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


Section Six

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





If the evidence of the chief Prosecution witnesses - Frost and White - was false, it could only have been as a result of a conspiracy with Neville Ireland.

There were suggestions in the evidence of irregularity in the relationship between Ireland and his witnesses; there are also questions over other evidence given by this Detective.

The areas of contention follow. In some cases either Ireland or Frost has committed Perjury. The various problems in Ireland's evidence are examined to raise a doubt as to the safety of the convictions. Some material is added which was not thoroughly exposed in the Trial. It has been referred to in the Table Of New Evidence.

Ireland's confession at the Royal Commission Into The NSW Police Service to perjury before the Commission (and other offences) raises questions as to the veracity of any evidence he might have given.

(i) The Verbal.

On January 30 1989, Ireland attended the premises at 725 Princes Highway, Tempe, in company with Detective Poniris. On April 29 1991, the day the Trial began, Statements from these detectives (Ireland: April 26; Poniris: April 29) were served on the Defence concerning a conversation I supposedly had with them on that date. Each corroborated the other.

This evidence had two components: firstly that I had in my possession the residential details of Eddie Funde; secondly that I maintained on the evening of the crime I had been in company with Wayne Smith at the Tempe premises watching television with Jane Saleam also present (TT248-9). Ireland swore this conversation took place in the downstairs area of the building (TT256) with Jane Saleam and Shane Rosier in attendance; Ireland said at one point Rosier went out and brought to him the documentation (later tendered in evidence) of Funde's address. Ireland denied the Defence contention that it was upstairs in the building where the conversation took place, that it was Jane Saleam who brought in the documentation, that he was told an ABC journalist was present in the building with Jane Saleam (TT256).

This verbal evidence was new to the entire case and conveniently brought forward after Smith's death. There was no dispute then (or now) that Ireland and Poniris were present or that a conversation had occurred. The content was in dispute and the attendant circumstances were vigorously contested by the Defence. Legally, the conflicting material on Smith's whereabouts on the night of the crime (the Defence had denied he was ever present at the premises), was not held to be "corroborative" of Frost and White; without doubt nonetheless, this material was adduced by Ireland and the Crown Prosecutor to have a supportive quality taken in conjunction with Frost and White. It was meant to imply I was now lying (for some uncertain purpose) about the circumstances of the conversation with the implication Ireland's version of the conversation was true.

There was some uncertainty between Ireland and Poniris as to who prepared the Occurrence Pad entries upon which their Statements were supposedly based (TT249-250/TT283). Whatever the situation, Ireland agreed his Statement of 26 April 1991 contained material not produced in his Statement in 1989 (TT254); he said he produced the Statement upon the wish of the Crown Prosecutor (who presumably had the Occurrence Pad).

I submit: the Statements were produced in the formula described in the Royal Commission Into The New South Wales Police Service as a "scrum down"; officers would meet to plug holes in the Crown case.

There are suggestions in the quality of the Statements that they were duly fabricated.

Ireland quoted Saleam (TT249):

"Early this month, a person who identified himself as Brian Clark came to this address and he gave us the name, telephone number, registration details of Mr. Funde and his wife..."

And at TT250:

"As I said they were given to me by a person called Brian Clark earlier this year..."

Aside from the unlikely policespeak of my suppposed conversation, this evidence sounds as if it was only on January 30 1989 that Ireland was first learning of the Clark incident. It was conceded by Ireland he could have been told about Clark on January 9 (TT253). Yet, if we are to accept the January 30 version, we must ignore Ireland's obvious failure as a Detective to have questioned as to the earlier conversation (January 9) as to who in National Action had access to Funde's details. Obviously, the only really significant reason that would have brought Ireland to interview Saleam on January 30 was the conversation of January 9. The verbal material reads unnaturally amidst the events into which it was placed. We are asked by Ireland to reason that he blandly accepted my comments and went away.

I submit: an examination of the Special Branch Occurrence Pad material around the dates of January 29, 30 and 31 1989, if necessary by the employment of Electrostatic Deposition Analysis will reveal (and must reveal) a forgery.

I submit: an examination of Special Branch Occurrence Pad (and other related material) for January 9 1989 would reveal (and must reveal) Ireland had knowledge of Brian Clark.

I submit: a case of Perjury would exist against Detective Ireland on two legs: if forgery is shown on the Occurrence Pad, reasonably the evidence regarding the January 30 conversation was Perjury ( a case of Perjury would also exist against Detective Poniris) and if Ireland had recorded material on the January 9 1989 conversation about Clark, he lied when he said it was "possible" he was told of Clark at that time (because he positively did know) and further - that the construction of the conversation of January 30 1989 was flawed; there was no reason for Saleam to "speak" in the manner alleged since both men were aware of the earlier conversation.

(ii) Ireland And Frost: How Many Meetings And What Was Discussed??

It is the allegation of this Application that Ireland conspired with Frost to bring a false version of the Funde offence into being. There are areas of Ireland's relationship with Frost which are in shadow with contradictions between the two as to the origins of the relationship and its nature.

Ireland said at the Committal he first heard of Frost around April 1989 (CT24) (I suspect the informer "Cabbie" conveyed the information); Frost said he had contact with Ireland in March 1989 (CT59-60). This confusion may suggest Ireland and Frost had a more elaborate relationship than the Crown wished to reveal.

The Prosecution maintained at Trial that Frost had discussed the Funde crime twice prior to making his inculpatory Record of Interview on 14 June 1989 at Penrith Police Station. On the first two occasions, he denied culpability (TT117).

Frost confirmed his Committal evidence where he denied ever having been alone with Neville Ireland at his home, although he did come there a couple of times "when I was first charged" (TT92). Frost was asked at Committal whether he was aware making a Statement was something which would make him a witness against another; at Committal this issue was canvassed in close proximity to the matter of Ireland's home visits, and the Trial followed the same formula (TT92); at Trial (TT92) Frost said he was hoping not to become a witness; at Committal he had said he did not know this (CT27 5 Dec.1989).

"When I was first charged" could relate to a time period around 14 June 1989 or it could have meant a time related to other charges brought against Frost by Ireland (May 1989). I note Ireland's memory of his Committal evidence conveniently failed him at the Trial; at Committal he had said he had been alone with Frost at his home prior to 14 June 1989 (TT272). He had not told Frost of anything to do with becoming a Crown witness if Statements were made incriminating others (TT271-2).

I submit: Ireland should be believed over Frost. They had met alone at Frost's home. It reasonably follows Frost's version at Committal with him not understanding the gravity of making a Statement against another, was more likely the truth. The contradictions are indicative of some other set of facts so far unrevealed.

This aspect of the evidence (ie. the number of meetings) was called into question by two other pieces of evidence from each of Frost and Ireland.

(iii) Frost v Ireland: The Notebook Perjury.

A curious (if suggestive) contradiction arose between Ireland and Frost at the Committal which was pursued at Trial. Frost said under Cross-Examination that Ireland had shown him a Notebook containing handwriting and a signature purportedly Wayne Smith's; he said Ireland had told him Smith had informed on him for the Funde crime and something else, and that he believed this was true. Frost was very detailed on the matter (TT97-99). Ireland flatly denied that any such conversation had occurred (TT273) and he told His Honour Judge Ducker he could not recall what he actually did tell Frost of the manner of his detection (TT273).

This contradiction is no minor matter. It was a hiatus in the evidence which is a key to determining the truth.

I submit: either Frost or Ireland was lying. If it was Ireland who was truthful, Frost was exposed as a daring inventor of falsity who was able to sustain his fictions. For some unknown reason he had invented a confrontational situation perhaps as justification for a false allegation against Smith. He would be a witness of low credibility who deceived Ireland. However, if Frost was truthful, then serious allegations stand against Ireland.

I submit: it is more likely Frost was truthful. Ireland was psychologically manipulating his witness and was prepared to casually perjure himself to protect the "case" he had framed against Saleam and Smith.

There exists an area outside of the case brought before the Court which suggests the case was flawed; Frost has given a glimpse of Special Branch methodology the existence of which Ireland necessarily denied.

(iv) The Threat To Frost: The "Attempted Murder" Perjury. (New Material)

At Trial, Counsel Brewer Cross Examined Frost at considerable length. Regretably, one issue was canvassed briefly which then was allowed to merge into the issue of the Notebook Perjury. It concerned the threat made to Frost by Detectives Ireland and Garvey to charge Frost with the "attempted murder" of Funde.

Frost said at Trial he feared a charge of "attempted murder" may be laid against him (TT74) but he denied being threatened by Ireland (TT96) while Ireland said he had no idea why Frost would have imagined such a thing (TT268-9) and denied any reference to attempted murder but said he did mention to Frost that theoretical option only after Frost and White had been dealt with by the Courts.

An examination of the evidence of the Committal reveals that Frost changed his story on this "threat " between Committal and Trial; there was also the palpable contradiction which arose at the Committal when Frost described in great detail how the threat was made and detailed its content.

The Committal evidence is advanced as new material upon this Application; it suggests the existence of some conspiracy operating in the Prosecution case. There was also an implied contradiction at the Trial between Frost's evidence at TT74 and TT96; at TT74 Frost confirmed parts of the Committal evidence and seemed therefore to recall this phase of evidence, but at TT96 he denied Ireland's role in the threat. He was therefore removing Ireland from making a threat.

Ireland was asked CT32 Dec.4 1989):

Q. Did you ever say at any time to either Frost or White that the crime against Mr. Funde could amount to attempted murder?
A. I, I suggested the similarities with the Debrincat thing.
Q. Well why did you suggest the similarities with the death of that girl?
A. Random firing of shotguns through windows and doors.

However Ireland said he told both Frost and White this only after each had been dealt with by the Courts.

Frost was asked (CT16-17 Dec.5 1989):

Q Had it ever been your concern after first speaking to the police at Eastwood that you would be charged with the crime of attempted murder?
A. Yes.
Q. How did this concern arise with you?
A. When I was interviewed at College Street.
Q. Do you remember when that was?
A. No, it was after Court one day.
Q. After Court?
A. Yep.
Q. Would it have been in June?
A. I couldn't say.
Q. Was it after you were convicted or before you were convicted?
A. Before.
Q. You're certain of that?
A. Yes. .....
Q. ...Detective Sergeant Ireland swore under oath that there had been no mention at all of the charge of attempted murder until after you were convicted, now you have just said that this was discussed with you before you were convicted; are you telling the truth?
A. Yes.
Q. Can I ask you what the discussion was concerning the charge of attempted murder.
A. They just said that the charge looks at this stage to be attempted murder.
Q. Who said that to you?
A. I can't remember which.
Q. When you say "which" do you mean there were two persons present?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're absolutely certain that one of them said to you that the charge looks like being attempted murder?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you react to that?
A. I wanted to go to the toilet straight away.
Q. When did you first learn the charge against you would be the charge which was finally put against you?
A. Penrith.

This lengthy piece of material establishes several truths.

I submit: Frost told the truth at Committal and decided to lie at the Trial. The Perjury was certainly the Trial version.

I submit: either Frost or Ireland lied and the liar was probably Ireland. It was necessary he conceal the Special Branch methodology from scrutiny.

The sequence of events which led to the 14 June 1989 Record of Interview are indicative of an attempt to coerce Frost. Frost has also said (CT17 Dec.5 1989):

Q. Did you believe on 14 June when you did your Record of Interview that you may be charged with attempted murder?
A. Yes.

Material was led in Section Three to areas of evidence affecting Frost's credibility; he felt "stressed" at the time of arrest and used the word duress and so forth. It may now be argued both Ireland and Frost are covering over the nature and extent of their relationship.

It seems Ireland (and Garvey) who had Frost at Eastwood Police Station on another charge asked him about the Funde offence; Frost denied involvement. It seems Ireland and Garvey spoke to Frost "one day after Court" at "College Street" police headquarters; Frost denied involvement (despite the threat of an "attempted murder" prosecution). It was the Crown case that - on the third occasion at Penrith Police Station on 14 June 1989 - the truth was elicted in the Record of Interview.

The problem for Detective Ireland and the Prosecution would be to explain what was discussed on those occasions when Ireland was alone with Frost at his home. It cannot be accepted that a Detective of Ireland's experience and his motivation (to get a charge on Saleam) would not have carried on with questions about the Funde case.

I submit: there were more than three occasions when the Funde case was discussed. The lies and contradictions suggest Ireland and Frost are covering up a concealed truth. If a conspiracy existed, the opportunity was available to foment it. The lies and contradictions on the matter of these meetings garners a collateral proof that such a conspiracy existed.

A further issue has come to light in the proceedings of the Royal Commission Into The New South Wales Police Service - June 24, 25, 26, 27 1996 ff.: the credibility of Detective Garvey was fatally undermined. Garvey has been revealed as a basher, verballer and conspirator. He would therefore fit the type of corrupt officer willing to offer Frost an inducement to "confess" in some way false to justice.

(v) Michael White And Neville Ireland: The 12 July 1989 Confession.

Michael White was arrested in Brisbane, and after an exculpatory Record of Interview, made an oral confession to his involvement with Frost in the crime (see Section Three). On July 12 1989, whilst in the police cells at Penrith Police Station, White handwrote a confession inculpating Saleam and Smith.

The pattern of the Ireland/Frost relationship was replicated. Ireland agreed he was alone with Michael White at the time the confession was composed (TT263-4). Ireland feigned a lack of recollection of his Committal evidence and Counsel Brewer proceeded to read his evidence to him. Here he agreed White would not have learned from him that making a Statement which implicated others may have led to White becoming a Crown Witness (TT273); Ireland agreed his Committal evidence was truthful. Ireland did not lead White to believe this Statement could bind him to something later (TT273-4). This Statement (as described at Committal) was "a truthful version and I would use it to prosecute you and other offenders" (TT273).

Ireland was in 1989 - a Police Officer of some twenty years standing. He was well aware "Statements" do not prosecute offenders; only witnesses can give evidence.

I submit: Ireland was not being candid with Michael White; he manipulated White into making a Statement naming Saleam and Smith. The introductory paragraph, may have inveighled White into this situation with a promise of advantage. Here White said he lied at the time of arrest because of fears of reprisals; Ireland agreed at Committal he advised both men to tell the "truth". (CT32 Dec.4 1989). Ireland's method created a situation where neither man could easily resile from his initial version. Ireland and White had ample opportunity to fabricate the Statement; that Ireland had no other officer present is suggestive.

(vi) Detective Ireland And The "Threat In The Police Cells".

I have offerred detailed analysis of this sequence of evidence in Section Four of this Application. I suggest here only the disingenuous method employed by Detective Ireland.

Detective Ireland agreed White told him orally of these "threats" prior to the making of White's Statement of 18 June 1990 at Parramatta Gaol (TT260-1). White remained very vague as to when/if Ireland visited him at Parramatta Gaol to discuss these "threats". Ireland agreed he could have established who had been in the cells with White that day, obtained photographs of these prisoners and asked White to attempt identification (TT262). Ireland said White said he could not identify the man and if he had approached any of the men, they would have denied it (TT280).

This rubbish was amnestized by the Trial Judge ((TT280):

Q. I suppose another feature of that might be, it could also alert various people of the fact a complaint had been made by Mr. White?
A. That's correct Your Honour.

After White was released from prison the allegation could have been pursued by Ireland. There was no reason why he could not have approached the prisoners at issue and attempted to induce a "confession". This evidence (if it existed) would have destroyed the Defence case and have led to a lengthy prison term for either myself or Smith. Ireland agreed he had been in the police cells complex making enquiries hence he was obviously thinking - of something (TT261-2).

Ireland however, went on to obtain White an indemnity against prosecution for his supposed "perjury" at the Committal. He had covered a gaping hole in the Crown case with evidence worthy of no credence whatsoever and did away with White's de facto allegation of conspiracy with Ireland. His "method" of investigating this crime against his witness however shows no interest in the pursuit of justice.

I submit: Ireland's relationship with White over this sequence of evidence had no procedural merit and was indicative of conspiracy. Ireland and White each had motive, means and opportunity to concoct their tale. White survived a Prosecution in exchange for an effective-indemnity and the giving of evidence against Saleam.

(vii) Detective Ireland's Role In The Preparation Of Frost/White Statements.

A number of peculiarities in the Statements of Frost and White suggested Ireland part-authored them. All three denied this as would be expected whether the allegation of fabrication was accurate or otherwise. These peculiarities were ignored by the Jury and the Court of Criminal Appeal. These issues are canvassed in the context of the Defence allegation of a criminal conspiracy amongst Ireland/ Frost/White to give false evidence: the residual doubt in the Prosecution case relevant to this Application.

(a) Under Cross-Examination, Ireland was referred to Frost's 14 June 1989 Record of Interview where he said that after the offenders left the National Action premises, they went to Balmain and stayed at a Hotel for 45 minutes (TT263); Ireland was referred to White's 12 July 1989 confession which had him leaving the Tempe premises for the crime scene at Croydon and on to a Croydon hotel (TT263-4). White had con- firmed this version again for Ireland in another Statement (TT267). Ireland was taken to Frost's 15 November 1989 Statement which confirmed the Record of Interview version (TT267). Ireland was then taken to Frost's new version given in a Statement on December 2 1989. Ireland denied correcting Frost's version in order that it might approximate the version of White (TT268).

The story had however - most certainly altered.

(b) The alleged recovery of the shotgun by Saleam from Michael White produced an anomaly.

Ireland had White's versions of events quoted to him: "It was on Sunday 29 that Saleam came around to my place to pick up the shotgun" (Statement July 12 1989) and - "Next morning Jim came around. I gave him back the shotgun" (Statement October 30 1989) (TT270).

Ireland confirmed preparing a standard "Statement of Facts" document at the time Saleam was charged wherein the words appeared: "the following morning the defendant attended White's address and collected the shotgun (TT270). Ireland said the "Statement of Facts" referred to the Sunday not Saturday. If this was so, both Ireland and White (White after Ireland in his October 30 Statement) chose to adopt a similar form of chronometric reasoning. In evidence White quickly deposed Sunday was the day at issue and rejected Saturday although he understood "next morning" as implying Saturday (TT176).

The contemporaneous nature of the Ireland and White documents suggests Ireland authored this part of White's 30 October Statement.

(c) Both Frost and White deposed Smith had a pejorative nickname - "Bovver". It was common ground Smith was not referred to as "Bovver" in either Frost's Record of Interview of 13 June 1989 nor White's 12 July 1989 confession. It was common ground Frost's 15 November 1989 and White's 30 October 1989 Statements christened Smith - "Bovver".

White said Ireland told him to use Smith's name in his 12 July 1989 version (TT178) and "Bovver" just came into his head in the 30 October 1989 version (TT179). Frost said he did not remember Ireland ever telling him to call Smith - "Bovver" (TT77).

It defies the laws of probability that - without collusion of some sort - both Frost and White could in their second Statements do the same thing without some form of prompting.

(d) The order of events during the crime-conspiracy phase at the Tempe premises has been dissected in Section Three.

Ireland was Cross-Examined on Frost's 14 June 1989 version which had him arriving first at the Tempe premises, conversing with others about the crime and then - White's eventual arrival; the 15 November version had the mooting of the crime just as White arrived (TT278). Ireland said: "They both seem basically the same to me" (TT279).

Interestingly, Frost merely commented: "It doesn't say before or after" (TT88). The similar development between White's 12 July 1989 confession and his 30 October 1989 Statement was also put to Ireland; he said there was "no difference" (TT279).

It is clear the story developed.

I submit there is a doubt or question regarding the preparation of the Frost/White Statements. There is an adumbrated suggestion Ireland co-authored the Statements of the chief Prosecution witnesses.

General Submission:

The behaviour of Detective Superintendent Ireland at each step of his investigation and preparation of a case is shrouded in uncertainties, and unanswered questions. There is an impression of fabrication of evidence. Ireland's revealed character implies a person easily capable of such improprieties.





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.