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.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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment