Why did Commissioner Kevin Hammond resign from the CCC early?

Was Hamond disillusioned by the CCC Process?

Corruption and Crime Commission Commissioner, Kevin Hammond announced his resignation in November 2006 and finished-up almost a year ago at the end of March 2007.

He said his decision was based solely on the fact that he would turn 71 a month after his resignation became effective.

The Desert Rat and many others think it very unusual that Judge Hammond resigned after only three years of a five year term, at the end of a public hearing; but before the report was written. On the face of that, it needs a better explanation than turning 71.

Judge Hammond resigned at the end of the hearing into the Smith’s Beach Development, but strangely, before the report on Smith’s Beach was written. Judge Hammond was the only person who heard all the evidence, he was the person who observed the body language, the verbal intonation and nuance of the evidence given by those who were interrogated. These observations are extremely important when judging if a witness is truthful.

This vital part of the evidence is not available in a transcript of the interrogation. This information is extremely important in making sensitive judgments, as the “victims” have no right to cross examine the witnesses, hostile or otherwise, no rules of evidence apply and there is no forewarning of the matters to be examined. In the case of Burke and Grill, they as witnesses did not have access to their files, records and computers for reference as they had been seized by the CCC.

Strangely, Judge Hammond left the writing of the Smith’s Beach Report to his Deputy Commissioners, neither of whom the Desert Rat understands, had heard all the evidence of the interrogation in the Commission hearings. This fatal inadequacy was dismissed by one Special Council as unimportant, as they had access to the transcripts.

It is highly probable that one or both of Christopher Shanahan SC and Neil McKerracher SC were involved and responsible for writing the report - which has now been shown to be grossly inaccurate, reflecting poorly on the competence of the CCC. Neither of these two supposedly distinguished lawyers / barristers have defended the report, or apologised or belatedly admitted having involvement in the report, let alone put up their hand for writing it.

Back to the resignation of Judge Hammond whom the Desert Rat once held in high regard. The Desert Rat is not aware of any judge who has heard a case and not written the report or judgment. The Desert Rat also knows good lawyers and judges fiercely defend the right of natural justice being afforded to all people.

It is highly unusual for Judge Hammond not to have written the report with his army of 150 staff, including special councils, lawyers, barristers, journalists, ex-police officers, etc. All he had to do was oversee the report and edit it.

The Desert Rat thinks that Judge Hammond may have jumped ship early because he:

• could see no criminal or corrupt behaviour or misconduct by Burke and Grill (a later finding in the Smith's Beach Report)

• could see the reckless damage that had been done to peoples’ reputations, businesses, careers, livelihoods and health for no public interest benefit

• could see the inquiry was heading nowhere, drowned in salacious publicity by a heady media circus

• could see there was no prospect of Grill and Burke getting a fair hearing or even a semblance of natural justice

• may have been aware of some “inappropriate behaviour” by CCC staff in the conduct of the investigation. Hammond may have hinted at this in a farewell speech when he said the greatest threat to the CCC was for the Commission “to breach those public sector standards that it holds others to account for.

The Desert Rat asks “Was there more to Judge Hammond’s resignation than just turning 71 - was he disillusioned by the CCC process?”

CCC: "Clutches at Straws" - but scourges itself

CCC admit it got the Dr Wally Cox case wrong - but qualify how they got it wrong!

The Corruption and Crime Commission has issued a media release today attacking a media release put out presumably by a Carpenter Government Minister. The CCC don’t mention the Minister name or portfolio so the Desert Rat looked up the governments media statements website – but it is off air so the CCC leaves the Desert Rat guessing.

Are the CCC too spooked to name the Minister they are attacking? They bully the public and the opponents of McGinty, but cower before this hapless profligate State Labor Government run (in)effectively by McGinty – too insipid and scared to name the Minister.

The grubby back-peddling media release is one of the very few put out by the CCC. Usually they have a gloating tone. The media release contact is Owen Cole Phone: 9215 4802, 0439 910 161 presumably some media hack at the CCC or hired hand.

The media release criticises the Longson Report on Dr Wally Cox, which they say they have not read (danger – when will these incompetents learn!). At least they are consistently incompetent in that they didn’t bother to listen to the tapes of the Planning Committee meeting in the Paul Frewer case and were shown to be incompetent fools.

Well the CCC media release states what we already know, that:

• The Corruption and Crime Commission has not seen the report on Dr Cox by the Director General of the Department for Agriculture and Food, Mr Ian Longson, but notes the following points from the Minister’s Media Statement


• The CCC inquiry found no evidence that the actions of the former chairman of the Environmental Protection Authority (Dr Wally Cox) constituted misconduct under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act.


• Mr Longson’s report states that the evidence indicates that the draft Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Smiths Beach development proposal was not before Dr Cox or the EPA Board at the time of the invitation for the lunch or when the lunch was held. The report states that the SEA was with the EPA Service Unit, whose officers were working with the proponent’s consultants to finalise them, and that the chairman and the board had no involvement at that stage.


• Mr Longson found there was no evidence that Dr Cox attempted to interfere with the SEA process and there was no evidence that Dr Cox was influenced in his role as chairman of the EPA by Mr Grill or Mr Burke. The Commission did not say that Dr Cox attempted to interfere with the SEA process nor that he was influenced in his role as Chairman of the EPA by Mr Grill and Mr Burke. The Commission did not say that Dr Cox attempted to interfere with the SEA process nor that he was influenced in his role as Chairman of the EPA by Mr Grill and Mr Burke.

Are these clowns trying to flagalate themselves?

Read Grumpy Jack's scathing analysis here.

The Desert Rat is in a remote part of the State working in 40 degree heat helping create wealth for the State and so is miffed that McGinty’s CCC has been wasting our wealth ($75 million) faster than we can create it.

Oh for an air-conditioned office on the Terrace where the Desert Rat can polish his hairy arse on a patent leather chair without any personal accountability and to be protected from incompetence by an Act of Parliament.

Sounds better than winning Lotto or getting a lifetime supply of the finest cheeses.

How to Whistleblow on the CCC

Who will "spill the beans" on Dad's Army's spooks?

The Desert Rat advises potential whistleblowers on any dodgy activities of Corruption and Crime Commission officers, that they can do so under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 (PID) which can be downloaded here.

Given the sloppiness of CCC investigations and reports to date, it is possible, if not probable that they have breached their own standards, or the CCC Act or other Acts under which they operate.

If you think an offence under written law has been committed, the main avenue of complaint is to make it to the Corruption and Crime Commission. I would strongly advise against this approach. On a close reading of the PID Act a person who had such evidence cannot take it directly to the Parliamentary Investigator Malcolm McCusker which the Desert Rat thought would be the sensible path but McGinty chose not to offer that obvious potent remedy. Instead the CCC is obliged (under its Act) to advise the Parliamentary Inspector. More of McGinty’s crappy roundabout legislation which leaves the punters confused.

Under Section 5 of the PID Act a person who suspect or thinks CCC officers have been misbehaving villains can report the offence to a police officer.

The Desert Rat suggests you seek an audience with Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan to "spill the beans" or outline your concerns and ask him to refer it to the Parliamentary Inspector. There seem to be an antipathy between the cops and Dad’s Army down at the CCC.

The cops have never request the CCC help to tackle organised crime (which it can) using all the coercive and invasive powers available to the Secret Police. Given the CCC's woeful performance, it can only be said that PC Karl O’Callaghan is much smarter that the Desert Rat gave him credit.

Now is the time to blow the whistle!

Corruption watchdog chief refuses to justify secret McGinty - Fong hearings.

Corruption and Crime Commission Chairman Len Roberts-Smith’s refusal to reveal the factors taken in to account in making the decision not to hear in public the evidence from Jim McGinty and Neil Fong, is unacceptable.

The Desert Rat thinks he should front-up to his responsibilities and the media and immediately justify why the hearing were held in private. The public is waiting and becoming impatient.

It is now becoming clearer to the Desert Rat why former Chairman Judge Hammond jumped ship early.

How long will Roberts-Smith last as he find out more about the hopelessness and incompetence of this $70 million white elephant, known in some circles as “McGinty’s Baby”?

Exposed: CCC’s “House of Cards” Inquiry into Smith’s Beach

The person, who undertook the investigation and report recommended by the Corruption and Crime Commission into public servants Paul Frewer and Mike Allen involvement in the Smith’s Beach development applications, is both brave and honest. His or her findings that neither public servant had a case to answer did not surprise the Desert Rat or any other impartial person who had read the CCC report. However, the Desert Rat would have thought the two men would stand little chance of a fair hearing in this situation by politicised public servants!

Honest because the case against the two public servants Paul Frewer and Mike Allen by McGinty’s CCC was without any real basis or merit and that finding, would not be surprising if done by an independent person outside the public service. Neither Carpenter nor McGinty will be pleased by the findings which exculpated the two men. It’s the Desert Rat’s view that both are spitting chips.

Very brave also, because we are told in today’s The West Australian that the inquirer is a public servant, who the Desert Rat believes will be very vulnerable to retribution by those who are deeply embarrassed by the exoneration of Frewer and Allen. There is too much political capital involved here.

Will the knives will be out for the person’s scalp? Will there be a price to pay for telling the truth? The Desert Rat suspects so, because the person who did the inquiry, has, by finding they have no case to answer, completely undermined the “House of Cards” case that the CCC built in the Smith’s Beach Inquiry.

It is a pity McGinty and Carpenter did not release this secret report and identify the investigator. That way the media and the public could find out more about the flimsy case against these men and analyse the reasons and findings as to why these men were vindicated and the role and actions of Brigadier Silverstone’s goon platoon at the CCC.

Are Carpenter and McGinty conveniently hiding behind the secret Public Sector Inquiry report? The last thing they would want is to hear that the Smith Beach development inquiry did not involve anything that would warrant the millions of dollars of investigation, camera surveillance, tailing, phone tapping, email and fax interception, house breaking and bedroom bugging. All undertaken by the CCC goon platoon led by our erstwhile Brigadier Silverstone fresh from his central role in the “Children Overboard” scandal and the cocked-up and incorrect evidence given to the State Parliamentary CCC committee.

Mr Allen’s comment on hearing he was exonerated was “I never had any doubt that this would be the outcome.” Well Mr Mike Allen, don’t assume the CCC have finished with you yet. The Desert Rat is aware of other friends and family members of victims on the CCC “villains list” who have been targeted and harassed.

The CCC has managed to destroy many people’s reputation, people’s businesses and untold legal expenses in the process of getting the political scalps of Burke and Grill. The cost to the taxpayer of the CCC now exceeds $70 million.

Journalists: "CCC secret hearings Insidious and Sinister”

CCC targets Media and Centre - Right faction members

Western Australians and the Desert Rat rely on the media to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding the Carpenter – (McGinty) Government and expose its internal machinations. The two biggest threats to the power and hegemony of the Social Left controlled Carpenter Government are the media and the Centre - Right factions of the Labor Caucus.

McGinty's spat with and antipathy for Paul Armstrong, the editor of The West Australian, and his aversion to the Centre-Right are well known. Both these groups have come under sustained attack by both the Government and the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC).

The CCC was criticised in late 2007 when it emerged it had secretly interrogated a number of Perth journalists. In 2006/2007 the Commission held 40.5 days of open hearings and 22 days of secret hearings.

The Desert Rat agrees with the journalists’ union, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, when it described the secret hearings of the Corruption and Crime Commission as “insidious and sinister”.

The journalists were threatened with “fines and lengthy imprisonment” if they told anyone about their attendance. Under CCC law, witnesses can be fined $60,000 and imprisoned for three years if they disclose their attendance or discuss it with others.

The journalists were ABC TV’s Sue Short, Channel 9’s David Cooper, Channel 7’s Gary Adshead and The West Australian’s Robert Taylor.

Short and Cooper appeared before the Commission on 26 June over “…identifying the person or persons who on or about 12 May 2006 provided information and/or assisted her (Short) in identifying the new suspect for the murder of Pamela Lawrence as being in custody for another homicide”. (The appalling Andrew Mallard miscarriage of justice)

Adshead and Taylor were two of 21 witnesses who appeared before the Parliamentary Inspector of the Commission, in late June and early July when he investigated the leaking of a Commission document to Parliament on former Labor MP John D’Orazio.

“We are bringing it (the secret hearings) to public attention because we are deeply disturbed by its impact on the practice of journalism,” Alliance WA Branch Secretary Michael Sinclair-Jones was quoted in The Australian Thursday 8 November. He said the hearing had the characteristics of a star chamber with interrogations and investigations held in secret and people who were unwilling to testify threatened with severe penalties. “These journalists could not tell their families, their boss, their union…it’s police state stuff.

“The blanket suppression of free speech at secret hearings that nobody is allowed to know even occurred is deeply troubling. But we are even more concerned that journalists are being secretly threatened with long jail sentences and massive fines for protecting confidential sources. “Such inquisitorial powers would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. Press freedom and democracy will inevitably suffer if the secret state powers are used to intimidate journalists and crush leaks.”

Chief Justice exposes CCC Humbug

Am I A criminal? I haven't a clue

The Desert Rat scratched his head as he asked himself that question. McGinty and Carpenter must have moral insight which few of us comprehend, when we examine the carryings-on of their government and their Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC).

The charging of witnesses giving evidence to the CCC inquiry into Smith’s Beach, in respect of minor matters of recall, is sinister. No criminal or corrupt conduct was found and much taxpayer’s money has been wasted already. Peoples’ businesses and careers have been destroyed and they have been left with hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal bills. For what benefit the Desert Rat asks?

The duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to prosecute a charge if there is sufficient evidence to gain a conviction and it is in the public interest to proceed. The relentless pursuit of Burke and Grill by the government and the CCC goes beyond the test; is it in the public interest?

It seems to the Desert Rat that the CCC’s harassment and hounding of Burke and Grill, shows the McGinty-Carpenter Government's open contempt for the idea that the law defines the scope of the Government's interest in you; that you can be on the wrong side of the Government only by being on the wrong side of the law.

If Burke and Grill have committed a crime, arrest them; otherwise, leave them alone.

A recent case involving lobbying was heard in the Tasmanian Supreme Court by their Chief Justice. The decision and his sentencing comments outline clearly what the Desert Rat had thought and previously written in an article for ”The West Australian” which was not published.

The case involved the recently resigned Deputy Premier Bryan Green who still faces a retrial on corruption charges. John White a former Labor Health Minister, now a businessman, lobbied the Minister to extend his company’s contract just before the last election. Throughout the negotiating process Mr White lobbied for a secure contract for his business which provided him with a very substantial income. The agreement gave Mr White’s company a monopoly for three years.

The Chief Justice said, “He (White) lobbied (Deputy Premier) Mr Green's advisors and he lobbied Mr Green himself. He lobbied Mr Price, then Secretary of the Labor Party. It is likely that his lobbying called in aid the fact that he was a former Minister in a Labor Government, and a member of the Labor Party in the same faction as Mr Green. It is also likely that because of these facts, Mr White expected that the Minister would look upon his request favourably. He ultimately did just that, but there was nothing unlawful about Mr White lobbying whomever he chose to lobby and putting such arguments as he thought appropriate to support his case.”

The Chief Justice continued, “Mr White refused to sign a version of the agreement that was to his satisfaction in all respect bar one. It did not provide that the Minister would not exercise his discretion to appoint a competitor to his company. He was entitled to take that action and that point of view. Mr White continued to lobby vigorously for his point of view. In the end, very shortly before the announcement of the election and upon the instructions of Mr Green, a clause in these terms was inserted into the agreement.”

The Chief Justice said, “I find that financial self-interest was Mr White's principal motivation. ...... At the outset it is necessary to bear in mind that Mr White was entitled to lobby and argue for the financial security that he wanted. Next, it is important to note that the Parliament entrusted the Minister with the power to authorise or not authorise another accrediting body (contractor), not Mr White, and without the co-operation of the Minister, Mr White could not have actually interfered with the free exercise of that discretion. He did not force the Minister to sign the agreement. It was for the Minister to say no to Mr White's proposal, but he chose not to do so.”

This case, in the Desert Rat’s view, goes to the heart of lobbying and shows the sham of this case and the “show trials”. In a democracy anyone has the right to lobby the Government. It is a serious offence to bribe, force or intimidate a Minister or government officer.

The Chief Justice continued, "At the end of any lobbying, a minister remains completely free to exercise his or her duty or authority in whatever manner he or she thinks appropriate."

Burke and Grill only lobbied for clients, not for a government contract for their own business, as was this case. Is there any suggestion that Burke or Grill ever bribed, intimidated or threatened a Minister?

What this case shows is that competent Ministers and members of Parliament are needed. The irony is: the less capable these public officers are, the more need for lobbyists.

Stop wasting our time and taxpayer’s money on the political witch hunt.

CCC: Silverstone's Evidence to Senate Inquiry

Silverstone’s “Children Overboard” Evidence

In an earlier post “Lies, Mistakes and Character Assassination” (19 Nov 2007), the Desert Rat highlighted the erroneous evidence on the sensitive issue of telecommunications interception matters, that CEO Mike Silverstone gave to the Legislative Council Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) Committee. That incorrect evidence was followed 10 day later by a letter correcting three significant errors – on matters Silverstone claimed he had read in preparation for the hearing, just before he gave his answers. Silverstone is the CEO of the CCC.

Shortly before he got the plumb job at the CCC, Brigadier Mike Silverstone, as he was then known, was at the centre of the “Children Overboard” scandal, where his evidence is in dispute. The “Children Overboard” cock-up certainly cost the Labor Government victory in 2001 and Kim Beasley the job of Prime Minister of Australia.

On the 6 October 2001, the HMAS Adelaide intercepted a people smuggler’s vessel near Christmas Island, carrying 223 passengers and crew.

The Adelaide sent a navy boarding party to take control of the vessel and set it on a course towards Indonesian waters. The situation onboard the vessel became increasingly tense, and a number of the asylum seekers started sabotaging the vessel.

At daybreak the next day, 14 male passengers jumped or were thrown overboard from the vessel. These man overboards occurred while the navy boarding party was attempting to restore order on the vessel.

At some stage, a man was seen to be holding a girl over the side of vessel, possibly threatening to throw the child into the sea or onto one of the Adelaide's seaboats that was alongside, but eventually brought the child inboard. All 14 males were recovered and returned to the vessel. No child or (children) were retrieved from the water.

The Adelaide recorded the entire episode on its 'video' tracking system.

During the tense tactical situation involving the man overboards, the commanding officer of the Adelaide, Commander Norman Banks, was phoned by his superior Brigadier Mike Silverstone, who was based in Darwin. While talking to his superior, Commander Banks was simultaneously receiving multiple reports from his crew on the Adelaide and the boarding party as the man overboards were occurring.

This conversation was the origin of the erroneous children overboard report. Brigadier Silverstone believed Commander Banks said to him that “a child was thrown over the side”. Commander Banks, on the other hand, maintained that he did not say this, telling the Senate Committee that “no children were thrown overboard from the vessel, no children were put in the water, no children were recovered from the water”.

Brigadier Silverstone described the charged and confused situation that Commander Banks was reporting on as a “kaleidoscope of events”. Most reasonable people would think Silverstone would have asked for written confirmation of such sensational event of a child or children being thrown overboard! An hour, even a day’s delay would not have been a problem.

Within minutes of his conversation with Commander Banks, Brigadier Silverstone telephoned a number of senior officers to update them on the situation with the intercepted vessel. Under a special arrangement to fast-track information to Canberra, he first called Air Vice Marshal Alan Titheridge, Head Strategic Command in Canberra, and told him that some of the passengers had jumped into the sea and children had been thrown overboard. The Senate Committee noted that this special arrangement was not repeated for any other vessel interception incident.

Indeed, Brigadier Silverstone informed the Senate Committee that the requirement to brief Air Vice Marshall Titheridge early on 7 November was the only reason for him ringing Commander Banks at daybreak in the middle of an operation, something that was contrary to his normal practice!

On 10 December 2001, Commander Banks told Brigadier Silverstone and Rear Admiral Smith that no children had been thrown in the water.

On 26 March 2002 on the 7.30 Report, Commander Banks said the whole matter came down to his conversation with Brigadier Silverstone. Commander Banks later said in evidence to the Senate Committee: “If anybody wanted to clarify the veracity of the information perhaps I should have been questioned to provide corroboration of what did or did not happen”.

“What annoyed me was that throughout this whole period, was that nobody else called back to ask for the information.” – not even Brigadier Silverstone!

Banks said, “I spoke to Admiral Smith and Brigadier Silverstone in the period 9, 10, 11 October, the next conversation I had with anybody about this issue was on 8 November with the chief of the Navy.”

When asked by Senator George Brandis about the events on 7 October: “Do you accept that Silverstone's recollection of it is correct?

Commander Banks said “No.”

In some private notes later released, Commander Banks records a conversation he had with the Chief of Navy, Admiral Shackleton, where the Admiral told him not to worry about this controversy.

"He stated clearly we had done a great job, nothing to be ashamed of and this was all about politics and the election."

Who do we believe?

No child was thrown overboard. Commander Banks does not accept Brigadier Silverstone version of the conversation. The alleged child became children. The election polls went the other way.

Who got it badly wrong this time?

Was it all about politics and elections?