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.