A Mace In The Face:

Demolishing A Piece Of
Anti-Racist Folklore



Dr. Jim Saleam.
September 1 2000


With amendments and extra detail, June 2002.

Reader: This text contains material which accuses – albeit with evidence – various persons who were police officers, and a current police officer, of offences. If you are offended by such argument, do not proceed. Exit this piece immediately.

 

In the interests of clarity, this text is written generally in the first person

 

 

By Way Of Introduction.

I had a conviction recorded against me in the Local Court at Newtown on 4 June 1986. It was upheld on Appeal to the District Court at Sydney on October 30 1986.

I was found guilty of "possess prohibited article", an offence under Section 55 of the Firearms And Dangerous Weapons Act. The "article" was a "mace". I was fined and given a suspended Sentence

To fight against any unjust conviction is never easy, even when the matter is seemingly petty. This matter however, went much deeper. A book, recently published by Random House in Sydney, highlighted the fact that this petty affair will not go away (see: John Birmingham, LEVIATHAN: THE UNAUTHORISED BIOGRAPHY OF SYDNEY). My conviction was related to an aspect of Sydney’s "anti-racist folklore", which I shall deal with shortly.

I am therefore moved to reveal the truth, regardless of the consequences; this discussion will thereby contribute to the on-going struggle to have the history of nationalist, patriotic and "anti-immigration" groups written without the additive of "anti-racist" propaganda.

This Internet pamphlet will delve into the murky area of the former Special Branch, a corrupt organization disbanded in the wake of the 1994-7 Royal Commission Into The New South Wales Police Service. I will also name a Special Branch informant connected to this "mace-case" and discuss his possible role in the offence for which I was convicted. I will suggest he assisted Special Branch to change its story-line after he had a conversation with me. I will discuss documents recently released by the Police Service regarding the Special Branch. These documents reveal the intense interest of the Branch in the affair which lay behind my prosecution for possessing this "mace".

This Internet pamphlet discusses one serving and several former Police officers. The serving officer is:

(i) Detective Sergeant Stephen Geoffrey Kerridge

The former officers are:

(i) Detective Inspector Darryl Kevin Wilson

(ii) Detective Senior Constable Robert John Brown

(iii) Detective Sergeant Garry Clement Hunt

(iv) Detective Constable Alan James Spencer

(v) Detective Inspector D.T. McCusker.

I will say that these officers committed offences; these offences were serious, and given also the exposure of Special Branch corruption at the Royal Commission Into The New South Wales Police Service, we can assume Special Branch condoned these offences. The whole business was "politics".

The Police Integrity Commission should investigate these allegations further. That one of the named officers has reached a rank where further promotion would bring "authority", the task of ensuring Police integrity at the higher levels of management could demand attention by the Commission. Indeed, a version of this document was served on the Commission some time ago without action being taken.

Neither I nor my comrades who were victims in this affair intend to allow the matter to die death by-age. Corruption and political-police crime remain matters of public interest. It is even more important that "anti-racist" propaganda be challenged whenever possible. As the struggle for Australian Independence and Identity deepens and grows more critical, this "literary" task shall serve the overall political struggle.

Abbreviations:

Local Court Transcript: LCT; District Court Transcript: DCT

 

 

SECTION ONE: BACKGROUND CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

On the evening of June 15/June 16 1985 (at approximately five minutes to midnight), a car belonging to Bronwyn Ridgway of the New South Wales Nurses Association, was set ablaze in the Sydney suburb of Enmore. It was reported in the media at the time that this offence could have been performed by members of Australian National Action.

I was the National Chairman of Australian National Action (ANA) at the time. The allegation was vehemently denied to both police and media.

It was my understanding that Ms.Ridgway identified a member of ANA - Mr. Evan Raftery - as the offender. When Raftery was interviewed by Special Branch officers and other detectives on June 21, it was obvious he had sustained injuries prior to the offence which would have precluded him as a suspect. This allegation against Raftery should not be forgotten as you proceed through this pamphlet.

Ms.Ridgway was in 1984-5 a key organizer of a group called the Combined Unions Against Racism (CUAR). This group was hosted by ALP Sydney politicians like Frank Walker (he was rumoured to be one of her ex-lovers), involved the Communist Party journalist Denis Freney and the support of key union leaderships; prominent "anti-racist" Meredith Burgmann was a main spokesperson. National Action was leading the public exposure of this CUAR, pointing out how it integrated "leftists" with State figures in an alliance to push immigration, multiculturalism and the removal of industrial "protection". There was no love lost between us.

Ridgway knew Raftery because of a Labor Party connection between their respective fathers. If Ridgway claimed to have "seen" Raftery commit the offence, then this would not be poor "identification evidence" but very powerful evidence.

On the night of June 15 1985, there was an informal gathering at the ANA offices. I was there as was Raftery. A man named "Peter" was there at one point. "Shane Rosier" (as below) was there in the early evening. A man called "Simon" came and took stickers and leaflets, but left before 8p.m.

But there was another visitor who stayed between about 7.30p.m. and 9p.m. This was Mr X. who could not have failed to observe the persons who came and went. In 1999, thanks to the release of the Special Branch File on Rosier (hereafter: Rosier File), a document signed by Detective Brown came into my hands. This was a letter (for a magistrate), used by Brown originally to obtain a search warrant for Rosier’s home. It referred to:

"An informant who has previously supplied reliable information that Rosier was in the company of the persons responsible for the Malicious Injury mentioned on 15.6.85 at Enmore."

I have raised the question of Mr X in other legal correspondence with the New South Wales Attorney-General. Basically: it is understood by ANA activists that Mr X was recruited by Special Branch as an informant in March 1985. He had been a member of ANA, but entered into internal opposition, initially based around his idea that the organization should cease political work and adopt "armed struggle". He subsequently abandoned this idea in 1984. He continued to offer the party "assistance", although the question of his membership was unsure. It is understood that Mr X desired career-advancement and traded certain ANA records to Special Branch for a security clearance to work in the courts-system. Mr X also went on to travel to Libya as a "member" of groups operated by Brisbane identity, Robert Pash (1986). He was "debriefed" by ASIO upon his return to Australia. He became a public servant and a union official. His last "association" with ANA concerned telephone harassment in 1990 when his voice was heard as background to other threats received at the party offices. In 1994 he was imprisoned for 12 months over his involvement in a drug crop. In 1999, he was allegedly caught by Police Integrity Commission tapes discussing a new drug crop- with ex-detective, Roger Rogerson.

If Mr X informed, he did not provide Special Branch with precise information regarding Raftery’s injuries. This was explicable, since Raftery was working at a desk in the upstairs section of the building for most of the time of his visit and would only have been viewed "quickly".

For the record here, I state that I too left the building with Raftery at about 11.15 p.m. and travelled to the Newtown area for coffee. We were able (had it ever been formally called for) to produce unshakeable alibi evidence as to our whereabouts at the time of the fire-bombing.

So WHO fire-bombed Ridgway’s car? No responsibility was claimed by any person or group. Ridgway was then locked in a bitter internal row for control of the Nurses’ Association. That was a source of possible violence. There was the issue of provocation. I do NOT accuse Mr. Mr X; however, there were persons associated with him who understood the "touchy" nature of the CUAR/ANA struggle. I simply do not know who committed the offence. I do know nonetheless WHO was to be blamed in the press – and in court, if possible. I know who was "blamed" in the police station!

Again, the Rosier File was of great help. The Special Branch received a telephone call from "someone" (named blacked out) who protested their inaction over the Ridgway matter. This call came in on June 18. We believe it came from the Premier’s office. Such high-level pressure always conditions the "zeal" of underlings and hirelings to do the master’s bidding.

On Friday June 21 1985, the ANA offices were subjected to a search under warrant. It was abundantly clear the search was occasioned by the Ridgway incident; it was claimed explosives or illegal weapons could be on the premises. Four officers played a role in this operation which resulted in their giving evidence against me upon the charge of "possess prohibited article"; these officers were named above:

(i) Detective Sergeant (later Inspector) Darryl Kevin Wilson (Arson Unit)

(ii) Detective Sergeant Garry Clement Hunt (Arson Unit)

(iii) Detective Senior Constable (now Sergeant) Stephen Geoffrey Kerridge (Newtown Detectives)

(iv) Detective Senior Constable Robert John Brown (Special Branch)

A number of other detectives were involved in the operation although they did not give evidence; some things said later by some of these detectives are of utility to this discussion of corruption.

Detective Brown had figured in exposure literature issued by ANA in 1984 and 1985. This made various allegations against his conduct towards ANA members on other occasions. The other officers were unknown to me. As a result of the raid, a number of other matters arose aside from my arrest on the "possess prohibited article" charge.

A complaint to the Ombudsman was made and on October 31 1986 (the day after the conviction was upheld in the District Court), all complaints were found "not sustained". The Internal Affairs Branch has been shown to have been useless in the investigation of police conspiracy and the Report of Inspector McCusker to the Ombudsman was issued with one major contradiction unnoticed (see Sections Three and Four). Other pieces of confirmatory material did emerge (see Section Three) to support my allegations to the Ombudsman. These points shall become clear as this pamphlet develops.

In 1997, I advised the Police Integrity Commission of three broad questions:

(i) the technical and evidentiary fabrication of police Statements and how far this fabrication suggested a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

(ii) the demonstration of the bad character of the officers involved (as now exposed) and,

(iii) further in view of the evidence originally given by the Defence (and some contradictory Prosecution evidence) it would now be possible to find the truth.

I have set the scene. The reader can now judge how "payback" (if the Special Branch truly believed ANA was guilty of the Ridgway crime), or "load-up" (if they knew otherwise), was to be organized.

The following analysis of "evidence" is necessary to prove to the reader that justice in Australia is political, that the process of "legal" harassment operates to blunt the free organization of political groups, that it conceals the actual truth behind court-process. Courts rubber-stamp the activities of the political police. This case will show the reader the methods employed to curtail the struggle of Australian National Action.

SECTION TWO: THE VERSIONS OF EVENTS OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE.

In assembling this Section, I rely on the Statements served upon the Defence (and entered into evidence) from Detectives Brown, Hunt and Kerridge; and the oral evidence given by these officers (and Detective Wilson) in the Local Court Newtown on June 4 1986 and the District Court Sydney on October 13 and October 23 1986.

I have consulted that File (at Newtown Local Court) and a Transcript of the evidence is attached to it. Two original Police Statements are contained in the File and these Statements are vital to the credibility of this pamphlet.

I have urged upon the Police Integrity Commission the proper acquisition of these documents such that Perjury, Forgery and Conspiracy can be demonstrated, initially against Detective Kerridge. As correspondence between myself and the Attorney General of New South Wales (I possess these original letters), I have attempted to have these documents forensically examined by an independent expert. My application was declined. Why?

I examined the District Court Criminal Registry File of the Appeal heard in front of Judge Knoblanche on October 13, 23 and 30 1986.

Transcript for the latter date did not exist (and in view of the guilty finding may never have been made). Nonetheless, the evidence of the Detectives appeared there in full. This File has been returned to District Court Archives.

 

The Prosecution Case In The Prosecution's Words:

The Prosecution case was very simple. On Friday morning, June 21 1985, a number of Detectives from Special Branch, Newtown Detectives and the Arson Unit raided the National Action offices at 725 Princes Highway Tempe. Detective Brown produced the warrant at the door and the detectives entered the building. I was spoken to, as was Mark Joseph Ferguson, who was then residing on the premises. A loaded M-1 Carbine was found in the downstairs area. Upstairs, next to my bed was found a mace (a stick wrapped in tape with a bolt through the end). I had a conversation with Detectives Brown and Kerridge in the hearing of Detective Hunt. I admitted possession of the item albeit only since the early hours of the morning. Later, I was conveyed to Newtown Detectives where I explained I had returned home at 3 a.m., found the mace in a box in the kitchen area and took charge of it for my own personal protection. I was then charged.

Detective Wilson gave evidence to rebut a suggestion he had found the mace in the box and spoke to me about it in the kitchen area.

 

The Defence Case (As It Actually Occurred):

Three witnesses gave evidence for the Defence. I deposed that I left my premises in the evening of the 20th June 1985; when I returned home at 3a.m., there was a box in the kitchen area. It was not there when I left many hours before.

It held a whisky bottle, chicken wire (protruding), some books etc. I never specifically noticed any mace. I went to bed to be awoken by the Police at about 8a.m. Detective Wilson (not Brown) had possession of the warrant, explained it at the door, and the officers entered the premises. At some point after their arrival Detective Wilson spoke to me in the kitchen area; he had the mace in his hands. He implied it had come from the box. He said I would be charged. I dressed and was then conveyed to Newtown Detectives; there was some desultory conversation in which I indicated how I had gone out for the evening and returned to find the box in the kitchen area of the premises. I was then charged.

Mark Ferguson said he had returned home to the premises after 3.30 a.m. from a shift as a taxi driver. He had observed the box. During the raid he was spoken to in the shop area at the front of the premises. Some time into the raid, he observed me conversing with Wilson in the kitchen area; Wilson had the mace.

Shane Rosier was arrested by Wilson some days after the raid on the Tempe premises, and on a separate charge. Rosier maintained Wilson admitted he found the mace.

I submit to the reader:

The issues were very straight forward: either the mace was found downstairs by Wilson in circumstances under which I could maintain I did not have knowledged possession of the mace; or the mace was found upstairs in circumstances where possession could only have been deliberate and, in view of the confession, definitely so.

I submit to the reader:

This case would match the classic model of "verbal"; there were no independent witnesses to the event and the police version was denied by the accused; there was no corroborative or scientific evidence to support the police case which stood upon the supposed credit of the police witnesses.

Other "police" like Mohr gave Records Of Interview which corroborated in general ways the version of the police witnesses.

 

SECTION THREE: CHALLENGES TO THE PROSECUTION VERSION.

Whilst a number of propositions were put to Detectives Wilson, Hunt, Kerridge and Brown, these propositions were denied and were never the subject of further action. The Appeal was conducted in the same manner as the Local Court hearing. After the Ombudsman's Report (ie. the Report of Detective Inspector McCusker, further argument was put (as below) to the Ombudsman regarding the forging of the Police Statements), but no further action was taken. Hunt’s "bad character" had not been demonstrated at that time either.

I would re-analyse parts of the Prosecution story ‚and add new material.

It will become obvious that the case was a conspiracy to procure a false conviction.

 

(a) Who Had The Warrant? Brown And Kerridge Commit Perjury.

Brown and Kerridge maintained in their Statements that the door of the premises at 725 Princes Highway Tempe was opened by Saleam and a conversation with Detective Brown ensued; Brown indicated the nature of the warrant and they entered.

In his Statement to McCusker of 30 July 1986, Wilson said he and a Sergeant Mohr (this officer is, of course, the same Inspector Mohr who has figured in the "Justice Yeldham" phase of Royal Commission evidence) of Special Branch led the raid. I said at Court, Wilson had the Warrant. Why Brown would have the Warrant if Wilson and Mohr were in charge would be a pointless aspect in the Prosecution case unless claimed to contradict what would be thought to have been my version of events. It would be unlikely Brown would have had the Warrant.

As it transpired McCusker's interviews revealed Brown and Kerridge as untruthful. I note there would have been no reason for the officers cited hereunder to have lied by giving a version of the incident which contradicted Brown and Kerridge.

Garry Hunt in his Record Of Interview with McCusker of 6 August 1986 ‚said:

"Q.12 Did you see or hear any other police have a conversation with Saleam whilst at the house?

A. I think Detective Sergeant Wilson spoke to Saleam initially in regards to the contents of the search warrant. Other police may have spoke to him, but I am not aware of the contents of any conversation."

Darryl Wilson in his Record Of Interview with McCusker of 30 July 1986 said:

"Q.7 Would you tell us what occurred when you entered the premises?

A. The contents of the search warrant were made known to Mr. Saleam and I assisted Detectives from the Special Branch, Arson Squad and Newtown Police Stations with a search of these premises."

Grahame John Merkel in his Record Of Interview With McCusker of 6 August 1986 said:

"Q.13 Do you recall who spoke to Mr. Saleam at the house?

A. Detective Wilson did speak to him briefly at the door then I entered the premises along with other police and carried out a search of the ground floor. I do not know who spoke to him once inside the building."

It is reasonably the position I was truthful in my sworn evidence in respect of the entry into my premises being affected by Wilson who had the Warrant.

I submit to the reader:

Brown and Kerridge committed Perjury after crafting their Statements. That this seemingly minor piece of Perjury was deliberately manufactured indicates a fundamental desire to falsely convict me and a cunning and resourcefulness in realising this objective.

The contradictory version of Wilson, Hunt and Merkel was available to McCusker to have passed to the Defence at the October 1986 Appeal, but the Statements were not passed over; the Defence did not know this material existed to contradict Brown and Kerridge. I obtained the Statements with the Ombudsman's Report several weeks subsequent to the Appeal. The contradictory version on the issue of the warrant confirmed the Defence position and is new material which could be considered by the Police Integrity Commission to initiate an investigation. However, our purpose here is more basic: the "police"/Special Branch lied.

I submit to the reader:

This behaviour of the Internal Affairs Branch officer, Detective Inspector McCusker could amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice. By not disclosing evidence, he helped to secure the conviction which assisted him in establishing the complaint as "not sustained."

 

(b) The Issue Of The Box / The Issue Of The M-1 Carbine And Other Weapons.

There seems to be no dispute that a peculiar box was situated in the kitchen area of the premises. A box containing whisky, books and wire was in various ways mentioned by certain officers:

See: Wilson (LCT17; Statement to McCusker p.1); Hunt (Statement to McCusker p.1) ‚Kerridge (Statement to McCusker) p.2 ; Brown (LCT29) Saleam (Statement to McCusker 14 August 1985 p.1 - a Statement made nearly a year previous to the police named here).

It is reasonably clear, that had the mace been recorded as found downstairs by any officer, it could have been suggested by the Defence that it was not a "knowledged possession". It was clear to the police the box could have been delivered during the previous evening and it may have been apprehended that witnesses could have been found to allege the box was delivered the night before. It was also clear to police (per the conversation alleged and partly confirmed by me) at Newtown Police Station that I was claiming to have been out all evening, returning at about 3 a.m. To make the charge stick, it was necessary I have the mace in a place where knowledged possession could be claimed.

At no time did the police fingerprint the mace. This would be suggestive. I never touched the mace.

For the police case to be acceptable, it must follow (since no challenge was ever put up to the proposition I returned at 3 a.m.) that I searched the newly-arrived box and abstracted the mace. The verbal coiming I took charge of the item for the purpose of my self-protection.

The Statements of Brown and Kerridge (as tendered in evidence) establish (and I agreed) other weapons were also found on the premises. Two rifles (including an M-1 carbine), a mattock and a hammer handle were located in the kitchen/dining room area. It could never be explained why I would have sought to protect myself upstairs in the premises against an offender who could break-in in the downstairs area and use on me - the rifles and other weapons.

It reasonably follows the mace weapon was originally located in the box; there were other weapons on the premises, two of which were vastly superior to the mace. It would be a peculiar course of events which would have seen me pick up the new weapon for "protection".

Wilson also made a curious slip at the Appeal under professional Cross-Examination. He was asked about the box.

Q. Why didn't you search it?

A. No reason.

After being reminded of the contents of the warrant and the Ridgway car-fire-bombing investigation:

Q. Didn't you feel it appropriate to search the box?

A. Not at that time (DCT 22)

This ridiculous claim could pass in the mid-1980's; but it has no credibility after the Police Royal Commission. It would make sense of course - if Wilson knew there was nothing relevant to the fire-bombing investigation and the Search Warrant because he had indeed searched the box when he found the mace.

I submit to the reader:

The contorted sequence of evidence/information regarding the box and other weapons on the premises does not really favour the Prosecution/Police argument; it does favour me. The weapon was in the box. The weapon would not have been taken upstairs for protection, because if protection was the issue, a weapon of superior quality would have been chosen. The improbability of the Police case is a high one, although in all "verbal" cases, this seldom moved the courts in this period. This reinterpretation of evidence supports other points raised in this Section.

 

(c) The Similar Spelling And Other Qualities Of The Police Statements.

If Brown and Kerridge were to be believed, they certainly conferred at the Special Branch headquarters regarding their Statements (Kerridge LCT8 DCT13-15 ; Brown LCT24). It would most likely have been the case.

The Statements present a number of signs of fabrication:

(i) The doorstep conversation has Brown and Kerridge recording the events and conversation identically:

"Your James Saleam, aren't you? He said "Yes". .... We have a warrant to search these premises, can we come in? He said "Yere". Brown p.1/Kerridge p.1.

The spelling of "your" and "yere" could only occur if one officer was copying from some record made by the other.

(ii) Each writer used the same grammatical formula:

Kerridge: "..whilst in the loungeroom/dining area section..." p.1

Brown: "..whilst in the lounge/dining room area..." p.1

Again, it is likely one officer was copying from the other.

 

(iii) Each writer used a peculiar expression in the alleged conversation which suggests fabrication:

Kerridge: "I said "I believe you have rivalry with other political sanctions in New South Wales?""

Brown: "Detective Kerridge said "I believe you have rivalry with other political sanctions in New South Wales?""

When Kerridge gave oral evidence, he changed "sanctions" to FACTIONS (LCT2) Brown maintained the phrase was "sanctions" (LCT22). Brown was cross-examined as to the meaning of the word "sanctions" (At the Appeal, the Statement of Kerridge was simply tendered whole):

"Q. Can you tell us what a political sanction is?

  1. A sanction could be described as being a particular person who would be attracted to a particular type of group" (LCT25)

This idiosyncratic meaning of the word sanction may have occurred to Brown in the same manner but its proper meaning was understood at all times by me. As is a matter of public record I had attended a university and received degrees. It could be fairly assumed I knew the meaning of the word ‘sanctions’! If I had confessed to possessing the mace, I would have used the word of Kerridge's revised text - "FACTIONS".

The likely source of the fabrication is this: whosoever copied his notes from the other misread the word SECTIONS, a common police phrase which does denote different organizations or groups. He wrote the word as - SANCTIONS.

(iv) It can be assumed I was somewhat acquainted with Police methodology and the nature of "verbal". The Kerridge/Brown Statements record that I was given the opportunity to make a written Statement, but declined. Why I would have bothered to confess so completely and later repudiate the tale, was perhaps the central problem inherent in this type of fabricated evidence.

It can be observed the confession followed the standard formula of this type of confession.

(v) A blemish developed over the spelling of the name "Rosier". Kerridge recorded (p.1):

"Detective Brown said "Who owns the rifle? He said Shane Roster of Stanmore"".

While Brown (p.1) recorded it correctly as ROSIER, Hunt's version was more peculiar. Hunt at page one recorded ROSIER and struck it out and in handwriting made it ROSTER. Hunt agreed he made no notes in his Notebook (LCT16), nor could he recall being present on another occasion not long after the Tempe raid when Rosier was arrested (LCT13). I have inspected the original Statements and Rosier was correctly recorded in Hunt's version and then altered in pen to ROSTER. This strange act may show intent on the part of Hunt or another person to guarantee the surface-plausibility of the Statements.

I submit to the reader:

The preparation of the Statements clearly demonstrated spelling and other peculiarities which could only have emerged if a concerted effort was made to coordinate the evidence. While this may at be suggestive of wrongdoing it is not necessarily proof of criminal conspiracy. However, there was a clear implication that the Statements were produced from some central record and in the case of "sanctions" show fabricated conversation. No civilian would confess in police language. A doubt as to the veracity of the Statements' content has been demonstrated.

(e) A Lie From Inspector McCusker.

Inspector McCusker of Internal Affairs also told a lie to the Ombudsman and to his superior. He had the material in front of him. He reported to the Chief Superintendent of Internal Affairs (p.8 of his Report):

"It is quite clear in my opinion that Mr. Saleam read the prepared Court brief against him and disputed the evidence in the location of the mace. There is absolutely no evidence to support the allegation of conspiracy and inquiries show that Mr. Saleam was convicted of the offence and I find that this issue is not sustained."

McCusker interviewed me on August 14 1985 at the Internal Affairs Branch and a Statement was taken. At page one of this Statement it was said Wilson found the mace in the kitchen area.

The Statement of Brown was allegedly made (see below) on June 25 1985 and those of Kerridge and Hunt on August 7 1985. However, in Brown’s Record Of Interview To McCusker of 30 July 1986 we read:

"Q.37 Do you know if a Solicitor named Peter Pearsall received a copy of your Statement at Court in December, 1985?"

A. Yes, Mr.Pearsall was representing Saleam and he was allowed to read the brief prior to the Court to allow us to read them in the witness box. When the case was called before the Court, the Magistrate disqualified himself because he had had a prior dealing with Saleam and Mr. Pearsall obtained a copy of the Brief."

We also read in Kerridge's Record Of Interview with McCusker in Questions/Answers 51-57 a confirmation of the Brown version. With one exception, McCusker asks about the Statement of Facts in the case and when these Facts were made; Kerridge did NOT say these Facts were given to me (they never were, but McCusker had them; see below) at my first court appearance on July 4 1985. The charge was simply read and the matter adjourned.

Hunt was asked in his Record Of Interview with McCusker‚ Questions/Answers 45/46 about Pearsall possessing the Statements in order that they could be read from the witness box.

It was clearly on this occasion that the Police version of events was first aired to the Defence. Given I made a Record Of Interview with McCusker on August 14 and raised the matter of Wilson finding the mace in the kitchen, and given the comments of Brown and Hunt to the Internal Affairs interrogator, it cannot follow that the story told by Saleam/Rosier/Ferguson could have been fabricated from the reading of the Police Brief of Evidence.

I submit to the reader:

Detective Inspector McCusker deliberately distorted the truth in his Report to the Internal Affairs

Branch of the Police and to the New South Wales Ombudsman. He was seeking to give some reason for why the Defence story varied from the Prosecution/Police. Given his other failure in respect of the issue concerning the possession of the Warrant, he was clearly conducting an inadequate and skewed inquiry. It follows I was not done justice in this case and McCusker's Report may well have conditioned the Ombudsman against further investigation. It follows that for me to have told the story to McCusker on August 14 1985 as I told it, I could not have obtained that story from the Police Brief of Evidence. That makes no sense – unless I was telling the truth.

(f) The Missing ‘Statement Of Facts’ Damns Them All.

The Statement Of Facts was located by me in the Ombudsman’s File. It was signed by Kerridge. It does two things:

(i) It did not mention at all where the "mace" was found. Logic says the Statement was prepared very early for the magistrate who first dealt with the matter. It said: "Whilst searching the premises in company with the defendant, a mace was found ….."

(ii) The Statement also demolished absolutely the issue of "political sanctions" and "political

sections".

The Statement appeared to paraphrase me. It referred to me telling Kerridge of a "number of other groups in the area" "opposed" to National Action. "There has been friction between these groups for some time". The defendant "has had damage done by members of these rival ‘groups’ (Kerridge supplied the inverted comma as if he was quoting me!!)" to my premises.

Unfortunately, this Statement was not dated. At least it is not dated in the photocopy provided to the Ombudsman.

McCusker had this document which should have suggested to him that it was the FIRST version of my "confession" to possessing the mace. If anyone changed his story about where the mace was found – it was not me.

Why the story changed from the time of the preparation of the Statement Of Facts through to December 1985 when police statements were served on the Defence brings us back to Mr X.

(g) Did Mr X "Assist" The Police Case?

I reveal here that despite Mr X NOT being a paid up member of ANA in the period after the mace arrest, he was still spoken to on various occasions by me and other members. It is absolutely certain Mr X obtained the full details of the case. Mr X knew how the box was delivered the night before; he knew an argument could be made that I did not have knowledged possession of the mace.

Mr X would also have informed to Special Branch about my belief that acquittal could follow the clear statement of the truth.

At this time, I am in legal struggle with the Police Service over the files of the former Special Branch. All reports given by Mr X to this agency should now be brought forward. It also follows the

Police Integrity Commission should debrief Mr X in full and make its findings available. The use of informants in this way occurred throughout my entire experience of the Special Branch and is a singular indictment of the corrupt character of our political police.

 

SECTION FOUR: A SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE FABRICATED NATURE OF THE STATEMENT -DOCUMENTS. A PROOF OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WHICH CHALLENGES THE EVIDENCE.

At the time of the Local Court hearing‚ on 4 June 1986, it was rather clear me that there was one glaring problem with the Statements which were passed to the Defence Solicitor Peter Pearsall in December 1985 (note: Pearsall did not represent me at the hearing). I was reasonably sure all three Statements (Brown, Kerridge, Hunt) had been typed on the same typewriter. Between that date and the Appeal I also formed the view that Kerridge forged Hunt's signature onto "his" Statement.

This latter question was not asked of Hunt at the Appeal. I also asked counsel to request an adjournment to have the three Statements scientifically examined, both in respect of Hunt's signature and in respect of identical typewriters, but counsel claimed it to be "irrelevant" to proving/disproving their content.

On Friday July 11 1996, eleven years after the events, I finally inspected two of the three Statements at Newtown Local Court and held them myself in my hands (previously I had only sighted copies). At this time, I was under the supervision of the Clerk of Court. The forgery of Hunt's signature was clear (ie. the letter "G" is identical to the "G" for Geoffrey in Kerridge's middle name. Further: the signature (albeit in photocopied form) upon Hunt's Record Of Interview with McCusker cited above was vastly different from the obviously affected signature on "his" Statement. I obtained this particular Record Of Interview only subsequent to conviction.

I also examined the typewriter faces and it was reasonably clear the Kerridge/Hunt Statements were prepared on the same typewriter. This is not necessarily surprising since each was allegedly made at Newtown Police. Unfortunately the original of Brown's Statement was not contained in the Newtown Local Court papers or in the District Court Registry File. Whether it exists in the files of Special Branch is unknown but it was my request to the Police Integrity Commission that a search be conducted for it. It is very likely it was also typed upon the same typewriter.

At Local Court I asked Brown particular questions regarding the typewriter issue and Brown recalled Kerridge attending Special Branch headquarters:

"I remember him typing some notes but to be quite honest I'm not sure if it was a Statement at all because I was sitting some distance from him." (LCT24)

"Q. To the best of your knowledge, the Statements made by Detectives Hunt, yourself and Detective Kerridge were not made on the same typewriter?

A. To the best of my knowledge yes, possibly a similar brand.

Q. But to the best of your knowledge, they were not typed on the same typewriter?

A. That's correct. (LCT25)

This interchange was highly suggestive. Brown was quick enough to suggest the typewriters for the three Statements could have been the same brand - a rather inventive comment. His admission Kerridge typed notes was perhaps a slip, but important in context: it was an admission Kerridge attended Special Branch and typed something.

At the District Court Appeal, Kerridge admitted attending Special Branch and substantial material emerged which favours this argument:

Q. Did you type any document at all at the Special Branch in relation to this matter?

A. I attended Special Branch and saw Detective Brown where he had a Statement typed which I compiled my statement from that document.

Q. At that time?

A. No.

Q. At any later time?

A. 7th August I think is the date of my statement. (DCT14)

Kerridge also provided the date of his visit to Special Branch:

Q. So it was - what date did you go to the Special squad to see Detective Brown?

A. 7th August I think it was.

Q. 7th August did you say?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was the date of your Statement?

A. Yes. (DCT14)

This was significant. If Kerridge was truthful, then the date provided upon Brown's Statement (June 25 1985) was wrongly recorded and this could not have been accidental. Kerridge was also uncertain as to what he should say about the course of events in his dealings with Brown in the production of the Statements. There is the third problem:

If Brown's evidence is truthful: then what was Kerridge typing at the Special Branch headquarters?

Kerridge also confirmed again that Brown's Statement had been prepared on August 7. He said:

Q. Now when you prepared your Statement, where did you prepare it?

A. I went to Special Branch and Detective Brown had this statement typed out I think. (DCT15)

Kerridge may have also been confusing the actual course of events with the lies he was telling. Later he did add:

Q. So basically you just copied the statement down, did you?

A. Well, I read - from memory, I read through Detective Brown's notebook and then I think I must have got a copy of this statement and took it back to Newtown and compiled my statement from that statement. (DCT15).

I submit the evidence discloses various contradictions which suggest the history of the Statements

is different to that deposed to with the reasonable inference the content was false.

I also undertook to have the Statements of Kerridge and Hunt forensically examined. I commissioned Mr. Paul Westwood of Forensic Document Services Pty Ltd. I was told by Mr. Westwood that he had performed certain work for the Royal Commission. Westwood viewed the documents at Newtown Local Court. Of course, no detailed scientific examination could be under such conditions. However Westwood came to a preliminary opinion based simply upon his sight and his experience. Westwood affirmed there was a real likelihood the "Hunt" signature had been forged by Kerridge.

It is therefore appropriate the Police Integrity Commission have this possibility confirmed. Other tests are likely to reveal additional anomalies to sustain my allegations. It is also fairly clear to the reader that if I gave my story about where the mace was found to McCusker on August 14, then for his lie to the Ombudsman to have been presented as a fact, it was necessary for the police to have provided their August 7 statements to me in the intervening week. Brown’s Statement belied that.

 

SECTION FIVE: THE "BAD CHARACTER" OF THE DETECTIVES.

At Local Court, the Magistrate referred to the "totally unshaken" testimony of the Police officers when he found the offence proved (LCT42). Judge Knoblanche was in fact - more scathing of the Defence. As I rose to give evidence, a band began to play outside. At that moment, Knoblanche said I had "musical accompaniment" for my "evidence"; Rosier was denounced as a "black liar" for his challenge to Wilson. Ferguson was called "untruthful". Knoblanche, at my sentencing, took additional time to suggest I was a "book-burner" with a desire to "square up" with whomsoever "crossed" me. Hardly very "judicial" and "impartial"!! For Knoblanche, let this document settle the account; this disgrace to the bench (scorned by innumerable lawyers as hovering on crazy), has the satisfaction of reading the truth.

It is also clear in those cases now open to challenge as a result of the Royal Commission Into The New South Wales Police Service, that "totally unshaken" police evidence was nothing unusual; rather, other methods have had to be employed to break the solidarity amongst the perjurers.

 

(a) The Bad Character Of Detective Garry Clement Hunt.

On July 5 1986, Her Honour Judge Angela Karpin sentenced Garry Hunt to one year's imprisonment. Hunt had been found guilty in the District Court Sydney of stealing from a child's Trust Account to support a heroin addiction. Hunt had also committed a similar offence and was serving periodic detention.

It appears Hunt resigned from the New South Wales Police Service in 1989.

The character of Hunt raises a question as to his integrity in the past. A question also exists as to the reason for his quitting the Police Service in 1989. As the Royal Commission has revealed, corrupt officers were often given silent removal from their position, rather than criminal

Prosecution or other discipline. I appealed to the Police Integrity Commission to investigate Hunt’s activities in the Police Service.

Should it be the position that adverse findings on Hunt had been made, further investigations into this officer should be undertaken. From hearsay, I believe Hunt to have been a corrupt officer with substantive corrupt connections within the Police Service. Whether Hunt would cooperate with the Commission in resolving my allegation is a matter the Commission must assess for itself.

I submit to the reader:

Any intelligence which suggests corrupt conduct by Hunt in the period of the 1980's be used to assess the veracity of evidence given by him in my criminal proceedings. It is further a matter of public concern that citizens have had convictions recorded against them through the testimony of a person of revealed bad character; it is in the public interest convictions achieved through uncorroborated "verbal" evidence from Hunt whether in company of other Police or otherwise - be reviewed. Any evidence from Hunt instrumental in achieving a conviction would now be suspect precisely because of his convictions in the 1990's.

(b) The Character Of Detective Darryl Kevin Wilson

Detective Wilson resigned from the Police Service in 1987. Wilson's resignation coincided with media reports of a relationship with disgraced former Detective (and heroin criminal) Bill Duff.

It may well be the position Crime Intelligence holds information on this relationship and the importation of drugs via an aircraft (jointly owned by Wilson and Duff) into Australia from Papua-New Guinea.

I understand Wilson rejoined the Police Service and became a Chief Inspector. He left the Police Service in May 1999.

I submit to the reader:

Any adverse Crime Intelligence information held on Wilson is crucial in the assessment of any conviction secured by his testimony - regardless of whether such evidence was corroborated or not by other New South Wales Police. It is in the public interest this present allegation be pursued. It might open doors to the amassing of new criminal-intelligence. As was only recently established (through an analysis of a certain District Court Criminal Registry File, Wilson was acquainted with Brown in the 'Special Breaking Unit'. This unit was noted for corruption.

(c) A Question Concerning Detective Robert John Brown.

Detective Brown resigned from the Police Service in 1989. There is no adverse information known concerning Brown. Yet his clashes with ANA in 1984-5 must raise a fundamental question of his honesty. We published his photo – twice. We accused him of wrongdoing. Are we to accept our policemen were men of steel, concerned only for the "job", who rise above personal rancour. No! Brown was a strutting little man whose conduct indicated extreme prejudice. In his Record Of Interview with McCusker, Brown spoke of my "long termed desire to get at Special Branch, because of previous problems…" Tsk Tsk!! The cant of Special Branch was well known until the Royal Commission Into The Police Service tore off its veil of secrecy.

To suggest my allegations of police misconduct in 1985-6 were simply "political" gives hypocrisy an entire new meaning.

 

(d) Detective Stephen Geoffrey Kerridge.

Detective Kerridge is a serving Officer.

I do recall however, a confrontation with Steve Kerridge outside court, and out of earshot of other "police" involved in the case. I said: "I know you were never keen to load me." Kerridge grimaced

and said "okay".

Steve Kerridge is revealed here as a corrupt officer. Even now, he has an opportunity to come forward, acknowledge the conduct complained of, and attempt to undo a malicious conviction. I have provided details of this Internet pamphlet to the Police Integrity Commission; I have written to Steve's commander. The genie is out of its bottle. If he did come forward, the truth about political policing in New South Wales (and Australia generally) would become just that little bit more ‘manifest’ to the average Australian.

 

SECTION SIX: GETTING THE TRUTH ABOUT SPECIAL BRANCH.

The investigation of the "mace case" had other elements. We return now to the question of pressure placed upon Special Branch to show "results".

The reader probably accepts by now that the police group (Wilson, Brown, Hunt and Kerridge) lied to obtain a conviction.

But there was more. We now meet ex-Special Branch detective Alan James Spencer. This mace case was – after all – really about Bronwyn Ridgway. Either the police might turn up information about the crime, or inhibit and penalise its suspected perpetrators.

Spencer, Hunt and Wilson interviewed Raftery and Ferguson about the Ridgway crime. Both have made serious allegations against these "detectives". Raftery recounted a screaming session on June 21 1985 in which Wilson accused him of committing the Ridgway crime and a serious arson. Despite Raftery’s injuries, Wilson persisted. Raftery claims Wilson was motivated by intense political passion. Ferguson alleged that he was offered money to testify falsely against me.

These "interrogations" had Spencer saying that he would "take a piece of Saleam and fry it." He was also disturbed that another prosecution launched in 1984 could fail.

Special Branch was at all times an instrument of the State. It was no "intelligence" group, but a cudgel to be wielded at unpopular persons (ie. unpopular with the Establishment). It was the Ridgway case which settled the Special Branch’s attitude towards ANA. Henceforward, any means was taken as justified in dealing with us.

As I have revealed in PARDON ME: THE ANATOMY OF AN AUSTRALIAN POLITICAL

TRIAL (also an Internet pamphlet), this malice went to the extremes.

 

 

SECTION SEVEN: ‘ANTI-RACIST FOLKTALE’ – VALUELESS.

Bronwyn Ridgway became a martyr to Sydney "anti-racists" after 1985. The story of how ANA members really did the car fire-bombing was recited in the Left press and by bourgeois liberal journalists. Denis Freney, editor of the Communist Party’s "Tribune" newspaper, was her main press agent. Unsurprising too, as the Rosier File revealed, Freney , may well have played A CLOSE GAME WITH Special Branch in 1988-89 (but that is another story!).

Ridgway went on to give "evidence" to the utterly bogus Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission’s "National Inquiry Into Racist Violence" (1989-91). She was portrayed as one of the heroic "victims" of a party committed to violence.

The successful prosecution for the possession of a "mace" set up the author as a man of violence, armed with illegal weapons. It became a matter of "delegitimization".

But when the prosecution is looked at, it is obvious as to who the "victims" might be. We have a party dedicated to Australian national rebirth and a corrupt political police prepared to go to all lengths to restrict its organizational success.

If the prosecution was an act of institutional corruption: what does it say about the Ridgway crime itself? Could it too, have been a provocation?

We will never know. However, the truth about the mace-case will be brought back into a court for final disposal.

The real "folktale" might be that of the energetic fighters of Nationalism who stood up to the corrupt liars of Special Branch.

 

SECTION EIGHT: CONCLUSION. WHERE TO NOW?

The publication of this Internet pamphlet is about overturning an "anti-racist folktale" in its entirety. And that means breaking a conviction founded upon perjury. As the reader can appreciate, this method of highlighting State crime is new.

It is about generating media coverage, bringing about new "legal" contention and finally returning this case (petty though it is when compared to others) to a court. That court can now only be the Supreme Court of New South Wales for an application for an "Inquiry" into conviction.

There are other places for this case: the Police Integrity Commission and a "report to the Attorney General" which recommends pardon.

But I know there will be resistance to any "pardoning" of the author for anything. The author, like other Nationalists, was targeted in the 1984-91 period for malicious prosecution, the prime "management technique" used against patriotic dissenters in modern Australia.

For Detective Sergeant Kerridge, I offer a final word. He had an opportunity to fight against political police crime by refusing to participate. He chose to go with the flow. Oddly, he will become the final victim of this "anti-racist folktale". If he is at some point charged and convicted of the Crimes Act offences of "forge instrument to be used in legal proceeding" and "perjury", he would most certainly suffer imprisonment.

End.





Homepage