ROYAL COMMISSION INTO WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY CORRUPT OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE OFFICERS COMMISSIONER: G.A. Kennedy AO QC Held at Perth on the 28th day of July, 2003 Counsel Assisting Mr S.D. Hall Copyright in this document is reserved to the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia. Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the Attorney General is prohibited.pg .28/07/2003 15952

A1/1 POLICE AT 9.49 AM HEARING COMMENCED: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hall. MR HALL: Commissioner, before calling the first witness there are some documents that I would wish to tender. There has been reference to a number of other players in the events - particularly of 1990 - have been referred to in evidence. As I think I indicated, a number of these people were interviewed at some length by the federal police during the course of their investigation. Having examined their transcripts and edited them for material which was not relevant to these proceedings, I would seek to tender transcripts of the interviews with the federal police of former Superintendent Ghockson, former Commander Hancock, (...name suppressed...) and former Superintendent Farrell. Commissioner, you should have a list with the private and public barcodes of each of those transcripts. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The taped record of conversation between the AFP and Mr Charles Gary Ghockson, dated the 6th of March 1996, the private, confidential document is barcoded D1041598, and that will be exhibit 2389C. EXHIBIT 2389C Mr Hall DATE 6.3.96 Confidential - tape of conversation between AFP and Charles Gary Ghockson, barcode D1041598 COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, barcoded D1044262, will be exhibit 2389. EXHIBIT 2389 Mr Hall DATE 6.3.96 Edited version of tape of conversation between AFP and Charles Gary Ghockson, barcode D1044262 COMMISSIONER: The taped record of conversation between the AFP and Mr Donald Hancock, dated the 6th of January 1996, the private, confidential version is barcoded D1039755 and will be exhibit 2390C. EXHIBIT 2390C Mr Hall DATE 6.1.96 Confidential - tape of conversation between AFP and Donald Hancock, barcode D1039755 COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, barcoded D1045421, will be exhibit 2390. EXHIBIT 2390 Mr Hall DATE 6.1.96 Edited version of tape of conversation between AFP and Donald Hancock, barcode D1045421 .28/07/2003 15953

A1/1 POLICE COMMISSIONER: The taped record of interview between the AFP and (...name suppressed...), dated the 4th of April 1996, the private, confidential version is barcoded D1042270 and will be exhibit 2391C. EXHIBIT 2391C Mr Hall DATE 4.4.96 Confidential - taped record of interview between AFP and (...name suppressed...), barcode D1042270 COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, which is barcoded D1045422, will be exhibit 2391. EXHIBIT 2391 Mr Hall DATE 4.4.96 Edited version of taped record of interview between AFP and (...name suppressed...), barcode D1045422 COMMISSIONER: And the transcript of conversation between the AFP and Derek Francis Farrell, dated the 26th of February 1996, private, confidential version is barcoded D1042259 and will be exhibit 2392C. EXHIBIT 2392C Mr Hall DATE 26.2.96 Confidential - transcript of conversation between AFP and Derek Francis Farrell, barcode D1042259 COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, which is barcoded D1045552, will be exhibit 2392. EXHIBIT 2392 Mr Hall DATE 26.2.96 Edited version of transcript of conversation between AFP and Derek Francis Farrell, barcode D1045552 MR HALL: Commissioner, the next three items that appear on your list are the transcripts of the AFP interviews with Mr Thoy. Reference was made to those transcripts during the course of his cross-examination, I think, by Mr Moen, and at that stage I indicated that those transcripts included a lot of material that was irrelevant and speculative and ought to be edited. That editing process has now been completed and I seek to tender the transcripts for the 8th of February, 12th of February and 28th of March 1996 between the AFP and Mr Thoy. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The taped record of conversation between the AFP and Robin Martin Thoy, dated the 8th of February 1996, the private, confidential version is barcoded D1039784 and will be exhibit 2393C. .28/07/2003 15954

A1/1 POLICE EXHIBIT 2393C Mr Hall DATE 8.2.96 Confidential - taped record of conversation between AFP and Robin Martin Thoy, barcode D1039784 COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, which is barcoded D1045261, will be exhibit 2393. EXHIBIT 2393 Mr Hall DATE 8.2.96 Edited version of taped record of conversation between AFP and Robin Martin Thoy, barcode D1045261 COMMISSIONER: The taped record of conversation between the AFP and Robin Martin Thoy, dated the 12th of February 1996, the private, confidential version is barcoded D1041366 and it will be exhibit 2394C. EXHIBIT 2394C Mr Hall DATE 12.2.96 Confidential - taped record of conversation between AFP and Robin Martin Thoy, barcode D1041366 COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, which is barcoded D1045269, will be exhibit 2394. EXHIBIT 2394 Mr Hall DATE 12.2.96 Edited version of taped record of conversation between AFP and Robin Martin Thoy, barcode D1045269 COMMISSIONER: The taped record of conversation between the AFP and Robin Martin Thoy, dated the 28th of March 1996, the private, confidential version, which is barcoded D1041367, will be exhibit 2395C. EXHIBIT 2395C Mr Hall DATE 28.3.96 Confidential - taped record of conversation between AFP and Robin Martin Thoy, barcode D1041367 COMMISSIONER: The public, edited version, which is barcoded D1045273, will be exhibit 2395. EXHIBIT 2395 Mr Hall DATE 28.3.96 Edited version of taped record of conversation between AFP and Robin Martin Thoy, barcode D1045273 MR HALL: Commissioner, there's also been reference to former (...name suppressed...), who is now deceased. He was not interviewed, on my understanding, by the federal police. However, a statement was taken from him and I would seek to tender that statement as a public exhibit. .28/07/2003 15955

A1/1 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. The statement of (...name suppressed...), dated the 12th of October 1993, barcoded D1039782, will be exhibit 2396. EXHIBIT 2396 Mr Hall DATE 12.10.93 Statement of (...name suppressed...), barcode D1039782 MR HALL: Commissioner, the Royal Commission has also taken statements from a number of people who have been mentioned during the course of evidence; in particular, from Senior Sergeant Garry Robinson, from Mr Bickford - former Inspector Bickford - from Neville Vernon Ripp and - - - .28/07/2003 15956

A2/2 POLICE MR HALL: - - - Neville Vernon Ripp and from Max Marshall, former Assistant Commissioner Marshall. Those statements are referred to on the second page of your list, and I would seek to tender those items as private - - I'm sorry, they're listed as private. They should be public exhibits. COMMISSIONER: Each of those is a public exhibit? MR HALL: Each of those is a public exhibit, yes. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The statement of Senior Sergeant Gary Robinson, dated the 22nd of July 2003, barcoded D1045376, will be a public exhibit and it will be exhibit number 2397. EXHIBIT 2397 Mr Hall DATE 22.7.03 Statement of Senior Sergeant Gary Robinson, barcode D1045376 COMMISSIONER: The statement of Barrie Norman - - MR HALL: I'm sorry, sir, I didn't mean to tender that one. It shouldn't have been included on the list. COMMISSIONER: Oh. Well, the statement of Barrie Norman Rollinson, dated the 14th of July 2003, barcoded D1044841, will be exhibit 2397 - - oh, that one you don't - - MR HALL: Yes. It's the statement of Rollinson is - - I'm not in a position to tender that one at the moment. So, Robinson can be 2397. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The statement of Allan Vivian Bickford, dated the 17th of July 2003, public exhibit, barcoded D1045081, and that will be exhibit 2398. EXHIBIT 2398 Mr Hall DATE 17.7.03 Statement of Allan Vivian Bickford barcode D1045081 COMMISSIONER: The statement of Neville Vernon Ripp, dated the 17th of July 2003, public exhibit, barcoded D1045155, will be exhibit 2399. EXHIBIT 2399 Mr Hall DATE 17.7.03 Statement of Neville Vernon Ripp barcode D1045155 COMMISSIONER: The statement of Maxwell John Marshall, dated the 23rd of July 2003, a public exhibit, barcoded D1045436, will be exhibit 2400. EXHIBIT 2400 Mr Hall DATE 23.7.03 Statement of Maxwell John Marshall barcode D1045436 .28/07/2003 15957

A2/2 POLICE MR HALL: Commissioner, in respect of those statements, it is the intention to rely upon their contents, but it is not my intention to call any of those people as witnesses, as there seems to be no material benefit in doing so. If any counsel who have been given leave to appear for parties wish to make submissions in that respect, I will receive them and consider whether those people should be called. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: Can I now proceed to call Mr Martin Saxon - - MR ROBBINS: I wonder if I just might be heard on one matter, sir? Learned counsel assisting has mentioned that with respect to four exhibits touching upon transcripts between the AFP and Robin Thoy, those exhibits, sir, being 2393C, 2394C and 239 - - I think it should be 5C, that they have been edited to exclude from the contents material said by my learned friend to be irrelevant and speculative. Could I ask that so far as the question of speculative material, that my learned friend and perhaps you, sir, scrutinise that to see whether - - COMMISSIONER: Well, could you take it up with Mr Hall? Rather than - - MR ROBBINS: I can do, sir, yes. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR ROBBINS: I'm just concerned that it might affect Thoy's credit, that's all. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, if you can take it up with Mr Hall at an appropriate time? MR ROBBINS: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Yes, Mr Hall? MR HALL: Yes, I call Martin Saxon. MARTIN ROY SAXON called: COMMISSIONER: Could I have your full name please, Mr Saxon? MR SAXON: Martin Roy Saxon. COMMISSIONER: Do you have any conscientious objection to taking an oath on the Bible? MR SAXON: No, I don't, sir. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. 15958

A2/2 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. If you'd take the Bible and read out the oath aloud, please? MARTIN ROY SAXON sworn: COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Sit down, please. EXAMINED BY MR HALL: MR HALL: Now, Mr Saxon, you're a journalist, I think?---That's right. And still work for The Sunday Times?---Yes, I do, but I work in production now. Right. Now, in 1992, you were an active journalist at that stage, writing stories?---I was reporting at that stage, yes. Yes. And I think you took an interest in the developing story of the Argyle Diamond Mine alleged theft?---That - - that's right. I - - I was the first person to write a story, saying that the inquiry had been - - well, allegedly at least, run off the rails. Now, I understand you received some information regarding Sergeant Noye and Mr Roddan; is that correct?---That's correct. Can you tell me, firstly, what information you received?---The information was that Mr Noye and Mr Roddan had had lunch, and that Mr Roddan had paid. Now, do you recall when it was that you received this information - - - .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XN 15959

A3/3 POLICE MR HALL: - - - received this information?---I've tried to go back over this. It would have been - - if you can give me a date on when - - when I spoke to - - to Mr Zanetti, it would have been about a week or so before that. It was - - it was in the immediate days preceding my first conversation with Mr Zanetti. All right. Well, I think that was the early stages - -?---Which I think was in March - - Yes?--- - - of 92? Now, was that the whole content of the information you received?---In relation to the lunch, yeah. I - - the question in my mind was whether in fact Mr Noye - - well, firstly, Mr Noye had met Mr Roddan on his own. He was not accompanied, so the lunch was between - - I just want to know what you were told - -?---Okay. - - not what you might have inferred from what you were told?---No. I was told that Mr Noye and Mr Roddan had met for lunch, just the two of them; that Mr Roddan had paid. And I questioned the person who told me whether Mr Noye was wired and the person did not know whether he was wired or not. Now, were you told what restaurant this had allegedly occurred - -?---No. No, I wasn't. Or how long the lunch had gone on for?---I think it - - I was told it had gone on for some hours, but I can't be specific about that at this stage. All right - -?---But I mean, lunches do go on for some hours, so - - Now, was your informant telling you this of their personal knowledge?---No, they were not. This was something that your informant had themself been told?---Yeah. I - - I think best third-hand. Did your informant tell you the name of the person who had observed this alleged lunch?---No. I've - - I've gone back over this, realising that this is what the Commission would be asking. My informant told me that the information initially - the original source of the information - was Mr Noye himself. All right. Now, I take it that your informant was somebody who you've spoken to in the past, who's provided you with information for the writing of stories?---Mm. That's correct. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XN 15960

A3/3 POLICE MR HALL: Are you prepared to tell us the name of that person?---No, I'm not, sir. Why is that?---Those conversations with that person and a number of other people were done on a confidential basis and I'm bound by my code of ethics not to divulge their identities. All right. What did you do with that information?---Immediately, nothing, but shortly thereafter - - because I'd received information, I think somewhat prior to that, that the inquiry had been restarted and that Mr Noye was - - was on the case, and in the March which - - I think my memory now tells me it was the 18th of March when I spoke to Mr Zanetti. I think the previous day I had called Police Headquarters to get some comment on the restart of the inquiry. I mean, I can't remember whether I rang (...name suppressed...)'s PR officer, but I suspect I did. He was a gentleman by the name of John Oakford. All right?---But it was Mr Zanetti that returned the call. Okay. And Mr Zanetti was somebody you'd spoken to on other occasions?---To the best of my recollection, the only time I've spoken to Mr Zanetti are in these matters; never before and never since. And this conversation was on the phone?---It was on the telephone, yeah. All right - -?---I think he - - I think he rang me and then I rang him back. Okay. Well, he rang you back and did you tell him about the information you had received regarding the lunch?---We - - we had a discussion about the inquiry, because that was the purpose of the call, and then in the progress of that conversation I - - I said that an investigator, one of the officers - I didn't name Mr Noye - had had lunch with what I described as "(...suppressed...)." Did you name Mr Roddan?---No, I did not. What was Mr Zanetti's response?---Well, his response was that he didn't know about that and, you know, people have different ways of doing things. He said that?---He certainly said that. I am absolutely certain that I - - I then said "Well, that's right, but in this case the - - the other person paid" and Mr Zanetti said "Well, there might not be anything sinister in that. People have unorthodox ways of doing things. It's not what I would do" and so on and so forth. Then we talked some more about the - - about the inquiry and I said "Look, I'm not - - I'm just bringing this to your attention - - -" .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XN 15961

A4/4 POLICE WITNESS: " - - - just bringing this to your attention", you know, and he said, "Oh, well, thanks for that." MR HALL: Did he give you any indication as to what he might do with this information?---No, he didn't, and I've got to say going back over it now some 10 years later - - he - - he didn't ask me which of the officers had had the lunch, which now I've got to say - - at the time didn't - - didn't strike me, but it does now. Did you speak to Mr Zanetti about this again subsequently? ---Yes. Probably something like 18 months later, but at a stage when all the pieces were, sort of, falling into place, I suppose is the best way to describe it. I fired in some questions to (...suppressed...), (...name suppressed...), in relation to the ongoing inquiry and question 10 related specifically to whether it was appropriate for Mr Zanetti to have line of command control bearing in mind what I'd raised earlier. I didn't specify what I'd raised earlier. I said something to the effect that - - something adverse to Mr Noye. All right, and then did you speak to Mr Zanetti about that particular question?---Yeah, there was - - I think that was a Thursday. The following day I think I was in court covering a case or something and Mr Zanetti was - - the phone was running hot. Mr Zanetti was trying to get a hold of me. He spoke to the editor, who was then Don Smith, and subsequently I spoke to him by phone and in the course of the conversation he actually said he didn't remember speaking to me previously but he said, "Look, I'm available now. Come on down and we'll have a chat and I'll tell you where we're at, and I'll answer any questions", so I duly went down to police headquarters, and I think we met in (...name suppressed...)'s office because I think he was on leave, so Mr Zanetti was acting commissioner at the time. All right, and what did you say on this occasion?---When I turned up Les Ayton was there and there was a bit of, you know, preamble and then Ayton said, "Look, I don't need to be here, boss" and he left, and then Mr Zanetti and I sat down face to face and we proceeded to go through the conversation. There was quite a lot of discussion about him telling me about the inquiry but on the primary matters, which was the opening gambit, he said he'd called Noye in and Noye had said he was just trying to, you know, get the guy's confidence, and Mr Zanetti had accepted that explanation, though again saying that it was not something that he would have done, and I asked - - I asked then specifically, "Well, did you ask him about Roddan paying?" and he said, "Oh, look, I might have. I can't remember." He didn't say, "No, I didn't ask him" or "He never told me that", and then we moved on and I came back to it later and said, "Well", you know, "were you happy with the explanation?" and he said, "Yes, I was", and he told me at .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XN 15962

A4/4 POLICE that stage, which I wasn't aware of, that he'd actually picked Mr Noye for the job because he'd been on homicide - - two murders with him, described him as - - as a "plodder". MR HALL: All right. Well, you were interviewed, I think, for the ABC Four Corners programme about these conversations?---Yes, I was. I want to show you a transcript of what you said on that programme, which is D1044774. Now, at page 8 firstly. Just bring that down a little. All right, you can see a passage there that begins with you saying, "Mr Zanetti was unaware of this"?---That's right. And the lead-in to that was the presenter saying: "Only a few weeks into his investigation he" - that is, Mr Noye - "was spotted lunching with (...suppressed...), Lindsay

Roddan, and Roddan was seen to have paid for the lunch. A journalist was quick to confront Deputy Commissioner Zanetti with that information."

And then you say: "Mr Zanetti was unaware of this. He said - - he

expressed some surprise but said, 'People have different ways of doing things. I might not do it that way. Some people have unorthodox methods. It doesn't mean if? there's anything sinister about it; it doesn't mean that there's anything untoward going on and, as I said, I understand that Roddan paid for the lunch, so that may alter it - - - '"

.28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XN 15963

A5/2 POLICE MR HALL: - - - "that may alter it, but I'm just

bringing it to your attention. I'm not writing a story about it. I'm just mentioning it".

It was left at that?---Yeah. I guess the only two things I'd say there is I didn't confront him with the information. I think that's journalese by Four Corners, and I didn't - - didn't name Roddan. At no stage of that conversation did I name Roddan. This is long after the event, when Roddan's name was in the public domain, so - - Well, you're telling us you didn't name either of them? You said - -?---No, no, indeed not. I did not. An officer lunched with - -?---An officer lunched with the prime suspect. - - the prime suspect?---And Mr Zanetti for - - made some reference to the prime suspect, "Oh, he's probably been in touch with you", that's the prime suspect, so there's not - - no doubt in Mr Zanetti's mind who the prime suspect was. Well, did - -?---But he didn't ask me who the officer was, which at the time didn't strike me, but it strikes me as a mite strange now. All right. Then at page 10, you refer to the second conversation, and this is following the final report. You became aware, I take it, that there had been a final report prepared by Sergeant Noye?---Yeah, that's - - that's - - that's incorrect. That's - - that's not how it happened. Could you just scroll back a little bit and - - Yes?---So I can - - Can you just scroll up a little bit? WITNESS: Yeah, that's - - that's not correct. And that's not from me. MR HALL: What's not correct?---"Journalist, Martin Saxon, heard about the drift of Jeffrey Noye's report, remembered - -" blah, blah, blah. "Saxon followed that up with Deputy Commissioner Zanetti." That's not how it happened. How it happened is that I wrote a story saying that a CIB detective was likely to be charged over the inquiry, which was Mr Noye, and a week or two after that, I fired in the questions to (...name suppressed...) and it was at that stage that that matter was raised. I didn't - - So this was - -?---I didn't do it in that context. So the conversation's correct, but the context is incorrect. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XN 15964

A5/2 POLICE MR HALL: All right. What you say about the conversation is - - well, just looking at the lead-in part: "Saxon followed that up with Deputy Commissioner

Zanetti. Noye had apparently passed off the lunch as an opportunity to get Roddan's confidence."

Is that a fair summary - -?---Yeah, yeah. Yeah. - - of what Mr Zanetti told you?---Yeah. And then you say: "Now, I have to say, that seems a strange way of going

about an inquiry, to me, but that's what Mr Noye told Mr Zanetti and I said, `Well, were you happy with that explanation?' and he said, `Yeah, I was.'"

Did you ask him that?---Yeah. You say Mr Zanetti went on to say: "I was a little bit worried because it was early on,

but the explanation satisfied me, and then I said, `Well, did you ask Mr Noye about the fact that Mr Roddan allegedly paid for the lunch', which might give it a bit different flavouring, and the response was, `Oh, I'm not sure about that. I can't remember. I don't know. I might have done, but I can't remember' and that struck me at the time as bizarre because I thought it was a critical question and you would have to ask, and here was the deputy commissioner saying, well, he might have, he might not have, and he couldn't remember."

Did you press that issue?---No, I didn't. I should've, but I didn't. All right. Did you have any other contact with Mr Zanetti in respect of that matter?---No, that's the last time Mr Zanetti and I have spoken. And I take it from what you've told us that you never sighted Mr Roddan and Mr Noye together at any stage?---No, I didn't. Or indeed, didn't sight Mr Roddan with any other police officer?---No, I didn't. Right. Yes, thank you, Mr Saxon. Commissioner, I should tender the transcript. I have tendered the video of the Four Corners interview, which is exhibit 2049. I have, however, as I said, a request from some counsel .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XN 15965

A5/2 POLICE for the transcript and I think it proper I make that an exhibit. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The transcript of the Four Corners programme, barcoded D1044774, will be exhibit 2401. EXHIBIT 2401 Mr Hall DATE (Unstated) Transcript of Four Corners programme barcode D1044774 COMMISSIONER: Yes. Is there any counsel seeking to examine this witness? MR LASKARIS: Commissioner, with your leave, Mr Moen isn't here this morning. I think he intimated that he wouldn't be, and he's asked me to ask some questions of this witness, and , in his absence. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR LASKARIS: On behalf of Mr Noye. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Very well. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR LASKARIS: MR LASKARIS: Mr Saxon, Laskaris is my name, and as you've heard me explain to the Commissioner, Mr Noye's counsel has asked me to inquire about some matters which your evidence has touched upon. Firstly, can I ask you, when did you first take an interest in the Argyle Diamond Mine investigation?---Oh, that would've been in late 1991. June/July maybe. I think I wrote the first story in the August. Yes, and your reason for taking an interest in this matter at - - - .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XN XXN 15966

A6/3 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - this matter at that date was what?---Oh, that I received information that the inquiry was being starved of resources, that obstacles were being put in its way and that Argyle were not very happy about the fact that that was the case. And this information that you received from a source different to the source that you have declined to name in relation to the meeting between Detective Sergeant Noye and Mr Roddan?---That's correct. Now, the source that gave you this information - ie. that the inquiry was being starved of resources, etcetera - was that a source from within the West Australian Police Service?---Oh, I'm not - - I'm not prepared to say where that source may or may not have been. So I'm not going to enter into a process of elimination to point in any particular direction. Is there a reason why you're not prepared to say to the Commission?---I've already explained that, sir. These conversations with various sources were in confidence and I'm bound and feel duty-bound by my code of ethics not to reveal their identity - - So is - -?--- - - in all circumstances. Yes. Just so that - -?---Including the Commission. - - I understand this, it's simply a question of - - well, the issue in your mind is a question of confidence. It has - - ie, confidence between yourself and your source. It's nothing to do with any other issue that may impact upon the source?---No, it's not, sir. I see. Now, have you been following the proceedings in the Commission about the Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry?---Only what I've read in the paper and I was in court a couple of weeks ago when I was called to give evidence, so I sat in for Mr - - part of Mr Zanetti's evidence. So you haven't been reading the transcript of the proceedings that are available on the Internet?---Subsequent to sitting through Mr Zanetti's evidence, I - - I did access the transcript to read Mr Zanetti's evidence in full. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15967

A7/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: That being the case, you would understand that one of the issues, perhaps the prime issue, although I concede there are many that are before the Commission in relation to this term of reference, is the veracity of allegations made by Detective Sergeants Thoy and Gwilliam in relation to how the West Australian Police Service conducted the investigation? ---Well, those matters have been publicly aired at great length in the past. And that in seeking to explore those matters questions of the credibility of evidence of various officers and, indeed, other people involved with the Argyle Diamond Mine investigation looms large?---Yes. In that context where the Commission will be asked to - - by different parties and for different reasons to make findings about the credibility and the veracity - - MR HALL: With respect to my learned friend, these seems to be submissions that are properly made to you and not questions that should be put to the witness. If the argument is to be that the witness - - there is some proper public interest in pressing the witness for his informant's name, then I would suggest that submissions be made to you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Laskaris? MR LASKARIS: Commissioner, my friend is right to say that I'm seeking to explore with the witness, the issue of his non-revelation, and I'm doing that in the context of my friend himself not having pressed the witness for the disclosure of where that information has come from, and I'm seeking to explore with the witness whether he understands - - sorry, I'm seeking to explore with the witness the issue of the difficulty that the Commission will encounter if he continues not to disclose - - or declines to disclose the identity of the people that have given him that information. COMMISSIONER: Well, you've really done that, haven't you? MR LASKARIS: All right. (TO WITNESS): By the time that you wrote your first article on the 18th of August 1991 about the Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry had you formed a view in relation to how the inquiry was being conducted?---Conducted by the officers of the inquiry or conducted by the Police Department? You're right to take me up on that point. Can I break it down? At that time, on the 18th of August 1991, who was conducting the inquiry?---I think - - I think Thoy was - - I'm not sure whether Thoy was still on the case or whether he'd been taken off the case, quite frankly, at this distance. It's a long time ago. I think - - I suspect Thoy and Gwilliam were still on the case. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15968

A7/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Can I show you, just to refresh your memory, a copy of the story that appeared in The Sunday Times on the 18th of August 1991. Do you have copies of these documents? MR HALL: Not really to hand. We do have a document camera. We could put them on to that, if you wish everyone to see it. MR LASKARIS: I would be happy for you and the Commissioner to see it. I've only got two copies, unfortunately. MR HALL: We can get it photocopied if you like. MR LASKARIS: Yes, thank you. In fact, if you would just take that copy that I've just handed to the witness, and if I can hand you a couple of other documents. WITNESS: So having read that, it appears that the inquiry at that stage had already been wound up, so that's well down in the story, I think - - - .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15969

A8/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - in the story, I think. MR LASKARIS: Just while we're waiting for those documents to come back, can I just confirm with you, you don't know the name of the alleged restaurant that the - - or the restaurant that the meeting occurred between Noye and Roddan?---To this day I don't know. You don't know what time of day it's supposed to have occurred?---Apart from the fact that it was said to be lunch. You don't know who was there, apart from being told that it was Noye and Roddan?---That's correct. You don't know obviously the proprietors of the premises because you don't know the premises?---No, I don't. You don't know what was had to drink, except from what you've been told?---Well, I've got to say at that stage I wasn't told anything of - - of drink, but subsequently, some years later I think, I think there was evidence in a court case about two bottles of port, but that's not in my knowledge. Now, you indicated to the Commission that it was not your informant that had witnessed the meeting?---That's correct. And you're not sure who it was that your informant obtained the information from with respect to the meeting?---That's correct. Well, I'd be guessing, so I - - that's correct. Was it your informant that told you that he believed that the original source of the information which he gave you was Noye himself, or did you learn that through some other channel or some other means?---No; it's from that source. So it is possible that the information that you obtained is, if I can put it this way, fourth-hand?---Well, I think - - I've described it I think probably as third-hand at best, yeah. That wasn't made clear at all in relation to the televised portions of the interview between yourself and the Four Corners reporter, was it?---I'm sorry; what? That I didn't - - well, the - - the interview by Four Corners was in relation to the conversations I'd had with Mr Zanetti, not as to the source of my information or how reliable it was. Can I just hold you with that answer - I'm sorry - so I can just check that the documents that I've just been - - which I want to hand to you are the copies of the documents which I have. Excuse me. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15970

A9/3 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Can I hand these up to you and, in doing so, I've arranged them, I believe, in chronological order? Just before we get to them - -?---Mm. We will get to them. Let's just get this clear. In the Four Corners interview there was no indication given to a viewer that the information about the meeting between Roye and Noddan (...on tape...) which you reported on was at least third-hand information?---Well, that's correct. I - - I mean, the Four Corners put the show together, not me. So - - Do you mean to suggest by that - by giving me that sort of answer - that it would have been appropriate to disclose the fact that the information was third-hand information?---Oh, well, that's - - that's a judgment call on the day, I suppose. I mean, they knew that I'd received information. They didn't quiz me on how reliable it was. I have to say I believed it was reliable. Subsequent events may underline that. And you believed that the information was reliable as a result of stuff that you've - - information that you've derived since then - ie. that there was a lunch, or that there was a meeting?---Well, a whole range of things that happened after that, yeah. But the issue about the lunch, or the meeting, was that - - well, would you agree that the meeting was presented in a manner that indicated that there might be some sinister or improper conduct involved in the having of it?---Well, it was - - it was presented in - - in that it was surprising that it would happen one on one - lunch, possibly long lunch - and prime suspect pays. I never wrote - - I never wrote the story. I didn't write about the lunch, which may go to your question about it being third-hand. I raised it with Mr Zanetti on the basis that he could do something if he chose to do so. I subsequently wrote a story, I think, some months later saying that the officers on the case were getting close to nabbing somebody, which of course was Mr Noye. So I'd moved on. I mean, the lunch didn't stick in my mind, you know, like a burr. It was only subsequent events that made me raise the lunch again in relation to Mr Zanetti, not in relation to Mr Noye. And they were subsequent events that transpired after you had spoken to Mr Corfield?---Sorry? Do you want to - - after I'd spoken to Mr Corfield about what? About matters relating to the Argyle Diamond Mine investigation?---Well, I - - well, I'd spoken to Mr Corfield on and off since 1991, so - - are we talking about a specific conversation or - - I'm talking about events that were actually in the media. I mean, The West Australian jumped all over the story in 93, I think, when I was left behind. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15971

A9/3 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Well, let's go back to the story in 1991 for a moment. On the 18th of August the article that you have in front of you is an article that appears in The Sunday Times which is tagged with the headline "Drugs link in gems heist"?---Yes. And that story is a story that you write in which the lead paragraph indicates that: "A man named in police Operation Noah's report as a

drug dealer has been handling rough Argyle gems suspected of being stolen from the Kimberley mine site."

WITNESS: Yes. MR LASKARIS: That information was not public information at the time, was it?---No, it wasn't. And you didn't have access to the Operation Noah police report, did you?---No, I didn't. And you hadn't read the Operation Noah police report at the time that you wrote the story?---That's correct. So you wrote the first paragraph of the story in reliance upon something someone had told you?---Yes, obviously. And the effect of the first paragraph is that it links someone involved with - - - .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15972

A10/2 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - links someone involved with handling Argyle rough gems, stolen rough gems, with the drug trade in Western Australia?---Yeah. Did you ask to see the Operation Noah report before you wrote that paragraph?---Ask whom? Your informant?---No. I don't believe my informant had a copy of the report. Do you believe that your informant had read a copy of the report?---I can't answer that question. I don't know. Didn't you ask your informant that?---At this distance, I can't remember the detail of that conversation at all. I mean, there were a number of conversations, I suppose. Yeah, the detail of that, I don't remember. So - -?---At this distance, believe me. - - did you have a number of conversations with your informant before writing this story?---Well, I spoke to a number of people. And I can't remember how many conversations I would have had with any number of them at this distance. Just impossible for me to say. Was it one person or more than one person that advised you or told you that a suspect in the Argyle gems' inquiry had been named in the Operation Noah police report?---I suspect it was two, but I can't honestly recall. And was it you that made the inquiry of the second person? Was it you that was - - was your - - did one of your informants say to you, "Look, this is the position with respect to this suspect" and did you then go off to find another person to corroborate that?---No. I can't honestly remember. Do you think it would have been important to be able to establish the truth or not of whether the suspect of the Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry had in fact been named in the Operation Noah report as being a drug dealer?---Well, I'm sure at the time I would have satisfied myself as best I could that it was correct; otherwise I wouldn't have written it. I mean, the person's not named, of course, so that's - - you know, from a defamation point a major advantage, but I - - I'm sure I would have satisfied myself that the information was correct, but I can't at this distance recall what steps I took. Is that all that concerned you in relation to that first paragraph, the issue of defamation?---No, no, it doesn't. But I'm just saying - - the fact that no one's named, I mean, in .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15973

A10/2 POLICE the end of the day means that nobody was going to be suing me, I suppose, and that's a consideration for the newspaper. I mean, you know, the story's legal, but now I can't recall quite frankly at this distance what steps I took to convince myself or be assured that the person had been named, but I can only believe that I did. MR LASKARIS: Do you agree with me that the impression at the first par - - leaves a reader is this, that a suspect in the Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry who has been handling stolen diamonds is a drug dealer?---Yes. And is known to the police to be a drug dealer?---Yes. Now, given that that is the clear inference of that first paragraph, your evidence appears to be that you did not yourself read the Operation Noah report and therefore know whether or not the person who was (...suppressed...) was named in the Operation Noah report?---Well, I'm sure I never read an Operation Noah report. And of course, you knew at the time that you wrote this story who the suspect was?---Yes, I did. Because your informant had told you that?---That's right. Now, it's fair to say that that information - - no. You then go on in the second paragraph to give us some description of the suspect and his involvement in the drug trade?---Yes. You say, "The man" - - so you're - - "is in his 30s - - -" .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15974

A11/1 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - "is in his 30s", so you identify the sex of the person - - ?---Yes. - - suspect. You identify an approximate age, and you identify the fact that you say that the police suspect him of dealing in heroin?---Yes. Now, was that information that was contained in the - - that you were told was contained in the Operation Noah report?---Well, I can only - - I can only assume at this stage it was. I just can't recall the conversations leading to the Operation Noah. It's actually - - in fact - - I mean, the whole story is based - - you know, from so long ago now. I can only - - I can only believe that the information was exactly as written there; otherwise I wouldn't have written it. And I obviously believe the information; otherwise I wouldn't have written it. So the criterion for publishing or writing the story - - I withdraw that. You don't publish them. The paper publishes the stories, doesn't it?---That's - - that's correct. But your criteria for writing the story is that you believe the information to be correct?---Well, that I'm satisfied that it's correct. I mean, often the case, one can't produce physical evidence, but that doesn't stop us writing a story. I mean, we'd never write stories if it were reliant on physical evidence all the time. If you knew the identity of the man that was the prime suspect, you could have contacted him, couldn't you?---That's a fair point. I could have. Why is it a fair point? Why - - ?---Well, it's a fair point because I didn't. Do you use the word "fair" in the sense of it would have been fair to him?---Exactly right. Thank you. I just wanted to understand the context - - ?---Yeah. Yeah. No, I - - - - of why you were using that word?---I take that on the chin. I should have called him. Now, the third paragraph goes on to link stolen Argyle gems to drug shipments from south-east Asia?---Yes. And it suggests that the stolen diamonds are smuggled overseas and, once smuggled overseas, are then used to finance drug shipments from south-east Asia?---Yeah. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15975

A11/1 POLICE MR LASKARIS: It's correct to infer from that paragraph that you meant to say "drug shipments from south-east Asia back into Australia"?---Yes. Now, clearly that information in the third paragraph and the inferences which it contains were not, to your knowledge, contained in the Operation Noah report, were they?---Oh, look, I - - yeah; I can't - - I don't think I can begin to say yes or no to that. Without remembering the precise details of conversations about the Operation Noah report I couldn't say whether - - at this distance I would have thought that that reference must in some way trickle through from the Operation Noah report. It's building one brick on another. But I can't at this distance say how that - - whether that was in the Noah report or not. As I say, I didn't see a Noah report but - - That's right. I'm not suggesting - - the question wasn't designed to trick you into conceding that you'd seen the Operation Noah report. Clearly you've given evidence that's not the case. What I'm asking you is, the information contained in the third paragraph, your informant - - COMMISSIONER: I think it's the fourth paragraph actually. MR LASKARIS: Thank you. Yes. It is the fourth paragraph. (TO WITNESS): Yes. That the information in the fourth paragraph - - your informant would not have told you that that was information that he gleaned - he or she gleaned - from the Operation Noah report?---Well, I don't know whether that's right or not. You didn't inquire - - ?---No. No. Because I - - no; because I don't remember. I keep saying, I honestly don't remember the context or the substance of those conversations resulting in this article in relation to the Operation Noah report. But you knew that the Operation Noah report was a report not about - - - .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15976

A12/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - not about Argyle diamonds but about - - ? ---About drugs. Stolen Argyle diamonds, but about drugs?---Oh, okay. I take your point. Yeah. And, indeed, a - - sorry, and indeed a general report - - ? ---Yeah. - - about the state of drug use, abuse - - ?---Yeah. - - in Western Australia?---Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I guess I can say - - yeah, you've got me to where I think you want me to go, which is fine, which is - - Which is where?---Which is the Operation Noah report wouldn't have mentioned Argyle diamonds. Yes?---Yes. I take that point. So the connection that you make there in the fourth paragraph would have been from information that you had received from your informant?---Well, or "informants", plural, yeah. Did your informants tell you - - did your informant - - I mean, that specific bit of information there in the fourth paragraph - - ?---Mm. - - which when you read the second, third and fourth paragraph together go to elaborate the introductory sentence which the Commissioner correctly identifies as the first paragraph in the story, which is: "Evidence is emerging of links between the theft of

gems from the Argyle Diamond Mine and the international drug trade."

That's the story, isn't it?---Yeah. That's the hub of the story - - ?---Yeah. - - which you set out in a neat, crisp sentence in the first part, and then - - that's correct, isn't it?---Yes, yes. Then in the fourth paragraph you give some information about the linkage and you talk about diamonds being smuggled overseas for the purposes of financing drug shipments back into Australia from South-East Asia?---Yeah. Did your informant tell you that an investigation had been proceeding or was under way that had established that connection?---Not that I recall. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15977

A12/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: So did any other informant that you used for the purposes of writing this story tell you that?---Well, clearly I was told by somebody and the terms of that information, the detail of it, the basis of which it was put forward at that time, I - - I mean, I just - - I can't remember the detail. But can I just - - this is an investigative piece, isn't it? This is a - - ?---Well, of sorts. Yes. I mean, this is an investigative piece of journalism. This isn't a piece which is reporting an event which has occurred and which is publicly documented and is being disseminated for public consumption?---No. For example - - ?---Yeah. - - the conviction of someone - - ?---No, no. - - in a criminal court?---That's right. So this is a piece of investigative journalism?---(No audible response). Is that right?---Sorry. I said, "Yes." Yes, I'm sorry. Now, for the purposes of conducting investigative journalism there are procedures and processes that an investigative journalist follows, which are well-known - indeed, are taught in journalist school?---That's correct. One of those procedures is that information as it comes to you should be kept if it comes in a documentary form. That's right, isn't it? Not necessarily revealed - - ?---Yeah. - - but kept?---Kept, yeah. If it - - And oral information that comes to you, if it's not tape recorded - - because sometimes it could be very sensitive to tape an informant, they might not want that, but that oral information once it's received should be noted or documented - - - .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15978

A13/3 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - noted or documented by you as the person who intends to write the story?---That's essentially true, but - - not in every case, but essentially true. Well, you would have done that with respect to this story?---Well, I would have done, if not all of those things, at the time, yeah, but I can't - - I can't remember doing any of those things, but I'm sure I did. You agree with me - - I don't know if you do agree with me. Do you agree that this was a big story, this is a big allegation to make?---I think it - - it was on page one for the first edition and then I think it disappeared inside, so the - - the newspaper didn't think it was that big. I mean, I thought it was a good - - a good enough story. Yes?---But it - - it was a one-off story. I mean, I didn't write anything for another six or seven months or something. So it wasn't - - it wasn't an ongoing thing. But it makes a connection between stolen diamonds from the premiere? diamond mining company in Australia, perhaps even the world, to the drug trade?---Yeah. You would have kept notes of conversations that you had?---Oh, I'd have certainly kept notes of some conversations; maybe not all, but some, yeah. I'm not going to ask you to produce them. Don't be concerned about that. But I am going to ask you this. You haven't destroyed those notes, have you?---No. Such notes as I had, I have not destroyed. No. You would have been aware that you were coming to give evidence today before the Commission?---Well, yes, indeed. Yeah. About these matters?---Well, about Argyle. It's not been made clear to me at any stage of the proceedings exactly what I'd be asked about. Did you not read your notes before coming?---No, I haven't. All right. Your evidence appears to be that someone must have - - not your informant, not your prime informant, but someone must have told you about the information contained in the fourth paragraph of the article?---Yes. Did you check the veracity of that information before you wrote the story?---Well, I suppose the question is, "Check with whom?" .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15979

A13/3 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Well, that'll be the next question?---Yeah. Well, look, I - - I seriously can't remember. I must have been satisfied that using the phrase "It is thought that..." etcetera, etcetera, was - - was viable. Now, the detail of it, again I say, I can't recall. MR HALL: Commissioner, with respect, this has gone on for some time now without there being any obvious link to Mr Noye and his interests. Given that this story was written in August of 1991 and Mr Noye wasn't involved, if the suggestion is this is somehow relevant to the credibility of other witnesses, then I do think it is time my learned friend came to the point and put a clear question that relates to that issue. COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Laskaris? MR LASKARIS: I don't think my friend's - - my learned friend takes a - - takes a point which I - - which, although I don't wish to concede right away, I think is a valid point. The substance of it is valid. COMMISSIONER: I agree with that. MR LASKARIS: Well, we're all in agreeance then. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR LASKARIS: The issue about what this story conveys in relation to subsequent stories that the witness has written is relevant in terms - - in my submission, is relevant in terms of setting a public tone - - setting a tone within the public arena as to how this investigation is going, and for those purposes the way that the stories are written and the checks that are done with respect to the information that's contained within the stories, can I suggest, is relevant because by the time the - - the issue arises of the meeting between Mr Roddan and Mr Noye, a perception has emerged within the public domain - - - .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15980

A14/1 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - within the public domain as to this inquiry and what it involves - - COMMISSIONER: I really think that's too remote. MR LASKARIS: All right, Commissioner. (TO WITNESS): Can I ask you, Mr Saxon - it would not be an unreasonable conclusion for an objective reader who has just read this - - who has read this first story, to conclude that the information contained within it must have come from sources within the department - within the Police Department?---Well, that's true. The overall effect would be that, yeah. Yes. The next document in the series is a story that appeared in The Sunday Times on the 22nd of March 1992, and by that time the first Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry had finished and the second Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry had begun. Is that your understanding?---Yeah; that's - - well, the story essentially says that. There's - - sorry; there's actually - - there's something I - - whether it's appropriate to raise now, sir, but this article was on the 22nd of March. The conversation I had with Mr Zanetti I think was on the 18th. I think the evidence is from Mr Zanetti that the article appeared and then we spoke. It was actually the other way round. We spoke and then the article appeared. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. MR LASKARIS: That's what I was about to take the witness to, Commissioner, so I'm pleased the witness has raised that point. (TO WITNESS): There's nothing in the article that could in any way connect or draw a line to the lunch that we've spoken of earlier, is there?---No. As I say, I never wrote about the lunch at all. Do you know Mr Thoy - Robin Thoy?---Yeah. Did you know him at the time?---I'd spoken to him I think on one, maybe two occasions, yeah. Well, I mean, the time is back in 1991/92?---Oh, yeah; I think I might have spoken to him prior to that. I certainly spoke to him subsequently to that. Sorry? Subsequently to what?---Oh, to - - just the time frame. I'm just trying to remember time frames. And you're looking at the second article now, which is - -?---Yeah. - - dated the 22nd of March?---Yeah; 92. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15981

A14/1 POLICE MR LASKARIS: You spoke to him a couple of times, probably before and after the date that that article appeared?---Well, I've certainly - - I've certainly spoken to him subsequently, and I'm sure I would have spoken to him previously, yeah. And has your relationship with him - - I don't mean anything sinister by that. Has your contact with him - perhaps I can put it in more neutral terms - continued over the years?---No. I think the simple answer to that is I don't have a relationship with him. Well, no; your contact with him?---We've spoken, two, three times, if that. If that. At most. At most?---At most. Around that time. Around 1992?---Well, some of it would have been subsequently. I mean, the last time I can recall speaking to him was when they were making the Four Corners programme, which was 95, so - - and that's one of the two or three times that I've spoken to him. Have you met him personally, or have you only met him - - ?---I - - no; on that occasion when the Four Corners programme was being done I met him, yeah. We went out for dinner, I think. The Four Corners team took him out for dinner and I went along. Do you agree with me that he has - - Mr Thoy has come to a particular view about - - - .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15982

A15/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - particular view about the propriety of the inquiry and how it was conducted?---Which he's made public, I think. MR HALL: I don't think it really benefits to get other people's opinions of witnesses. COMMISSIONER: No. MR LASKARIS: Did you know Mr Gwilliam in 1992?---I think not. Did you get to know him subsequently?---I've spoken to him subsequently, yeah. I've seen him in court and I've spoken to him. How did you get to know Mr Gwilliam?---As I say, I think I met him in court. And did you approach him to speak to him about the Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry?---Look, I think the first time he might have rung me at some stage in relation to whether I was writing anything about the ongoing inquiry, but then I certainly subsequently saw him in court, on the street or something, at Hay Street or - - oh, look, I think - - I think I, you know, met him on the street outside the court and might have asked him something and he said, I think, he'd been moved off the case at that stage. I think. I'm not sure where he was working then but he wasn't - - he wasn't involved at that stage. I think he'd just given evidence in court in relation to these matters. But that's just off the top of my head. I can't - - I can't be more specific than that. Is it the same with Mr Thoy? Did Mr Thoy initially contact you rather than you contact him?---Look, I think - - I think I would've spoken to him. Yeah, look, I think it would've been the other way around but, look - - it's a long time ago but I think so. What, you contacting him - - ?---Yeah, yeah. - - rather than him making contact with you?---Yeah, yeah. At the time of - - which would be back in 91, I suppose. Did you speak to Mr Corfield back in 1991, 92?---Yes, I did. Yeah, certainly back in 91 and 92, yeah. On a number of occasions?---Yeah. And it was he that contacted you, that made initial contact with you?---I'm sorry? Was it Mr Corfield that made initial contact with you?---In relation to - - to what? .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15983

A15/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: The Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry?---No. Was it Mr Corfield that made initial contact with you the first time you spoke to him?---No, I rang Mr - - in fact, I didn't ring Mr Corfield. I rang Argyle and spoke to their PR guy, I think - he was a Mr David something, I think - and subsequently spoke to Mr Corfield. Did Mr Corfield tell you that he was unhappy about the Argyle - - the police investigation of the complaint by Argyle Diamond Mines?---I think, yeah, Argyle made it clear that they were unhappy. Yeah. Did he tell you that he was unhappy about Sergeant Thoy not being involved in the investigation?---Sorry, at what stage are we talking now? Sorry, I should rephrase that. Did he tell you that he was unhappy with the way that the police had dealt with Sergeant Thoy's final report?---Well, I don't remember it quite in that detail but in terms of that Argyle believed the matter should be pursued that's certainly true. Quite how it should be pursued and by whom might be a different issue but - - and, indeed, it was pursued, of course. When Mr Noye was conducting his investigation of the Argyle Diamond Mine issues, the stolen stones, did Corfield say to you that he was not happy with Noye?---Look, my recollection is, and I think - - it doesn't appear to be here but I'm sure I wrote a story in the middle of 92 or something saying that there was an expectation that the police might nab a few people, and that was clearly on the back of Mr Noye's inquiry so, you know, I don't recall Argyle saying clearly they were unhappy about that situation. COMMISSIONER: Mr Noye is giving evidence today, isn't he? MR LASKARIS: I understand he is, yes. COMMISSIONER: Well, I think it's preferable for him to be asked these questions rather than the witness because we're back to third-hand again. MR LASKARIS: I'm not sure that we are. I'm seeking to - - I'm seeking to see - - or to lead evidence about - - - .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15984

A16/2 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - to lead evidence about Corfield's view of Noye as he relayed it to third parties. If it's not profitable, I won't pursue it. COMMISSIONER: No. MR LASKARIS: Did you have any contact with Mr Les Ayton?---In relation to this matter? Yes?---Oh, I think - - well, certainly on the day that I spoke to Mr Zanetti, he arranged for me to speak to Ayton later, just to - - well, essentially to reassure me that everything was moving along and tickety-boo and they were doing the job. I mean, I've dealt with Mr Ayton on a number of occasions about other matters, but I - - I think that is the only occasion that I had contact with Mr Ayton in relation to this. And what occasion was that again?---The day that I went to see Mr Zanetti in his office, which would have been the October of 93, so having spoken with Mr Zanetti, he - - I think I gave evidence that Mr Ayton was in the room; he left, Mr Zanetti and I spoke and then I went to see Mr Ayton subsequently so that he could reassure me that everything was on track and I'm not sure whether he gave me - - I'd asked some questions and he'd - - he was the - - sort of the messenger for the answers which were pretty non-specific, but - - but essentially, that you know, they were doing everything that had to be done on the inquiry. So in essence your contact with Mr Ayton was very limited?---And - - yeah. And arose out of a - - out of the meeting, or subsequent to the meeting with Frank Zanetti?---Yeah. There was no continuing contact - -?---No. - - between yourself and Mr Ayton?---No. During the course of either 1992 or 1993?---No. Do you know a Mr Raymond Harrington?---The name rings a bell, but I don't know that I - quote unquote - know him. The name rings a bell. Was he involved in - - sorry, did he give you any information about the Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry?---I've got no recollection of - - of that happening. As I say, I - - the name rings a bell, but I can't place him at all. If you'd have said he was placed in some other inquiry, I wouldn't know that either. His - - his name rings a bell, but not particularly ringing a bell with Argyle. .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15985

A16/2 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Do you - -?---If you could tell me that he is involved in Argyle, I'll - - you know, but I don't recall. Well, perhaps this might be helpful; do you recall Mr Harrington in the context of someone who was employed - - sorry, who - - who employed Mr Gwilliam's father? He was a framer. Do you recall him in the context of being someone involved in the framing business?---That's not getting any closer to anything - - that just doesn't mean anything to me at all. Yes. May it please you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr Hall? MR HALL: I've got no other questions for Mr Saxon. If he could be excused, sir? NO RE-EXAMINATION COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you, Mr Saxon. You're freed from any further obligation under the summons. WITNESS WITHDREW COMMISSIONER: Yes? MR LASKARIS: Commissioner, can I inquire of you whether it would be appropriate to seek leave to tender these four documents that I've made reference to? COMMISSIONER: Yes. Yes, we'll make them one exhibit, I think. MR LASKARIS: Yes, sir. Just for the record, sir, for the transcript purposes, the first is an article that appeared in The Sunday Times newspaper on the 18th of August 1991 under the heading, "Drugs Link in Gems Heist." The second was an article that appeared in The Sunday Times on the 22nd of March 1992, in the second edition, under the heading, "WADC Stolen Gems Probe." The third is an article that appeared in The Sunday Times on the 15th of August 1993, headed, "Three Police Face Gems Inquiry", the fourth is an article that appeared on the front page of The Sunday Times on the 12th of September 1993, headed "CIB Man Linked to Gems." And the - - - .28/07/2003 SAXON, M.R. XXN 15986

A17/1 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - "CIB man linked to gems". And the 5th is an article which appeared again on the front page of The Sunday Times on the 10th of October 1993, headed, "Two cops suspect". All the articles were written by the witness. COMMISSIONER: Yes. The five articles identified by Mr Laskaris, barcoded D1045229, will be exhibit 2402. EXHIBIT 2402 Mr Laskaris DATE (Various) Five newspaper articles, barcode D1045229 COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hall? MR HALL: Commissioner, the next witness, (...name suppressed...), I understand is not here yet. I wonder if we could take - - COMMISSIONER: Oh, well, we'll adjourn then until twenty to twelve. MR HALL: Thank you, sir. AT 11.10 AM HEARING ADJOURNED .28/07/2003 15987

A18/3 POLICE AT 11.44 AM HEARING RESUMED: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hall. MR HALL: I call Brian Bull. COMMISSIONER: Could I have your full name please, Mr Bull? MR BULL: Yes. Brian Bull, sir. COMMISSIONER: Could you take the Bible and read the oath, please? BRIAN BULL sworn: COMMISSIONER: Good. Thank you. Sit down, please. EXAMINED BY MR HALL: MR HALL: Now, Mr Bull, you were of course formerly the Commissioner of Police?---That is correct. Retired when?---19th of June 1994. Now, Mr Bull, I want to take you back to 1990. Do you recall in May of that year having a meeting with Mr Karpin and Mr Corfield of Argyle?---No, I don't recall the - - the meeting, but I did locate a reference to it in my appointment diary. And can you tell us what your appointment diary reveals the date was?---No, I can't remember offhand. Well, Mr Corfield says that it was the 9th of May?---Yes, well - - Does that sound right?---That would be about right, yes. All right. Do you recall what it was they came to see you about?---No, unfortunately not, although I had been told by previous investigators the subject, but I - - I do not have, unfortunately, an independent recollection of it. All right - -?---Nor do I of many other appointments that I had around that time. Okay. Well, prior to them coming to see you, were you given a briefing about the Argyle Diamond inquiry?---According, again, to my diary, it appears that I certainly was briefed by the crime portfolio. Do you know who from the crime portfolio?---I beg your pardon? .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15988

A18/3 POLICE MR HALL: Who from the crime portfolio?---Yeah. Hancock and there was another officer who I can't recall just now. All right. Were you told whether there was any difficulties, any problems, with that particular investigation?---No, again I - - because I cannot remember the particular occurrence, I can't help there. All right. Now, when Mr Corfield and Mr Karpin came to see you, do you recall there being some discussion about resources?---No. I was told that, but I don't have an independent recollection of it, unfortunately. All right. Well, Mr Corfield prepared a note of the meeting which I can show you. It's exhibit 1913 and it'll come up on the screen in a moment. It's D1041586. While we're waiting for that to come up, did you know that Robin Thoy was in charge of that first investigation?---Yes. Was he an officer who you'd previously had dealings with?---Yes. In the 80s, Robin came to me on the Fraud Squad as a probationary detective and I was impressed with his attitude, his work and I sought to have him made a permanent member of the squad and he was a permanent member of the squad for some years. All right. Did you have any concerns about him being in charge of this particular inquiry when you heard that?---No. No. All right. This is Mr Corfield's note of the conversation. You can see he says it occurred at 11 am on Wednesday the 9th of May, that there was just yourself, Mr Karpin and he present. He says that the meeting commenced with you acknowledging limited information on the matter in hand, based on a half hour briefing by supervising officer - - by the supervising officer Detective Sergeant Robin Thoy. Now, your recollection is that it was Hancock - - Mr Hancock who gave you a brief - -?---There were several officers, my recollection. Who else, besides Mr Hancock?---No, I don't know. No? Okay: "Mr Karpin gave brief details of the inquiry to date,

placed it in the context of the broad picture of crime in the diamond industry. He emphasised the importance of the role played by the police, then expressed some puzzlement at the perception at least that at the time inquiries were being pursued most vigorously and because of an admitted lack of police resources we had

.28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15989

A18/3 POLICE commissioned auditors to assist the investigating

police officers. One of those officers had been given other duties and RT's" - that's Robin Thoy - "inquiries had been curtailed."

Now, did you know anything of Sergeant Thoy's inquiries being curtailed or limited?---No. No, not at all. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15990

A19/2 POLICE MR HALL: There's a reference there to another officer being given other duties, and the evidence is that Sergeant Clayton Gwilliam was appointed to assist Sergeant Thoy. Did you know that he was involved in the investigation?---No. Did you know that he had been transferred to Belmont as the officer in charge of the CIB?---No. All right. There's then a reference to you having said: "His information was that there had been a major

division of opinion" - in inverted commas - "between Robin Thoy and his supervising officer on the progress of the investigation."

Now, do you recall saying that?---No. Is it possible that you did say that?---I would be surprised. Why?---If - - if there was that sort of concern being expressed, I - - I would have considered that I would have had more knowledge of this particular meeting. All right. It then goes on to say: "Robin Thoy had gone too far in seeking search

warrants without proper grounds, and whilst the inquiry was progressing, it was the view of the supervising officer, Superintendent Dalton, currently on leave, that a proper course was to await the outcome of the audit. On being told that Robin Thoy, at his request, had been involved in setting the terms of reference for the auditors and intended working with them and intended supplying them with documents seized from three other companies, Mr Bull said it was typical and reflected on why Robin Thoy was not an ideal choice to investigate the matter."

Do you recall saying that?---I certainly wouldn't have said that, because that would not have been my opinion. Right. But you can see what is being conveyed there? The suggestion is that Robin Thoy is the sort of person who goes off at tangents, is a bit uncontrollable. Is that - - are you saying that's not - -?---I've never had that evidence, in the time that he worked for me. It goes on to say: "He was - said Brian Bull - already subject to

disciplinary proceedings and could be facing others." .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15991

A19/2 POLICE MR HALL: Do you know if Robin Thoy was facing some disciplinary proceedings at the time?---Not at that time, no. MR HALL: "He'd constantly regarded proper supervision as

interference and could be described as paranoid." Now, did you say that?---I never used the "paranoid". It's not a phrase that I would use. And over the page, this note says that you then said that the inquiry needed involvement of the Fraud Squad and that (...name suppressed...) would be briefed. Now, did you know (...name suppressed...) - -?---Yes. - - assumed a role?---Yes. That was something that you were consulted about?---Again, I have no recollection of this. Do you know how (...name suppressed...) came to be involved in the Argyle Diamond inquiry?---No. My knowledge of - - he was - - wasn't involved until much, much later. Do you know how he came to be involved, though?---No. These being operational matters, of course, is not something that I would know from a day-to-day - - All right. Well, was there any particular difficulty with supervision, that necessitated (...name suppressed...) becoming involved?---Not that I was aware of. And as I said, I was not aware of (...name suppressed...) being involved. All right. Mr Karpin then raised the matter of technical support, both in the context of this inquiry and broader terms. He raised experience of police officers and it then goes on to say: "Mr Bull appeared most supportive of the concept of

such a specialist task" - I think it should be taskforce or squad - "perhaps along the lines of a combined Diamond/Gold Squad."

Do you remember that being discussed?---Not on that particular occasion, but certainly there have - - has been discussions along those lines, yes. Of the need - -?---There was a need - - - - for a specialist - -?--- - - for a specialist squad, or to - - to embrace it within the Gold Stealing Detection staff. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15992

A19/2 POLICE MR HALL: And of Argyle providing some monetary assistance or other assistance in that regard?---I don't know that detail, no. I can't recall. All right. The note goes on to say then that you were joined by Acting Assistant Commissioner Don Hancock and after introductions, met in Hancock's office with Superintendent Farrell and Chief Inspector Trewin. Now, it's not clear whether you were still involved in the meeting after it went to Hancock's office, but do you have any recollection?---I have no recollection and I wouldn't have expected to be involved - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15993

A20/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - expected to be involved, because it would have then passed on to being an operational matter that would be dealt with by the acting assistant commissioner. MR HALL: Now, apart from that occasion when you met with Mr Corfield and Mr Karpin, did you receive any other briefings about the progress of the Argyle Diamond inquiry?---Not as the - - the progress of the inquiry. Not until such time as the - - my deputy became involved at a much later stage. From memory, I think there was some correspondence from - - from Argyle raising concerns. And the deputy you're referring to there is Mr Zanetti?---That's Mr Zanetti. When you say "much later", was that in 1992?---That would have been about right, yes. All right. Do you recall Mr Zanetti coming to see you about the inquiry, or a new inquiry into the matter?---Yes. He informed me that he intended to meet with representatives from Argyle regarding their concerns about the progress of the investigation. All right. Did he mention what he intended to recommend?---Yes. Following the meeting he briefed me to the effect that he intended to have an officer conduct a review of the investigation and, as a result of that review, a decision would be taken whether it was appropriate to form a task force to further investigate the matter, or any other course of action that was deemed necessary as a result of that review. Did he give you any name as to who was to conduct this review?---Not at - - not at that stage, but subsequently he did, yes. And what did he tell you?---That Detective Sergeant Noye would be given the task of conducting the review. And did you express any view about that?---No. What about then Superintendent Ayton? Did he have a role, on your understanding?---No. Not at that stage. No. Did you come to learn that he was given a role?---Subsequently, yes. How did you find that out?---From the deputy. What did Mr Zanetti tell you about that?---Well, it was - - it was at the stage when the woman involved had actually gone to the police and then a further investigation was undertaken as a result of what she said. Now, my knowledge, that's the .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15994

A20/1 POLICE first time that Robin Thoy was - - I'm sorry; that (...name suppressed...) was involved. MR HALL: That's in 1993?---Yes. The woman you're talking about is Mrs Crimmins?---Yes. I see. And at that stage did you find that Mr Ayton had some involvement?---Yes. Yes. What involvement did he have?---Yes. He had been recently appointed as Assistant Commissioner, Crime, and according to Frank Zanetti, when the review was to be conducted by the sergeant that he was going to get Les Ayton to give him any guidance, particularly in the fraud area, because Les Ayton was a former fraud officer, that he would give him - - he could provide any guidance that was necessary. All right. So you didn't know that Mr Ayton had that role until well after that review process had been conducted?---That's right. Yes. And then subsequently, when Sergeant Noye produced his report, Frank Zanetti told me that he was going to get, or he was going to forward the report to Les Ayton, who was then the Assistant Commissioner, Crime, to have someone review the report. That was typical of Frank Zanetti. He was very, very careful with what he did. And do you know who it was that he had review the report?---No. Now, during the period that you were commissioner, I understand that from time to time you had to sit on disciplinary matters?---Yes. One of those, I think, involved Mr Noye?---That's right. Could we have document D1042250, please? I probably should have the public version, I'm sorry, which is D1042271. (TO WITNESS): What's being brought up on the screen, Mr Bull, is - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15995

A21/4 POLICE MR HALL: - - - the screen, Mr Bull, is a report to the Chief Superintendent Discipline in respect of that matter from Acting Superintendent Trewin of the 15th of July 1992, and some parts that identify third parties have been - - ? ---Yes. Have been blacked out, as you can see. But you will notice in the introduction in brief the matter related to a suitcase of computer printouts, 282 in number, that was handed to the Federal Police and then was passed to Internal Affairs. Is that your recollection of the matter that you dealt with? ---Yes. In the normal course would you have received this memo?---No. No. What would you know about the allegation, the disciplinary matter?---What I would know as commissioner hearing the matter would be the formal charge and, if the officer pleaded guilty, then the facts as presented on the brief. All right. Can I show you D1041908 - if you can turn to the second page. Now, there's a summary of facts there, and I'll come back to that in a moment. If you can turn then to the fourth page you'll see that there's disciplinary charge sheet? ---Yes. And it indicates that Senior Sergeant Noye was charged with one count of using for a purpose other than the discharge of his official duties information gained through his employment?---Yes. Contrary to regulation 607(2)(b). Then there's a record of the tribunal proceedings. Is that your writing?---That's right. And we can - - sorry, bring - - ?---Well, the "Perth". I can't see the rest of it. Yes, we'll bring the rest - - we'll bring the document - - can we see the bottom of the document, please?---It's the other way. Yes, right. Okay. That's your writing?---Yes. All right. In the Decision section that says what?---Sorry, which part? The Decision box?---The Decision? Yes, he was fined - - It says "Agreed with facts"?---He was fined $200, which was the maximum. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15996

A21/4 POLICE MR HALL: And the words above that?---Yes. "PG". Right, so he - - ?---"Agreed with facts". So he pleaded guilty to the charged?---Pleaded guilty and agreed with the facts. He was represented by counsel. All right, and then you've got some remarks there. I wonder if you could read those out for us?---Yes. "Because of his excellent record and service, together

with the fact that he received no financial or other benefit, I will deal with the matter after" - -

"Other"?---"Other": "other than I may have had the circumstances not" - - "Existed"?---"Existed". Now, by that were you intending to suggest that in other circumstances this would be very serious?---If he had have received any monetary or other benefit as a result of the disclosure of this information I probably would've sacked him or, at the least, I would have demoted him. All right. Now, in saying that there was no suggestion of money being received, you were relying on the facts that were given to you at the time?---Yes, which I was assured by the chief superintendent, or the commander discipline, that that was the case. I was also assured by Frank Zanetti that was the case, and I was also advised by Les Ayton, who was then in charge of Internal Affairs, who originally investigated the matter and referred it to the commander discipline for charges. All right. If we can turn back to the statement of facts. The next page. Now, you can see that it related to information - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15997

A22/3 POLICE MR HALL: - - - related to information that was being given for the purpose, it was said, of assisting the lady to whom it was given to locate people who had been given up for adoption?---Yes. There wasn't any suggestion there of how many times this had occurred, although it does say it's occurred between August the 18th 1988 and January the 3rd 1992. Did you know the number of printouts that had been located?---I don't recall if I knew at the time, no. Or that there had been some 1400 screen dumps - -?---I certainly knew there was a number, yes. Right. But as many as 282?---Well, again, I can't remember. All right. And the investigation report revealed that there'd been some 1400 - - in excess of 1400 screen dumps. Did you know that?---Again, I can't recall. When you said that Mr Zanetti gave you an assurance that no money had passed to Mr Noye, was he present at these proceedings?---No, he wasn't present at the proceedings. What involvement did he have in these proceedings?---No, no. Prior to that, when - - when - - because that's his responsibility as deputy - - I see. Right?--- - - to approve of matters of discipline charges. And he gave you a briefing, did he?---He gave me a briefing and an assurance that no money or any benefit had been gained by Sergeant Noye. Or whether there was any evidence to suggest that any money had - -?---Well, he - - - - passed to him?---To the contrary. That there was no evidence to suggest it. All right?---And that was the view also of Les Ayton, Internal Affairs, and the Commander, Discipline, and Mr Zanetti and I was given that assurance by his counsel at the time of the disciplinary hearing. Right. And what about by Mr Noye? Did you seek any personal assurance from him?---Yes, I did. What - -?---During the hearing. Yes?---Yes. In spite of the assurance I was given, I asked him for an - - to give me an assurance and he did. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15998

A22/3 POLICE MR HALL: Now, you see the statements of facts goes on to say: "The lady who was receiving the information was

conducting a small home based agency, assisting those who'd exhausted all other avenues of inquiry and that Mr Noye became sympathetic" - it says - "to the plight of those persons endeavouring to locate family."

There's no suggestion that the lady who was conducting this business, or this agency, and receiving this information was charging any fees for her - - the work that she was doing on behalf of these people?---Mm. Did you know that she was?---No, I don't know. Would you have considered that to be relevant?---No. I would be more concerned about any benefit that Sergeant Noye had received, because I'm talking about penalty here. Yes. Now, notwithstanding that there were, as I've told you, some 282 printouts, computer printouts, there was only one charge that was laid. Is that normal?---Yes, that was quite normal. Yes. How would that reasoning process work? Were there some guidelines as to why you would lay one rolled-up charge rather than a charge dealing with each unauthorised - -?---Well, it's quite consistent with what happens in the criminal sphere as well. It - - you consider there's no point in laying a number of charges, that the same objective can be achieved by bringing them together. Of course, it limits the penalty that might be available, doesn't it?---Yes, but given the circumstances, the penalty wouldn't have been any different if there had been 1 or 20 or 30 or more charges. Do you say that a fine of $200 was an appropriate penalty for this conduct?---I would have perhaps preferred a higher penalty, given the circumstances. Well, if more charges had been laid, a greater monetary penalty would have been available to you?---You could have achieved it that way. At the time that this charge was dealt with, which was in July of 1992, Sergeant Thoy - - Noye was conducting his - - the second investigation - -?---Yes. - - into the Argyle matter. Did you know that? Were you made aware of that?---Yes, I was made aware by Frank Zanetti. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 15999

A23/2 POLICE MR HALL: All right. Did that have some bearing upon the factors that were relevant to penalty?---No. No, it had no bearing. What did Frank Zanetti tell you about what Sergeant Noye was doing in regard to that investigation?---Well, I was fully aware of the overview that he was conducting and that he would be reporting to Frank Zanetti. All right. But was anything said about whether he was doing a good job or otherwise on that inquiry?---No, because his report - - his - - his task hadn't been completed. Do you know whether Superintendent Dalton attended at these disciplinary proceedings?---No. You frowned, as if that was not what you expected?---No. I would've expected - - there was always present would've been the commander, discipline, and frequently the officer who preferred the charges. They would be the only people present, and any counsel, and there was counsel in this case. Well, Superintendent Dalton has told us that he was present on this occasion, but you have no recollection?---I have no recollection, but unless he was the person, of course - - and I don't think he was the person referring the charges. No, it wouldn't seem so. All right?---Well, then he'd have no need to be there and he wouldn't be there. Now, given what you were told about the nature of his conduct, besides fining him $200, do you know whether any precautions were taken to monitor Sergeant Noye's continuing behaviour, his continuing conduct, to ensure that this sort of thing did not happen again?---That is a normal procedure following a disciplinary charge being preferred. All of the details, the circumstances, the penalties, any comments that I may make as commissioner, were referred to his assistant commissioner, and that would then be expected that the assistant commissioner would monitor the behaviour of that person and if there was any ongoing counselling, any consideration whether the assistant commissioner still had confidence in the person, the officer, to remain within their portfolio. They were normal follow-up procedures. All right. Commissioner, can I tender the documents which have been on the screen, which are the documents from the Police Disciplinary Tribunal file? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The disciplinary charges against Detective Senior Sergeant Noye, barcoded D1041908, will be exhibit 2403. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 16000

A23/2 POLICE MR HALL: Commissioner, can that be a confidential exhibit at this stage? There's some editing that needs to be done with it. COMMISSIONER: Yes. That will be a private confidential edition, and it'll be exhibit 2403C. EXHIBIT 2403C Mr Hall DATE (Unstated) Confidential - Police Disciplinary Tribunal file docs re Detective Senior Sergeant Noye barcode D1041908 MR HALL: Mr Bull, during the term of your - - MR ROBBINS: ...(indistinct)... does that include the fax document? MR HALL: The fax? Yes, it does. MR ROBBINS: Thank you. MR HALL: Whilst you were commissioner, there was a trial in the District Court, of which Sergeant Gwilliam together with some fellow officers were defendants. It arose from an incident earlier where an officer, Neville Ripp, had been stabbed and there was then subsequently some suggestions, I think, that there had been some improper interference with witnesses. Do you recall the trial of Sergeant Gwilliam and others?---Only vaguely. Mm. The investigating officer, we've been told, was Superintendent Dalton. Were you aware that he was the investigating officer?---No, I'd have no knowledge of that. It's an operational matter and I wouldn't - - was not aware. Well, Sergeant Gwilliam has given evidence that following his acquittal, he had a meeting with you and that at that time, you said words to this effect, that if he left it alone, you would leave it alone?---Leave what alone? Well, I was hoping you'd be able to tell us?---I can't help. Do you have any recollection of - -?---No, not at all. - - such a meeting?---No. Was there, to your knowledge, any issues of - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 16001

A24/1 POLICE MR HALL: - - - your knowledge, any issues arising from that trial regarding the conduct of the investigation into Sergeant Gwilliam and other officers?---Not as far as I'm aware. You're not aware of any allegations regarding Superintendent Dalton and the way he conducted the inquiry?---No. Now, during his evidence Sergeant Thoy was asked some questions regarding the conduct of his 1990 inquiry and whether it was his impression that that inquiry was stymied, and his response to that was, yes, it was, and that he felt that he had been given orders to that effect by Superintendent Dalton. And he was then asked whether such orders, in his view, must have been passed down the chain of hierarchy, and he was then asked to go back up through that hierarchy and eventually, of course, came to you. Now, in that regard, did you give any orders that the first inquiry of 1990 conducted by Sergeant Thoy was to be stymied or frustrated in any way?---Definitely not. Did you give any orders at all about the 90 inquiry?---None whatsoever. No. Would it normally be a situation where you, as commissioner, would be consulted about resourcing or staffing for an inquiry?---No. No. That would - - that is not a normal consideration for the commissioner. That's an operational matter. You delegate to the - - to the appropriate - - in this case the deputy, or the appropriate assistant commissioner, and although I say "delegate" but the responsibility remains with me as Commissioner of Police for whatever happens. I should make it clear to you that Sergeant Thoy did not say that you had given any such orders. I'm just - - ?---No. - - in fairness to you, putting these propositions?---No. I mean, it wouldn't matter what the circumstances or how supposed legitimate the instruction was, a Commissioner of Police could not give instructions to any officer to curtail, to stymie, to in any way interfere with an investigation. That would be criminal. Are you aware of any such orders being given?---No. Definitely not. Did anyone in the hierarchy within the police service, to your knowledge, receive any money to have the first inquiry written off?---Definitely not. If they did, or if I had any evidence of it, I would have been charging them. Did anyone, to your knowledge, receive any money to arrange for Sergeant Thoy to be transferred?---No. No. Sergeant Thoy .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN 16002

A24/1 POLICE came before me on the disciplinary matter and his subsequent transfer out of the branch, that was consistent with an officer misusing or being involved in the misuse of a motor vehicle. That was quite normal. MR HALL: Just to make that clear, that was an earlier matter where he'd been at Mt Hawthorn?---Yes. Yes. And some subordinates of his were said to have misused a vehicle?---That's right. And because he was in charge of the station - - ?---Yes. He hadn't - - he hadn't exercised due supervision of his officers. All right. But he was subsequent - - after that, and he'd been disciplined for that, he was in the Reserve Squad. He was given the job of the Argyle Diamond inquiry?---Mm. Now, at the end of that inquiry he was then transferred out of the CIB, effectively, into uniform?---Mm. Did you have any knowledge of that transfer?---No. But I wasn't surprised because, as I said, any misuse or involvement in the misuse of a motor vehicle, normally the officer was always transferred out of the CIB. Right. I don't think there's any suggestion that his transfer to uniform was because of that earlier incident?---No. No. Not at all. No. All right. Yes. Thank you, Mr Bull. That's all the questions I have for you. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Laskaris? MR LASKARIS: Yes. Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR LASKARIS: MR LASKARIS: Mr Bull, Laskaris is my name, and I appear on behalf of Mr Dalton, and also I may have to ask you some questions on behalf of Mr Noye as Mr Noye's counsel is not here. However, we'll see how we go about that. Your impressions of - - could you tell the Commissioner your views of Mr Dalton and his capabilities as a police officer?---Always had the highest regard for - - for Bruce Dalton as a person, as a police officer. The allegation by Mr Thoy and, indeed, by Mr Gwilliam during the course of these proceedings is that Dalton and, indeed, the other police officers directly above him in - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XN XXN 16003

A25/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - directly above him in their chain of command, including you, had improperly - that is, corruptly - sought to frustrate the Argyle Diamond Mine investigation that was being conducted by - - MR HALL: That might be pitching it too high. I don't think Mr Thoy in fact ever said that Mr Bull had given an order to that effect. MR LASKARIS: In fact - - MR HALL: He was asked to speculate whether such an order had come from on high and was then asked who was in the hierarchy above. The question was never put directly to Mr Thoy that Mr Bull had given such an order. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR LASKARIS: Can I make two points in relation to that objection? Firstly, the issue needs to be dealt with but, secondly, when I was cross-examining Mr Thoy I specifically asked him whether Roddan had exercised - - or the prime suspect had an involvement in obtaining the termination of the first investigation, and Thoy clearly said that his view was that he had and that that influence, the improper influence, had been exercised from the very top of the Police Force. COMMISSIONER: Do you have the transcript reference? MR LASKARIS: I don't have the transcript reference, and my view is that my friend didn't take it when he was asking Mr Bull questions - - when he asked him questions about Thoy's evidence about the first inquiry being stymied or frustrated, my view is that my friend didn't take it as far as, in fact, my cross-examination went. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR LASKARIS: I clearly recall that my cross-examination used the word "stymied" and "frustrated" after Mr Thoy had named the officers in the chain of command above Mr Dalton. He inferred that those officers had - - COMMISSIONER: Well, could I ask if Mr Hall has the reference? MR HALL: I don't really have it to hand. My recollection is different and I think, in fairness, that if this is to be put to Mr Bull as being an allegation made by Mr Thoy then it should be put absolutely accurately, because if it is to be pitched wide and it made to look as if Mr Thoy has made such an allegation then it, of course, will be an unfair reflection upon his credibility if, in fact, he said no such thing. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16004

A25/4 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, can the transcript be obtained now? MR HALL: We've certainly got the transcript and I will look at it - - COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: - - quickly, if Mr Laskaris might - - COMMISSIONER: Perhaps if you can go on with some other aspect - - MR LASKARIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER: - - Mr Laskaris. MR LASKARIS: Mr Bull, can I have you confirm to the Commissioner that you have had absolute - - you have had no contact with Mr Roddan or any of the other suspects of the Argyle Diamond Mine?---No, I have had no contact. I don't know them, I've never spoken to them. And when I mean - - "the other suspects", I mean personages such as Mrs Crimmins and Mr Crimmins. You don't know those people, do you?---Never met them. Don't know the people. And to your knowledge, there has been - - you never received information that any of your senior officers had any connection with those people?---No. Not at all. You gave the Commissioner a view that you held about Mr Thoy when he worked in the Fraud Squad?---Yes. When you were in the Fraud Squad?---Yes. Many, many years ago?---Yes. That was in the 80s. Did your view of Mr Thoy over the years change?---I had no evidence to change it because, again, as commissioner, I'm removed from the operations of policing. Did you have cause to read any of the reports that were submitted by Mr Thoy to his superiors during the course of his conduct of the first Argyle Diamond Mine investigation? ---No. Did you have cause to read any of the comments made by any of his superiors in relation to any of his reports?---No. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16005

A26/2 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Did you read the federal police investigation report that was conducted into the Argyle Diamond Mine investigation by the WAPS?---No, I never read the report. I think in fairness to you, that report was conducted in - - was, sorry, published in 1996. You weren't in the police force at that time, were you?---No. I was not privy to it, only extracts that directly involved myself. Were you aware that the views of - - sorry. Were you aware of the views held by senior commissioned officers about Mr Thoy in relation to his investigation in the first Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry?---No. I think I see my friend, Commissioner, highlighting some section of transcript which he may well have - - and I'm - - before I move on to these other matters - - MR HALL: Page 14237 and following. MR LASKARIS: Could I ask you, to just borrow your hard copy of the transcript? It's just that it's very hard to read on the screen. I'm indebted to you. Thank you. MR HALL: Usefully highlighted. MR LASKARIS: Yes, and I'm indebted to you for that as well, thank you. (TO WITNESS): So that I can put it to you absolutely fairly, Mr Bull, can I read you the copy of the relevant extract from the transcript? This is at page 14237, Commissioner, starting at about halfway down the page - - sorry, a third of the way down the page. This is me asking Mr Thoy questions: "Is it your position to the Commission that Dalton

himself was an officer who was being paid off by someone?---My position to the Commission is that Mr Dalton interfered with the inquiry to a degree that it was stymied completely. Whether he was paid off or not I could never prove and I would - - I wouldn't - - I wouldn't be able to say.

"You do, however, say that someone was being paid

off?---I suspected that, yes. "Someone above Dalton?---I don't know where he was.

It didn't have to be above Dalton, but it - - the orders could only come from above.

"Well, that's right. That's logically right?---Yes. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16006

A26/2 POLICE "If Dalton is telling you to write off the inquiry, he

can only do that if someone gets orders from above?---Agreed, because - -

"Gives him orders from above?---There is no way anyone

can operate on this particular inquiry of this size with this complainant unless they had extreme control.

"Well, the officers directly above Dalton in relation

to this matter were Hancock?---Yes. "Who was in charge of the CIB as a whole?---Yes. "And above him, Scott, Bruce Scott, Assistant

Commissioner Crime?---Yes. And?" And this is the witness saying this, saying, "Yes" and then he goes on and says, "And? And above him?" The witness prompting me: "And above him, the deputy commissioner?---Yes, and

above him?" It's the witness, prompting me: "The commissioner?---Yes, sir. "So we've got five. We've got Hancock, Scott, the

deputy commissioner and the commissioner; four. So it must have been one of those four people?---One of those four people, or one of those five people, including Dalton. I don't know."

So, I suggest to you, Mr Bull, that he's inferring there - - that Thoy is inferring that one of those four or five people, including yourself and my client, Dalton, was being paid off in relation to - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16007

A27/3 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - in relation to the stymie-ing of this inquiry. What do you say to that? MR HALL: Well, he doesn't say that at all. I don't know if my learned friend was - - what he said was "It's one of those four or five people who could have given the order." That is what he said. The question was not put - - in fact, when he was asked about money he says "I don't know." My learned friend just read that. Now, all he is asked then is to identify the chain of command as to who could have given such an order, which is what he does. It is not fair to put it as being an allegation that's made by Mr Thoy when it wasn't. It's not fair to the witness or to Mr Thoy. MR LASKARIS: Commissioner, I think you'll have to rule on this because I believe that a fair interpretation of that series of questioning is that the witness was giving evidence of who he thought was being paid by - - COMMISSIONER: Well, my understanding is the proposition put forward by Mr Hall on the basis of that extract. MR HALL: Commissioner, might I also say that insofar as there's to be any suggestion at all drawn from the evidence - and I don't say there is any evidence in this regard - I have already put to Mr Bull as to whether he is aware of any money being received in respect of the stymie-ing of the investigation, or Mr Thoy's transfer, and he said "No." It seems to me that this questioning is not really designed to determine whether such an allegation has been made and there's any truth in it, but is really designed to somehow impact upon Mr Thoy's credibility and it's really been taken as far as it can be. MR LASKARIS: My friend is exactly right. This line of questioning is designed to impact and attack Mr Thoy's credibility, and it's - - and I don't resile from that for one moment. However, Commissioner, given your interpretation of that line of questioning being the same as my learned friend's, it's not profitable for me to pursue it any further. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR LASKARIS: After those series of questions, I asked Mr Thoy whether he had any information about a connection between any senior police officer and Mr Roddan and he said some time later - not at that time, but some time later - he found out that Mr Zanetti had attended at Mr Roddan's home for the purposes of a meeting. Were you ever given any information of any such meeting?---Never. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16008

A27/3 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Mr Zanetti has denied that any such meeting occurred. Given his position as your deputy at that time, if such a meeting had have occurred, would it be the sort of thing that would be brought to your attention?---Most certainly I would have expected - - Yes?---But on the other hand, I would not have expected a deputy commissioner to have such a meeting. Yes. Commissioner, in relation to the questions I have of Mr Dalton - - on behalf of Mr Dalton, they are those questions. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR LASKARIS: Commissioner, I would seek your indulgence in this respect. I would ask you to grant my friend Mr Moen the indulgence of taking an early lunch and perhaps if we could reconvene at 1.30 rather than 2 o'clock because it would be preferable for him to ask Mr Bull the questions that he wants on behalf of Mr Noye, rather than me. COMMISSIONER: Are you not in a position to proceed with that now? MR LASKARIS: I beg your pardon? COMMISSIONER: Are you not in a position to proceed with that now? MR LASKARIS: I have a cross-examination and I have read it, but I do believe that my friend Mr Moen would be able to do it more justice than I would. If you want me to proceed, I will. COMMISSIONER: Well, I think you should. MR ROBBINS: I can use up 10 minutes, sir, if that would be of help. MR LASKARIS: Well, if my friend's going to go until quarter to, I'd again seek to re-open that application and ask you to consider adjourning at quarter to one and come back at quarter to two. COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't want to. You'll have to proceed with it, I think. MR LASKARIS: Mr Bull, if I can now put on another hat, Mr Gwilliam testified at a committal proceeding - not at these proceedings - some years ago that he and Mr Zanetti and yourself and Jeffrey Noye had a meeting in your office on the 8th of March 1992 - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16009

A28/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - 8th of March 1992. Do you recall any such meeting occurring?---No. Can I show you a copy of this document, please? I have a copy for my friend. Sorry, can I just hand this up to the witness? Mr Hall. Commissioner, if you'd just bear with me. It's just a short memo. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR LASKARIS: That's a memo in your handwriting, Mr Bull? ---Yes, that's my writing. And it reads: "Met with deputy re respect of Noye." WITNESS: No, "report". MR LASKARIS: Sorry, can you just read it for us rather than me - - ?---Yes. - - trying to read it?---It's dated the 8th of March 92. "Met with deputy re report of Noye. Investigation to

proceed. Consider resources. The Royal Commission to be briefed."

Yes?---I've initialled it. Now, me presenting - - sorry, this document having been put in front of you, do you have now a recollection of a meeting - - ?---No. It appears from a check that - - a check of the dates that the 8th of March 1992 was a Sunday?---We certainly did not have any meetings on a Sunday. Yes. If it was a Sunday, if it transpires to be correct that the 8th of March 1992 was a Sunday, that simply means, doesn't it, that the date that you've inserted at the top, 8.3.92, is just a mistake?---Would be a mistake. Mm. However, in relation to the substance of the note itself, it appears that it records that a meeting between yourself and Mr Zanetti occurred?---Yes, but not Noye. With Deputy Zanetti?---But not Noye. No, not Noye?---No. No. In respect of - - in respect of the report of Noye? ---Yes. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16010

A28/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: It wouldn't be normal for you to have a meeting with such junior officers, would it?---No. In other words - - ?---That would not be normal procedure. - - Noye and Gwilliam?---No, no. I'm concerned not about operational matters. That's a matter for the deputy. I've heard you say that on a number of occasions. The next line appears to be you saying "Investigation to proceed"? ---That's the deputy telling me it's going to proceed. I see. All right. Mr Noye's evidence will be - - just so you know the provenance of where this note came from, Mr Noye's evidence will be that when his report, the report that he had prepared at about that time prior to his commencing the second investigation, came back to him it had this on the top of it? ---Mm. So it had your note - - ?---Mm. - - on the top of it. So the second line "Investigation to proceed" is not you making an order?---No. It's just you recording what - - ?---What the deputy would be telling me. Fine, and the next line is "Consider resources"?---Yes. What did you mean by that, or what is meant by that?---Again, the deputy would be considering any aspects of resources. Now, is that therefore meant to mean that your deputy had told you something about the level of resources and you were simply recording the receipt of that information?---Yes. It's not you saying to the deputy so that it goes down the line, "Let's review the resources that we're putting into this inquiry either with a view to upgrading them or downgrading them or doing something else with them"?---No, that's entirely a matter for the deputy. The last line says, "Royal Commission to be briefed - - - " .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16011

A29/1 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - says, "Royal Commission to be briefed". Now, can I suggest to you that that's not the sort of thing that would be entirely a matter for the deputy, would it?---No. I - - I don't know what I was referring to there. Well, there was a Royal Commission into WA Inc - - ?---Inc, yes. - - going on at the time. Can I suggest to you that it was meant to be a - - it's a reference by you to that royal commission?---Yes. Again, I can't help you. I really don't know. Not trying to reflect on something that happened so long ago, and a brief comment. All right. And I don't want to suggest a construction to you that might not be an appropriate one, but do you agree that if the royal commission - the Royal Commission into WA Inc - was to be briefed about the Argyle Diamond Mine investigation, that would be the sort of command decision that the Commissioner of Police would take?---That is correct. And that I assume that there were other matters at the time - other police matters at the time that the then Royal Commission into WA Inc was being undertaken, that were the subject of briefings by the police to the royal commission?---I did in fact brief the royal commission as Commissioner of Police, but this subject was not included in that briefing. Thank you. Could this perhaps be - - this last line - "Royal Commission to be briefed" - could it perhaps be an instruction by you to the deputy to consider the question of such a briefing?---Again, because I don't recall it, or the reason for it, I'd only surmise, and I can't do that. You don't recall any report subsequently coming to you dealing with the Argyle Diamond Mine inquiry and reasons why or why it should or why it shouldn't be briefed to the commission - brought to the royal commission's attention?---Oh, no. Definitely that did not occur. Because if it had you would remember such a report?---Oh, yes. I'd remember that. Would it be uncommon for a note such as this to in fact find its way, or to be attached to the report of the prospective investigating officer - in this case Sergeant Noye - who was going to conduct the second inquiry? Would it be uncommon for your note to be attached to that report when it goes back to him?---Yes. Definitely uncommon. Yes. Is there anything else that you would like to tell the Commission about this note?---No. I - - I can't help you because, as I said, I have no independent recollection of it. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16012

A29/1 POLICE As Commissioner of Police I was receiving briefings all day long, and making notes. It's just so difficult to remember later. MR LASKARIS: Yes, sir. Now, do you recall an exchange of correspondence between yourself and Mr Noye's solicitor, Mr John Quigley, in 1993 - commencing in 1993?---No. Do you recall having any information about whether or not the police force intended to charge Sergeant Noye with any criminal conduct in relation to the Argyle Diamond Mines matter?---Yes, I was aware. I was briefed that there was an intention to charge him. Now, can I just confirm with you whether or not you were required to sign off on that?---No. Were you asked, as the commissioner, to approve or not approve - - ?---No. Definitely not. - - that prospective criminal action?---Definitely not. The commissioner does not make such decisions. Nor would the deputy make such a decision. That is entirely up to the investigating officers in a criminal matter. Do you remember who the investigating officer was in relation to the investigation of Mr Noye - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16013

A30/2 POLICE MR LASKARIS: - - - investigation of Mr Noye?---As far as I can recall, I think (...name suppressed...) was involved, had some involvement, and Peter Lavender. They were both commissioned officers?---Yes. Do you recall a man called Robbins?---Yes. Now that I've mentioned the name, can you - -?---Yes, I believe that he was involved as well. He was Internal Affairs. Yes. And can you tell the Commissioner what his involvement was? Sorry, this Commissioner?---No, I don't - - well, I can only assume he was part of the investigating team. I - - I don't know. In relation to the charging of Mr Noye, were you given - - I think you've said you were given briefings about that?---That he was - - he was going to be charged, yes. By who were you given briefings?---The deputy was present and from memory, the investigating officers. Commissioner, can I tender before I proceed, that first note with your leave? Could that be handed up to the Commissioner, please? COMMISSIONER: Can I see it first? Yes. The note by Mr Bull dated the 8th of March 1992, barcoded D1045230, will be exhibit 2404. EXHIBIT 2404 Mr Laskaris DATE 8.3.92 Note by Mr B. Bull barcode D1045230 MR LASKARIS: Can I just hand these up, please, to the Commissioner? Not to the witness. Commissioner, again I apologise, there should be two more copies of these documents so that my learned friend and the witness can have a copy of them, but I've handed up my other copy to you so that you can follow it. (TO WITNESS): Mr Bull, by letter dated the 30th of August 1993, Mr Quigley wrote to the Commissioner of Police - he doesn't identify you, your name doesn't appear on the heading of the document. It's a letter that's headed: "Dear Sir, re Detective Sergeant Noye." It reads, relevantly: .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16014

A30/2 POLICE "We confirm that Detective Sergeant Noye was asked to

undertake an investigation into what is now known as the Argyle Diamond Mine conspiracy. During the third week of March 1993, Detective Sergeant Gwilliam stated to my client that he believed that Detective Superintendent Kiernan had been given $100,000 by my client, Noye, as payment for supposed favoured treatment of the now-accused Roddan.

"Earlier, Detective Sergeant Gwilliam had stated to

others that my client, Noye, had received $200,000. On the 22nd of March 1993, my client, in company with Superintendent Kiernan, spoke with Deputy Commissioner Zanetti and Assistant Commissioner Ayton about the Gwilliam allegations and requested a full and proper investigation into the matter forthwith.

"On 23 March 1993, as you would be aware - - -" .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16015

A31/3 POLICE MR LASKARIS: "- - - would be aware, my client submitted a report to Assistant Commissioner Ayton concerning the allegations of Detective Sergeant Gwilliam. My client can well appreciate your department's need to thoroughly investigate any alleged corruption. My client further appreciates the need to conduct such investigations discreetly. My client does not accept that it was necessary, as a part of these rigorous and discreet inquiries, for officers of your department to give evidence in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions on a bail application concerning the accused Roddan, not a police officer, and therein state that numbers of senior police officers were under investigation in relation to allegations of graft connected with the diamond conspiracy." I won't read the balance of the letter to you. Do you recall receiving this letter?---I don't specifically recall the letter. Let me just show it to you?---Mm. I recall the circumstances but not the letter. The letter has not come to me personally. All right. Can I just show you this reply dated the 1st of September 1993?---Yes. Firstly, is that - - is that a rubber facsimile stamp of your signature down the bottom or is it actually your signature?---No. I never ever used a - - no, other than - - that is my signature. So that is your signature?---Yes. All right. Do you see that that letter is a reply to that first letter - -?---Yes. - - from Mr Quigley, and it's basically saying, "Look, I need time to speak to Ayton and - -" Who else is mentioned there?---Ayton and Zanetti are mentioned. Yeah, "- - Ayton and Zanetti, who are on leave at the moment, before I can reply to your - - before I can reply in detail to the contents of your letter"?---Yes. Does me showing you that letter now trigger any recollection of the initiation of that correspondence?---No. I did not see that correspondence. It has been referred directly to the deputy. If I had received it, I would have initialled it at the top and I would have addressed it to the deputy and, in accordance with the normal procedure, matters went to portfolios. In this case, because it's addressed to me, the .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16016

A31/3 POLICE correspondence is then prepared for me to - - to sign in response. On many occasions, the deputy or the assistant commissioner would actually sign the - - the correspondence going back. In this case, I have signed it. MR LASKARIS: I suspected that that - - that that may well be your answer. To see if I've understood it correctly, what you're saying is that that letter from Mr Quigley, dated - - what is it? The 23rd of August?---30th of August. - - 30th of August 1993, although addressed to the Commissioner of Police, would not be a letter that you would have read?---No, I have not read this one. And the reply which is dated the 1st of September - - is that correct?---Yes. - - although signed by you, was not authored by you?---No. Is that correct?---That's correct. And you would have signed off on that reply without having read the letter that it refers to, the incoming correspondence?---That's right. I certainly would have been briefed as to what the content of the letter was, as to why I was sending that back. But you wouldn't have been briefed by Zanetti or Ayton because it seems from the contents of the reply - -?---Yes. - - they weren't - -?---They weren't - - - - around to brief you?---They weren't around at the time, no. Do you recall if anyone did brief you?---No, I don't. All right. I tender those two letters. The Commissioner has a copy. COMMISSIONER: I'll do them separately, I suppose. The letter from John R. Quigley & Co to the Commissioner of Police dated the 30th of August 1993, barcoded D1045231, will be exhibit 2405, and the letter from the Commissioner of Police to Mr J.R. Quigley, dated the 1st of September 1993, barcoded D1045232, will be exhibit 2406. EXHIBIT 2405 Mr Laskaris DATE 30.8.93 Letter from John R. Quigley & Co to Commissioner of Police. Barcode D1045231. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16017

A31/3 POLICE EXHIBIT 2406 Mr Laskaris DATE 1.9.93 Letter from Commissioner of Police to Mr J.R. Quigley. Barcode D1045232. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16018

A32/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Commissioner, there are some aspects of the subsequent half a dozen pieces of correspondence between the parties that I would like to have sufficient copies of so that everyone can follow them. I'm not filibusting (...on tape...) - - COMMISSIONER: Well - - MR LASKARIS: Given that I've already embarked upon this cross-examination, can I simply ask your indulgence for an early break so that I can take the appropriate copies and then proceed after the break? MR HALL: If that's all that my learned friend has to do then I wonder if we can't just have the tender of those after lunch and Mr Robbins might go on. Mr Bull might want to be relieved of further attendance. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Robbins? MR ROBBINS: Yes, I'll have this time, thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER: And a finish, I hope. MR ROBBINS: I'll do that, sir. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR ROBBINS: MR ROBBINS: Mr Bull, how did you come to be here at this Commission? Were you subpoenaed by the Commission?---Yes. Did you know that you had, as it were, been mentioned in dispatches by inference earlier on?---No, I was overseas. I see, and before today have you had time to review your activities, going back to the 1990s and 1992 in particular? ---No, I have had no reason to other than being interviewed by the investigators for the Commission. Yes, all right?---It is very difficult after this length of time - - Exactly?--- - - to remember. And with all due respect to you, you don't need to publish this, but how old are you now, sir?---I'm 70 this year. All right. Mr Bull, the concept of writing off a file - the Commissioner and the Commission have heard some evidence as to this concept of writing something off. Can I suggest to you what it does not mean, and correct me if I'm wrong? It does not mean, does it, that the file was to be finished forever? ---Oh, no. Definitely not. The term that's used in policing is that it's "put to bed". .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16019

A32/4 POLICE MR ROBBINS: For the time being?---For the time being. Yes. COMMISSIONER: Then it's awaiting somebody to do something? ---It's awaiting further developments, if any further information or evidence may come along. A file is never dead. It remains active unless there is a satisfactory conclusion, like somebody being charged. MR ROBBINS: Yes, and that would be particularly so if the inquiry was incomplete in the sense that no charges had been laid but there was, nevertheless, a suspicion of an offence having been committed?---Oh, yes. It would remain an active file although it was put to bed for the time being. COMMISSIONER: Mm. Yes. MR ROBBINS: And is it fair to say that in the time that you were commissioner there may have been across the board hundreds of such files?---Oh, thousands. Thousands of files?---Thousands. COMMISSIONER: But would the position be that unless there was some further information that came to light that would be an end to the matter, that you weren't going to put any further resources into the investigation?---No. That's right. It was put to bed, as I described it - - Yes, yes?--- - - subject to further information being received. I mean, police officers, particularly detectives, work under enormous pressure, enormous workload, and of course they're expected to conclude investigations as speedily as possible. If there is not a conclusion whereby someone is charged or they can't definitely conclude that no offence has occurred, such as in a fraud matter, then they are expected, of course, to write the matter off for the time being subject to any further evidence so they can be allocated further investigations. Yes, thank you. MR ROBBINS: And I think that the practice and protocol was that somebody would make a note on the file to that effect that you've just explained to the Commissioner but not necessarily using the words "write off"?---No. They would simply say "This file has been" - - ?---We all have different ways of doing it but they would be certainly clearly pointing out in their write-off that the matter was not - - Completed?--- - - completed from the point of view - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16020

A33/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - from the point of view that no further action - - the only time that would occur would mainly be in fraud matters where they had investigated a matter and concluded that no offence had occurred. MR ROBBINS: Yes?---Then it would be put to bed permanently. All right. Could I ask you, please, to be shown the document, exhibit 2403C - this is the disciplinary charges - and the thing that I'm going to call a facts document? It's 1041908, thank you. MR HALL: While that's coming up, Commissioner, I just wonder how this affects Mr Robbins' client. COMMISSIONER: Yes. I was going to ask him that. How does this bear upon your client, Mr Robbins? MR ROBBINS: Well, I was going to use the witness, because nobody else has yet done so, for the purpose of making the point that from time to time, where there are numerous potential charges, it does happen from time to time that only one charge is laid, and that was the practice of the Crown. COMMISSIONER: Well, we've heard that already, I think, haven't we? MR ROBBINS: All right. Well, if that's accepted I won't pursue that. I'm just concerned that in the absence of Mr Moen representing Mr Noye, that an inference still exists that there was somehow impropriety attributable to this witness in the way that these disciplinary charges were met, and I'm concerned that this witness is not represented, certainly not by me, and that there is no other person coming, apart from Mr Moen, who could deal with the matter. If this witness is to be dismissed now it leaves open the potential that this inference - - COMMISSIONER: Well, I think then that would be Mr Hall's task to raise. MR ROBBINS: All right. Perhaps I could then just raise it as I stand here, sir, that there should be no adverse inference raised in respect of this witness in due course as to any impropriety in the way he went about the disciplinary charges. (TO WITNESS): Could I ask you, Mr Bull, about the matter of Mr Max Kiernan, who I represent?---Yes. You have heard today, and perhaps you've heard previously this suggestion that Mr Kiernan corruptly received a sum of money of various amounts. So far as you were concerned, did you ever come to the view that Mr Kiernan had corruptly received any money?---I had no evidence to that effect whatsoever. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16021

A33/1 POLICE MR ROBBINS: And as you sit there today, if you knew of any evidence whatsoever of Mr Kiernan corruptly receiving money, would you tell Mr Commissioner?---Most certainly. And was there any such evidence that you uncovered?---None. Mr Bull, you're not represented today, are you?---No. Subject to the exchange that has taken place between me and the Commissioner and Mr Hall, would you - - not through me - - would you seek any representation in respect to any findings that might be made?---No. I'm quite happy with what's occurred. COMMISSIONER: I think we'll adjourn now until 2 o'clock. AT 1.04 PM HEARING ADJOURNED .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16022

A34/4 POLICE AT 2.05 PM HEARING RESUMED: COMMISSIONER: Mr Bull, I gather that you have had a discussion with Mr Hall in relation to the removal of the suppression orders?---Yes, sir. And that you are content to have that restriction lifted? ---Yes, certainly am. Yes, well, thank you. There will be a direction that the suppression orders in relation to Mr Bull should be lifted. Yes? MR LASKARIS: Commissioner, you will see before you I have over the luncheon break photocopied that bundle of correspondence that I was earlier taking the witness to, and I have provided a copy to Mr Bull and to my learned friend. The first two documents in that bundle is the initial letter from Mr Quigley and the initial reply, exhibit 2405 and 2406. With your leave, if I can just take Mr Bull quickly to the balance of that correspondence which is in that bundle. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR LASKARIS: Thank you, sir. (TO WITNESS): Mr Bull, you'll see that the first letter is a letter that I've already referred you to. In essence, you've told us you didn't read that but you can see from looking at that letter now that Mr Quigley is raising with the commissioner, or with the Police Department, the issue about some alleged rumours propagated by Sergeant Gwilliam and he's asking for them to be investigated?---Yes. And subsidiary to that, he's saying that he's upset on behalf of his client because the issue of an investigation about the conduct of his client - that is, Mr Noye - was raised during the course of a bail application proceeding in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions and he's bringing that to your attention? ---Yes. All right. Now, that sets the groundwork. Your letter of reply, which is exhibit 2406, says that, in essence, you'll get back to him when your other senior officers come back from leave. The next letter in the bundle is a letter dated the 21st of September 1993 from Mr Quigley, again addressed to the Commissioner of Police, and this time the letter commences that the writer - that is, Mr Quigley - acts on behalf of Detective Sergeant Noye and Detective Superintendent Kiernan, so he brings - - ?---Yes. - - Mr Kiernan into the equation. I just pause there for a moment. This letter also is addressed to the Commissioner of Police but it doesn't name you. Did you see this letter at the time?---No. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16023

A34/4 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Now, if I could just draw to your attention again Mr Quigley relates that allegation of Mr Gwilliam, which you can see in paragraph A, and goes on and speaks about issues that occurred in the bail application and some action taken within the Internal Affairs Unit by Superintendent Watson in paragraph C. Then in paragraph D on the top of page 2 he, Mr Quigley, speaks of something that occurred on Friday, the 13th of August - in other words, a telephone conversation that he had with an Inspector Robbins - and I won't go into it. You can read it while I'm telling you about it. He's saying - - he's in essence saying to you what Mr Robbins said to him about the way that was conducting - that is, he, Inspector Robbins was conducting - - ? ---Yes. - - the investigation into Mr Noye. It's the next paragraph that I wish to really draw your attention to, having set that scene. Mr Quigley says: "As rumours abounded within the West Australian Police

Department" - this is paragraph E - "the source of those rumours, on my instruction, being

Detective Sergeant Gwilliam, the charging of my client Noye with a criminal offence appeared imminent. I attended upon yourself and Deputy Commissioner Zanetti in the presence of Superintendent Chadbourne and raised my concerns."

Did he? Did Mr Quigley attend on you?---I don't recall. Could he have?---He could have. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16024

A35/1 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Would that be unusual for a matter such as this to be - - in essence, have some involvement by the commissioner of the day?---Mr Quigley, by nature, frequently sought an audience with myself regarding police matters. All right. And I - - ?---On a few occasions I did grant an audience. Mostly I did not. All right. And this may have been one of them?---It could have been one. Indeed. He says in the next paragraph, paragraph 5: "Our meeting wound up with myself being informed that

when the department was in receipt of an allegation it must proceed to investigate the allegation thoroughly but discreetly."

WITNESS: Yes. MR LASKARIS: Do you recall telling him that, or was it one of the other officers that he names being present at that meeting in your presence?---I have - - I have no recollection of the meeting or the circumstances. All right. He then finishes off - - if you're glancing down the rest of that page he finishes off, in essence, seeking the complaint that his client is making to be pursued and he awaits an inquiry or he awaits an answer. He then, at the top of page 3, relates a fresh complaint. He says: "Six days after we were informed of the institution of

an internal investigation into the conduct of Detective Sergeant Gwilliam and his allegations, and soon in time after, when members of the West Australian Police Force became aware of my client's complaints and your decision to institute an internal investigation, the allegation was repeated by somebody and published in The Sunday Times."

Now, firstly, do you recall being the person making a decision to institute an internal investigation?---No. I would not be the person that would institute an internal investigation. That's the responsibility of the deputy. And just so that you understand, the internal investigation that he's speaking of here is an investigation into the allegation by Noye that Gwilliam had told him, Noye, that Noye had received $200,000 from the chief suspect in the Argyle Diamonds matter, which money he then distributed with Superintendent Kiernan. All right? So that's the allegation?---Yes. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16025

A35/1 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Fine. So it wasn't you that made the decision to institute an inquiry into the complaint - - ?---That is within the province of the deputy commissioner. Thank you. Do you have any recollection of a front page article on the 12th of September 1993 in The Sunday Times with the banner headline, "CIB man linked to gems"?---I do recall a headline, yes. Well, it seems that that's the article that Mr Quigley's complaining about, and he's asking you, in essence - - if you read page 3 he's saying to you, "Could you please institute an inquiry in relation as to how this information came to be leaked to the newspaper?" Now, do you recall receiving this letter of the 21st of September?---No. Is this the first time you've seen this letter?---As far as I recall, yes. And that wouldn't be unusual, as I said, because letters of this nature are received, they would be sent by respective staff officers to the portfolio concerned. If the letter had come to me personally then I would have initialled the top and directed it to the portfolio. All right. If I could - - ?---As I have delegated to the deputy, in this case for Internal Affairs - - Internal Investigations, I had complete confidence in him - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16026

A36/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - confidence in him to do the job. That's what - - that's what he's paid for and so I merely would delegate, expect him to do the job. MR LASKARIS: I understand that, Mr Bull. The next letter which I won't take you to at all is dated the - - in any substance is dated the 18th of January 1994, and it's from Mr Quigley to the Commander, Discipline, so it's not addressed to the Commissioner of Police. So you can just put that to one side. I've just put it there for completeness so that we get the whole bundle of the correspondence. The next letter is a letter dated 10th February 1994, and this time it is addressed to the Commissioner of Police, and it again raises that allegation of the $200,000 bribe. You see that in the second paragraph?---Yes. And it goes on to speak about another allegation contained within the deposition of Mrs Lynette Crimmins, and that allegation is spoken of in the third paragraph; do you see that?---Yes. And then there are a whole series of requests made by Mr Quigley in relation to these issues. And those questions are - - or the issues that are raised in that letter are contained on page 2, paragraphs (a) through to (c), including subparagraphs (i) to (vi) in (c), and they follow the phrase: "These issues are now of grave concern to our client

and are - -" Or, "The issues that are now of grave concern to our client are - -" and he lists them there. And he goes on, in essence, and asks - - COMMISSIONER: Do you have any recollection of this - -?---No. - - letter at all?---No. I notice a copy was sent to the Commander, Discipline. That would mean that - - MR LASKARIS: The Commissioner is taking - - COMMISSIONER: - - the Commander, Discipline, had control - - MR LASKARIS: - - you to the last page, Mr Bull. If you go to the last page, you'll see that there's a cc. I'm sorry, Commissioner. WITNESS: Yes, I see where the - - the comments that you - - or the questions that you - - but I have no recollection of this - - this document at all. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16027

A36/2 POLICE MR LASKARIS: All right?---I would have expected it to go direct to the deputy. He was handling the matter. And can I suggest to you that even your office, the people within the commissioner's office that would peruse all your correspondence, if they saw from the last page that a copy of the letter had been forwarded to the Commander, Discipline, that is where the issues raised in this letter would be naturally directed to by them?---Through the deputy. Yes. There is in fact - - the last document that I want to take you to, just after that letter, is a letter dated the 22nd of March 1994 and it's addressed to Mr Noye himself. It's a two-page letter, and again, it appears to be signed by you?---It is signed by me. And it, in essence, contains a response to the previous correspondence and gives the outcome of the inquiries that were instituted?---Yes. You didn't draft this letter, I assume?---No. And I assume that someone within the office of Commander, Discipline - -?---Yes. - - drafted it, because I notice that reference at the top of the first page?---That is correct. Would you have read this letter prior to signing it?---No. When this letter came to you, would it have come with the file containing the previous letters that I've taken you to, and whatever other steps were taken by the investigative officers and reduced to writing? In other words, would the file that accompanies this - -?---No. - - letter have come to you?---No. Yes. Thank you for that, Mr Bull. Commissioner, can I tender, with your leave, those other pieces of correspondence that I've now taken the witness to, commencing with the letter from Mr Quigley dated 21 September 1993 to the Commissioner of Police, and ending with the letter from Mr Bull, as the Commissioner of Police, to Mr Noye dated the 22nd of March 1994? .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16028

A37/3 POLICE MR DARBYSHIRE: Sir, if I could be heard on that? I would object to those documents being tendered at this stage. I haven't seen copies of them. I'm just going on the contents that have been relayed in the questioning of this witness and it seems to me that certainly the letter from Mr Quigley to the Commander, Discipline, dated the 18th of the 1st 94 - - it's not appropriate for that to be tendered. In relation to the other letters, they seem to be simply setting out Mr Quigley's versions of events of which this witness has no recollection and of which he said that he has no recollection. Given that, I would question any evidentiary value in these documents. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR LASKARIS: Commissioner, I don't wish to be heard on the letter of the 18th of January 1994. It's a matter within your discretion and there's no sound strictly legal court room evidentiary basis for it to be tendered, but it forms part of the sequence and in any event the matters contained in that letter of the 18th of January 1994, by Mr Quigley, are in fact repeated in their entirety in the letter of the 10th of February 1994 to the Commissioner himself. So that's all I have to say in relation to that issue. In relation to the balance of the correspondence, I submit to you that the documentation is relevant for a number of reasons. Principally, it indicates that the matters that Mr Noye was concerned about and has given evidence in part already in this Commission - and will no doubt give some further evidence in the future - are not matters of recent invention by him and have been matters which he has taken up through his solicitor with the most senior levels of the police service way back commencing in 1993 and that they, from that point on, list the issues that Mr Noye is bringing up in relation to the Argyle Diamond Mine investigation and for that reason alone would - - should be received by the Commission. COMMISSIONER: Well, I'm prepared to receive them but their value will have to be established in the submissions. MR LASKARIS: I think that's clearly right, given the evidence of Mr Bull in relation to how he dealt with them, and properly how he dealt with them in his office as Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, the letter from Quigley & Co to the Commissioner of Police, dated the 21st of September 1993, which is barcoded D1045233, will be exhibit 2407. The letter from Quigley & Co to the Commissioner of Police dated the 10th of February 1994, barcoded D1045234, will be exhibit 2408. The letter to Mr J.H. Noye, dated the 22nd of March 1994, barcoded D1045235, will be exhibit 2409. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16029

A37/3 POLICE EXHIBIT 2407 Mr Laskaris DATE 21.9.93 Letter from Quigley & Co to Commissioner of Police. Barcode D1045233. EXHIBIT 2408 Mr Laskaris DATE 10.2.94 Letter from Quigley & Co to Commissioner of Police. Barcode D1045234. EXHIBIT 2409 Mr Laskaris DATE 22.3.94 Letter to J.H. Noye. Barcode D1045235. MR LASKARIS: May it please you, Commissioner. They are all the questions that I have. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Mr Darbyshire, do you have any questions? MR DARBYSHIRE: I have some brief questions for this witness, Commissioner. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR DARBYSHIRE: MR DARBYSHIRE: Mr Bull, if I could start with some of the responses you gave to the questions that Mr Robbins asked you just before the luncheon adjournment about what it actually means to write off a file? My understanding is that if a file is written off it can lie in abeyance until further information is received. Is that correct?---Yes. That's correct. A file in that condition though isn't going to be given additional resources in order to elicit additional information?---No, that's what I said. Right. You also said that a file can be put to bed permanently if it is proved that no offence was committed?---Yes. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16030

A38/4 POLICE MR DARBYSHIRE: I see. So what's the difference between what happens to those two files? If you've got a file that can be put to bed permanently how is that treated differently from one that's lying in abeyance?---Simply, as I pointed out at the time, files - - in investigations in regard to fraud it was often unclear whether an offence had actually occurred, and some matters in the fraud area are investigated and it is found that no offence has occurred. Those files would be written off permanently. But my question is procedurally what is the difference between a file that is written off permanently and another file that is written off in this first sense of simply lying in abeyance for want of further information?---Well, that file where there has not been reached a satisfactory conclusion would remain still an active file, albeit that it's filed, but it could be - - it would be reactivated and you would expect the investigating officer to retain a watching brief on it. Right, and on the other hand, a file that's been written off permanently or where there's been sufficient investigation to establish no offence - what happens with that?---Well, then that would simply be written off - permanent. Right?---It's concluded. Mr Bull, could you tell us then in your view what would happen if an investigating officer came to the following conclusion, and I'm reading here from the conclusion reached by Detective Sergeant Noye, his second report: "I can categorically state that I am confident that at

no future time will any evidence be disclosed that will prove or show that, one, diamonds claimed by Jacara Pty Ltd, being Roddan, were illicitly removed from the control of the complainant, Argyle Diamond Mines Pty Ltd by any person; and, two, that there is any valid evidence of the existence of an organised consortium of mine staff and/or others engaged in the theft of diamonds from the Argyle Diamond Mine pipe or alluvial areas between 1988 and 1990."

An investigating officer reaching - - well, let me ask you the question. How would you expect the file to be dealt with if the investigating officer reached that conclusion?---If he was reaching that conclusion that no offence had occurred, then it would be put to bed permanently. Yes, and so in that sense it would, in fact, be written off? ---Yes. Permanently?---I should add in this particular case the deputy was not satisfied and did refer it to the crime commander. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16031

A38/4 POLICE MR DARBYSHIRE: Yes. Yes, I understand that. Now, you gave evidence again before lunch - - I'm just trying to determine - - I think it was in response to a question put to you by counsel assisting. The commissioner could not give instructions to interfere with an investigation. If you had any evidence of a person receiving money to write off an investigation you would have that person charged. Do you recall giving that evidence?---Yes. What would you do if you had evidence of a senior police officer interfering in an investigation?---Likewise, they would be charged. It would be a criminal offence. All right. So it's your view that it would certainly be improper for there to be interference whether or not there was - - ?---It would be more than improper. It would be criminal. Whether or not money was paid?---Exactly. I want to take you to some evidence that was given by Mr Dalton at page 14558 of the transcript on the 3rd of July. Again, learned counsel assisting put the following question: "Just finally, Mr Dalton, did you receive any orders

from any of your superiors to write this investigation off?---Not directly, no.

"Indirectly?---Well, there was, I suppose,

encouragement but, I mean, I was - - encouraging that if - - encouraging Detective Sergeant Thoy that if there was nothing further to pursue, no logical furtherance of the inquiry, then it should be wound down and put to sleep, as it were, at that time and waiting for further information coming to hand - - -

.28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16032

A39/1 POLICE MR DARBYSHIRE: " - - - coming to hand." Mr Dalton was asked: "And who did you get that encouragement from?" The response was: "Well, I don't - - I can't specifically say that I did

or I didn't, but there was a - - that general feeling from the assistant commissioner to the commander and through to the divisional officers."

Now, were you aware of a general feeling from the assistant commissioner to the commander through to the divisional officers that Mr Thoy's investigation in 1990 should be ended? MR LASKARIS: I object to the question, Mr Commissioner. This is - - in the context of which Mr Dalton gave that reply, what Mr Dalton was clearly saying, if you look at his evidence, was that there was no improper direction from anyone above him in relation to writing off the file, but in the context of operational matters within his command there was always pressure to wind down investigations. Given that that's the context of Dalton's evidence, and further given that my friend is asking this witness to comment about a general feeling by persons other than himself, I submit to you that the question's not helpful, and the answer, if it's given - if the witness attempts to give an answer - in itself would be purely speculative and not helpful. COMMISSIONER: Are you in fact able to give any answer to that question?---I could, sir, but only from the point of view that I would be responding to the effect that I certainly would not regard what has been described to me as unlawfully interfering with the investigation. I would consider a supervising officer who - - as you quoted to me, that Mr Dalton - - Bruce Dalton was saying that if the matter could not be pursued any further that it should be written off. I consider that normal procedure. I gave evidence earlier about the pressure under which detectives - - Yes. But you have no knowledge of this particular matter?---No. No personal knowledge, no. I could only just summarise in regard to normal procedure. Yes. I think that's - - MR DARBYSHIRE: That's as far as I wanted to take it, Commissioner. Thank you. COMMISSIONER: Yes. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16033

A39/1 POLICE MR DARBYSHIRE: In fact, before I do leave that point, if I could just clarify this. My question actually was whether or not you had any awareness that this was - - that there was a feeling about this investigation, from assistant commissioner down. Yes; whether or not there was this general feeling from assistant commissioner down, and is it the case that you had no knowledge that there was this feeling?---I had no knowledge. Thank you. Mr Bull, you were provided by Mr Laskaris with a copy of your handwritten memo of the 8th of March 1992. We've established that that was a Sunday, and clearly that that date is in error. Since that document was put to you have you been able to recall any of the circumstances of that meeting?---No. So you don't recall who attended that meeting or where it was held?---No. Thank you. I just have one further question, and that's in relation to the questions that were put to you about the Snowfresh matter. Could the witness be shown this document, please? Sir, this is one that you'll be familiar with, being the correspondence that I've previously handed to prior witnesses. Sir, may I ask, have you retained a copy of this document? COMMISSIONER: No. I haven't it here. MR DARBYSHIRE: No. Well, I have an extra. I'm sorry; you'll need one more. That's for the witness. Mr Bull, this is a letter that was addressed to you from Robinson Cox - - who were the six detectives charged in relation to the Snowfresh matter. Do you recall receiving correspondence from Robinson Cox following their acquittal? Do you receive in getting - - do you receive getting this letter in - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16034

A40/2 POLICE MR DARBYSHIRE: - - - getting this letter in relation to - -?---No, I did not personally receive the letter, or my initials would be on the top. I see. I should stress that this is a copy that's been obtained from the solicitor's files, so - -?---No, I still have no - - no recollection of the letter. All right. The letter, as I said, is from counsel who represented the officers who were charged. If I could turn your attention to page 2? A number of complaints are set out, or concerns are set out about the manner in which the criminal investigation was conducted by Inspector Dalton. COMMISSIONER: Well, do you have any knowledge of this, Mr Bull?---Not this particular letter. No?---Of the circumstances, yes, but not this particular letter. MR DARBYSHIRE: And you'll see that there are ten complaints set out there. I won't read them all out, but for instance, it complains in paragraph 2 of witness statements being amended prior to the delivery to the court, in such a way that inconsistencies between prosecution witnesses were removed; paragraph 3, the evidence of a prosecution witness was changed in order to enable that witness to give an alibi to and to support the evidence of the major prosecution witness; 4, witness statements which were consistent with the defence - - MR LASKARIS: This is a back door method of my friend trying to get into evidence from the public transcript something he has been unable to do previously when he tried to get this letter in, and I object to it. Because it's simply designed to blackard? Mr Dalton's reputation in circumstances where my friend's client himself gives testimony that Dalton - - COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't think you need to go into that. MR LASKARIS: Yes, thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Mr Darbyshire - - MR DARBYSHIRE: Sir, all I'm trying to do is familiarise this witness with the matters raised in here so that I can put the next couple of questions to him and that'll be as far as I'll be taking it. COMMISSIONER: Well, what are they? I don't - - do you just intend to go through the 10 - - MR DARBYSHIRE: No, sir. No. I intended to do no more than go through those three paragraphs and then put questions to this witness. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16035

A40/2 POLICE MR LASKARIS: Well, the witness can - - with respect, Commissioner, the witness can read. My friend hasn't indicated that he intends to call the author of this letter, by the way, at any stage. The witness can simply read the letter and my friend can put the questions. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Very well. MR DARBYSHIRE: Yes. Mr Bull, if you could just read paragraphs 1 to 10? COMMISSIONER: I thought there were three, weren't there? MR DARBYSHIRE: No. Well, there are three that I was going to read out that were representative, sir, but if he's got to go through them, then - - COMMISSIONER: Well, I think you can just deal with the three at this stage and - - MR DARBYSHIRE: Yes, sir. (TO WITNESS): Mr Bull, do you have any recollection of an inquiry being - - no, let me ask a different question. Do you recall these allegations being made about the investigation done by Inspector Dalton?---I vaguely remember allegations being made. And do you recall whether or not you directed any action or inquiry to be made in relation to those allegations?---No, I wouldn't direct any - - any matter. This would go, again, directly to the deputy for investigation. And did that occur?---Well, I can only assume it did. It would. It would happen. As a result of a letter such as this, it would automatically go to the deputy who would ensure that investigation was undertaken. And do you know what the outcome of the investigation was?---No. Did you approach the officers who had been charged and acquitted in this matter and put to them any proposals as to how the - - how their complaints about the conduct of the inquiry and - - could be dealt with?---No. Do you recall giving Inspector Dalton any directions about how any disciplinary proceedings arising from the Snowfresh matter were to be dealt with?---No. Thank you. .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16036

A40/2 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Yes, Mr Clarke, do you have any questions? MR CLARKE: No, thank you, Commissioner. NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CLARKE: COMMISSIONER: Yes. Mr Hall? MR HALL: I've got nothing else for Mr Bull, thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HALL: If he could be excused? COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Bull, for your attendance. That completes your - -?---Sir, could I - - I'd be prepared - - is it right for me just to make one comment? Yes. Sit down?---Of necessity, because of the questions, I've had to constantly refer to delegation to the deputy. I want to make it very plain that I had total confidence in the deputy; otherwise I would not have referred matters to him - - - .28/07/2003 BULL, B. XXN 16037

A41/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - matters to him or gave him that delegation. At all times I considered that he carried out his task in a very professional manner and I had no reason to doubt him at any stage. Although I delegated, the ultimate responsibility always remained with me throughout. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you, Mr Bull?---Thank you. WITNESS WITHDREW COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hall. MR HALL: I recall Richard Corfield. RICHARD WILLIAM CORFIELD (recalled): COMMISSIONER: Yes. You're still on oath, Mr Corfield. Sit down, please. Yes, Mr Moen. MR MOEN: Yes. Thank you, Mr Commissioner. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR MOEN: MR MOEN: A long time between innings, as they say, isn't it, Mr Corfield?---Mr Moen. I want to hand you a document, first off, which hasn't been tendered or hasn't been shown or even documented at the Commission as yet. Can I ask you to have a look at this please? Confirm first of all that you have a habit of writing items - - item numbers on the top of a particular document. Have I got that category - - or at least the way that you designate documents correctly? Just have a look at the top document, the top page at the left-hand side of this document. Start at item 2. Do you see that? Just have a look at the top left-hand corner there. See that?---On page 1? Yes, that's right. The start of item 2. Do you see that there?---"Creator. Me. AD Perth Security." Yes. Yes. Thank you for that. I want to take you down now to paragraph 3. This is indeed dealing with an interview you've had with Mr Thoy relating to an informant and I'll just read it so you can understand the nature of my question when I come to it: "Thoy spoke about the briefing meeting he and I held

with Crimmins in my office before lunching together. Crimmins denied that either Thoy or I had mentioned the name Roddan or, if either of us had, he hadn't

.28/07/2003 BULL, B.; CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16038

A41/3 POLICE heard it. Thoy had visited my office at 1.30 pm today

and disclosed this information. He said that his informant was very frightened of Crimmins and that every effort should be made to protect his identity."

Now I want to stop there. The informant - was that a male or a female, to your knowledge?---He didn't tell me. MR MOEN: Didn't tell you? Are you sure about that?---Yes, I'm pretty sure. All right. Then it continues: "Thoy said that without any further evidence it was

likely that he would be instructed to write the file off."

This is a document dated the 12th of the 11th 1990. Do you recall that particular luncheon meeting and the meeting with Mr Thoy independently of this note, or not?---With Mr Crimmins, you mean? Yes, Mr Crimmins, sorry?---Yes, I was there. Thank you. All right. I want to take you over to the next page, if I can? There's another paragraph, a fairly lengthy paragraph, but I want to take you to where it commences at the end of the first line. It says "When pressed" - I think it says - "however, he remembered a good deal." And this is referring to Newton. "He remembered my telling him about the visit to - -" Pardon me. This is, I think, relating to Mr Crimmins still?---Crimmins, yes. Yes. "He remembered my telling him about the visit to Noel

Newton in Fremantle, though he wasn't sure of the name, and borrowing a number of 3 carat stones which I thought were Argyle."

WITNESS: Yes. MR MOEN: "He remembered the leak of information from within Argyle House which caused me to return them to Newton, but he couldn't remember me saying that it was Roddan." Now, I just want to ask you about that leak from within Argyle. Did you ever find out who that leak - - or who the person was that was said to have leaked the information from Argyle?---No. I heard that - - from different people that .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16039

A41/3 POLICE there was a suspicion that there was a leak from within Argyle but I was never able to establish whether that was so and, if so, who had leaked it. MR MOEN: All right. In any event, this goes on to record your conversation with Crimmins and it's a document that you sent to Detective Sergeant Thoy?---Yes. And your name appears on it there. Correct? At the bottom?---Yes. Thank you. I'd seek to have that document tendered please, Mr Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes. A note to file dated the 12th of November 1990 by Mr Corfield, barcoded D1045236, will be exhibit 2410. EXHIBIT 2410 Mr Moen DATE 12.11.90 Note to file by Mr R. Corfield. Barcode D1045236. MR MOEN: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. Mr Corfield, you won't have a copy of this, but this is an interview that you had with a number of officers and it was between yourself, Inspector Ken Gregson of the WA Police and Detective Sergeant Peter Lawler of the Australian Federal Police - - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16040

A42/4 POLICE MR MOEN: - - - Australian Federal Police. Do you remember a lengthy interview you had with those officers?---I do. All right. I just want to ask you some particular questions relating to what you said to those officers, and I'll basically have to read that for you because I don't think we have it on the screen. What I want to - - COMMISSIONER: If you would just give the page numbers as you go through. MR MOEN: Yes, certainly, Mr Commissioner. Page 4 I'm taking the witness to now. (TO WITNESS): You were asked a number of questions in relation to your role in the job and you gave a synopsis of your view as to the diamond industry, and you said this: "You've got to understand that the diamond industry

thrives on rumour and innuendo, gossip. It's a sleazy, dishonest, corrupt industry."

That was your view at the time. Correct?---Yes. And I think you made that perfectly clear to the investigating officers, Thoy and Gwilliam, throughout the course of your involvement with them. Correct?---I did, yes. Yes, and also with Mr Noye on occasion. Correct?---Yes. I'll take you now, if I can, in particular to page 6 of that document. The person by the name of Brian Illingworth. You had some liaison with him during the course of your involvement in the first Argyle Diamond inquiry. Correct? ---Yes, I did. Yes, and I think on a number of occasions you lunched with him and spoke to him about your concerns as to diamonds potentially going missing from Argyle Diamond Mine. Correct? ---I don't recall lunching with him. I do on one occasion but I think that was much later on. I think our conversations were restricted to the telephone. All right. I wondered if I could now just ask you about Mr Newton and your involvement with Noel Newton. Did you at any time put the hard word on Mr Newton - threaten him, intimidate him in any way, shape or form?---No. Are you sure about that?---Yes. All right. I want to take you to what's said on the bottom of page 9 over to page 10, and this deals with a conversation you apparently had with Mr Newton. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16041

A42/4 POLICE "It took time for the person who did examine them to

get his little memo typed up." This was in relation to diamonds that had been seized from Mr Newton's office. "That's why I got it the next morning, and before I

even get time to do that the next morning I get a panic-stricken call from Newton saying, `Roddan knows. Somebody's talked in Argyle House. You've got a spy in there.' My first reaction - - that it was probably right. It worried the shit out of me."

Now, you see, Mr Newton - - I put that to Mr Newton. He never had a call with you about that issue at all. Is your recollection of that statement to the authorities correct? ---Yes. MR MOEN: All right, then it continues: "The last thing I suspected was the alternative - that

it might have been within the Police Department - and he wants them back, he wants them back."

Did you suspect that there was some mole in the Police Department that was sifting and releasing information during the course of your involvement in the first Argyle Diamond inquiry?---No. It was a matter of where that information could have leaked from. Charles Devenish was a person who you had some interaction with during the course of the first Argyle Diamond inquiry. Correct?---Yes, I've had interaction with him over a number of years. And criticism was made in the WAPOL investigation report about your interaction with him and the disclosures you had made to him about the furtherance of investigation inquiries?---Yes. Correct?---Yes. Do you accept that criticism as an accurate reflection of what occurred?---Not entirely. No, I don't. I think I may have conceded too much. The fact is that I was asked by police to make further inquiries, to provide better information, and that's what I did. It's an irony that all of the people that I spoke to - that is, Newton, Devenish, (...name suppressed...), Crimmins - were all of them to some extent or other already involved in the theft of and trafficking of Argyle diamonds. And you came to that view fairly early on in the piece? ---No. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16042

A42/4 POLICE MR MOEN: No. All right. I'll come to that down the track. I wanted just - - ?---This is when you talk about the benefit of hindsight. Yes?---That's a way of saying, "If I knew then what I know now would I have acted differently?" Well, obviously the answer is "Yes". Yes. I'll just take you to page 15 of this document here, and you were talking about Mr Newton. The question was this, question 52: "Can I just ask one - - were you in yourself

reasonably happy when - - with Newton at that stage?" To which you said this. The question was basically, "Are you happy with the way Mr Newton is assisting you?" and you said: "Yes. Oh, yes. I - - Jesus, I'm a total ratbag when

it comes to judgment. I came to some conclusions about him. Firstly, he's not a strong character. You know? Have you interviewed him?" Question mark. "Big bloke. Built like a brick shithouse. Comes over strong but really essentially weak, and I'm sure you picked it. You know. I stood over him. I did, and he was fairly easy to stand over. That's why I did it."

Unmistakably your words to the investigators. I ask you once again did you stand over and use any standover tactics with Noel Newton during the course of the inquiry - - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16043

A43/1 POLICE MR MOEN: - - - the course of the inquiry?---That - - that's a term which is - - whilst I may well have used it, is very strong. As I indicated there, he was a fairly weak character. You only had to put things to him and he would agree to them. But your words on three occasions say there that you stood over the top of him. If he was so weak, why did you have to stand over the top of him?---Because unless I had been reasonably forceful with him he wouldn't have given me the information that I wanted. What did you need to be reasonably forceful with him about?---Because I wanted to get to the bottom of where these stones had come from. Did you come to a view as to Noel Newton as being a character of ill-repute or at least - - ?---I'm sorry. I can't hear. Yes. Sorry. I had my head down there. Did you come to the view that Noel Newton was a person perhaps involved in the illicit diamond trade or illicit diamond buying?---Not at that stage, although I came to a different conclusion much later on. Did that have something to do with Mr McDivern or somebody else?---No. That was someone else. This was at the end of - - or, yes; at the end of the second inquiry. You go on to say, after saying that you did stand over him: "And I thought I could recruit him. I thought that he

was a possible source of information, not only with respect to these stones but maybe others, and I thought as well on the track of recruiting him, and so I was happy with it. He made much of the fact that he was a reserve policeman" etcetera, etcetera.

WITNESS: Yeah. MR MOEN: Now, the recruitment you were talking about there was for the purposes of getting information, what; as an informant of some sort? Is that right?---Yes. Yes. He had received some stones. He'd remarked that he'd got a couple of others, one from a geologist and one from some other source, and that I thought that I could persuade him that when he did get such an approach he could let me know and maybe I could have a look at these stones and come to a conclusion whether or not they were Argyle. Did you speak to him about recruiting him and getting him to come on board, so to speak?---No. Provide information to you?---No. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16044

A43/1 POLICE MR MOEN: All right. Now, there's an area here at page 17 - - I'm sorry for jumping around, but this is the nature of the way the questions were asked of you by the investigators, and I want to do it in piecemeal. It's at the bottom of page 17, question 68: "Okay. John Burton has told us that apparently he

received some information about a bank safety deposit box jointly controlled by Barry Crimmins and Roddan; is that right?"

You said: "Yes. That's right." "Can you tell us who you got that information from?" "Yes, I can. It was Charles Devenish." You were asked about making some inquiries relating to that, and I'll just put it and encapsulate it this way. The inquiries were negative in all the extremes, weren't they?---Yes. It was, at least in your view, a bit of a red herring at the end of the day; correct?---The fact that it turned out that no one could find any proof of the existence of this safety deposit box indicated that it was a red herring. Charles Devenish, by the way; did you at any time take a formal statement from him during the course of your inquiry?---No. Or the inquiry. Did you later come to the knowledge that he was very reluctant to provide a statement to the authorities and, indeed, got his solicitors to redraft a police drafted statement?---I knew that he was very reluctant to be of any assistance to Argyle. All right. I want to ask you about Colleen Wood?---Yes. You came to the view that Colleen Wood, who I think was a former employee at Argyle Diamond Mines; correct - - ?---She was, yes. You came to the view that she also may be a potential source of the illicit diamonds being removed from Argyle; is that right?---I wouldn't quite take it that far - - Well, you can - - ?--- - - but I had information that she may have supplied a diamond to another employee at Argyle. And you caused an inquiry to be made from the Police Department which turned out to be a very large red herring at the end of the day as well, didn't it?---An inquiry was made, .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16045

A43/1 POLICE which I assisted, and no diamond was found and no admissions were made. Whether that is a red herring or not is for others to judge. MR MOEN: Now, did you know a person by the name of Andy Hill?---Of - - who? Andy Hill?---Gill? Hill; H-i-l-l?---No, I don't believe so. Can I take you to page 21 - - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16046

A44/2 POLICE MR MOEN: - - - to page 21? This is in relation to some questions relating to a Robert King. Did you nominate Robert King as a potential source of diamonds being removed from the Argyle Diamond Mine?---No. I knew Rodney King, is this? No, Robert King?---Robert King? I remember the name. I remember who he was. Mm. Well, you interviewed Robert King on the 3rd of December 1995 at the Duck Inn, in Subiaco. Do you remember that?---Yes. Mm hm. And you were then speaking to him about his involvement in respect of diamonds, were you not? Over the page, at page 21, Mr Commissioner. WITNESS: I was - - he was a person of interest. He was never suspected of anything. MR MOEN: Oh - -?---But he was a person from whom I thought information could be gained. Suffice to say that he didn't have any information at all for you, for the purposes of your inquiry did he?---No, he didn't. I think you made some gratuitous comments there about him, but I'll refrain from saying those, at page 21, Mr Commissioner. A person by the name of Frank Cashmore?---Yes. He was also another person who you nominated as being a potential source of illegal diamonds from the inquiry. Page 24, Mr Commissioner. WITNESS: Yes. MR MOEN: Yes. That turned out also to be wrong and indeed, a red herring at the end of the day, didn't it?---I don't know. I don't know that it was ever investigated. Incidentally, the people that I've just talked about a few moments ago, did you ever mention any of those people to Mr Noye during the course of his inquiry, that you were going to speak to him or you had - - speak to them, pardon me, or that they were suspects in your mind?---No. Was there a particular reason for that?---No. Were you holding back, withholding information that would otherwise have been relevant and important for the purposes of an inquiry?---I didn't hold back any information. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16047

A44/2 POLICE MR MOEN: Why didn't you tell him?---I don't - - I can't put these times in context in relation to Noye. When I spoke to him, I can't - - perhaps if you gave me the dates again? I know that the woman out at Kalamunda - - I thought she was well after the Noye inquiry had finished. All right. We'll come to the relevant dates, because they're all categorised in the document, fairly shortly, but can I just take you now to page 29, the bottom of page 29? You were asked some questions in respect of Barry and I think you put it this way - - it's a fairly lengthy answer that you give, so I'll go to the second to last paragraph?---I'm afraid you're fading away. Yes, sorry about that. I apologise. I'll just move that because we'll be some time, Mr Corfield. Can you hear me better now?---Yes. Is that better? All right. This is in relation to responses of questions that were put to you in respect of Barry Crimmins: "- - and I don't think that Barry was stupid enough

just to do it all himself, and just mule? it as well as steal it. I'm sure that he had other people working for him and I'm sure that one of them was Margaret Murchison."

Otherwise known as a person by the name of "Olive Oil"; correct?---Yes. Now, you told the authorities about Margaret Murchison, did you not?---I told everyone that I - - yes, I told - - And that turned out at the end of the day to be another red herring, did it not?---I don't know whether it was investigated or not. Well, you were involved in the inquiry and then I think, to be fair to you in any event, it goes over the page, it says: "Why do you say that?" And you say: "No, no, do I mean Murchison? Let me get this

straight. Who's the other one? There's two of these ugly old whores. She was - -"

Question: "You are thinking of Marilyn Westerway." Was your answer - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16048

A44/2 POLICE WITNESS: Mm. MR MOEN: Answer: "Marilyn Westerway, that's the one I mean. That he

was poking her, and I'm sure that he wouldn't be silly enough to do it himself."

Now, were you referring to an extramarital relationship between Mr Crimmins and Ms Westerway at that time?---Yes. Mm. In respect of that as well, did you have some animosity towards Ms Westerway at any time?---Me? Yes?---No. Do you recall an incident that happened at the pub up near the Argyle Diamond site, at which you - - well, for lack of a better word, tried to put the hard word on Ms Westerway and she knocked you back?---No. Is that the reason why you've nominated her as a potential suspect for the stealing of diamonds?---There's absolutely no truth in that at all. Yes. Were you also concerned that she may eventually make a complaint in the Industrial Relations Commission of any sexual harassment by you - - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16049

A45/1 POLICE MR MOEN: - - - sexual harassment by you?---Absolutely not. Thank you. I want to ask you now, Mr Corfield, at the bottom of page 31 you said this: "A skilful criminal could have manipulated them" -

meaning the particular way that the diamonds were taken - "and did. I mean, Crimmins' statement I've read."

This is you talking about Mr Crimmins's statement that he's made in respect of his involvement in the matter. "The only true thing in it is his name and date, date

and place of birth. Everything else from beginning to end is bullshit, which is again one of the concerns I have with the way the Police Department for permitting that deal to be done. He was never pulled on."

Now, it's a bit disjointed, but your answer is quite important, and I'll come to the reason in my question. You said this - and perhaps to be fair to you I'll back up a little bit. "But, yeah; that's my point. I'm not suggesting

either of those two were. No. I don't believe they were corrupt."

This is referring to Dawe. A person by the name of Dawe, and indeed Rod Bates. "But they didn't create - - but they permitted the

environment - - " "Yes." " - - whereby he could." And you said this: "A skilful criminal could have manipulated them, and

did. I mean, Crimmins' statement I've read. The only true things in it is his name, date, date and place of birth. Everything else from beginning to end is bullshit, which is again one of the concerns I have with the WA Police Department for permitting that deal to be done. He was never pulled on."

Now, what "deal to be done" are you referring to there, Mr Crimmins? Pardon me; Mr Corfield?---I'm referring to information that I got from Sergeant Gwilliam that they were not allowed to interview him. The statement that I referred to was what I heard at the trial of Roddan and others, in .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16050

A45/1 POLICE which he made statements which I thought were totally wrong. MR MOEN: But just help me out here. What are you talking about, permitting the WA Police Department - - permitting what deal? You have knowledge of some deal of some sort. What are you referring to?---Only what I was told; that there was - - that there was some quid pro quo that I didn't know about that enabled him to be interviewed by people other than the investigating detectives. Did that cause you some concern at some stage?---Well, no more than most other things that occurred during the first inquiry. All right. Now, Raelene Shore; did you have any involvement in speaking with her in respect of the inquiry or the investigation at any time?---Yes. I saw her on one occasion. Was that in company with Mr Burton?---Yes, it was. Yes. Did you go out for lunch?---I don't believe so. No. I believe we saw her at her home and left her there. And was that, by the way, on the occasion where she's allegedly disclosed to you and Mr Burton that Mr Roddan is involved in the running of drugs, or was that a different time that you weren't there? Or you don't know about that?---No. That was the only time I saw her, and she didn't say to me anything about drugs, although she did talk about Mr Roddan receiving large amounts of money; many tens of thousands of dollars which he scattered about the place. Incidentally, during the course of your investigative approach in this matter and, indeed, your history as a person involved in authority, your procedure to be adopted would be to take notes of conversations that you have with particular people, would it not?---Yeah. Have you kept any notes of the conversations you had with Raelene Shore?---No. What about Ms Crimmins? You've spoken to her on a number of occasions?---Lyn Crimmins. Yes. Lynette Crimmins?---Yes. Yes, I have. How would you describe her as a person? Just - - ?---I beg your pardon? How would you describe her as a person, just before I come to some particular questions relating to your involvement?---Describe her as a person? .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16051

A45/1 POLICE MR MOEN: Yeah. Is she - - do you describe her as a person of integrity or honesty, civility? A lady of the night? What would you describe her as? MR HALL: I think that's - - WITNESS: I would describe - - MR HALL: - - a matter for you to decide, Commissioner, in due course when that witness appears. I don't think there's any benefit to be gained from getting an opinion as to character from this witness. MR MOEN: Well, perhaps - - did you know about her reputation, if I can put it that way, at the time when you spoke with her?---Yes. When I say "reputation", reputation as a prostitute?---Yes, I did. Yes. When you spoke with her did you - - were you able to form an assessment as to her character at all?---As to her - Her character?---No. I thought - - I was highly impressed by what appeared to be a phenomenal memory for incidents and dates and times and places and people. You know she was a drug user - - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16052

A46/3 POLICE MR MOEN: - - - a drug user, an habitual drug user?---I - - An alcoholic?---No, I did not know those things. Did you make any notes of any of the conversations you had with Miss Crimmins at any time, Mr Corfield?---I noted in my diary the times and places that I'd met with her, but that's all. Where is that diary at the present time?---They've all been destroyed years ago. Why is that?---I asked at the conclusion of the trial, in the appeal period, whether there was any necessity for me to keep them and I was told there wasn't. So they were destroyed. Didn't you realise the interpleader proceedings were on foot and they may be certainly relevant to any evidence you gave at the interpleader proceedings?---The thought never crossed my mind. What do you mean, "never crossed your mind"? You were an integral part of the interpleader proceedings - -?---Yes, I was. - - to ensure that the diamonds were held for the purposes of saying they were Argyle diamonds?---That's right. Do you mean to tell us that you didn't hold onto them - -?---I didn't hold onto them. - - because of the fact that you didn't think they were relevant?---I didn't think that they were any longer relevant. Well, you burned them or something, did you?---I can't remember what happened to them. They might have gone through the shredder. I think Barry Crimmins says that he stole all the diamonds that he did steal from the spiral elevators up at Argyle. This is page 33. To which your response was "Yeah. Well, that's bullshit"?---Yes, that's right. It is. Because it couldn't be done, could it? Or you'd have great difficulty stealing them from the spiral - -?---Oh, yeah, enormous difficulty. All right. You told the detectives, at page 36 of this line of inquiry relating to Charles Devenish - - it's the first paragraph. It's fairly lengthy but I'll take you down to the last portion of it. This is you speaking: .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16053

A46/3 POLICE "In conversations that I had with Charles Edward

English Devenish he told me that there were two people who were in competition with one another, stealing, and that one of them had gone to the alluvial mine. Now, you didn't have to be a rocket scientist" - and we've had that expression a number of times - "to come to some conclusion as to who that might be."

Who did you think it was?---I thought he was referring to a man named Wither. MR MOEN: Mm. And did you then ask the authorities to investigate John Wither?---This information was passed to the second inquiry team which was Noye and Gwilliam. Yes. Who did you pass that information to?---I beg your pardon? Who did you pass it to? Gwilliam or - -?---I can't remember. - - Noye?---1991. I can't remember. And did you make any notes of that conversation with Devenish, or write it down at all?---Yes, I did. It was - - In your diary?---No. I put the fact that I'd met with him in my diary, but I typed the notes relating to that on to my computer. And I think you said this - that you believed Wither was actually involved, and this is based upon your advice given to you by Charles Devenish. Do you agree with that or not?---I can't remember saying that. I remember coming to the conclusion that he could have become a suspect. I had not thought that until Devenish made the point, because Wither had left his position at Argyle and went down to the alluvial plant in 1988. That's right, yes. Can I just ask you this? In respect of that inquiry, are you aware as to whether Mr Noye - - Messrs Noye and Gwilliam conducted inquiries with Mr Wither?---I'm not aware. Did you chase it up and follow it up?---No. It's their inquiry. Their inquiry, but you seemed to have had a bit of an involvement in speaking to witnesses well ahead of the investigators. Would you agree with that criticism or not?---No, I would not. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16054

A46/3 POLICE MR MOEN: You don't agree that you sometimes compromised the integrity of the investigation due to the fact that you had pre-approached a number of witnesses who could be of material assistance?---Some of these witnesses were witnesses which I had developed, established, found, so naturally I had spoken to them before police. This was during the interregnum between the first and second inquiries when I was trying to get evidence for the interpleader and try and persuade the police to re-open the Argyle inquiry. Right. So in the interim period, what you were doing was going off on your investigative tangent, speaking to a number of people or leads who you believed could somehow give assistance - - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16055

A47/4 POLICE MR MOEN: - - - somehow give assistance to opening up or reopening the inquiry. Have I got that right?---That's correct. Did you make a list or keep contemporaneous notes in relation to each and every one of the persons who you spoke with? ---I can't remember whether I did. I certainly would put - - make diary entries in respect of it. Which we don't have any more. Did you provide Mr Noye with a list of those particular people - one, who you had approached; two, the material evidence they were about to give or going to give; and three, the contact details?---Yes. You did?---I did. When did you do that?---When he came to see me. We had a number of meetings. I told him exactly who these people were and what I thought - - what evidence I thought I could give. And the names of those people? Can your cast your memory back and recall which ones they were?---Yes. There was a man called Gardner. Gardner?---Mm hm. Yes?---There was a man named - - a woman named Raelene Shore. Yes?---And there was another man called Garner. Mm hm?---I think - - that's all I can recall at the moment. All right. Mr Gardner, however - you became aware, did you not - - or perhaps you can help me with this. Did you become aware that one of those particular people had an interest in a gold site?---Yes. With Mr Roddan. Was that Gardner?---It was. Were you also aware that Mr Gardner was trying to extort money from Argyle Diamonds for the purposes of providing a statement in assistance?---Yes. I wouldn't call it "extortion". What was it then?---He came to see me and told me quite a lot about his relationship with Roddan. Yes?---And what he knew about his activities in relation to stolen diamonds. Mm hm?---And said that he did - - would Argyle fund some - - a gold deposit - - the development of a gold deposit. I think the amount of money was some $200,000. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16056

A47/4 POLICE MR MOEN: Well, you see, I've read your statement, and I'll come to - - there's quite a few and we'll probably get to them tomorrow some time, but I've read your statement and I've also read Mr Burton's statement, and I'll point that out to you when we get to it. But, you see, it's clear on your statement and Mr Burton's statement that he's asking for money before any statement is going to be given. Did that not cause you a little bit of concern?---No. It didn't. Did you raise that fact with Mr Noye - that, indeed, this person Gardner had requested money before he was going to be cooperative, so to speak?---We'd already got a statement, a form of statement, from him - - How was that?--- - - when Mr Burton went down to Bullfinch - - Yeah?--- - - and took a statement from him. Were you aware that at that time when he went to Bullfinch that Gardner was reluctant to give a statement and wouldn't because of the fact that he wanted $50,000?---I'm not - - I'm not aware of what he wanted but he was reluctant to sign the statement. We got some authenticity as to the validity of the statement by getting him to initial a couple of mistakes. I want to just take you back to the transcript again, and another area that the officers asked you about is the security, and I think you'd have to agree at least that the security at Argyle Diamond Mines was a total breakdown of security control, would you agree with that, at the time? ---No. You wouldn't? All right, because you said this in answer to question 190 at page 40: "We've been told that it was - - wasn't unusual and

you are - - put that another way. You were either lucky, unlucky, depends on how you look at it, to be searched once every six months."

You said this: "I would say that that is an overstatement. What was

supposed to happen as opposed to what did happen was that a minimum of 10 per cent - - so you have one in ten chance of being searched at any time" -

and it continues down, and I don't need to go through that, but the important part that I want to take you to is this: "The picture you are painting" - and this is what you say to the officers. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16057

A47/4 POLICE "The picture you are painting is one of total

breakdown of security controls at the mine site and I cannot argue with you if you were to put that case because I have been there and it was reported, strongly and adversely, at the low percentage of cases on some occasions, and the reasons are there - - you know, oh, yes, why they didn't come back off commute."

Now, you're telling the officers there that there was a total breakdown in security, were you not?---There was a breakdown in the search regimen - - MR MOEN: Mm?--- - - not the security procedures. But that's certainly part and parcel and an integral part - - ?---It's a part of it. No, just wait?---It's a part of it. An integral part of the security system at Argyle Diamonds at the relevant time, wasn't it?---It was an important part. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16058

A48/2 POLICE MR MOEN: Probably the most important part?---No. Not at all. What was the most important part?---The most important part was - - Team honesty, I assume?---Oh, the most important parts were several. The surveillance system, the camera surveillance systems and the difference reporting systems of the way in which diamonds were handled, checked, weighed and re-weighed. But wasn't there a problem with the surveillance system because the hydrochloric, or hydrofluoric acid was eating the screen in the cameras so you couldn't have them in the particular area where the diamonds were being washed, etcetera? Wasn't there - - ?---No. - - a problem there?---No. You don't recall that?---No, I don't. All right. Thank you?---There was fairly little chance of anyone interfering with diamonds in that area. People were totally enclosed in moon suits and boots and gloves and helmets. It was very difficult. Now, I want to ask you this; you were taken by the authorities to what I will call the second limb of the Argyle Diamond inquiry, and that was dealing with the WADT investigation or inquiry; you remember that?---Yes. I want to ask you this; what was your view of that line of the inquiry? Was an integral and important part of the Argyle Diamond inquiry?---Yes, it was. My view was it - - that it wasn't as important, but it was important. Sorry, I apologise, Mr Corfield. It wasn't as important? Wasn't that another red herring?---No, it wasn't. Right. Well, I'll read you this. Transcript - - MR HALL: I'm not sure whether "red herring" means something different in Canada, Commissioner, but my learned friend keeps using that phrase and my understanding of red herring is that it's some deliberate attempt by a person to put an investigator off the trail. If that's what is being put to Mr Corfield, I think it ought to be put fairly, because my learned friend has very glibly used that and Mr Corfield has never adopted it. If he's suggesting that Mr Corfield deliberately gave - - tried to put the investigators off the trail, then I think he should fairly put it. MR MOEN: I take you to page 46 of the transcript, Mr Hall, where you see the words issued from the mouth of this man were "red herring", thank you. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16059

A48/2 POLICE MR HALL: It still doesn't detract from the objection, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Well, if you're asking questions, I think you've got to - - MR MOEN: There's a universal meaning, with the greatest of respect, Mr Commissioner, about what "red herring" means. It means that it is not - - COMMISSIONER: Well, I think it's best to leave out the slang. MR MOEN: Well, I can't on the next occasion in my question because it's actually Mr Corfield's words, Mr Commissioner, page 46 and I'll take you to it and I'll read exactly what is said by you, Mr Corfield. You were asked about WADT: "Okay, in addition to the matters of corruption as

I've explained before, I haven't asked you about any of that deliberately and I also haven't asked you - -"

This is question 225, for your ease of reference, Mr Commissioner: "- - and I also haven't asked you anything about WADT

which you may think is strange, but it isn't part of our mandate."

You said: "I don't think anything's strange any more." Question 226: "No, well, what I'm just explaining, that it isn't

part of our mandate to look at WADT. It may be down the track, that other people do, so presumably you'd - -"

Answer: "I think that's a red herring, frankly." "Sorry?" "I think that's a red herring." "Mm." Question: "Well, I don't." .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16060

A48/2 POLICE Answer: "I just - - you know, just an aside." Question 229: "Yeah. Have you got any evidence to back that up or -

-" Answer: "I think it's a lack of evidence, to the contrary." "Yeah?" "More than evidence to support it. I mean, yeah,

there was fiddles going on all the time, but they were minor in nature. In my view, I think this has been a red herring. One of the problems we had when starting this inquiry - -"

Over the page, Mr Commissioner, 47: "- - as you would understand, we've got these

diamonds. The last thing I want to believe is that they're pouring out of the mine. I would much prefer to think it's those bastards at WADT fiddling things again. And so and indeed it was. I mean, Newton said they were coming from WADT - -"

I'll just stop - - did Newton ever say the diamonds were coming from WADT?---Newton told me that the diamonds - - the information he got from Roddan was two-fold; that he was getting diamonds from the WADT and he was getting diamonds from (...name suppressed...) in Geneva. MR MOEN: All right. And you then continued: "I mean, that's a fair clue and we knew - - suspected

that things were not well for the reasons I've - - I gave you earlier, Arslanian whingeing about it, rumours in the trade, Milos Vainer ...(indistinct)... diamond valuator, rubbing his hands together and saying, `Boy, did I do a deal today when I got these pinks from WADT'."

So, just backing up a little bit, you make no bones about the fact that your view is that WADT was, (1) an aside, and on three occasions, you use the word "red herring". Now, just before we go into a great explanation from you, the word "red herring" you were trying to say there, was it was just an aside. It wasn't an important part of the inquiry. Isn't that right?---It was a separate inquiry. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16061

A48/2 POLICE MR MOEN: Yes. Totally separate from the WA - -?---Not totally separate, but there were two issues here to be investigated - - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16062

A49/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - to be investigated. One was whether or not the diamonds were coming from Argyle and whether or not they were coming from WADT. MR MOEN: Yes?---Senior Sergeant Thoy wanted to pursue that at the same time and I - - my own view would have been that it would have been better had he concentrated on the Argyle matter. So this is Thoy?---Coming from the mine. Right. So your preference, albeit you didn't say that there, at the time would be that Mr Thoy focused his attention on the Argyle Diamond issue?---Yes. And so in line with that, that's your explanation as to why you figured WADT was an aside and you didn't want - -?---I thought it was an important issue because it was a possible source of Argyle diamonds, but it didn't address in any way the fact that pre-acid diamonds were involved and that they clearly had been stolen from Argyle. All right. I think I've finished with that document, thank you. I want to just inquire as to whether that document's going to become an exhibit in the Commission, Mr Commissioner, please. If I can call upon Mr Hall to duly inform myself and yourself, please? MR HALL: Well, I had no intention of tendering it. MR MOEN: I couldn't hear a word you said. MR HALL: I had no intention of tendering it. MR MOEN: Is there - - well, perhaps we can deal with that in the absence of the witness and yourself, Mr Commissioner, and if there's an issue to bring it back up, I will. (TO WITNESS): Can I now take you, Mr Corfield, to your next interview with the WA police investigation interview dated the 13th of the 12th 1996? I cannot help you, Mr Commissioner, as to whether this document - I assume it's not in light of Mr Hall's previous response - has ever been or would be tendered as an exhibit in this Commission. (TO WITNESS): In any event, it was done at 2.13 pm with officers (...name suppressed...) and Ranse, R-a-n-s-e. Do you remember the investigation? This is the WAPOL investigation - -?---This is a federal police inquiry? That's quite right?---Yes. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16063

A49/3 POLICE MR MOEN: Yes. Thank you. In this interview at page 13, Mr Corfield, you also talk about your involvement with Mr Newton as well and that you misjudged his character: "I thought that I was really recruiting Newton. I got

him very much on side and he was going to work for me until the police took over, as it were, anyway."

Now, is it the case that you were trying to suggest to the authorities here that you had Newton in your hip pocket until the authorities came along and jeopardised that relationship that you had with him - -?---No. - - for the purposes of providing information?---No. What were you trying to convey to them there?---I just wanted Newton not to talk to anyone else until they had - - until he had the opportunity of being interviewed by police. All right. The other area I want to take you to is at page 26 and this deals with what Mr Bull was probably talking about earlier today, albeit I wasn't there. It's halfway down the page, Mr Commissioner. (TO WITNESS): It talks about you giving evidence this way: "The meeting commenced with Brian Bull acknowledging

limited information based on a half hour briefing by the supervising officer of Detective Senior Sergeant Thoy. He was a man called Dalton. Karpin gave brief details of the inquiry to date, trying to put it into context..." etcetera. "IDV was talked about" and then you go on to say, "The perception at least that at the time when inquiries were being pursued most vigorously and because of an admitted lack of resources, we'd commissioned auditors to assist in investigating the police - - -"

.28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16064

A50/1 POLICE MR MOEN: " - - - investigating the police. One of the officers had been given other duties and that Robin Thoy's inquiries had been curtailed. That was our understanding. Bull said that his information was there'd been a major division of opinion between Thoy and his supervising officer that Thoy had gone too far in seeking search warrants, and he had no proper grounds, and it was the view of Superintendent Dalton, who was then on leave and couldn't be contacted, that the proper course was to await the outcome of the audit. When he said that we had been involved in setting the terms of reference at Thoy's request, Bull said that it was typical and reflected on why Thoy was not the ideal choice for the investigation. He said he was already facing disciplinary proceedings and could be facing others. He said that he constantly regarded proper supervision as interference and was - - could be generally described as paranoid." Now, you gave that evidence to the investigators. Does that accord with your recollection of information?---Yes, it does. Who did you get all that information from, by the way? Was that from Gwilliam and Thoy or from other, third party sources?---Principally from Gwilliam and Noye. Gwilliam and Thoy?---Thoy, sorry. That's all right. Easy to make the mistake sometimes?---I should correct that perhaps and say, I was given misapprehension or misinformation there. Yes?---The words were Bull's, not mine. The words were Thoy's?---His comments concerning Senior Sergeant Thoy were his words, not mine. Yes?---I didn't (...indistinct...) Yes. All right. Were you a bit of an ear for Robin Thoy to talk to, and were you a shoulder for him to lean on and listen to his complaints about the Police Department at the time?---I listened to them when he made them, as I listened to them when Sergeant Gwilliam made them. Mm. Did you form a bit of a friendship with both of these individuals during the course of your line of inquiry when they had the conduct of it?---I did. Particularly with Senior Sergeant Thoy - - Noye - - Thoy. Yep; Thoy. Was any offer made to Mr Thoy for the purposes of extra work outside of his job as a police officer, coming up to be security somewhere?---No. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16065

A50/1 POLICE MR MOEN: Are you sure about that?---I'm absolutely positive. What about Mr Gwilliam? Were you aware during the course of the investigation, both one and two, or, pardon me, in the second inquiry with Mr Noye, that he had been given a job offer to go to Zimbabwe and be a diamond security officer?---No, but I'm aware that Charles Devenish had an interest in a diamond mine in River Ranch?, which borders Zimbabwe. Yes?---And I know that he talked about the difficulties of finding people who were honest who would perform those tasks. But I didn't know that he or anyone else had made such an offer to Gwilliam. Mm hm. Can I just ask you this; you became aware that at some point in time Mr Thoy was off the job, so to speak. He wasn't being involved in the inquiry, and this is, I think, part and parcel of the interim period, if I can put it that way, between the first and the second inquiry; correct?---Yes. Right. Did you keep in contact with him personally - - ?---Yes. - - during that period of time?---Yes, I did. And did that personal contact relate to the nature of the investigations that you had been making and the inquiries that you had been making in the interim?---No. Not - - no. You're sure about that?---Pretty sure. Generally we'd meet and have a cup of coffee when he came into town. What would be the necessity to meet with him?---I like him. I guess he liked me. We'd go and share a cup of coffee. And you, at some point in time, became aware that Mr Gwilliam - - and you said this at page 28: "Mr Gwilliam, to the best of my knowledge, was off the

job. Stayed off it. He was working out at Belmont and I used to go out there and see him now and again."

You recall that at some point in time he was transferred to the Belmont CIB office - - ?---Yes. - - or was at that office for some time?---Yes. He'd rung me and told me. Yes. And you then went out there and spoke to him on a number of occasions; correct?---I think once. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16066

A50/1 POLICE MR MOEN: The reason for that; did you go and speak to him about the nature of the inquiry and the investigations that you had made during the interim period?---No. Not concerning my investigations. I certainly remember going out there and trying to see what could be done about pursuing the investigation. I've seen your chronology of events and I just want to ask you this in respect of that. On the 28th of June 1992 you received a call out of the blue from Mr Thoy - do you remember that - alleging and saying that Crimmins was a suspect?---What year? 1992 I believe it is?---No. No?---1992 was the - - Do you remember when it was - - ?--- - - Noye inquiry. All right. Do you remember when it was during the period of your involvement in the inquiry that you became aware that Crimmins was a suspect?---Yes. That was in 1990. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16067

A51/4 POLICE MR MOEN: And as a result of that then you put in place some check mechanisms on Crimmins as a security officer?---No. The - - Why not?--- - - inquiry was still ongoing. Mm hm?---What I didn't do was keep him in confidence with any information. Well, that's quite at odds with what the WAPOL investigators found and also the FBIS investigators found. You would agree with the fact that the criticism has been made that you, indeed, supplied and provided information to Mr Crimmins at a fairly volatile and important time of the line of inquiry. That's the criticism that was made of you in the WAPOL investigation and also by FBIS, which I will come to momentarily. Both of those agencies have made criticism of you in respect of that. Do you accept that as - - ?---No, I don't. - - being an accurate reflection of the position?---No. You don't - - ?---I accept that they made the criticism. But it's the case, isn't it, that Mr Crimmins was still working for your company at that time, Argyle Diamond Mines, correct - - ?---Yes. - - as a security officer. Do you mean to tell me that you weren't telling him about Mr Roddan, telling him about other lines of inquiry that you were making?---I was until the time I received information from Sergeant Thoy that he had come under notice as a suspect. All right. I want to ask you this. At page 36 you made an interesting comment in answer to this question, 203. This is dealing with, in fact, Thoy and Gwilliam, I think it is, and Trewin and Ghockson. "Did they ever have a conversation with you about the

standard of management that represented as far as the senior officers were concerned?"

This is you having a conversation with Thoy and Gwilliam, to which you said in answer here: "I'm always cognisant of, you know, criminal libel and

so forth. I can only say to you what they said to me. I can't aver to the truth of it. Gwilliam had it in his head that some of it was motivated by spite towards him personally by Scott, that Scott had a run-in with him previously over several Vietnamese people,

.28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16068

A51/4 POLICE that he got his knife into him and was trying to stuff

him, his career, and was using this as an example. Thoy was of the view that somebody was copping a quid to have the thing halted.

"Did he ever provide any other detail on that? "No, he didn't." The information you gave the authorities here was information that Thoy and Gwilliam had told you?---Yes. MR MOEN: Is that right? Thank you. Did you ever ask them for details of information in respect of that at all? The alleged corruption? The payment of money? The writing off?---No, I did not. Now, you were asked a question here, and this is dealing with - - at page 40, Mr Commissioner, question 228. This is dealing with the interpleader. Just so I get it and everybody else and Mr Commissioner understands it, the interpleader proceedings were instituted by yourself. Correct?---Yes. The purpose of the interpleader proceedings was to secure the diamonds for the purposes of determining the ownership. Correct?---That was one reason. You and a number of other people have sworn affidavits in support of the interpleader proceedings. Correct?---I beg your pardon? You and a number of other people have sworn affidavits - - ? ---Yes. - - in furtherance of the interpleader proceedings? You're aware, aren't you, that there's a number of other litigations on foot relating to this particular Argyle diamond inquiry? ---Yes. I want to take you to what you said here in answer to question 228. It's fairly lengthy and I apologise for it but I must read it. "The next thing that happened was - - I can't even - -

on the 6th of May that year we had a meeting in our solicitors', Freehill Hollingdale & Page, with Robin Thoy, Clay Gwilliam and John Burton."

WITNESS: Which year was this? MR MOEN: Well, that's a very good question. I'm just trying to figure it out from the nature of the questioning. 1991, I believe. Yes. The civil proceedings were - - yes, in 1991, around about April - - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16069

A52/3 POLICE MR MOEN: - - - around about April, just before that, and then in June, pardon me, in 1991 - - May, pardon me. Can I just backtrack and just read this because it is important? "Well, the next thing that happened was - - I can't

even - - on the 6th of May that year" - that's 1991 - "we had a meeting at our solicitors Freehill Hollingdale & Page with Robin Thoy and Clay Gwilliam and John Burton, who was now working for Argyle for me, and that was really - - it may not be material to what you want but it was a meeting - - a lengthy meeting which identified what Argyle would need to do in support of the interpleader. I mean, you've got to understand that this interpleader is really a two-edged sword. On the one hand, yes, we wanted the diamonds back that it was proposed giving to Roddan. This information came to me from Robin Thoy. The bastards are going to give them back to Roddan."

That's presumably a conversation you had with Robin Thoy. "There was some $50,000 worth. Peanuts, compared with

what there was - - what there had been, but we wanted it."

Now, the 50,000 there, are you referring to $50,000 worth of diamonds that are presently held in the District Court awaiting the outcome of the interpleader proceedings?---Yes. Thank you. COMMISSIONER: I think there's actually $55,000 in the - - MR MOEN: Oh, sorry, Mr Commissioner. It's late in the day. Yes, 55,000. Thank you for that. You're on the ball. "...compared with what there had been, but what we

wanted it. We claimed to have better title and that was the basis of the interpleader, but in reality" - and these are your words - "it was to get statements from as many people as we could and embarrass the WA Police Department into re-opening the case. That was the principal reason for it. Thoy knew it. Gwilliam knew it, and they were prepared to give us statements to assist us in that. That was the basis of the meeting."

Was this when the conspiracy was hatched between you, Thoy and Gwilliam to attack the WA Police Department and embarrass them?---I'm sorry. Was that a question directed at me? Oh, it certainly was. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16070

A52/3 POLICE MR CLARKE: I object, Commissioner. That assumes something not into evidence - - MR MOEN: It assumes that there was a conspiracy. I'll withdraw the question and I'll put it directly. Why did you say those words there, Mr Corfield?---It's the second reason for the interpleader proceedings. The first - - To embarrass the Police Department?---No, not at all. All right?---The first reason was to prevent diamonds which Argyle believed had better title than to return them to Roddan, and the second reason was to start a - - either to re-open the first inquiry or to start a second inquiry which would be full, thorough, professional and be pursued to a conclusion. Mr Corfield, these are your words, quite clearly. COMMISSIONER: Yes. He didn't mention the words - - "embarrassment" is into the re-opening of the case. MR MOEN: Oh, yes. I accept that. COMMISSIONER: Not simply to embarrass - - MR MOEN: I'm going to read it, Mr Commissioner, and I'm going to ask for his clear comment in relation to it again, please. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR MOEN: Thank you. "...but in reality it was to get statements from as

many people as we could and embarrass the WA Police Department into re-opening the case."

That's what you wanted to do?---If that's - - Embarrass them so much so that they would have no alternative but to re-open the case. Isn't that what you wanted?---If that's what it took, yes. And that was the principal reason for the meeting?---The principal reason was to re-open or to have a second inquiry started. Just correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose that Thoy and Gwilliam were requested to come to the solicitors' office, Freehill Hollingdale & Page, was for them to assist in that process. Correct?---Yes. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16071

A52/3 POLICE MR MOEN: Thank you. I just want to diverge for a moment to page 49, because the investigators diverge and they talk about a meeting that took place in which a person by the name of Mr Barnes, Wayne Barnes, came into the room along with a person by the name of Ferguson. Do you remember that meeting where it was alleged by yourself that Mr Roddan had been involved in drug dealing for the purposes of his diamond trade?---I don't remember the meeting. You don't recall the meeting?---When did this meeting take place? Well, just don't worry about the times for a moment. I'll come to your entry in a moment. I just want to ask you whether you remember the name Wayne Barnes?---I do. Yes. And how do you remember the name Wayne Barnes?---I met him on a couple of occasions. How many?---I beg your pardon? How many occasions?---Twice, I think, and I think I - - we went up in the lift together once in Police Headquarters. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16072

A53/2 POLICE MR MOEN: One of those meetings, do you recall that he wasn't there in attendance at the outset. Don Hancock was there and Mr Scott was there?---Oh, yes. And then Mr Barnes arrives in that room with Mr Ferguson?---I remember him coming in. I don't remember whether Mr Ferguson was with him or not. I don't know who Mr Ferguson is. All right. In any event, the conversation took place and it was asked of Mr Barnes whether he knew anything about this person, Lindsay Roddan; is that right?---That's right. What's the best of your recollection of that meeting, and what was said by Mr Barnes, if anything?---I think it was a very short meeting. Scott - - I can't remember if he telephoned or sent someone out - - Can you just - -?---Came in with Barnes and he said to Barnes, "Hey, Wayne, do you know anything about this guy, Lindsay Roddan?" and Barnes said something like, "No, boss" and he left. Isn't it the case that the meeting took place and in that meeting you made allegations that Lindsay Roddan had been involved in drugs and diamonds?---Yes, I think that was made at a previous meeting, some 2 weeks before. Well, do you not recall Mr Barnes leaving the meeting and it was organised that they would investigate and go out and speak to this person, Raelene Shore?---Yes, that's right. They - - well, no, I don't recall that. I remember at the first meeting making these comments to Assistant Commissioner Scott, who was somewhat dismissive of them and said that he would talk with Barnes and others, and he talked about forming a taskforce and then said that we would meet again two weeks later, which we did, and that was the meeting at which Barnes made this cameo appearance. And can I just confirm with you there, though, the first meeting related to your knowledge, apparently, and Burton's knowledge, about Raelene Shore having information; correct?---Yes. Wayne Barnes was there; correct?---I don't - - I can't remember that Wayne Barnes was there on that occasion. All right. In any event - -?---In fact, I'm sure he wasn't. You're sure he wasn't? Why is that?---I'm pretty sure. It's a long time ago. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16073

A53/2 POLICE MR MOEN: In any event, you later became aware, didn't you, at a subsequent meeting that they had gone to see Ms Raelene Shore?---I'm sorry? You then became aware at a subsequent meeting that Mr Barnes and another officer had gone to speak to Ms Shore; correct?---No, I wasn't aware of that. They - - it was told to you and you were told in emphatic terms that Ms Raelene Shore did not say anything about Mr Roddan being involved in drugs - -?---I don't recall any of this conversation. Mm?---All I recall about that meeting was the condition in which Mr Scott found himself. Yeah. Well, all right, we'll leave that to another time. In any event, you categorically do not recall at any time being told that Raelene Shore had been spoken to, in particular, that she had advised the investigators who went to speak to her that (...name suppressed...) had nothing to do with drugs and was anti-drugs?---No. I want to ask you now, because some questions were put to you, at page 51 - Martin Saxon. Do you know a person by the name of Martin Saxon?---Yes, I do. Were you leaking information to him, as a result of your involvement in the Argyle Diamond inquiry?---No. Are you sure about that?---I'm sure that he used to approach me fairly regularly. Yeah, and - - well, the approach just wasn't for the purposes of saying, "Hi, hello", it was for the purposes of him in his professional capacity as a journalist, was it not?---Yes. That's right. And in his professional capacity as a journalist, he was looking for pumping for information, wasn't he?---Yes. And during the course of that, do you mean to tell me that at no time did you provide him any information?---When I first met Martin Saxon, he telephoned me at my office and told me that there was going to be a story in that week's Sunday Times and that he and I should talk about it. Yes?---And I contacted the corporate affairs manager, and I had a meeting with Saxon in which he showed me a typewritten document which he said was going to be the story on that week's - - the following Sunday's paper. And that was my contact with him on that occasion. I don't think I spoke to him again for some considerable - - that's not so. He did - - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16074

A54/4 POLICE WITNESS: - - - not so. He did ring me some time later and say there was going to be a follow-up story or a subsequent story, and I phoned Assistant Commissioner Scott because I had reason to think that he believed I had provided information to Saxon, and I told him that I hadn't and that there was going to be another story and that wasn't me either. MR MOEN: Did he ask for your approval to report - - or, at least, did he ask you to confirm the contents of what was in that Sunday Times report?---I think he wanted me - - I think his terms were - - his terms were did I have any problems with what he was going to print and did I have any comments. Yeah?---And I did. Mm. Indeed, I think you raised with him your concerns about what was in the paper. Correct?---Yes, I did. Can you recall what those concerns were at that time?---I asked him if he was intending to print it as it is, as it was, as he showed me, and he said, well, subject to going past the lawyers, that he would and I said that I had some concerns about some aspects of it - I can't remember all of them because I can't remember what he took out - but certainly about identifying Crimmins, for instance - - Yes?--- - - was one thing he had named in there. Yes, and because you didn't want the integrity of the inquiry to be jeopardised because of the man's name being put in there?---That's right. Yes. Could I also ask you this: do you remember when it was you had this conversation with Mr Saxon?---It would be late in the week - say, Thursday or the Friday before the Sunday on which it was published. Right, and when in relation to you travelling over to see (...name suppressed...) did this take place?---I think the paper came out in the March and I think I saw (...name suppressed...) that September, the following - - yes, September of that same year. You did when you went over to see (...name suppressed...), however, have a copy of a particular Sunday Times - - ?---Oh, yes. - - article that Mr Saxon had written?---I did. In that article he implicated (...name suppressed...) in drugs and money, did he not?---Yes. You were using that as a vehicle for the purposes of trying to get (...name suppressed...) to cooperate with you, were you not? A tactic .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16075

A54/4 POLICE or a ploy in the investigative branch of your inquiry? ---(...name suppressed...) was one of a handful of well-respected diamond dealers in the world. One of literally a handful. He had an extremely high reputation. MR MOEN: Mm?---And I wanted him when I saw him to understand what was involved in this. I wanted him to make sure that he knew who he was dealing with. You wanted to stand over him, did you not?---Stand over (...name suppressed...)? Yes?---I think he would be a very difficult man to stand over. He would?---It was certainly not my intention. He would because, indeed, you tape recorded a conversation that you had with him - -?---I did not. - - over the telephone - well, I'll just put it to you that you did - and then you sent a copy of that transcription of the recording back to (...name suppressed...). And this is all in the Noye report and I'll come to that probably tomorrow, but just for the sake of completeness, you sent that back to (...name suppressed...) and (...name suppressed...) wrote back saying he disagreed with a number of things in it, and he was quite flabbergasted that you tape recorded the conversation?---I never tape recorded a conversation with (...name suppressed...). I taped - - a conversation was tape recorded by Senior Sergeant Thoy from my office but that was much earlier. Yes, all right?---That was in the early stages of the first inquiry. Mm?---My interview with (...name suppressed...) took place in his offices in the Rue Marche in Geneva. I made notes and took them back to the hotel and - - because this was a particular Jewish holiday and I hadn't realised that - - Yes, yes?--- - - and he was highly committed during that day. You were surprised. I think he was probably one of the only people working in that particular area?---Yes, indeed. Geneva was empty. Yes?---I went back and I used the hotel office facilities to transcribe this. I had to catch a plane to Antwerp. (...name suppressed...) was not available that day so immediately I arrived in the Antwerp offices the following morning I faxed that statement of interview to him and asked him if he would sign it and return it to me. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16076

A54/4 POLICE MR MOEN: We'll come to those questions in great detail when we go to Mr Noye's report. Question 306 at page 52: "Did you have any understanding as to whom might have

provided the details to Martin Saxon for the first article that you described."

.28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16077

A55/1 POLICE MR MOEN: You say this: "I have an opinion but that's all. It's - - I just

have - - I really would not want to tell you because I don't want to get anybody into trouble, but yeah - - but it was a low point, a fair idea, because everything was there. I mean, he got his big folder out and - - "

WITNESS: Sorry. I can't hear you. MR MOEN: Yes. Sorry. I beg your pardon. Sorry for that. "...it was a low point, a fair idea, because

everything was there. I mean, he got his big folder out and he was going to tick, tick, and there was somebody who had already got stamps on the top."

Who was it that you were of the opinion was disclosing information to Mr Saxon?---I - - I'd rather not answer that question because it was given to me in confidence by the informant and - - and it was on that basis that I declined to give it to the Australian Federal Police too. Would you please write it down on a piece of paper for Mr Commissioner? And it will remain a confidential exhibit at this present time until an application is made for the purposes of its disclosure to Mr Commissioner?---I would rather not, because I have given other things in confidence and found them in other places at a later time. Commissioner, would you direct the witness, please, to do that, and I would seek leave to - - MR HALL: Well, I object. I wonder what point there is in this. He's got no basis for it. It's merely an opinion, and there really seems to be no public interest in pressing this man on a matter which is based upon only his opinion. MR MOEN: There is evidence that I have, Mr Commissioner, as to a name of a particular person who was actually an employer of Mr Gwilliam's father for some time down in the southern part of this state, and that is a person who indeed I am going to put to a number of people including Mr Gwilliam, but I need to find out who it is in respect of the suggestion that Mr Corfield has that it was somebody who was an informant in relation to this inquiry. I am entitled to know that, with the greatest respect. I'll make that application in due course, Mr Commissioner - written submissions - but at this stage there is no harm in that document remaining in the precincts of this Commission, being a confidential document. COMMISSIONER: Well, it's not a first-hand situation. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16078

A55/1 POLICE MR MOEN: We've had a lot of people giving opinions and views, etcetera, Mr Commissioner. It's clear that Mr Corfield, in his statement to the authorities, is of the view that it is somebody in his opinion. He's stated the reasons for that at page 52 in answer to question 306, and that certainly - - he says he has a fair idea who it is in relation to that. I suggest that there is a basis for that document to be taken as a confidential exhibit at this stage, Mr Commissioner. And indeed, Mr Saxon is going to be called in due course. MR HALL: He's been called. He was called this morning. MR MOEN: Oh, has he been called? I beg your pardon. I'm sorry for that. I was informed otherwise. MR DARBYSHIRE: Commissioner, if I could just briefly be heard. I'd seek to adopt counsel assisting's objection. I'd submit that there's no evidentiary value in this witness's opinion, and indeed the question should, if it was going to be put, should properly have been put to Mr Saxon. COMMISSIONER: The answer is, "I have an opinion, but that's all." MR MOEN: No. He goes on, Mr Commissioner, in respect of what he says there, and the reasons for that. Why are you protecting this man, Mr Commissioner - - COMMISSIONER: I'm not - - MR MOEN: - - in respect of - - COMMISSIONER: That's a - - MR MOEN: Why is it an issue that he cannot provide this document, as have other L witnesses, etcetera? COMMISSIONER: I don't need any comments such as that, Mr Moen. MR MOEN: I beg your pardon. I didn't mean to offend you, Mr Commissioner, but in the sense of there's no public interest at the end of the day, with the greatest of respect to the Commission, as to why this man should not disclose that as a confidential exhibit to this Commission. COMMISSIONER: Well, I would ask you to write that down, if you would, Mr Corfield. There'll be no divulging of it until you've been contacted again in relation to the matter?---It will have to be two names, Mr Commissioner, because it's one of two. Yes. Thank you. The names written by Mr Corfield, barcoded D1045237, will be a private, confidential exhibit 2411C. .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16079

A55/1 POLICE EXHIBIT 2411C Mr Moen DATE 28.7.03 Confidential - names handwritten by Mr Corfield, barcode D1045237 MR MOEN: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. (TO WITNESS): Now, you gave evidence at page 61 - - just before I leave that topic of Mr Saxon, do you have knowledge of the name, Operation Noah - - ?---Yes. - - during the course of your line of inquiry?---Yes, I do. Did you provide that name to Mr Saxon for the purposes of an article that he put in the paper dated the 18th of August of 1991 - - - .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16080

A56/1 POLICE MR MOEN: - - - August of 1991?---I did not. Sorry, Mr Commissioner. Perhaps I'll finish on that tomorrow. (TO WITNESS): Can I just ask you this? Transcript page 61, Mr Corfield, deals with this issue of Curtin House, and you said this: "Curtin House. Yeah, that's right. I think that was

in June." "And those comments made by Gwilliam and towards Noye

as he was exiting the building." "Yeah. That's right." "'You're going to write it off, aren't you, corrupt

cunt'" - or "'corrupt bastard'" - Was what you were relaying Gwilliam has said to Noye. "Something like that," you said. "And he just sort of

hunched his shoulders and walked off." You gave evidence on an earlier occasion here at the Commission that says that his response to that was, "Yes." That Mr Noye responded yes, he was going to write it off. Here, in answer to these officers, you say that he shrugged his shoulders and walked off. I want to cast your memory back in relation to that firstly and ask you this; when you went down to Curtin House, was that not for the purposes of redoing your application - - pardon me; making an application for the renewal of a security agent's licence?---Yes, I think it was. Mm hm. I'd like you to have a look at this bundle of documents, please. This is a licence application, or if you turn to the second document there of that bundle, Richard William Corfield, application for renewal of licence. It has an address there. "Licence granted to...on 14.4.82." This is a declaration by you, Mr Corfield, dated the 26th day of March of 1992. Now, does that accord with your recollection as to the date of when this particular conversation took place or not?---No. It's obviously a different date. Well, you just told me a moment in evidence ago that it was the date that you went down there for the purposes of the renewal of your application - - ?---I went down there and - - Well, wait for it, please?--- - - a new application. You just told me a moment ago in your evidence that when you went down there and spoke to - - Mr Gwilliam you observed speak to Mr Noye, that that was date that you went there for an application for renewal of security agent's licence?---You .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16081

A56/1 POLICE asked me the question and I said yes, but on reflection, on seeing the date, obviously I was wrong. MR MOEN: Are you sure that you didn't go down on this particular date which is attested to here, on the 26th day of March, or was that just the date that the document was signed?---I'm sure I did. If it's signed that date I'm sure I did. I was down there quite often. Yes. All right. And in particular, the conversation that you had, or that Mr Gwilliam had with Mr Noye; do you remember that conversation?---Oh, yes. Oh, yes. What did Noye say?---I beg your pardon? What did Noye say?---Didn't - - so far as I can remember - - so far as I can remember he merely put his head down and shrugged his shoulders and kept going. The conversation never happened, Mr Corfield, did it?---It most certainly did happen. Couldn't be mistaken about that as well?---As well as what? As well as you were mistaken about the previous answer you gave in relation to the date upon which - - ?---No. Not at all. - - the application was made?---Not at all. That might be a suitable time, Mr Commissioner. I may be - - COMMISSIONER: Yes. How much longer will you be, Mr Moen? MR MOEN: I'll be another hour and a half at least. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Yes. Very well. We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning. MR LASKARIS: Commissioner, just before you rise, can I take one moment of your time to hand up a matter - - hand up my submissions to you for the continuation of the suppression orders in relation to Mr Lonergan which I mentioned to you before we rose last week - last Wednesday? I have a copy for you and my friend, both originals, and that's for Mr Hall. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. MR LASKARIS: Commissioner, can I, in an attempt to perhaps save you some reading - - if you peruse the submissions that were tendered or given to you by my learned friend, Mr Trowell, you won't need to peruse the entirety of my submissions. In essence, the legal issues are the same except if you would just note that my paragraph 25 on page 5 takes .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16082

A57/4 POLICE that - - takes the legal reasoning I think one step further and then paragraphs 28 through to 53 of my submissions are particular submissions - - particular - - are the factual - - is the factual matrix of the Lonergan issues that are raised - - COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR LASKARIS: - - and related to the submissions. Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Yes, very well. WITNESS WITHDREW AT 4.03 PM HEARING ADJOURNED UNTIL 9.45 AM TUESDAY, 29TH JULY 2003 .28/07/2003 CORFIELD, R.W. XXN 16083