Pardon Me:
The Anatomy Of An Australian Political Trial.
James Saleam. January 27 1999



Section Ten
Special Branch Files Opened: How They Impact On This False Process. Revelations Shatter The Guilty Verdict.



In March 1997, the Premier of New South Wales announced that all persons who had a personal file at Special Branch, could seek access to that file. Accordingly, a number of persons affected by the Special Branch's campaign aimed at ANA, apllied for their files. The persons whose files were relevant to the present case T. Cooksley, S. Rosier, and my own. Some other files (P. Whitehouse and Jane Saleam slso contained suggestive lines of inquiry, but I do not press that now).

In 2000, I received a folio of documents from my own file. Unsatisfied, I appealed to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT). Over several days in July - October 2001, the case was heard. Additional papers were released during the proceeding.

The New South Wales Police Service stridently contested the ADT application and considerable departmental and legal resources were devoted to the case. A police officer, Senior Sergeant Trevor Bowen, testified in "closed session" to the ADT. It is understood that this officer said that certain SB holdings were extremely sensitive and contained matter which would disclose the extent of State knowledge of myself and the former ANA. The documents if released might name confidential sources and operations and otherwise disclose the full panoply of Special Branch intelligence methods. It is understood that officer Bowen indicated that the police had an on-going intelligence interest in the subject and held me responsible for an array of acts. In one document released to me, an affidavit, Sergeant Bowen maintained that I had perpetrated a 'discovery' on the Police Service through having friends make applications for their files; in doing so, through the "mosaic effect" I would discern more about the nature of Special Branch's dealings with me and ANA. I could fill in the missing pieces.

Om March 23 access to the full file, or an approximation of that - was refused by the ADT. An Appeal was lodged to the Appeal Panel and is continuing.

The file documents that were released, were remarkable. They established a number of things relevant to the case. In combination with the other files of named persons, the state's case against me was further undermined. I could say 'shattered' because each new featherweight of evidence builds the argument and eventually the case breaks. The new material may be given as:

(i) The file of T. Cooksley at p.28ff showed that an investigative operation was run into the members of the National Action committee from August 29 1988 until September 16 1988. More than once did Neville Ireland deny that a Special Branch taskforce had ever been assembled to investigate National Action. Of course, it might be thought he was referring deliberately to the period after the Funde offence (and even then he obviously lied), but it pushes credulity to accept that he did not know of the earlier operation.

(ii) The file of Shane Rosier confirmed (per Cooksley's file) the operation's existence under its code-named 'Odessa'. The Special Branch set out to establish whether or not National Action members had been involved in certain offences allegedly committed against 'anti-racists'. The officers involved included Poniris, Garvey and Magdopoulos (who moonlighted at Villawood Autovillage which supplied 'Catherine' with her discount vehicle in 1990)
.
Rosier's file also confirmed 'Catherine'. Amazingly, the file contained three pages which described documents that might answer a subpoena issued by Rosier on my behalf - for material relating to an informant and returnable in the District Court on August 17 1990. It seems that on May 5 1989, Ireland wrote a report to the Commander of SB about Catherine and further, there were descriptions of items he had had Catherine write. Undoubtedly the material in Catherine's handwriting assisted Ireland to defraud the Informants' Fund. This proved her 'value' such that 'payments' could thence be taken from the Fund..

(iii)The Saleam file was most helpful.

First: there was an entry made on 12/2/89 in my personal dossier covering a conversation I had had with SB on January 9 1989 at the Tempe offices. This was the conversation Ireland could not 'recall' on the witness stand. It was that day that Brian Clark had appeared and, as I have said, the day Ireland made enquiries about a particular National Action activity. It had been then, 18 days before the offence that I had told Ireland Clark had offered me Funde's address and other details.It was something Ireland said sounded "familiar" and that I could have told him etc.

This reference in the file confirms my Dock Statement at the trial and my overall position. From this reference I did meet SB on that date and therefore I could have told Ireland of the Funde information, something for obvious reasons, Ireland did not wish to confirm.

Second: at pages 1200 - 1202 of the file, there appears a typed document. It appears on the surface to be a typed version of the handwritten 'confession' to the Funde offence as composed by Michael White in the police cells at Penrith on July 13 1989.

Interestingly, the typed document has never before been seen in the case. It was unsigned and had supposedly been typed at Penrith Police.

It contained all the spelling mistakes of the White confession.

The questions must be: did White write his confession and then Ireland type it up (although it was never signed etc) OR did Ireland give White this typed document and ask White to copy it, mistakes and all, as a viable confession?

Of course, if he had done that latter, the statements made by Frost and White were inconsistent and contradictory. But at this stage, Ireland could not guarantee that Frost and White would cooperate in a prosecution of Saleam and Smith and he did, in the cases of Frost and Smith over the McMahon malicious damage affair, operate contradictory cases. And if Ireland was merely preparing a statement for proper use in court there is no reason why he would not have corrected the mistakes.

Certainly, had this statement been known of at the time of the trial or the Appeal, it would have opened up new lines of cross-examination.

Third: as is a matter subject to Appeal at the ADT, my personal dossier seems to contain a section (blacked out) that might easily be my conversation etc with Ireland and Poniris on January 30 1989.

Fourth: at page 863 of the file Detective Georghiou of the SB, in an occurrence pad entry, makes reference to a John T(....). The name of this person has never before figured in the proceeding.

Fifth: at page 871 of the file there is a clear description of two different persons in two different cars, observing Funde's home in the week prior to the offence. In one case, a vehicle registration was taken (by Funde?). We know that Frost said in one of his statements that I had arranged "spotting" in the week before the offence. I deny this.The SB apparently made enquiries about a person and it's time these details were made available.

The vehicle registration number must be produced such that enquiries can be undertaken.

The existence of other conspirators in the offence must be established.

Sixth: at pages 668 - 671 of the file, we learn that a highpowered lobbying process was underway in October-November 1990 to prosecute me for the (alleged) criminal defamation of Ireland.

I had, in October, issued hundreds of letters to New South Wales police, regarding Ireland's illegal and improper activities in the case.

Assistant Commisssioner Gibson wrote (6/11/90) concerning a "contempt of court" action and a State Investigative Group taskforce to investigate. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Reg Blanche, referred the matter to the Attorney-General.

Most significantly, Assistannt Commissioner, Col Cole, wrote that I "may resort to violence" against Ireland and in dynamite fashion said that:" the continued publicizing of the material might abort the proceedings".

This is high praise indeed.The Police and the SB did not want this situation to occur. The question of the public expose of Ireland had obviously thrown the prosecution case into crisis and this might also explain the ultimate involvement of ASIO in the case. The Police were not doing well; Neville Ireland's activities were a shambles and so forth. A new direction was necessary.

As I record elsewhere, Ireland considered private a libel action, writing to me through solicitors Cohen Ajaka Walter, in March 1991. As it was, neither Ireland's threat of an action nor the pressure for a criminal defamation prosecution, came to pass.

Ireland's malice is an issue again. The Police too were in a position to turn a blind eye to any allegation from me of 'irregularity' against SB in general and Ireland in particular. I would say that the criminal defamation matter set the scene for the offences committed against Flowers in order that the jury could be stampeded into the 'necessary' guilty verdict.

As a result of the release of these files, investigations will continue. Of course, the Police deny ever recovering the Funde firearm. But there was a tacit admission by Senior Sergeant Bowen that I could use the full files to work against my convictions.


The struggle continues! But for now we see a new weight of material that suggests the method of Special Branch and the State.



Links to the Sections of "Pardon Me":

Main Page
Introduction

Section One
Prosecution Case/Defence Case: An Abstract. (The Cases As Presented At The Trial)

Section Two
A Political Case: A Conspiracy To Affect An Extra-Legal Result

Section Three
The "Doubt" on The Evidence At Trial: A Special Review Of The Evidence Of Prosecution/Defence.

Section Four
Michael White: The Threat In The Police Cells; The Explosion Of Credibility.

Section Five
Catherine: Gross Irregularities In The Investigation. New Material Raises Questions.

Section Six
The Role Of Neville Ireland: Questions Concerning Ireland's Evidence
And His Relationship To The Prosecution Witnesses And Their Evidence.

Section Seven
The Inadequate Appeal Process:
Doubts And Questions Raised By New Evidence And Argument At The Court Of Criminal Appeal.

Section Eight
The ASIO Operation, Special Branch And The Trial And Appeal Processes.
New Evidence And The Need For An Inquiry Into Conviction.

Section Nine
A Table Of New Evidence In Support Of A Judicial Inquiry. Explanation Of The New Material. Its Relevance.

Section Ten Special Branch Files Opened: How They Impact On This False Process. Revelations Shatter The Guilty Verdict.


Homepage