position that you just

described in early 2008, 21 January 2008? You don't need

to write down every - - -

HIS HONOUR: And what is the answer to that question?---I may


261

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


27/93

need to I may not get the transcript in time for re-

examination, Mr Devries.

MR DEVRIES: Well, is there much change in the position?---The

answer is my position was extremely volatile and

deteriorating quickly.

You told the bank in December 2007 that the total value of what

you owned was $2.406m and the total value of what you

owed was $1.37m, leaving a surplus of $1.035m, didn't

you?---I believe you're referring to a historical

document so I'd like to know the date of that material.

Would you like to just answer my question, Mr Johnson?

HIS HONOUR: Well, firstly, what was the date of the document?

MR DEVRIES: It was it's got no date itself, but it has an

entry that suggests 22 January 2008, Your Honour?---Well,

that's after December 07, Your Honour.

Yes, but there are would you like to answer my question,

please, Mr Johnson.

HIS HONOUR: Just a moment, just a moment. It was a fair

request as to when was the document. You say this

document was produced in January 2008?

MR DEVRIES: Your Honour, there are two dates on the document,

two people were the authors of the document; one person

authorised - - -

HIS HONOUR: If it's that complicated you will need to show

Mr Johnson the document to find out when it came into

being. And, Mr Johnson, I do not wish to have a speech,

that is a very short question to which there ought to be

a prompt response?---Your Honour, defence counsel would

like a relevancy check. What relevance is what I - - -

Mr Johnson, this will go to the issue of your assets. I

overrule your objection. You will look at the document.


262

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


28/93

Firstly, Mr Devries, is that a document you say it's in

the defendant's hand or someone else's hand?

MR DEVRIES: It's a document that was produced by Mr Ioannou, I

believe, Your Honour.

WITNESS: Your Honour, this is a document I have never seen. I

think it's a bank internal document.

MR DEVRIES: But it's based on information you gave the

Commonwealth Bank, isn't it, Mr Johnson?---I would be

based on information of mine that had been given to the

Commonwealth Bank, probably not by me, Mr Devries.

HIS HONOUR: Do you say you didn't formulate that document?---I

had done so many refinance well, this is a Commonwealth

Bank document, Your Honour - - -

No, just answer the question?---Yes, Your Honour, this is a

Commonwealth Bank document - - -

That's not under your hand or anything like that?---Certainly

not, Your Honour.

No. I can't see it from here, so?---I'm sorry, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: I wasn't suggesting that it was - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well then you're cross-examining the witness from

a third party document.

MR DEVRIES: I am, Your Honour. (To witness) But you gave

that's information that was given to the Commonwealth

Bank on your behalf, isn't it? That's consistent with

what you knew the Commonwealth Bank to have been

informed?---Mr Ioannou, who organised my finances - - -

Can you just answer the question, please?--- - - - had a lot of

information. I don't know what information Mr Ioannou

gave to the Commonwealth Bank.

HIS HONOUR: Well, put it this way; is that document, and the

contents of it, consistent with the information that you


263

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


29/93

gave is that document consistent with the information

you gave to Mr Ioannou for the purposes of him

transmitting that information to the Commonwealth Bank

for the refinancing you were endeavouring to undertake?

Yes, or no?---I don't know, Your Honour. I don't recall

what information I gave to Mr Ioannou.

All right?---Or what he would have used out of his existing

information he held on me.

MR DEVRIES: Can you tell His Honour then why you photocopied

that document at Mr Ioannou's premises and included it

amongst the documents that you have tendered to this

court?---I can't recall specifically doing it,

Mr Devries, I copied a lot of documents.

Well, it's come from documents that you have photocopied that

you tendered to the court?---I'll accept your word,

Mr Devries, but I cannot otherwise take in any

recognition of the document; it was just in a bundle that

I happened to photocopy - - -

I put to you that Mr Ioannou is a confidant of yours in respect

to your financial affairs, isn't he?---He would know more

about, or as much about my property portfolio as I do,

Mr Devries, because he's financed all of them by now,

except for the remnant AMP one that was put - - -

And he was your agent in respect to all of the borrowings that

he organised for you from the Commonwealth Bank, AMP and

other lending institutions, is that correct?---No, not

AMP - - -

Well, the other lending institutions - - - ?---But all of my

existing mortgagees, apart from AMP, Mr Ioannou was the

mortgage broker (indistinct) - - -

And you were aware, I put to you, of what he was telling those


264

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


30/93

lending institutions about your financial affairs?---Not

totally, Mr Devries.

And I put to you again that the information that's in there is

consistent with what you wanted him to represent to the

bank on your behalf?---The information here will be

consistent with information Mr Ioannou had that I had

given him, but I don't know how many years ago. I think

that's a fair defence. Might I mention at this stage,

Your Honour, that - - -

HIS HONOUR: You've answered the question?---The plaintiff's

counsel has received a lot of documents under subpoena

which I've never had an opportunity to inspect. There

were Commonwealth Bank documents given to Mr Devries

under subpoena - - -

MR DEVRIES: This is the - - -

HIS HONOUR: This doesn't relate to the question. We will

stick to your evidence at the moment and then, hopefully,

one day we will finish?---I'm being cross-examined on

plaintiff's documents that I have not had an opportunity

by - - -

You are being cross-examined at the moment, you've answered the

question. Continue on.

MR DEVRIES: I will tender that document, Your Honour.

WITNESS: Can I question is that possible it's a third party

document?

HIS HONOUR: It seems to me by your last answer you have a

adopted the contents of it. You say that's consistent

with information you gave to Mr Ioannou to - - -?

---Maybe. Maybe in 2007 and in 2006. Maybe in 2005.

So you say that the information in that is consistent with

information you gave to Mr Ioannou, but not necessarily


265

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


31/93

as of January 2008. Is that what you're saying?---I I

think he may've just recycled the information as at the

funding for the Gibson Street - - -

I receive the document as reflecting what you've just stated in

your answer?---So it might be early 2006 information.

#EXHIBIT M - Document titled Commonwealth Bank; TheHome Loan Investment. Home LoanApplication 389007121393603.

MR DEVRIES: It has a print date at the bottom of some of the

pages, Your Honour, of 22 January.

HIS HONOUR: Does that mean that's the date it's been printed

up or is that the date it was produced? That the

document was originally produced?

MR DEVRIES: Yes, that's what it says at the bottom - - -

HIS HONOUR: Does that mean simply that's the date when the

hardcopy came into existence, or is that the date when

the original document perhaps in electronic form came

into existence?

MR DEVRIES: The answer is yes to both, Your Honour, because

you'll see on the last page there's a signature of an

approving officer of 22 January 2008.

HIS HONOUR: On the last page?

MR DEVRIES: I think it's the last page or the second last

page. I thought it was the last page towards the - - -

HIS HONOUR: I can't see that but I'll receive it as I've

described it, and we'll move on.

WITNESS: Your Honour, may I again ask the relevance of my

financial transactions in December 2007, to the periods

and the issues in the plaintiff's statement of claim?

HIS HONOUR: It has some relevance or may have some relevance

as to two issues. One is your claim to have been the

source of all the funds that you've deposed to. Secondly


266

1

2

3

4

56789

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

12


32/93

it may have a relevance as to what if any assets there

are, in respect of which the plaintiff makes a claim

under Part 9 if she is otherwise entitled to make such a

claim?---Even though there's no evidence-in-chief - - -

I'm not going to argue it?---- - -to support those claims - - -

But Mr Devries is entitled to cross-examine that evidence out

of you.

MR DEVRIES: Between 2006 and December 2007 did you acquire any

properties?---Sorry, Mr Devries, could you repeat those

dates?

Yes. Between 2006 and the end of 2007 did you acquire any real

estate?---Clearly, yes.

That's reflected in the document that's just been handed up to

His Honour isn't it? That document was up to date for

all of the property transactions that you had undertaken

between 2006 and 2008?---I'd need to look at the

document.

HIS HONOUR: Do you wish to look at it again? Could Exhibit M

be shown to Mr Johnson, please?

WITNESS: I did settle on the purchase of Endeavour Drive,

Torquay a couple of days before Christmas 2007, if I can

shortcut the answer.

MR DEVRIES: The front page refers to 7A Endeavour Drive,

Mr Johnson?---Yes. Well, I see no further in answer here

to the contents because I've exhaustively answered that,

Mr Devries.

You see, Mr Johnson, you've tried to suggest to His Honour that

that information was two years out of date. I'm

suggesting to you that you know full well that that

answer to His Honour's question was false, misleading,

untrue and I'll go as baldly as to say a deliberate lie


267

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


33/93

on your part?---Mr Devries, you're stepping very close to

Chapter 4 of the Legal Practice Act territory, which I

will again - - -

HIS HONOUR: Just answer the question?---There are multi-prongs

to that argument. Most of that question. Most of them

are vile statements about my character.

Mr Johnson, if you don't answer the question - - -?---I have

said - - -

- - -draw an inference against you?---I have said that I

purchased that property and it settled pre-Christmas. I

have explained that information was provided by my

mortgage arranger to the Commonwealth Bank.

What Mr Devries - - - ?---I do not know what information or

what currency or what cut-off date of that information.

I suspect Mr Ioannou would've just repackaged the due

diligence materials that I provided for the Altona

financing in and that would've been February 2006. I

don't recall going to a lot of effort. I very rarely had

to sign even loan applications. Basically Mr Ioannou

would just recycle I discovered loan applications from

years previously.

He did more than recycle it. He's included the Endeavour

property in that document - - -?---Yes, yes, yes. He

would recycle all the information. He would fill it out

himself. I hate filling out paperwork, Your Honour, and

then he would just submit it. So sometimes there'd be a

loan application for on one lender's letterhead being

submitted to the next one. Sometimes the funding would

be approved or or several lenders would be approved and

with his advice I picked the better one. I left a lot of

that application process. I would give him a big kit of


268

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


34/93

material. I'd leave it to him to translate that across

into the loan applications. Sometimes I would sign then

but on the majority of times I wouldn't even sign an

application, or I would pre-sign it and he would fill in

the details later.

MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, you said yesterday - I think at p.692

of the transcript, Your Honour. (To witness) That you

had multiple addresses or you used multiple addresses.

Was that correct, that you gave that evidence yesterday?

---Yes. As late as April last year I had at least five

different business addresses.

What's the difficulty with answering a question yes or no?

---I'm trying to save time by giving His Honour the

information in the cross-examination process rather than

in re-examination.

HIS HONOUR: Just answer the question. You'll save a lot more

time if you just give direct answers, Mr Johnson?---I'm

concerned I might miss a point in re-examination,

particularly - - -

HIS HONOUR: Mr Johnson, look, the requirement of you in

cross-examination is to answer the questions. I warned

you I think more than a day ago that as a judge of the

facts when a witness declines to answer a question or

where he gives an over-expansive answer to a question,

often the perception by the judge of facts is that that

witness is being evasive. So you are not doing yourself

any justice in the technique you are adopting. That is

just a fair caution to you. Mr Devries.

MR DEVRIES: Now, you went on to say you still use Dorrington

Street, is that correct? And that you used Dorrington

Street as your address throughout?---I - - -


269

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


35/93

Is that correct or incorrect, yea or nay, Mr Johnson?---Yes, up

until the date I vacated that property under

Justice Cavanough's orders, yes that is correct.

What date was that?---That is interesting because the

written - - -

What date did you vacate - - -

HIS HONOUR: It doesn't matter whether it is interesting or

not, what date did you leave Dorrington Street?---July

this year.

MR DEVRIES: When did you resume occupation of Dorrington

Street prior to you vacating it on that date?---It was

when my tenants left early - - -

What date?---I think it was during September.

2007?---2007, yes. Give or take a month.

Piror to September 2007 when was the last date that you were in

occupation at 2 Dorrington Street?---The last time that I

was in residence there would have been July or August

2003.

Ms Cressy was in residence then for some time after July 2003,

wasn't she?---Yes, up until June 2006.

My instructor and I have gone through a lot of the loan

application documents, Mr Johnson, and there are a large

number of documents of yours, and we could spend a fair

bit of time isolating them, bank statements, so on and so

forth which reflect Dorrington Street as your address,

postal address for those documents between July 2003 and

June 2006. Do you accept that that is correct or do you

want us to go through the lengthy exercise of identifying

all of those documents?---I wish to save you that lengthy

exercise. I can answer it quickly in the detail.

Is the answer "yes"?---The answer is yes.


270

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


36/93

What you have said to His Honour is that from July 2003 to at

least June 2006 being the relevant period for the purpose

of this question, you resided at one or other of your two

Bourke Street addresses, Unit 909 and then Unit 2302, I

think it's 686 or 998.

HIS HONOUR: 668 I think.

MR DEVRIES: 668?---Yes.

Is that correct?---Yes, for that period it was apartment 909.

You have said to His Honour not only was that my home but that

was my business address, is that correct?---That's not

correct.

You have said to His Honour that that is where you resided for

the bulk of that period, hadn't you?---There are two

prongs to the question. Yes, that's where I reside for

the whole of that period, July 2003 to at least June

2006. It was one of a number of business premises -

business addresses and one of a number of business

premises. There is a difference between an address and a

premise that I had during that period.

But it was a major place that you worked from, wasnt it,

during that period of time?---No, the major place that I

worked from during all of that time was either my office

within side Primelife Corporation, part of that time it

was in Collins Street, part of that time it was 210 Kings

Way and the other part where I worked for most of my time

was Barwon Water, my office there, 61 to 67 Ryrie Street,

Geelong, they were my principal addresses.

At the very least you maintained an office at that Bourke

Street address, didn't you?---Within my home I had an

office home and I had a personal assistant come in to

work for me a couple of days a week.


271

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


37/93

HIS HONOUR: I thought you told me three days a week?---Yes,

yes Your Honour.

What period was that that she was employed by you?---Kathleen

started off at two days a week.

Yes, when was that?---She was my full time PA down at Primelife

until they retrenched her.

Just roughly, when did she start coming to the Bourke Street

office?---Look, she's good, she did remind me there was

something in the dates, it was March - - -

Yes, which year?---That's the tricky bit, Your Honour.

I'm sure it is, now you tell me what it is?---I think it was

'05, Your Honour.

Thank you?---And it was in the first week of March '05 starting

at two days a week and then progressively increased, she

was a Crohn's Syndrome sufferer so she couldnt work full

time. It was too tiring for her which was one of - - -

Her health has got nothing to do with this case and you know

it?---Thank you, Your Honour.

Stop stalling for time?---No, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: Did you have a post box address at that stage?

---I needed - - -

Did you have - - - ?---Yes, yes.

When did you have that post box address first?---Well, that

would go back to '96 or '97 I think.

Now, I put to you, Mr Johnson, there is no reason why you would

maintain 2 Dorrington Street as your postal address

between July 2003 and June 2006 unless it was also your

residential address?---My answer is that's a ridiculous

statement, it's not even a question.

So you agree with my statement that - - - ?---No, it's a

ridiculous multi-prong statement, not a question.


272

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


38/93

HIS HONOUR: He has disagreed with it. You have put really a

proposition to him and he has rebutted it.

MR DEVRIES: Yes, and that is notwithstanding the fact,

Mr Johnson, that you have represented to Guardian Mutual

Corporation that your residential address was

2 Dorrington Street and had been for three years and two

months as at the date you made application for a loan,

being 4 August 2005?---Under the formula that His Honour

wishes me to adopt in response I have to say I disagree

to that question and the previous bundle of statements

and I will explain to His Honour in re-examination.

Have a look at this document, I believe it's been tendered,

Your Honour, part of Exhibit 6. I have asked Mr Johnson

questions about this document before?---I am indebted to

my learned friend for identifying the source of the

document.

Or maybe part of Exhibit 5. That is in your handwriting - - -

HIS HONOUR: Exhibit 5 or Exhibit 6?

MR DEVRIES: 5?---Your Honour, none of this is my handwriting,

except the signatures.

You have signed that document, haven't you?---The signatures

are mine but the handwriting is - I believe it to be

Mr Ioannou's.

The signature is yours, isn't it Mr Johnson?---I've said that

Mr Devries.

HIS HONOUR: He's just said he signed it.

MR DEVRIES: Yes, and you've read that document before you

signed it, didn't you?---As I've said in previous answers

this morning, maybe, maybe not. Maybe I pre-signed it

and Mr Ioannou filled in the details. Now, can I just

identify which - this is the refinancing for Point Cook.


273

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


39/93

You don't have to give us a commentary, and it was signed by

you - - - ?---I need to identify the document Mr Devries.

It was signed by you on 4 August 2005, wasn't it?---Yes.

I think I might ask Mr Ioannou about these rather than

Mr Johnson. On the front page under "Personal details"

it's got your name, date of birth and sex, doesn't it?

Is that correct, under "Personal Details"?---Name, date

of birth and - I can't see the sex one.

There's a tick, and that's all correct isn't it?---I can't see

the sex one but the first two - yes, I do, up next to

date of birth, yes, yes, yes.

A bit further down it's got "Contact telephone numbers," your

mobile and your work telephone number?---The work number

was my South Yarra address for my practice Sutton

Johnson.

Well, it has those numbers and they're correct, aren't they?

---Yes, those phone numbers are correct.

"Current employer Sutton Johnson," that's correct?---That was,

as we know, a name of my legal practice. May I check the

date of this document?

"Self-employed," tick. "Sutton Johnson." "Years in

employment, six." "Occupation, solicitor." Those were

correct?---Yes, that looks right and I practice under the

legal firm Sutton Johnson at that date, yes.

It must be awfully hard to use a three word letter word called

"yes"?---It's my favourite word in the English language,

Mr Devries.

HIS HONOUR: Well start using it?---Thank you, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: Under "Address" - - -

HIS HONOUR: What is this document?

MR DEVRIES: It is headed "Guardian Mortgage Corporation,


274

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


40/93

corporate particulars, loans in company name." Your

Honour, if I can - - -

HIS HONOUR: Is that it?

MR DEVRIES: Yes, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: It was Exhibit 6, not Exhibit 5.

MR DEVRIES: I apologise, Your Honour. It's got your

residential address as 2 Dorrington Street, Point Cook,

doesn't it?---Yes.

It has got you presently at that address for three years, two

months?---Yes.

And by signing that document you have adopted that as factually

correct?---On the point that it was a residential address

but not on the point that I was in residence there.

What is "Period at current address, three years two months."?

---That's approximately how long I'd owned that

residence, yes.

Mr Johnson, on the last page there are credit card details,

aren't there, and your signature, is that right?---Yes.

All the writing under "Notes" was there before you applied your

signature to that page, weren't they?---On the balance of

probability probably not.

Come on.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Johnson, could you go to the second page?

---Thank you, Your Honour.

Do you see the box on the bottom left hand corner next to

"Applicant 1, income name," do you see that?---Yes, Your

Honour.

They are your initials, "JJ"?---Yes, Your Honour.

You signed those initials there?---Yes, Your Honour.

That was because there was a correction to the gross income

stated to make it $240,000?---Yes, Your Honour.


275

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


41/93

You initialled that correction were you?---Yes, Your Honour.

Thank you?---The correction is not in my handwriting, Your

Honour.

I understand that but you verified it by signing it?---Thank

you, Your Honour.

Thank you.

MR DEVRIES: Further up under the heading "Assets details", do

you se that little bit there?---Yes.

Do you see the heading, "Principal residence at"?---Yes.

Dorrington Street, Point Cook?---Yes.

You were aware of that when you signed that page of that

document?---I was aware that the date - - -

That it said Point Cook?---I was aware that the residential

address stated in the loan documents had to match my

credit report information that the lender would would

take, and it had to match my driver's licence.

You are aware I know you have great difficulty answering my

questions but please, please try. You're aware that you

signed off on a document that said, "Principal residence

at Dorrington Street, Point Cook"?---I'm aware that

Mr Devries line of questioning is way off point in terms

of - - -

HIS HONOUR: I don't think you've answered the question?

--- - - -conclusion.

Are you evading that question? Did you sign that document in

the knowledge that it represented your principal place of

residence as Dorrington Street?---Irrespective of whether

Mr Ioannou inserted some or all of this information after

I signed it, and I submit probably it was a bit of both,

the answer to Your Honour's question must be yes.

Thank you.


276

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


42/93


43/93

HIS HONOUR: Mr Devries might be able to have his solicitor

make copies of those documents.

WITNESS: More than - - -

MR DEVRIES: Unfortunately, Your Honour, the copy I have is

marked but I'll still give him a photocopy of that. It's

marked - - -

HIS HONOUR: Thanks. Sorry.

MR DEVRIES: Towards the end of yesterday - - -

HIS HONOUR: Is that the original?

MR DEVRIES: Yes - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR DEVRIES: Sorry, Your Honour. (To witness) Towards the end

of yesterday I was asking you questions about your

expenditure figures, from the $9000 that you took out

from time to time from your bank account in cash. Do you

recall me asking you those questions?---Yes.

I put you on notice that I'd be asking you some questions about

that today, to give you the opportunity to clear your

head and give us that information. A less confused state

than you said you were in yesterday. Do you recall

me - - -?---Yes. I'm grateful to my learned friend for

raising this issue again.

Have you sorted through those figures in your own mind?---I

believe, yes, yes, Mr Devries.

First of all do you stick by the figure of $9000 per week on

Mondays?---I stick by the figure that it was $9000 every

second Monday and most in between Mondays it was $9000

also give or take a day, give or take a few thousand

dollars. The answer's yes, in the broad brush 80 per

cent of the time, Your Honour.

So instead of being every Monday how many Mondays are we now


278

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


44/93


45/93

arithmetic is that basically that would mean about 36, 37

Mondays a year you would have taken out $9000 from this

bank, is that right?---Yes, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: It comes to almost 42 weeks, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right.

MR DEVRIES: So at least 42 weeks a year over a three year

period you are talking about?---I've explained

organically, I'll accept your calculation, Mr Devries,

and His Honour's calculation would be - - -

All right, and on those other ten weeks you'd still be drawing

out money, but maybe not $9000, is that what you're

saying?---No, it might depend on the cash flow. There

would be some weeks I might have 120 grand lob into my

bank account. I had a week in July 2006 where that

definitely happened, it's an important date I can recall.

But there might be other periods where I might go for six

weeks without any money going in, so I'd be relying on

whatever was in the bank or whatever cash reserves I'd

pulled out on the most recent Mondays or Tuesdays or

Fridays. I kept a fairly solid cash reserve in my

apartment at most times and I had credit cards as

cushions to draw on.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I don't really need a commentary unless

Mr Devries wants it, he was really asking what you were

withdrawing at the moment?---Yes.

Let's just stick to that, all right?.

MR DEVRIES: Your commitments that you used this cash for were

2200 per month for your wife and her family, is that

correct?---Yes, Mr Devries. Yes. I believe I can assist

this rather than Mr Devries repeating those questions.

No.


280

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


46/93

HIS HONOUR: Mr Devries is asking the questions, you will

answer the questions?---I shall, Your Honour, thank you.

May it please Your Honour.

Yes, you definitely will. Now, Mr Devries, your next question.

MR DEVRIES: Is the figure still $12,000 per month for your

total mortgage payments?---As at July 2006 that's an

accurate figure, yes.

July 2006? What about July 2005?---I would not have had a

mortgage obligation in respect of Gibson Street or

Altona.

Just guess a figure?---Half of that.

Six thousand?---Yes.

So we'll stick to July 2006 then; so July 2006 you're paying

your ex-wife 2200?---Yes.

You're paying mortgage payments of 12,000 per month?---Yes.

You're paying rental by that stage of $2345 per month?---Yes.

You're paying $100 per month for Osborne Street, South Yarra?

---Yes.

And $700 per month for 140 William Street and Chifley Square?

---Yes.

You were paying an average per month of about 6500 off your tax

debt arising out of Artemis?---No.

What figure are you saying average per month at that stage?

---The tax debt was a more complicated aggregate of

obligations, a very small less than a quarter of that

was carried forward from the Gallery of Artemis.

How much were you paying off accumulated tax debts on average

per week in the period around July 2006, Mr Johnson?---I

don't think I was paying that as a rule out of the the

Monday treasury drawings, the $9000 figure.

So that was on top of - - - ?---I think so. Yes, Mr Devries.


281

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


47/93

You think so?---Yes. I was a very busy man, Mr Devries.

Are you sure it's so?---Am I? Sorry, what was the question?

Are you sure that you were doing that? I mean, it's your

money, it's a lot of money, as busy as you are you'd know

what you're doing with your money, particularly that sort

of figure?---My cash flow ran rapidly like the Amazon

River, I believe that's correct.

And it was about $6000-odd per month?---Again, there was

nothing that regular, it was big lumps - - -

HIS HONOUR: I think we worked out yesterday that during that

period you managed to pay off a tax debt that would have

meant you were paying on average 6000 a month, whilst

they may have been irregular payments, nonetheless it

would come out on average as 6000 a month, is that right?

---Yes, but I think it's misleading as to the actual

flows of the cash because there were peaks and valleys.

Yes?---Activity and hiatus.

Now, that tax debt reduction, you say, didn't come out of the

$9000 cash that you were withdrawing on most Mondays, it

was over and above that, is that right?---I think so,

Your Honour. Some of it might have, but as a general

rule I think it did, yes.

Thank you?---Thank you, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: And there was $6000 per month for credit cards,

you said yesterday, is that figure still correct?---Yes,

yes, give or take a thousand either way, that's correct.

Now, did you have any other regular commitments?---Lots lots

of - - -

Any lease payments that you were making out of that $9000?

---Lots, Mr Devries, I had lots of living expenses.

I'm not talking about your living expenses, I'm talking about


282

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


48/93

payments that you were committed to, like lease payments,

repayments of some sort. We'll get to living expenses

when it suits me, Mr Johnson?---I think we've covered all

my legal commitments. There was a carpark the carpark

that I still use.

And how much do you pay for that?---That was $175 a week. That

was for Kathleen to park in the basement of my apartment

on the days she came in.

I thought you gave evidence yesterday that there were you had

three carparks?---I at most times I've had six cars,

Mr Devries.

I'm sorry?---Most times in the relevant period I've had six

cars.

Right, how much did you pay for car parking spots for your six

cars?---When I moved from 909 to 2302 - - -

No, we're talking about July 2006, Mr Johnson?---Yes, that's

when I moved from 909 to 2302, I went from one carpark to

two carparks in the building.

So that would be your rent, 350 a week?---No, no, no, that was

built into the 2345.

OK, so the other car park would have cost you, on average, per

month, $760?---No, exactly 175.

You said 175 a week?---Did I? I'm sorry, 175 a week, which is

what I still pay for it today.

One hundred and 75 a week?---A month, Mr Devries.

HIS HONOUR: Were you paying that out of the cash you were

withdrawing?---Probably, probably.

And I'm not sure - - -?---It was a fringe benefit for Kathleen,

while she worked for me, so I would adjust that out of

her payslip.

And the credit card you were repaying each month, were you


283

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


49/93

paying that out of the cash that you were withdrawing?

---Yes, yes.

Right?---As a general rule, the bulk of the drawings on one

Monday would be to top up bank accounts to pay mortgages.

M'mm?---Now, child support one direction, the following drawing

in the off week, if I may put it that way, would be the

credit cards and child support in the opposite direction.

Right?---Thank you.

MR DEVRIES: Did you have lease payments or financing or

anything like that for any of your six motor vehicles?

---Not by that time, Mr Devries, and not for a number of

years prior.

So you had no regular repayments in respect of those six motor

vehicles in July 2006?---No, I owned - - -

You just - - -?---I owned all of them, because I think it was

four at that stage, and I owned them outright, none of

them are worth much.

And you paid insurance, registration, and all of those

compulsory payments on the vehicle - - -?---Insurance

is - - -

- - - four vehicles?---Insurance is for all the properties at

several levels, the compulsory insurance on the vehicles.

Just talk about the vehicles at the moment, Mr Johnson?---I

never took out third party fire and theft, that sort of

insurance, it would have been quite prohibitive for all

four vehicles, there weren't suitable products on a

premium.

Were they paid out of this 9000, all of your insurances,

whatever they were, and car registration fees, things

like that?---The aggregate of those annual costs is

relatively small compared to a $9000 - - -


284

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

12


50/93

I'm just asking you whether you paid for those out of the $9000

cash that you drew out?---The insurances for the

properties, I probably drew cheques separately, or the

agent paid them and netted them out of the coming month's

rent. For the motor vehicles, the motor vehicles are

probably just cash that I had available out of those

$9000 drawings. Yes, the motor vehicle rego I probably

paid over the counter, or no, more likely I would have

paid by credit card over the phone, I think. So I think

separately, the insurances were paid by other fund flows,

not the cash I would be drawing out of the bank every

week.

And you gave evidence that you had to do a lot of travelling

from Melbourne for Geelong to cater for your various

clientele spread between Melbourne and Geelong, so you

would have - did you do that, in motor vehicles at that

stage or by public transport?---Motor vehicles, which is

why I thought I deserved to have a nice, fun car,

brothel gate day 7 am

Documents