Download - 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.
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
MR DEVRIES: If Your Honour pleases.
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
5/93
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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 - - -
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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,
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
11/93
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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;
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
MR DEVRIES: If Your Honour pleases.
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
20/93
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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 - - -
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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 - - -
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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 - - -
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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,
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
42/93
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
44/93
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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.
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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 - - -
.:CS 10/12/08 FTR:1 DISCUSSIONCressy
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
-
8/14/2019 Brothel Gate Day 7 AM
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,