Pardon Me:
The Anatomy Of An Australian Political Trial.
James Saleam. January 27 1999
Section Five
Catherine:
Gross Irregularities In The Investigation.
New Material Raises Questions.
Detective Superintendent Ireland was interviewed in July 1989 by
Inspector John Glasheen (an officer named adversely at the Royal
Commission Into the New South Wales Police Service). Perry Whitehouse
had made a Complaint to the Ombudsman's Office. He said that Ireland had,
on June 3 1989, offerred him a corrupt deal to have charges dropped if
he would name Saleam/Smith for borrowing his shotgun for use in the
Funde offence. During his Record of Interview, Ireland said that by the
time of the Whitehouse arrest, he already knew the identities of the
Funde offenders and that a "reliable informer" had given him
information about Saleam, Smith, Frost, White and the borrowed weapon.
The Whitehouse Complaint was inevitably found - "not sustained".
The substance of the Complaint is now rendered even more curious, by the
possible recovery of a shotgun belonging to Jason Frost, courtesy
of officers of the Royal Commission Into The New South Wales Police
Service. More follows on this elsewhere.
The "reliable informer" was considered by me to have been Jason
Frost. I conducted political propaganda on that basis. And while Frost
most certainly collaborated with Special Branch - he was not the person
to whom Ireland was referring.
The person in question was a female close to members of the National
Action National Committee. For particular reasons, the reader must accept
that this witness can not be named here.
There are grave variations between the probable versions given by
Ireland (to his superiors and to ASIO) of this relationship (ie. the
nature of the information passed over) and the material given to me and
my Counsel by the woman in 1990.
I understand Ireland gave her a "code-name" - "Catherine". She also had
other code names (as below). But for the purposes of this document,
"Catherine" shall be used throughout. The reader can assume that the State
is well aware of the identity of this woman.
It has been clear from the first moment this issue was ventilated
by the Defence (December 1990 upon a Crown application to have
my Bail revoked and as conducted before Justice McInnerney), substantial
opposition had formed to prevent this matter from being properly
investigated. Eventually, as I shall explain to you, Ireland's relationship with Catherine was scrutinised by the Royal Commission. One aspect of
this relationship brought Ireland down. He had claimed over $5700 in informer
expenses for the operation of Catherine and had pocketed the money.
Ireland forensic techniques are now open to a challenge. Doubts about the veracity of evidence given by Ireland and another Special Branch officer
now exist. Methods used to collect evidence can be questioned. Offences
were committed to pervert the course of justice in the trial.
However, we must start at the start. What follows is unusual in the justice system.
1. The Origin Of The Code-Name.
As shall be raised later, Ireland could have a penchant for the use of
ideas gleaned from movies. In this case, in the film BETRAYED, "Catherine Weaver" was the cover name for an FBI agent infiltrated into an American
Right-wing extremist group; this movie, starring Debra Winger and Tom
Berenger, was released in 1988. The agent uncovers murder and a network of terrorists and is instrumental in bringing down the group. While my point
cannot really be proven, it might nonetheless be instructive.
2. What Did "Catherine" Know?
I understand Ireland's reports will vary considerably from what
follows here. There would be any number of reasons for this; the
most compelling reasons could be:
(i) Ireland intended Catherine be called as the State's key witness in
a major conspiracy trial (hence on August 17 1990 a meeting of Ireland, Catherine and DPP Solicitor Richard Herps was organized at the Director of Public Prosecutions Office to discuss this event) and "consistency" in her informancy was necessary, and
(ii) Ireland feels a compulsive need to protect himself from any charge
of fabrication of evidence.
Ireland has certainly composed documents which maintain Catherine
told him who committed the Funde offence; he would have written that
this information came from her direct knowledge and Crown Prosecutor
Davenport was certainly advised that if Catherine was produced in the trial,
her evidence would be false.
However, Catherine's knowledge of the Funde crime was indirect.
On April 15 1989, Catherine was present when I attended Newtown
Police Station upon the release of Wayne Smith who had been been charged
with malicious damage to the property of notorious ultra-liberal lesbian reverend - Dorothy McMahon.
Smith had dinner with us at a local hotel and we discussed his arrest
earlier that day by Ireland and Garvey. We discussed some peculiarities
of the arrest and other unusual events of that day and in the then-recent period. Smith and I had a discussion concerning information he said had
come to him about the Funde offence. He told me Michael White had boasted
to some persons with whom they were both acquainted that he was involved
in the Funde crime. Frost was also discussed and Smith considered it
strange we had not seen him on April 15. Smith then advanced his idea
that Frost and White were guilty in this matter. Frost's attitudes towards
South African politics were discussed with Catherine contributing.
Smith and I (in Catherine's presense) discussed the need for urgent
action to establish the truth. I knew it very likely I would be imprisoned
from 20 April 1989 (as above) and said this information should not be
broadcast as it could have any number of effects. The matter would rest
with us; Smith agreed he would search out Jason Frost.
It was therefore the position Catherine could quite easily have
provided Ireland with this "Intelligence", there not being any
possibility she was party to the actual crime or its aftermath.
3. Catherine's Contacts With Ireland.
In August/September 1990 I "debriefed" Catherine as to her contacts
with Neville Ireland. On a date in mid-September, I had her relate this
information to my Trial Counsel, William Brewer, who took notes of this
discussion.
From certain interchanges between counsel at Trial (TT36-38,TT350-1) the
dates recorded by Ireland for his meetings with "Catherine" may vary from
the dates provided by her to the Defence. It is almost inevitable that
Ireland's records have been purposefully falsified; the investigation of
his records (scientific or otherwise) could find he was somewhere else at
the times nominated or the documents have been forged (which would
corroborate the claims made here). There was never any reason for
Catherine to have falsified the dates provided to the Defence. She
has said she conferred with Ireland:
(i) by phone on April 24 and April 28 1989 (ii) May 1 1989 (iii) May 5
1989 (iv) May 15 1989 (v) May 18 1989 (vi) May 23 or 24 by telephone
(vii) June 1 1989 (viii) there was some intermittent phone contact in
June and one other meeting in late June (ix) phone contact in July
1989 before she recessed to interstate (x) mid-October meeting and
phone contact in November (xi) November 30 1989 (xii) December 15
(approx) 1989 (xiii) In 1990 the meetings took place generally on
Wednesdays with the exception of a period in February 1990 when Ireland
was on leave and ANZAC day through to August 1990 when the pattern
changed as Ireland pushed for a "Statement" upon which to base a
Prosecution of the leadership of National Action. On August 29 1990,
she came to the National Action offices revealed these dealings to me.
There were however three other meetings with Ireland (September, October
and November 23 1990).
4. Catherine's Psychological Condition.
Catherine's motivation in seeking out Neville Ireland and her
effective recruitment as a "spy" on behalf of Special Branch did not
arise from normal processes of mind. In 1992, she was assessed as suffering
from Tourette's Syndrome/Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Depression and Panic Anxiety Disorder; another prominent forensic psychologist considered she
was afflicted with Borderline Personality Disorder. These complaints could manifest in a form where an "alternative personality" seems to form; in this case, Catherine has attested to a type of alternate personality.
It would be most unlikely Ireland knew Catherine suffered from a
personality disorder although an officer of his experience in the
police service (he was the Special Branch officer who recruited
Richard Seary, the disturbed fantasizer of the Ananda Marga case)
could only have suspected there was something wrong with his informant.
The false personality enjoyed the deceit and the life of a spy; she
"agreed" to each proposition of National Action crime advanced by
Ireland. She could play upon his questioning and "confirm" each and
every of his "suspicions". In that way, once Ireland suggested
National Action was responsible for the Funde crime, she "agreed".
When Ireland mentioned Frost's name as a possible suspect, she said
he was the culprit (Ireland admitted at Committal hearing of Frost
in March 1989; this would have been from another informant probably
code-named "CABBIE" who is discussed below). She could also provide White's name.
In "collaboration", they may have fabricated the story Perry Whitehouse
loaned his shotgun for the commission of the crime. The tale had
myself, Jane Saleam, Wayne Smith and Evan Raftery (another target of
Special Branch) taking carriage of the gun from Whitehouse. Why so
many persons would be involved and why each conveniently happened
to be a target of Special Branch would together suggest the false
nature of the story. When Whitehouse refused to deal with Ireland,
the matter was not raised again. The creation of such stories made
"Catherine" a person of worth. It added to the atmosphere of intrigue
and suspense. The flawed character of Catherine will certainly feature in
the final Application.
5. Ireland's Perjury Can Be Proved.
A case of Perjury can be demonstrated against Ireland for evidence
given at the Committal on December 4 1989. The Perjury had a
base-history which can be described briefly:
On the 6th July 1989, I received a jail-visit at the Malabar Training
Centre from Catherine; she told me she had received a phone call
from Ireland and he had told her Michael White had nominated me for the
Funde offence and that I would soon be charged. I decided there was a
danger of "verballing" from Special Branch, other detectives or prison
inmates. I therefore said I would write to the Commissioner of Police
and say I would not be interviewed without a solicitor present. In
other words, Catherine forewarned me of likely future events; on 20
July, a letter was duly forwarded to the Commissioner of Police.
Catherine typed it. Ireland's "informer" was assisting my Defence.
When I applied for Bail at the Supreme Court on November 1 1989 in
front of Her Honour Justice Jane Matthews, Ireland gave evidence to the
effect that my letter to the Commissioner of Police was suspicious in
context and suggested some sort of "knowledge"; I asked Ireland if it
was true he had phoned Catherine on July 6 and told her I would be
charged. He denied it. He said he had phoned her on another occasion
about another matter. Catherine (his "informer") gave evidence and
said he had told her this and as a result I wrote to the Commissioner
of Police. The relevant material would be the contradiction between
Ireland and his informer. That she would contradict him may suggest
the peculiar nature of the "relationship".
When Ireland appeared at the Committal I cross-examined him (CT37-39)
about the phone call. Incredibibly however, I was still not aware of the
actual relationship when I posed my questions. Some very significant
evidence then followed:
Q. ... you would say that you haven't discussed this case with ... (Catherine)..
A. Yes.
Q. You haven't discussed it?
A. I haven't...
Q. No I have not ...
A. I haven't.
Q. No I have not discussed it?
A. I did say to her on the phone that I received her letter which makes her conversation after the 6 July, I forget the date of the letter.
Q. But other than that you were saying that you have not discussed the case with her?
A. Yes.
This evidence was Perjury and can be proved to be Perjury.
In April 1991 I made a Complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions
concerning the Perjury. Further correspondence took place in 1995 and on 19 September 1995 the DPP contended it had decided back in 1991:
- "there was a real possibility Det. Ireland's answers were not
deliberately untruthful. It was considered the matters could be fully
canvassed by yourself during your upcoming trial..."
It would be certain the DPP accepted some verbal twistings from Ireland
to the effect he was confused as to whether I was asking about phone
discussions on a fixed date or discussions in person on any date.
Ireland could have decided to claim informer-privilege to my questions but
did not do so. While I had no idea at the time as to the possible
significance of my questions, they were direct questions which were answered untruthfully. It is clear Ireland had no intention of confirming the
existence of any informer and was prepared to evade the questions with
crafted lies. This still amounts to Perjury. The DPP's "conclusions" are
the matters which are untested here and the conduct of this agency
demonstrates yet again the inutile nature of Perjury investigations being
the responsiibility of a body whose witnesses are the very persons accused
of this vile offence.
At the very least Ireland's conduct at the Committal demands
investigation. It is suggestive of his method; his covert dealings with the actual person raise questions as to his propriety and his fitness to have conducted the investigation.
Perjury can also be alleged on another ground. The effect of Ireland's
answers as to my "knowledge" of the likely proferring of a charge was to
infer I was somehow "guilty" of some complicitious conduct. It is now clear
I could have been told of this by Catherine because she was connected to Ireland's investigation. Ireland certainly did not raise this matter
before the Magistrate either.
A charge of Perjury could succeed against Ireland on that basis also;
if it did, or if Perjury was fairly demonstrated to the Justice instructed
to inquire into my present convictions, a grave doubt as to the truth of
other evidence given by Ireland in my Trial would exist. A doubt to
how evidence was procured against me would also be raised.
6. The Sexual Assault Allegation: Its Likely Result.
Catherine informed me she had been sexually assualted by Neville
Ireland; regretably, this issue was not ventilated at Trial nor can it
really be argued now. It is raised here upon an entirely different basis. I understand the Police Service will state this allegation was "not sustained".
In point it was "not sustained" for the simple reason Catherine refused to
be interviewed. After the issue was first raised by me at Parramatta District Court in relation to another charge (see elsewhere) on March 26 1991, a detective from Internal Affairs called upon her. Catherine indicated that,
upon legal advice, she would not be interviewed until after my Trial. It
was expected the matter would be aired there; as the Trial developed,
it was decided not to proceed with this area of evidence. After the
Trial, nothing further was done. The finding of "not sustained"
should not imply an investigation was carried out in full. I understand
Ireland denies ever having sexual contact with the woman.
It is reasonably clear the relationship went beyond a professional one.
Ireland relayed to her a considerable amount of personal information.
I have full records of this information.
Catherine told me the assaults took place at the Kings Cross Claremont Motor
Inn on May 18 1989 and June 1 1989. She told me Ireland had acquired the room from a police officer. Some checks of the registration documents did indicate
a police officer stayed there on one date. Catherine also said other assaults
took place at the Russell Lea Motor Lodge on 2 Wednesdays in January 1990,
once again at the Claremont Motor Inn in January, once in April and once in June.
Any investigation which revealed Special Branch "use" of either of these premises for any purpose or any relationship between Ireland and the
informer at the Claremont Motor Lodge, could suggest some impropriety in Detective Ireland's methods, and that Catherine had been at the said premises.
The Royal Commission provided a strong suggestion.
When Ireland deposed that he had stolen money from the Informant's Fund (in respect of Catherine) with the knowledge and participation of former Special Branch boss, Superintendent Peter Ryan who took a share (see Royal
Commission Transcript 37030), Ryan replied in a fascinating way. He said that Ireland had met his informant in premises that had to be rented (RCT 37039). Ireland gave no such evidence. Was this a cover story? Something
invented by Ireland and Ryan after the allegation of sexual assault
was first raised in March 1991? Did Ryan manufacture material that said
Ireland used rooms in these motels to carry out his interviews?
The allegation of sexual assault was a serious one. When Neville
Ireland appeared at the Trial, he was a man under pressure. It
would suggest he was compelled to win the case against me or suffer
an attack of uncertain consequences. The verballing which I alleged
would have a raison d'etre; the harassment/terrorization of my witness Bradley Flowers (Section 8), would have been inevitable.
It is proper for the Supreme Court to determine the extent to which the allegation (I am not discussing its accuracy here) of sexual assault caused consternation in Special Branch and in the DPP, in order to assess the
motivation of Detective Ireland to conspire to pervert the course of
justice.
7. Other Aspects Of The Ireland/Catherine Relationship.
In 1990, Ireland was preparing the arrest of a number of members of National Action upon the basis of a "Statement" he hoped to obtain from Catherine.
He had in mind a number of charges and in my case in particular - the arson
of a Uniting Church building in Hurstville Grove in 1988. On August 17 1990
he organized a meeting at the Director of Public Prosecutions office with Catherine and Solicitor Richard Herps present. As it was, no Statement was
ever forthcoming; however, records would probably exist at Special Branch
of the putative arson of this church by National Action.
My own enquiries of the minister in 1990 revealed no hint of an arson.
The Board of Fire Commissioners was also asked to prepare a Report on the
causes of this blaze. I was told that at first the cause of the fire was
recorded as accidental, but later as "indeterminant". In other words,
the cause could not be ascertained.
That I was to be charged on a witness "verbal" without even scientific
proof that a crime was ever committed, indicates a lack of integrity
in Superintendent Ireland.
8. What The Royal Commission Into The New South Wales Police Service
Uncovered About Catherine.
Neville Ireland's evidence at the Police Royal Commission, given on March
11, 12, and 13 1997, revealed the entrenched corruption of the secret
police (See also Section 9).
Ireland gave specific evidence in relation to two informants with
Royal Commission codes (CC17/17a/20 was the same person, a female who
had three code names at different times, and CC18, a male). These
informants were recruited in the May/June period of 1989. The description
rendered of the female can only be Catherine. The male was probably
"Cabbie". It is my belief that Cabbie was a prominent Sydney neo-nazi
with an intense dislike of myself and National Action.
Ireland, at first, lied to the Royal Commission investigators about their
various enquiries. He gave false evidencce at the Royal Commission in
December 1996. He was involved not only in the stealing, but in a conspiracy to cover up Special Branch's dealings with homosexual judge David
Yeldham. So moral of that "good Catholic", Detective Ireland! He was
drunk in charge of a police vehicle on those occasions when he met his
so-called informant. His dealings with Catherine centred mainly on the
consumption of expensive lunches and large amounts of alcohol after
which he wrote up reports in his Duty Book (were they true reports?
Well I leave that to you!) and claimed the cash. Simultaneously,
he claimed meal allowance money.
That it was Catherine who inadvertently broke up Special Branch was
an irony of ironies, confirmed by the references to her as "X" in the
Report To Parliament (1998) of the Police Integrity Commission (the
follow-on of the Royal Commmission) concerning Special Branch. It may well
be that various complaints made by me (and other members of National Action)
had struck home. I hope this was true. Once Ireland was challenged over
Catherine and the money, he obviously broke down to the investigators.
There might be an ancilliary reason. Ireland believes of himself that he
was a representative of the State at war with an outlaw band; was he
minimising the damage? Well, whatever he tried, you can see for yourselves
that it was ineffective.
9. Ireland Commits Three Serious Offences Against Trial Process.
The Catherine evidence given at the Royal Commission now confirms that
Ireland has committed three Crimes Act crimes of considerable gravity.
Each offence related to precisely the same subject matter. The crimes are a living indictment of his method.
One of those offences was committed in relation to the Funde crime.
Two were committed in relation to a different charge brought against me in
1990. But because Ireland is the offender and I am his victim, this
question of Ireland's conduct can be related directly to his credibility
generally and the integrity of the process in which I was placed.
What did I do to cause Ireland to commit three serious offences?
(i) On March 26 1991, I appeared at the Parramatta District Court on a
"return of subpoena" motion. This appearance related to Ireland's other prosecution. I wished to obtain access to Ireland's records which would
show his whereabouts on certain named dates (the dates where sexual assault
was alleged by Catherine) and records of his money claims on those dates.
Without knowing the actual truth of widescale Special Branch rorting of the
Informant's Fund (which according to Ireland was systematically pillaged by
himself, Ryan and Garvey), I had one of those "gut feelings" that there was
an irregularity in Ireland's accounts. How he responded, tells it all.
An Affidavit sworn by Assistant Commissioner Lance Stirton was produced
which claimed "public interest immunity" for the records. The idea was
that Ireland's conversations with informants were hush-hush, his
whereabouts and his money claims were secrets.
Stirton actually said:
"..production of these documents or any part of them, by virtue of
their nature and content would be of great prejudice and injury to the
public interest.."
BUT: did Ireland tell Stirton that, had the records been produced, I
would have known false money claims had been made for Catherine?; was
Stirton told that he and the others were stealing large sums and there
was a vested interest in having this remain secret?; was Stirton
made aware that a deadly line of cross-examination would have existed
which might have undermined this prosecution? We may answer "no" to
these questions.
Ireland therefore lied by crucial omission to a senior police officer and obtained from him a legal instrument which perverted the course of justice
at this hearing.
(ii) On May 2 1991 at my Trial on the Funde charges, a public Affidavit and a "confidential" Affidavit from another Assistant Commissioner of Police -
Ralph Gibson - were produced (TT36-38) The content of the latter load of
tripe I was not permitted to see. Legal, but Star Chamber!
I had again, subpoenaed for the same material relating to money payments
and for other material concerning Ireland's dealings with Catherine in
general and for material related to the so-called threats I had given
to Ireland's family.
We may again assume that Ireland failed to instruct Gibson
as to what the production of Special Branch documents might have
revealed. It is certain Ireland did not tell Prosecutor Davenport. He
certainly never told the trial judge. Ireland had no intention of
doing anything which might have placed itself in the way of my conviction. Had this material been available to me, Ireland's evidence
would have been worth nothing. No jury would have taken the word of
a thief.
There was another curiosity, particularly in view of Ireland's Royal
Commission evidence. At TT36, Counsel for the Commmissioner of Police said
that money payments and dates did not coincide. Was it just one day out each time (ie. he claimed the cash the next day?) or was it utterly different?
Did Ireland create another set of records? Well, I cannot say here, but it
is possible.
It is my submission to you that my Trial was perverted fundamentally.
(iii) On September 26 1994, almost as my Funde sentence was to expire, I
appeared at Parramatta District Court on the other charge. Once again,
I subpoenaed for materials about Ireland's dealings with Catherine
and his whereabouts/money claims for particular dates.
This time, the Affidavit came from Assistant Commissioner Of Police Jeff
Jarratt.
The same lies by omission from Neville Ireland, by then Commander of Special
Branch. Lies given while the Royal Commission was under way.
The performance this time cost me a line of evidence which might have been
of great importance to the determination of the charge.
An Appeal is now outstanding in the Court Of Criminal Appeal where it is
expected the issue of the untruthful Affidavits will be aired.
As a general conclusion, I say that we have an officer stealing money
from an Informant's Fund, keen to hide it, prepared to deceive senior
police, courts and the DPP. What sort of creature is this? Obviously,
a man who cannot be trusted on his oath, who would do anything necessary
to convict me of an offence.
On these issues alone, my Trial miscarried.
The reader should note that it took the full force of a Royal Commission
to break the web of lies around the Special Branch's Informant's Fund. What chance did I have at a so-called Trial with a Judge who was desperate to
uphold the State's "privilege"?
I submit:
The involvement of Catherine in this case was unique; it
permitted Ireland to pervert the evidence of the Prosecution case at
every point. It also allowed after August 29 1990 a unique glimpse into
the Crown case by the Defence. Impropriety and Perjury may be shown
against Ireland. A question must exist as to whether the truth in the
case can be that established by the Jury's verdict. Upon this material
alone, an Inquiry Into Conviction should be ordered by the Supreme
Court.
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.