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?"