Fake Letter or Corrupt Watchdog?

Simple solution to test the truth of anonymous letter and spike CCC.

The Desert Rat has just read a copy of a letter courtesy of the audacious and daring blog CCC exposed. It was tendered to the Chief Magistrate Steven Heath in an unsuccessful action to make public the grounds for granting warrants to see if they were legal. Although unsigned, everything about the letter and the Corruption and Crime Commission behaviour point to its authenticity. It also has a disarming "ring of truth" which would be difficult to fabricate. Heath decided the unsigned letter was inadmissible and was unable to take the matter further.

If our MP's were interested in seeking the truth (and risk getting on the wrong side of the CCC), they could test its authenticity by calling CCC CEO Mike "Children Overboard" Silverstone, John Lynch and "Tanya" before the Parliament Committee that has oversight of the CCC and getting them UNDER OATH to confirm or deny whether this was said or if this was the illegal and corrupt use surveillance powers available to the CCC. The Committee should instruct them not to discuss their responses and also ask them in committee whether they had - give them a bit of their own medicine!

How did the writer know a "John Lynch" works or has worked for the CCC? Has a lawyer "Tanya" ever worked for the CCC? Have they ever had after work drinks where the alleged conversation took place? Did they discuss the rort of obtaining and using illegal warrants? The Desert Rat would also ask coy senior CCC investigator Mark Ingham to give evidence, despite the inconvenience of his appalling memory and apparent cerebral incapacity.

Lying under oath, that is, perjury; would result in a severe gaol terms and our friend "Tanya" being struck off the role for life as a solicitor. Watch the CCC run to the Supreme Court for an injunction! The Desert Rat is quite sure the truth would come out and CCC staff would be running for cover.

What are they waiting for? The following handwritten letter was delivered anonymously to the home of Julian Grill on 27 December 2007. Judge its authenticity yourself.

“Dear Julian,

I write to you because I think you, Mr Burke, Mr D’Orazio and others investigated by the CCC have been done an injustice.

I have recently heard an investigator from the CCC, John Lynch whilst in the company of his work colleague, Tanya, say that the CCC manipulates its powers to get telephone intercept warrants. This is how he said it works (and Tanya nodded).

The legislation that gives interception warrants (I don’t know its name, sorry) does so only for serious offences, John said for offences of 7 years imprisonment. But for most of the offences the CCC investigates against public servants the actual offence that is suspected is not that serious. John said that if they put on their warrant application the offence that they actually had evidence for, they would never get the warrant.

So what they do is put on the warrant application that they suspect the offence of corruption so that they can get their warrant. Then, when they get their evidence from the telephone intercepts, the charge of corruption is either dropped by the DPP at the last minute, or they run with the corruption charge (along with the more minor charges) at trial, but don’t mind losing the corruption charge because the other ones usually win.

John said that lawyers or the courts have not worked this out yet. He said that if they lost the power to get telephone intercepts they couldn’t do much at all.

He also said that there is a section that defines what a ‘reasonable suspicion’ is in order to get telephone intercept warrants. It is in the CCC Act itself. John said that this section wouldn’t ever be ‘satisfied’ for their warrant applications because they knew that they could not prove the offence of corruption on the evidence they have at the time of making their warrant applications.

He finally said that this is how the CCC has had so much success. Tanya said that she has a law degree, and that if this was ever tested at court the warrant would be ‘knocked out’. If that happened, she said all the intercept evidence would also be ‘knocked out’.

Mr Grill, I think that this is so wrong. In fact, I am disgusted. I hope by writing to you that I help you and others who have been affected by the shameful practises of the CCC.”

It is perfectly understandable why the CCC has opposed any scrutiny of their warrants by the Parliamentary Investigator Malcolm McCusker QC who the Desert Rat points out is an officer of the Parliament.

So MP's why not support him and in the process ask a few simple and pertinent questions yourselves?