To Absent Friends

Idealism Unclean, Sacrificed Justice and Paradise Lost?

The inactivity generally of Western Australian lawyers, academics and "intellectuals" following the contempt for natural justice and fair play and the carnage caused by the political activists at Corruption and Crime Commission is a reflection of the selfishness of our society.

Too much power always results in excesses. Surely there must be good people in the CCC who are appalled at the bias and disregard of the CCC senior officers for fairness and proper treatment of those it investigates.

Who stood up for Michael Moodie?
Who questioned his and many others treatment in the hands of the CCC?

The famous statement attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) could equally apply to the Corruption and Crime Commission activities.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Where are the civil libertarians in the Labor movement or are they all just lining up for parliamentary careers and too scared to offend the controlling and powerful Left?

The gutless are frightened by strength and consequence and are stricken by fear. They eschew justice for the safety of the gang, loyalty to the strong - not the just. Weakness against tyranny is their hallmark.

Let' lament absent friend's, not in Robbie Burns the working mans' poet's words, but those another Scot who evoked the Australian spirit:

"Absent Friends!" -- The lost legion that lies in the grave;
The friends who were false and the friends we forgave, --
Whose words had the edge of the enemy's knife,
To torture the heart and poison the life; --
The friend who lay dying and never could know
That we loved at the last as we loved long ago!

So each across his wine-cup bends,
And silently, and tearfully,
We pledge our "Absent Friends!"
Will H. Ogilvie (1869- 18630

The Farce of Regulating Lobbying

Lobbyists - Business as usual

Legislation to "control" lobbyist in Western Australia has always been ineffective. Geoff Gallop's puny register of lobbyists nets only about 10% of lobbyists actively working in Western Australia.

Independent Liz Constable's two very potent and probably very effective Bills were both ignored by the Labor and Liberal Governments. The Corruption and Crime Commission has failed to have a public or private inquiry into lobbying and its extent in Western Australia. Such an inquiry would have been more effective than the pursuit of high profile political enemies of the ruling elite of the time.

Readers may be surprised to know that some of our most prominent lobbyists are former Prime Ministers.

Bob Hawke has sold his lobbying services to many foreign governments. He was a regular golf partner of the Burmese Generals in his early days. In recent years he has praised the military junta and been silent on Aung San Suu Kyi and didn't raise human rights on his most recent visit.

Paul Keating has long had a client list of foreign governments and government controlled company on his consulting services list going back many years. One company of which he was a lobbyist or shall we use the euphemism "business associate" was a Chinese Government company Aldoga Aluminium Smelter Pty Ltd.

Kevin Rudd became a lobbyist after he fell out with Queensland Premier Wayne Goss. Rudd was his Principal Private Secretary. Rudd promptly went to work for the Chinese Government consulting in Africa.

What Chinese interest was Rudd serving when he went to the Sudan on the Chinese Government's behalf when the Sudanese government backed militia were slaughtering refugees in Dafur?

Former Prime Ministers and other politicians should not be allowed to work as lobbyists without some form of effective parliamentary oversight.

We certainly have not got that in WA - by design, the Desert Rat thinks.

Michael Moodie loses everything - McGinty rewarded

Phoney CCC charges thrown out of Court - Moodie vindicated but broke, no job and poor health

Michael Moodie who was central to attempts to bring some accountability to Jim McGinty's IT bungles at WA Health, paid a heavy price for his efforts.

Moodie the fearless bureaucrat was crushed by a fruitless Corruption and Crime Commission prosecution which left him penniless, bankrupt and still without a job at WA Health, despite being found innocent.

Why was Moodie really prosecuted?

Moodie's trouble started in 2006 when he was put in charge of WA Health IT. He uncovered the mess under McGinty Health Ministry and immediately began a searching audit process [Michael's first BIG mistake!].

Moodie demanded that Treasury run the tender process.

Moodie also uncovered that Fujitsu was preparing the WA Health Department tender "in such a manner that would ensure an ongoing role for itself - a yearly contract of some millions".

Veteran Nationals MP Max Trenorden said in the Legislative Council that the charges brought against Michael Moodie were nothing more than a side show, a diversion to to get him out of the Department of Health and finish him off financially, to destroy him.

The Desert Rat believes Michael Moodie was the goods, and IT in WA Health would be quite vibrant if he were still there. He was shafted first by the doctors at PMH and then by senior health bureaucrats and finished off by the Corruption and Crime Commission - under McGinty's watch.

Without the maverick Michael Moodie, the culture of intransigence and wasting money which was the hallmark of WA Health under Jim McGinty, continued.

Why hasn't Moodie been reinstated in his WA Health job after being found innocent? Double jeopardy. Was he fucked-over because he wasperceived as an enemy of the State - like Grill and Burke?

Meanwhile unrivaled fool and Left Labor hero Jim McGinty (the former Health Minister) who stuffed-up badly on many fronts (including this one) is now advising Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon.

What financial black holes has Roxon given this idiot to superintend?

The Desert Rat presumes this sinecure is worth at least $200 000 a year - plus more?? This, on top of his $2 million plus parliamentary superannuation payout?

The Desert Rat regards this as double dipping on a grand scale. What next? An Order of Australia for services to the nation?

Sad greedy people.

Incompetent McGinty's Improper Conduct Costs Taxpayers $115 million

No CCC Inquiry over health record shambles.

During former Labor Minister Jim McGinty's stewardship of WA Health, the Auditor General has revealed that not only did he hand out a $115 million contract for an electronic health records system without a tender, but he also failed to have a business case prepared to justify that expenditure - as required by his own Health Act.

Bit Smelly?

Will the Corruption and Crime Commission Chairman Len Roberts Smith inquire into this improper conduct or possible corruption?

The decision by Jim McGinty and WA Health to award the Patients Admission System (PAS) to British Company iSoft without a tender was a disgrace. WA Health called a meeting of all prospective vendors at which it was expected that the tender would be announced. Instead WA Health said there would be no tender and that they had already awarded the work to iSoft.

Bit smelly?

Imagine if Brian Burke or Julian Grill did this. The CCC and Robert's Smith would be down on them like a tonne of bricks, investigating for evidence of a kick backs, corruption and improper conduct.

As well as criticising the omission in awarding the contract, under Jim McGinty's stewardship the Auditor General said WA Health failed to monitor the contract, he criticised the alarming inadequacy, sometime absence of important financial records. Incompetence after bungling incompetence is documented in the Auditor General's report. see www.audit.wa.gov.au

The contempt for taxpayers by these braggadocios and their foolish incompetence is no surprise to the Desert Rat.

The Auditor General clearly lays the blame at Jim McGinty's feet when as Health Minister Parliament appropriated $335 million for the electronic health records system in 2004 but McGinty stuffed it up; he dropped the ball.

Jim McGinty it would seem has political immunity when it come to investigation by the CCC - why?

Shades of the Führer?

The Rancorous Spite of Roberts-Smiths Secular World:
"Do unto others, as you wouldn't have them do unto you."

Every day the CCC looks more like a single party dictatorship based on totalitarian and autocratic ideals. Like the CIA the CCC refuses to confirm or deny the existence of listening devices, hidden camera, email and fax monitoring devices long after the excuse for them has lost credibility.

These devices and software allow the CCC to undertake unrestricted surveillance of their perceived "enemies of the State". Disturbingly, all communication is monitored from love-making to privileged communication between defence lawyers and the CCC's victim. All those involved in the Smith's Beach Inquiry are still being monitored by Dad's Army; Len Roberts-Smith band of overpaid, under-achieving, toadying incompetents.

After 7 years they still do not know if they are being monitored. Even if they defeat the last desperate appeal, we can be sure Roberts-Smith will not inform them that the investigation is at an end. That would be seen as a potential public admission of failure. Despite over $100 million being spent to "expose" assumed corruption associated with the Smith's Beach development (Brian Burke, Julian Grill, David McKenzie; and media manipulation to ensure enough mud (propaganda) has been thrown to destroy their reputation, to soften-up and convince the public that their is no question of innocence, the victims can only assume they are still being spied on by the CCC surveillance machine.

Fiannaca's Appeal against Dismissal of Charges against Grill & Burke

Fiannaca - In Pursuit of Glory or Ignominy?

The conduct of Bruno Fianacca the deputy DPP, has goaded the Desert Rat back into action.

Fiannaca was an important player in the bringing of the CCC corruption charges against Julian Grill and Brian Burke. Fiannaca is central to the current appeals against the dismissal of the recent charges against Grill and Burke, where a Judge Michael Murray a former Crown prosecutor found that the they had "no case to answer".

Fiannaca has a very grubby record of draconian activity in relation to a number of high profile criminal fiasco’s, including the Mallard appeals and the JWRL case among other. He has been an enthusiastic soul mate of the Court Jester Major General Len Robert-Smith.

Just as well this idiot is a lawyer and not a surgeon or nurse where rigour and protocol are critical if you want avoid havoc and destruction and continue to practise those professions.

The need for Fiannaca to feed his massive ego and his incompetent pursuit of position and status beyond his ability, has created unnecessary misery for many honest and innocent citizens of Western Australia.

Fiannaca Record- When Integrity's Absent, Malice Reigns

Fiannaca's Earlier Disgrace

Senior prosecutor denies 'stifling' Mallard appeal

Posted ABC Wed Oct 24, 2007

Prosecutor Bruno Fiannaca has denied trying to stifle Andrew Mallard's murder appeal. (ABC)

A senior prosecutor who contested Andrew Mallard's first attempt to appeal against his murder conviction has denied deliberately stifling efforts by the defence to subpoena material which cast doubt on Mr Mallard's guilt.

Bruno Fiannaca is giving evidence to a Corruption and Crime Commission Inquiry, which is investigating Mr Mallard's wrongful conviction for the 1994 murder of Pamela Lawrence.

The inquiry has heard that in 2002 Mr Fiannaca was asked by the Director of Public Prosecutions Robert Cock to consider a petition to launch an appeal from Mr Mallard's legal team.

Mr Fiannaca said although several aspects of the case had not been disclosed to the jury at trial he advised Mr Cock to oppose the appeal.

He said he was inundated with subpoena requests from Mr Mallard's legal team and at times found their actions unreasonable, but he denied trying to stop their attempts to find information which would have cast doubt over Mr Mallard's guilt.

The inquiry has been shown a report sent to Mr Fiannaca from a British forensic expert confirming that despite the prosecution case at trial, a spanner drawn by Mr Mallard could not have been used to kill Mrs Lawrence.

The report was not provided to Mr Mallard's lawyers until six months after it was written, but Mr Fiannaca has denied "sitting on it", saying he needed to clarify some things and it was always his intention to disclose it.

"Pigs might fly?"

Fiannaca - Misconduct by DDP Prosecutor?

Fiannaca get the biggest Shellacking Ever of a Senior Prosecutor by a Senior Judge

from Crikey.com




13 September 2010
Justice takes a back seat again in WA
by Greg Barns

Last Friday was not a good one for the Western Australian Office of the DPP. Its conduct in a case involving a young man aged 17, who had been given a two-year suspended sentence after being found guilty of a serious assault that resulted in the death of the victim, was described by the Western Australian Chief Justice Wayne Martin as a “a conspicuous departure from appropriate prosecutorial conduct”, and as “patently indefensible”.

The case known as State of WA v JWRL was a high-profile one in Perth. Steven Rowe, a 17-year-old, was killed in 2008 after a fight in a suburban park. Rowe was bashed over the head with a garden stake by the defendant, who cannot be named because he was not 18 at the date of the offence. A widely reported Supreme Court trial in 2009 saw a jury acquit JWRL of murder and manslaughter but find him guilty of assault.

The case was yet another from the West that involved the prosecution failing in its duty to disclose all relevant evidence to the defence. This has been a common theme in a handful of high-profile Western Australian criminal trials over the years — one involving Andrew Mallard, a man wrongfully convicted in 1995 of murder, being the most prominent. Here the DPP’s office received new information from a witness shortly before the trial but did not disclose this to the defence. Chief Justice Martin described the DPP’s office’s conduct as patently unjustifiable and that it was a “conspicuous departure from appropriate prosecutorial conduct”. Of other submissions made in the appeal by the DPP Chief Justice Martin peppered his judgment with words such as “pedantic” and “utterly without foundation”. He described another submission as “extraordinary”.

The DPP’s appeal in this case was argued by one of WA’s most senior prosecutors, Bruno Fiannaca, who has prosecuted former premier Brian Burke and who ironically argued the appeal on behalf of the state against the overturning of Mallard’s conviction by the High Court in 2005. Given the fact that the state’s most senior judge is so relentlessly scathing of the conduct of DPP’s office in the JWRL trial and thought its appeal was without any merit, WA Attorney-General Christian Porter, a former prosecutor himself, might care to ask some very hard questions of the office responsible for running the state’s criminal cases. With the JWRL decision, the roll call of miscarriages of justice in WA just grew by one — and that’s one too many.

Demise of "nowhere man" Carpenter

Isn't he a nowhere man, living in a nowhere land, making up his nowhere plans, for nobody.
Doesn't have a point of view, knows not where he's going to .....

Did youu have the misfortune of watching Alan Carpenter's retirement announcement on ABC TV last night?

The interview was marked by immaturity and superficiality.

The ALP Caucas gave Jim McGinty the failed former minister a free hand to pick leading lights for safe seats and Carpenter was his fifth choice after five knockbacks.

No person can claim to be grown up if they don't take responsibility for their own decisions. Carpenter blamed everybody except himself for his demise. He followed his own well trodden path of scoring off his colleagues.

When asked to make some comment on his term he could say nothing more profound than he "had a wonderful vision" and he "got rid of Brian Burke, for which he deserved a big tick".

His lament at the loss of superannuation was a far cry from his high profile sanctimony when he self righteously campaigned for its abolition in the first blush of his Parliamentary term. He told some of his colleagues including Kim Chance, that it was" the biggest mistake of my life".

The Desert Rat knew Alan Carpenter and saw him as an abject failure, bereft of ideas to contribute to the ALP and Parliament.

Graeme Campbell got him right, from day one, two decades ago, when he told me he was a pissant.

Archer Charges "Baseless" - More Humiliation for CCC

Roberts-Smith, Silverstone and Ingham disgraced by latest CCC fiacso.

Shelley Archer gave Brian Burke, a copy of a letter that was already public. The letter was given openly by the Shire of Broome and was publically available on the Shire of Broome website. All pealing companies received it except Brian Burkes client - who engaged him because he thought he was being victimised by the Fisheries Department..

The incompetent Corruption and Crime Commission ignored the fact that the letter was publically available and dishonestly claimed the letter was “confidential” – how ignorantly quaint or is the breathless incompetence of the CCC on display again?

The Desert Rat and many others suspected these charges should never have been brought against Shelley Archer and that she should never have been subjected to the ordeal that she has had to face. The DPP conceded in his short press release that there was “no clear evidence that there was any actual benefit to Mr Burke”. That didn't stop her enemies in the Labor Party who have no regard for natural justice.

The CCC ruined Shelley Archer’s political career and reputation; McGinty and Carpenter turned caucus against her and the rest, mostly to their dishonour, followed suite and she was forced out of the Labor Party and out of Parliament by her gutless colleagues.

Labor MP John Ford’s comments on ABC TV the night the charges were dropped that he had no sympathy for her were just disgraceful. The smacked of old fashioned Stalinism. Her secretary Shelley Eaton disowned her and grabbed her seat in Parliament. It would be interesting what Shelley Eaton now thinks about her behaviour to Shelley Archer. Archer was stoically confronted an array of malignant forces and maintained her loyalty to her friends and was ready to take the CCC head on in Court. The CCC denied her the chance to completely demolished the CCC’s credibility.

The Desert Rat holds with contempt these unthinking and spineless types who hunt in packs; like the follower of Stalin or Hitler who did their bidding. These camp dogs and confederates would never be found among the ranks of the partisans standing up and fighting for what is right. They would sell their principles to the lowest bidder. Thirty pieces of silver would be extortion.

The whole episode reflects poorly on those members of parliament that joined in and cheered the public "flogging and hanging" of Shelley Archer. Some of them may well be the next victims of the precedent they have allowed; they have created a flawed system that will consume other innocent people and politicians.

Although these matters did not relate to Smith’s Beach investigation directly, they were a part of the CCC clumsy and dishonest attempt to find evidence of corruption by Brian Burke and Julian Grill, n the sworn enemies of CCC architect the abject failure Jim McGinty. After $50 million wasted by the CCC on the Burke Grill vendetta, it is clear that Grill and Burke most often achieve good for the State in situations where many parliamentary incompetent were too visionless and indolent to aspire.

CCC humiliated again on Smith’s Beach

CCC's Phony Brabazon Charge - Exposed as Grubby Politicking

The grovelling but unreserved apology by Major General Len Roberts-Smith to senior public servant Mark Brabazon underscores the abject failure of the Corruption and Crime Commission and its inability to objectively investigate the Smith’s Beach matter.

It was a case of verdict now and gather the evidence later, even fabricate it if necessary and destroy and “prosecute them through the media. A conviction is just “icing on the cake” to these modern day Beagle Boys.

Parliamentary Inspector Christopher Steytler QC found the reasoning and the “material” (Steytler doesn’t give it the dignity of evidence) in the report did not support the opinion expressed about Mark Brabazon.

Len Robert-Smith’s apology was immediate and he withdrew the CCC’s opinion that Mr Brabazon “acted with a lack of integrity” in his dealings with Mr Brian Burke.

That makes six people against whom the CCC has launched cases, where the CCC charges have been unceremoniously tossed out of Court.

Mike Allen. Was acquitted on two count of giving false evidence in testimony. The CCC lied and omitted facts that didn’t suite them in their report.

David McKenzie. Two charges of giving false evidence dismissed.

Paul Frewer. A concocted misconduct finding was rejected by Parliamentary Inspector Malcom McCusker QC.

Julian Grill. He was acquitted on two charges of giving false testimony in evidence. The Magistrate said he was a witness of truth.

Wally Cox. A misconduct finding was rejected by a Public Service inquiry. The CCC's only win was when Cox (probably on poor legal advice) challenged the CCC right to make a finding. Cox lost. The Judges said the CCC did have the right but stressed the judgment did not reflect on whether the finding was right or wrong. These was no vindication there for the CCC decision - only that they could express it i.e could tell lies.

The prosecutions following the Smith’s Beach inquiry were based on a dishonest investigation involving gross misconduct, of which the Desert Rat is now aware of evidence.

The Brabazon inquiry and report was a Stalinist sham to damage Brian Burke and Julian Grill. Trail by media – hoping the courts would follow suite.

The House of Cards Inquiry into Smiths Beach has already collapsed. The CCC case is in its dying throws – a death tryst of a morally bankrupt organisation that is a weeping ulcer on the justice system of Western Australia.

The Desert Rat’s opinion is that Premier Colin Barnett and the Parliament should give it the last rites.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Julian Grill's phone is still being tapped six years later, by the Robert -Smith and Silverstone entourage. They are still being spied on and photographed. Their mail is being tampered with; email and faxes are examined back at the CCC's own headquarters reminiscent of the Smolny Institute (after it was a school for noble maidens - see picture and statue of Lenin in foreground).

All in the hope that they can find some minor breach that will help justify the $50 million spent on the political witch hunt, curiously targeted at the enemies of McGinty.

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.