Mr Ward's Death - Margaret Quirk's mea culpa

Are McGinty and Carpenter Fred Chaney's real racists?

The continued publicity following the manslaughter of Warburton Elder Mr Ward has prompted this comment. The Desert Rat previously covered this issue when praising the sole public comment from Labor by Labor MP Ben Wyatt.

Fred Chaney is reported to have weeped recently as he talked of Mr Ward's death as an example of entrenched racism in government bureaucracy.

Chaney is no doubt genuine and caring about Aboriginal people but the Desert Rat always thought he was part of the problem and not, part of the solution. Chaney talks often of self determination and Aboriginal control but it seems - never without them accepting any real responsibility for themselves.

Former Prisons Minister Margaret Quirk in a TV interview recently issued a public mea culpa in respect to Mr Ward's death saying she wanted to apologise for

"failing to convince her cabinet colleagues about the need to replace the ageing fleet of prisoner transport vehicles".

This comment suggests Quirk repeatedly asked for the funding in cabinet but got rolled.

This begs the question of who rolled her?

If either of Jim McGinty as Attorney General (and the previous Corrections Minister who jettisoned the department from his AG ministry), and or former Premier Alan Carpenter supported her call for funding, it would have been approved by cabinet.

It would appear that these two idiots were not particularly troubled to see Aboriginal prisoners shipped around the state in vehicles that could double for Pizza ovens on a hot day.

Are these the actual 'racists' to whom Chaney should have directed his remarks? Chaney is quick to criticise the public servants, but those primarily responsible are the politicians in cabinet whose did nothing when they had the opportunity to appropriate the desperately needed funding to replace these death traps.

Chaney's comments should have been directed at McGinty and Carpenter - but he avoids offending them. By the way Fred, how much did you earn Chairing McGinty's Bill of Rights inquiry and in other government sinecures?

Chaney has been on the public tit ever since he left the Senate; he like many other people who the Desert Rat thinks are the architects of the current indigenous mess.

One is entitled to ask: What practical achievements has Fred Cheney helped gain for Aboriginal people to ameliorate their plight?

CCC Monster out of control.

A grubby official CCC leak or are the CCC Tarts serial incompetents?

Anyone would think it was budget time down at the Corruption and Crime Commission, it's apparently leaking like a sieve.

That's not to confuse this latest leak with Mike Children Overboard Silverstone other leaking SIEV 4 (Suspected Illegal Entry Vehicle 4) which also leaked and sank north of Christmas Island. The leaking SIEV4, that he claimed children were thrown overboard by illegal immigrants - a claim now denied and debunked by the Defence Forces.

The leaking of documents from the CCC containing damaging ambit allegations against Hon John Bowler MLA, raises serious questions about the integrity and competence of the watchdog and its procedures.

Earlier the CCC said there would be no further disciplinary action or charges against John Bowler. This back flip after three years of investigation and the current leaks, really underlines the administrative incompetence of Executive Director Mike Children Overboard Silverstone.

The Desert Rat suspects the leak is designed to keep the continuing vendetta against Julian Grill and Brian Burke on the boil and stir up public indignation against Julian Grill and Brian Burke before the forthcoming batch of charges and trials. Is this the CCC desperate attempt to justify their costly investigations (vendetta?) against these two lobbyists.

The Desert Rat finds it interesting that the wee timorous beastie, Mike the Mouse Silverstone is again mute. Has he lost all confidence in himself to make a public comment?

Silverstone has left the the chattering Director of "Botched" Operations Nick Anticich to front the media. Is this a way to give this clown a leg up into the top job when Silverstone makes his strategic retreat, to spend his myriad of government sponsored pensions and fat salary and allowances leftovers - in his eastern states hideout?

After three years the Desert Rat expects any competent investigator should have had the inquiry and any charges completed.

How would Silverstone and Roberts-Smith if innocent of any wrongdoing, like to spend the next 3 or 4 years in limbo waiting for some incompetent idiots to finish their inquiry and have their private and personal conversation listened to, their email and faxes intercepted, their mail tampered with and being spied on by hidden miniature 'voyeur' cameras - at the same time?

CCC dumps Finance Brokers Inquiry. No report after four (fruitless?) years.

We are dangerously incompetent. We specialise in ruining the reputations of honest hardworking citizens and refuse to be accountable.

What a hide these Corruption and Crime Commission clowns have!

What, no Report?!!

The CCC have refused to admit that they are idiots. "We may be liars, incompetent and a miserable failure" a spokesman said "but we are not idiots".

After four year of investigation and public hearing into the Finance Brokers term of reference, which was designed to damage the reputations of a number of politicians, Brian Burke and Julian Grill, the chief clown and ringmaster Major General Len Roberts-Smith has informed the victims that:

"...I have concluded it would be unproductive and not in the public interest to proceed further and, specifically, not to proceed with the preparation of a report for tabling in the Western Australian Parliament."

The Desert Rat wonders what the investigation was about.

Earlier last year the Desert Rat undertook his own detailed investigation of this matter and asked the same question! This was thoroughly reported in an earlier post here.

It took about six hours of work to investigate and write the article. The Desert Rat could have done an investigation and written a report for the clowns at the CCC for about $5000 - that's about 10 days work at the Desert Rat's modest fee.

Why has it taken the CCC, four years, costly public hearings, millions of dollars and thousands of hours of unproductive staff time to reach this conclusion? Commissioner Roberts-Smith and Executive Director Silverstone are spendthrifts and pathetic incompetents.

Would they waste their own money as they waste public taxpayers funds?

The backsliding Roberts-Smith says "he has concluded it is unproductive and not in the public interest to proceed further.." surely they must have done something in four years? Roberts-Smith has also "concluded" to "not to proceed with the preparation of a report for tabling in the Western Australian Parliament". There is no CCC grovelling media release making this announcement, just a grubby low key letter to the victims.

Well Major General Roberts-Smith, we want to know what you found out in four years?

• Is it not in the public interest to expose your former patron Jim McGinty's role in the Finance Brokers term of reference?
  
• Is it not in the public interest to conclude that Brian Burke and Julian Grill did a public service by placing enormous pressure on Jim McGinty to honour his pre-election commitment to compensate the many pensioners who were defrauded?

The public and the WA parliament deserve a report, so that there is some indication as to whether these citizens have done anything wrong or right which is more likely!

Would the CCC open themselves to public ridicule if they admitted they got it badly wrong again in respect of Julian Grill, Brian Burke, Anthony Fels and Noel Crichton-Brown? The CCC's gratuitous public humiliation of each of these men, sanctioned by the likes of Roberts-Smith and Mike Children Overboard Silverstone was like kicking someone while the were down - and yet no apology!

• Has Roberts-Smith been sufficiently vague in the wording of his letter, to suggest there was not enough evidence to prosecute these men?
  
• Has the CCC run out of money and can't afford to complete the investigation and write the report?
  

What has happened to dump this investigation after four years without any report?

The Desert Rat is very confident that all the main facts are in his earlier post on the matter . The only missing part is, Jim McGinty's version of his dealing in the Finance Brokers matter? McGinty's vindictive treatment of those who worked so hard to get a resolution of the matter should have come under scrutiny. Neither Jim McGinty or any of his apologists has disputed the Desert Rat's account of events.

Don't expect the sleazy duo of Len Roberts-Smith or Mike Silverstone to ever be gracious in defeat, it is not part of their thick and bullying demeanour to be fair.

McGinty - Reign and Succession

McGinty: Failure on all front or deliberate deliverance of Fremantle to the Greens?

Tomorrow is the unwanted by-election for Fremantle. Jim McGinty politically odouriferous stench has ensured he has remained invisible during the campaign which presents most Fremantle voters with Hobson's choice. A Green, no Liberal candidate and a Liberal standing as a Labor candidate and nondescript independents.

Jim McGinty's legacy is an embarrassment, he controlled the biggest Left union, and therefore the Left Wing of the ALP and therefore the State Executive of the ALP, which in turn has endorsed all ALP candidates for seats in parliament; McGinty effectively controls the Parliamentary Labor Party for the last 19 years. This power gave him defacto control of the WA Parliament and the Government of WA for the 7 years of the Gallop and Carpenter Ministries.

Despite this power and influence, he always failed to plan for the future and in 19 years put Left Faction types into Parliament of insufficient ability, to be ministerial material, let alone leadership material - the goons gig - the star recruit being Fran "Do you want a threesome" Logan.

McGinty failed to groom people to be able to take on the Left leadership. Perhaps he thought it would never be necessary once the self appointed Emperor assumed the Kim Jong Il mantle.

The result was that after the 2008 election, the cupboard was so bare he had to desperately move to slot Roger Cook (who was elected by the skin of his teeth in Kwinana) into the position as deputy leader of Labor, even before he had taken a seat in the house. Other obvious talent with parliamentary experience such as Aboriginal Victoria Park MLA Ben Wyatt were passed by because they were not paid up obedient members of the McGinty controlled Left Faction.

The net result has been a talentless group of Left members who McGinty could herd and bring to heel and a policy bankrupt ALP Left Caucus of voting fodder.

When McGinty resigned from the state seat of Fremantle, he left the ALP in a hole because there was no-one with an ALP pedigree with any local credibility, to slot into Fremantle. The result is a card carrying Liberal Peter Tagliaferri who contested the 1990 election against McGinty, who recently donated to the Liberal Party. Remember Julian Grill was expelled from the ALP for forwarding a cheque to the National Party from one of his clients. Bare-faced hypocrisy again!

The Desert Rat reckons Tagliaferri could well be an Independent either shortly after (or before if he gets a chance) he locks in his pension.

McGinty has achieved all this with one vote, one value and increased the malapportionment in the Upper House which was supposed to entrench Labor in the Lower House and the Greens in the Upper House.

One can only think about missed opportunities to consolidate Labor with good like-minded people. All they have got from poaching outside the Party are rent-a-politicians Alan Carpenter, St Carmen Lawrence and now Peter Tagliaferri, perhaps.

The Desert Rats wonders if Jim McGinty would actually prefer a Green elected in Fremantle, as he has done his level best to achieve that end by (unwitting or deliberate?) stealth.

At least McGinty has that in common with the Liberals in this by-election.

The whole sorry saga reflects McGinty's pre-occupation with short term thinking and action - today's quick fix is tomorrows f f...failure.

Parallels between Mallard Investigation and the Smith Beach Investigation.. Part 3.

The CCC's dirty war on Burke and Grill - the Smiths Beach Investigation. Part 3. The Paul Frewer Report.

Compare the Corruption and Crime Commission's investigation of widely-respected senior public servant Paul Frewer that was part of the Smiths Beach investigation with the police investigation of Andrew Mallard which was denounced by Justice Dunford QC. Neither investigation was honest or impartial. The CCC report has proved to be a shameful embarrassment to Mike Silverstone and Mark Ingham.

The Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC's review of the CCC's report is scathing and damning. Read the Executive Summary (pages 1 to 4) to see the deceit and dishonesty of the CCC modus operandi, exposed by McCusker.

Crucial evidence was ignored by the CCC and their principle finding had absolutely no basis in fact. The CCC disgraceful report was of the type the Desert Rat would expect to be tendered to a Star Chamber show trial. Shades of the Mallard case?

In the Desert Rat's opinion the CCC Report reveals incompetence aggravated by self-deception.

McCusker exposes it as a sham:

• The CCC claimed Mr Frewer did not disclose he had been lobbied, when they knew he did make the disclosure. They were forced to admit, that although it was not recorded in the minutes, his disclosure was on the tapes and the CCC had the tapes and were aware of it. Deceit? Questions in the public hearings were framed on this deceit; questions which Paul Frewer had to assume were correct and his memory faulty! Unnerving! The tapes show Frewer had made full and proper disclosure.
• The CCC incorrectly blamed Frewer for an amendment (No 92) being deferred. Inconsistencies between the Busselton Shire Council resolution and Amendment 92 were raised by the reporting officer, a Mr Scribilia and the motion was adjourned unanimously by the (whole) Committee. That amendment is now the subject of a State Administrative Appeals Tribunal appeal and will be the subject of a future article by the Desert Rat.
  
• McCusker found the opinion of "misconduct" expressed in the CCC Report was unsound, because the Commission had failed to properly consider some basic facts and had mistaken views about a number of matters. McCusker was too kind to the CCC in the Desert Rat's opinion.
  
• The CCC failed to give Mr Frewer reasonable opportunity to respond to their adverse findings, a requirement under s 86 of the CCC Act, forcing Mr Frewer to incur expensive personal legal costs to successfully challenge the CCC report.

The Desert Rat was amused to hear that when Malcom McCusker QC was undertaking his inquiry, the CCC's senior investigator involved, Mark Ingham, refused to talk to the Parliamentary Inspector (Malcolm McCusker QC) without his barrister being present!!

Why would a senior CCC investigator need to have a senior lawyer present?

The $50 to $60 million Smiths Beach investigation by the Corruption and Crime Commission shows the same lack of honesty and impartiality, which in Judge Dunford's opinion was lacking in the Mallard investigation by police.

The investigation into Paul Frewer, like the investigation into Mike Allen, was also a disgrace, again there has been no apology from the CCC, just the usual dissembling comment from the nameless faceless spokespersons.

Why does Mike Children Overboard Silverstone tolerate similar unethical behaviour by his investigators which has resulted in the now completely discredited Smiths Beach investigation and Report?

What does this say about Executive Director Mike Silverstone's professionalism and character, that these activities are allowed and such reports are produced; are tabled in Parliament sullying reputations without any apology or withdrawal?

They stand for all time unchallenged and uncorrected and are a pox on our justice system, the WA Parliament and the people who wrote the report.

Parallels between Mallard Case and Smith Beach Case. Part 2.

The CCC's dirty war on Burke and Grill - the Smiths Beach Investigation. Part 2. The Mike Allen Report.

Like the Andrew Mallard case, the Smiths Beach investigation was neither honest nor impartial, as shown by the Corruption and Crime Commission's investigation of Mr Mike Allen.

The $8 million the CCC spent on the Justice Dunford's review of the Andrew Mallard case showed the police withheld important and vital evidence from the defence and behaved in a manner that resulted in Mallard's wrongful conviction.

The $50 to $60 million Smiths Beach investigation by the Corruption and Crime Commission also shows the same lack of honesty and impartiality, which in Judge Dunford's opinion was also lacking in the Mallard investigation by police.

Why does Mike Children Overboard Silverstone tolerate similar unethical behaviour by his investigators which resulted in the now discredited Smiths Beach Report? What does this say about his professionalism and character? Does Silverstone want to risk another miscarriage of justice?

The investigation into Mike Allen was appallingly incompetent, yet there has been no apology just brief dissembling comment from the nameless faceless spokespersons in the CCC. CCC Exposed put the appalling treatment of Mike Allen more forcefully than the Desert Rat's first examination of Mark Ingham's behaviour.

"Senior CCC investigation officer Mark Ingham was the Officer in Charge of the Inquiry into Smiths Beach when senior DPI Officer Mike Allen was judged guilty by the CCC of serious misconduct. The finding turned on claims that Mr Allen asked one of his officers – Ms Barbara Pedersen – to write a report on the development. The Commission found that former Premier Brian Burke had suggested to Mr Allen that Ms Pedersen write the report and this, the Commission said, showed Mr Allen was influenced by Mr Burke and, as a result, was guilty of serious misconduct.

There is just one problem: Mr Allen was not asked by Mr Burke to instruct Ms Pedersen to do anything; Ms Pedersen never wrote any report and was never asked to do so.

How could such a monumental injustice be done to Mr Allen, a highly regarded senior public servant with an impeccable record?

Enter Mr Ingham.

Mr Ingham actually interviewed Ms Pedersen before the finding of serious misconduct was made against Mr Allen. In that interview, Ms Pedersen told Mr Ingham she was never asked to write a report and had not done so. She told Mr Ingham that no such request had been made of her by Mr Allen.

Now, most fair minded people would have thought: “That’s the end of it – Mr Allen didn’t do what he was accused of”.

But not Mr Ingham!

In his report overturning the finding against Mr Allen, the Parliamentary Inspector Malcolm McCusker QC reported:

On Friday, 29 February 2008, I interviewed Mr Mark Ingham, senior investigator with the CCC. Mr Ingham had been the investigator in charge of the "Smiths Beach investigation". With my permission, his barrister was present.

The Parliamentary Inspector asked Mr Ingham about his interview with Ms Pedersen

MCCUSKER: … Now, when you interviewed Miss Pedersen, having completed the interview, what did you do with the record of interview? Did you convey the contents of it to anyone else?

INGHAM: I don’t know Sir…I didn’t do a written report to the best of my knowledge I most certainly, no. I can’t remember who I reported to if

MCCUSKER: In particular, you may not be able to be specific in terms of memory but as a matter of practice would you have conveyed the contents of that interview to a Commissioner or any senior officer or lawyer?

INGHAM: I’m sure I would have done, Sir, but I have no recollection of …

Remember: The claim that Mr Allen instructed Ms Pedersen to write a report is the crucial key point on which the Commission justified it’s finding against Mr Allen…here it’s clear the Senior Investigator in charge of the inquiry knows the claim is untrue but can’t recall telling anyone.

Undeterred by what he had learned from Ms Pedersen, Mr Ingham produced a "Final Report and Recommendations" on 2 April 2007.

It recommended that "consideration be given to a finding of misconduct", based solely on the incorrect proposition about which Mr Ingham knew the truth.

The crucial importance of this key point was not lost on the Parliamentary Inspector who tried time and time again to get some sense out of Mr Ingham.

Mr McCusker asked (Mr Ingham) if he had been involved in the formulation of the "misconduct finding" in the CCC's Report. He said that he had not, and was unable to tell me how that proposition had evolved, or by whom.

He, the chief investigator, had not suggested it.

Mr McCusker put to Mark Ingham that the evidence of Ms Pedersen, given to him in the interview of May 2007, contradicted the "finding" in the CCC's Report that Mr Allen had appointed her to write "the DPI report"

The Parliamentary Inspector then asked Mr Ingham whether he had realised this, when he read the CCC Report.

He said that he had not.

Then Mr McCusker asked Mr Ingham whether he agreed that, given the terms of the misconduct finding, witnesses who were obviously relevant were not only Ms Pedersen, but also Ms Cherrie, Ms Clegg, and Mr Singleton (the Director to whom they, and Ms Pedersen, were responsible).

Mr Ingham accepted that, and said that he considered it was unnecessary to interview them because he was investigating possible "misconduct" (and not a criminal offence).

Pity Mr Allen, his reputation and his career.

Mr McCusker then asked Mr Ingham if he had read the CCC Report before it was tabled.

MCCUSKER: Were you asked to consider it in any way before it was finally tabled?

INGHAM: Yes.

MCCUSKER: …And did you read it?

INGHAM: Yes.

MCCUSKER: The report makes no mention, as you are no doubt aware, that’s the CCC report makes no mention of the contents or even the fact of the interview that you conducted in May two thousand and six (sic, seven) with Miss Pederson. Does it?

INGHAM: Not with. She was or

MCCUSKER: No.

MCCUSKER: True. But did you, did you notice at the time the report was produced before it was finally tabled that there wasn’t any reference to what Miss Pedersen had told you?

INGHAM: No it didn’t.

MCCUSKER: No. It didn’t jump out at you?

INGHAM: No Sir it didn’t.

MCCUSKER: that was only the negative finding. Now when that (CCC) report was finalised, by then of course you’d, you’d interviewed Miss Pedersen.

INGHAM: Yes.

MCCUSKER: And Miss Pedersen had told you that as far as she was aware there was no report.

INGHAM: I didn’t consider it at the time Sir.

MCCUSKER: But before making a finding of misconduct, against Mister Allen …based upon his alleged agreement with Mister Burke to have her, Miss Pedersen, write the report in reference to Miss Clegg … did you not consider that it was desirable and indeed essential to determine whether any such report existed?

INGHAM: I didn’t and the Commissioner didn’t.

Mr McCusker continued to say that the CCC’s preparedness to rely on speculation, to support its conclusion is disturbing.

He said it showed a lack of objectivity (and) coupled with a "fudging" of the evidence…in the cases of Mr Allen (and Mr Frewer) serious damage was done to their reputations, and their careers, by the public examination and the accusatorial way which counsel assisting put questions.

They were sometimes based on incorrect information, as for instance, when Mr Urquhart, counsel assisting, put to Mr Allen (T1294):

"Were you aware that your colleague, Mr Frewer, was also assisting Mr Burke in getting amendment 92 deferred?".

There was in fact no evidence to support that proposition; nor had the CCC any basis for suggesting that Mr Allen was "assisting Mr Burke in getting amendment 92 deferred".

Mr McCusker concluded: ‘Such "loaded questions" are damaging.’

In his most damning conclusion, Mr McCusker reported:

Whilst both men (Mr Frewer and Mr Allen) have been vindicated by the fuller (and objective) investigation … showing the CCC's investigation to be inadequate and its "findings" to be seriously flawed, that does not compensate them for damage to their careers, the anguish and stress which, for over 12 months, they endured as a result of the CCC's public examination and accusations, followed (many months later) by the findings of "misconduct".

Which brings us back to Mr Ingham.

The one person who had full knowledge of the truth because he interviewed Ms Pedersen and learned the “Report” did not exist, was Senior Investigator Mark Ingham - who could not remember if he told anyone what he learned.

With his barrister present, Mark Ingham – a trained and experienced investigator - repeatedly failed to recall crucial details of his inquiries and, in the final analysis, did nothing when he read the CCC report condemning Mr Allen for something he (Mr Ingham) knew to be untrue."

Think about the unethical practices in the investigation of the murder, for which Andrew Mallard was wrongfully convicted and ask why Mike Children Overboard Silverstone and the CCC are reluctant to prosecute the police and the DPP prosecutor! They may have to look at themselves!

The Desert Rat asks, "How different was the behaviour in both cases?"

Parallels between Mallard Case and Smith Beach Case.

The Smiths Beach Investigation, like the Mallard Case, was neither honest or impartial. Part 1. The Andrew Mallard Case.

The parallels between the police handling of the Andrew Mallard case and the Corruption and Crime Commission's investigation of Smiths Beach matters and their report, have many similarities. Mallard, who was innocent, spent 12 years in prison.

The opinions expressed by Justice Dunford QC $8 million CCC investigation, which leaves many questions unanswered, revolve around the behaviour of various police officers and a prosecutor which were in Dunford's opinion, not honest or impartial.

The report reveals that evidence that was exculpatory (that shows a person to be not guilty of a wrongdoing) was ignored and omitted by police. Evidence tampering by police; original witness statements that did not fit, were altered and changed by leading on witnesses and getting them to change their statements. The accused Andrew Mallard was effectively put "out of circulation" by the police making it difficult for Mallard to get any assistance while the police assembled their case.

In the Mallard case, Justice Dunford set out his opinion of various police officers and a prosecutor's actions, he said:

Police officer Caphorn wrote a letter to the Police Prosecutor dated 17 June 1994 containing errors and incorrect statements, constituted the performance by him of his functions in a manner which was not honest or impartial resulting in Andrew Mallard being remanded to Graylands for further psychiatric assessment and Dr O’Dea admitted him as a compulsory patient.

If the true state of affairs had been disclosed, it is possible that Andrew Mallard would have been released on bail and, whatever the intention, the effect of the remand was that Andrew Mallard was out of circulation whilst police built up their case against him.

Mallard had not been charged with the murder of Mrs Lawrence and the only charges he was facing were assaulting Det Sgt Caporn on 10 June and the charges arising from his arrest on the morning of 23 May 1994.

Another police officer requested Mr Lynch to delete from his report all reference to the salt water testing which constituted the performance by him of his functions in a manner which was not impartial.

That Det Sgt Shervill engaged in misconduct causing the witnesses Katherine Barsden, Michelle Englehardt, Meziak Mouchmore, Katherine Purves and Lily Raine, to alter their statements as they did without any reference in their final statements to their earlier recollections, involved the performance of his functions in a manner which was not honest or impartial.

That Det Sgt Shervill engaged in misconduct by making false entries in the Running Sheets relating to the amendments to the statements of the witnesses Katherine Barsden, Michelle Englehardt, Meziak Mouchemore, and Katherine Purves, involved the performance of his functions in a manner which was not honest.

That Det Sgt Shervill engaged in misconduct by failure to disclose to the DPP’s Office the prior statements of Katherine Barsden, Michelle Engelhardt, Meziak Mouchemore, Katherine Purves and Lily Raine, the original report of Bernard Lynch and details of the unsuccessful efforts by police to find a tool capable of inflicting the injuries suffered by Mrs Lawrence’s, involved the performance of his functions in a manner which was not honest or impartial and/or involved a breach of the trust placed in him by reason of his employment as a public officer.

That Prosecutor Mr Kenneth Bates engaged in misconduct in conducting the trial on the basis that the murder weapon was a wrench as drawn by the accused, but making no attempt to prove that such weapon could have caused the deceased’s injuries, particularly in circumstances where it was known that there was a problem about the pattern of some of the injuries, and involved a breach of the trust placed in him by reason of his employment as a public officer.

That Prosecutor Ken Bates engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose to the defence the results of the pig’s head testing of the wrench constituted or involved a breach of the trust placed in him by reason of his employment as a public officer.

It is not surprising that there was a miscarriage of justice in the original Mallard trial and the Court of on which sat Judge Roberts Smith the now CCC commissioner.

No criminal charges have been laid by against any of these police officers or the prosecutor.

The Desert Rat doe not find that surprising when we look at the behaviour of investigators working under Mike Children Overboard Silverstone on the Smiths Beach investigation.

Even when their behaviour has been exposed, no disciplinary action has been taken by Mike Silverstone the Executive Director of the CCC.