Wednesday, November 21, 2012

OPERATION MASCOT

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 21 November 2012
 
 OPERATION MASCOT

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.52 p.m.]: 

In 2000 the internal affairs unit of the NSW Police Force was undertaking Operation Mascot into alleged police corruption. The NSW Police Force was working together with the NSW Crime Commission and the Police Integrity Commission under memorandums of understanding, managing a now notorious informer, who became known as M5. On 14 September 2000 Operation Mascot obtained a listening devices warrant from the Supreme Court. That application was made ex parte, which means in the absence of anyone other than the Operation Mascot officers and the judge.

Remarkably, that warrant contained the names of 114 people, when the affidavit in support put forward evidence in relation to only 66 people. In other words, 48 people—lawyers, journalists and serving police, many now senior police—had a listening device warrant issued against them, had their phones tapped and had their privacy breached by a secret police operation without any supporting evidence being put before the court. How on earth a judge let this happen has never been explained. What the NSW Police Force told the judge to obtain this warrant also has never been explained. In an internal police memorandum of 13 April 2002 then Acting Commander Burn gave an explanation as to why so many people were on the warrant but were not referred to in the affidavit.

The bizarre explanation given by Ms Burn was that many of them would come in contact with people who were legitimate targets and, therefore, may have their conversations recorded. Putting to one side the fact that this has never been accepted as a proper basis for obtaining a listening device warrant against someone, there is a fundamental factual problem with this explanation. Thirty of the people on the list were said to be legitimately included by Ms Burn because they were on the "King send-off list", that is, they would be going to the function for the send-off of former Detective Sergeant King. However, that function was held on 30 June 2000, more than two months before the warrant was issued. I have seen a statutory declaration to that effect. On the same day as Ms Burn issued her memorandum, former Commissioner Ryan was interviewed by 60 Minutes. He was asked why so many police had been included on this warrant. He said:
      ... it's in relation to an investigation that's going on through the Integrity Commission at the moment with an operative called M5. What happens is an undercover agent has a tape recorder. We must obtain a warrant for that tape recorder to be used in the presence of another person. From what I can gather, the officer was going to a function at which a lot of other people would be present.

The interviewer said, "Oh, I see." Commissioner Ryan continued:
      And therefore, he may be talking to 100 people, all of whom had to be named in the warrant.
On 30 June 2003 then Superintendent Burn was interviewed by police in an electronic interview of a suspect person [ERISP]. She was asked:
      Q6: O.K. All right, O.K. In relation to the listening device warrants, were you aware of the comments made by former Commissioner of Police Ryan on 60 Minutes, can you recall that?

      A: 60 Minutes?

      Q7: Yes, can you recall those?

      A: No.

      Q8: He states that the warrant related to a function ...

      A: O.K.

      Ql77: ... that all persons would be attending.

      A: Ah hmm.

      Q9: Have you any comment to make about that statement that he has made?

      A: I have no idea why he said it, I'd say he wasn't briefed.

      Q10: Well, is that statement true?

      A: No.

      Q11: Why would he make a statement such as that?

      A: I don't know, you'd have to ask him.

      Q12: Do you know who briefed him in relation to ...

      A: I have no idea.
This is the woman who drafted the memorandum on the same day as Commissioner Ryan's 60 Minutes interview. In 2003-04 an investigation under the name of Strike Force Emblems was undertaken in relation to Operation Mascot and its obtaining of a listening device warrant on 14 September 2000. That report was scathing of the explanation given by Ms Burn, as repeated by former Commissioner Ryan. In relation to the explanation that named persons were on a warrant, Strike Force Emblems found persons on the warrant did not attend any function during the period of the warrant or with other persons named on the warrant. They were not in a position to contact M5 or others during the periods of the subject warrants, which is confirmed by respective duty book entries. In relation to the conduct of Operation Mascot in obtaining the warrants, Strike Force Emblems found:
      It is the opinion of strike force investigators based on limited material reviewed and those persons interviewed, that there is an overwhelming inference to indicate criminal allegations in that the subject affidavit may contain false information and there has been an abuse of due process. The warrant was not in the 'spirit' of the legislation. There is certainly a large amount of doubt as to the operational activities of M5 and the legalities of how the informant was deployed. This raises serious questions impacting on the propriety of the affidavit/s.
I sought to ask Deputy Commissioner Burn questions about this in budget estimates, but the matter was deferred to obtain legal advice. Just this week the Government teamed up with the Shooters and Fishers Party to shut down any further questioning of Deputy Commissioner Burn. Ms Burn, as Deputy Commissioner, holds the second most senior rank of any police officer in this State. Instead of holding a public inquiry the Government referred the matter to the Ombudsman for inquiry—what will now be a secret hearing under new statutory secrecy provisions that the Government put on the statute book today.

This matter will not go away. Deputy Commissioner Burn owes the public an explanation for how on oath, in an explanation given to internal police investigators, she denied any knowledge of how it was that the then police commissioner had given the very explanation she provided in a memorandum to police to 60 Minutes and to the public. To date the only explanation that the public has been given about how this extraordinary warrant was obtained is that of former Commissioner Ryan. We now see that that was founded on a memorandum provided by Deputy Commissioner Burn but she denied any knowledge of it under oath which is extraordinary. [Time expired.]

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Bugging bombshell as secret files revealed

Date September 9 2012
Reporter Neil Mercer

Hundreds of pages of secret NSW police documents contain allegations of "systemic corruption and mismanagement" by some officers within the force’s internal affairs unit, the so-called "white knights".





Police report confirms 'bugging' rumours An internal report from NSW police confirms that a secretive police unit spied on more than 100 officers and may have used listening devices illegally. Neil Mercer reports.
Documents obtained by The Sun-Herald, allege some officers in Special Crime and Internal Affairs - or SCIA - falsified information to obtain listening devices, telephone intercepts and search warrants and, in one case, induced a criminal to commit perjury in front of a magistrate.
I smelt a rat … I was settling old scores  
They also show that Parliament, the public and rank-and-file police have been repeatedly misled about the reasons why one listening device warrant contained the names of 112 serving and former police and two civilians, including a journalist.

They also show that Parliament, the public and rank-and-file police have been repeatedly misled about the reasons why one listening device warrant contained the names of 112 serving and former police and two civilians, including a journalist.

Former detective inspector Malcolm Brammer (left) and former detective sergeant John Dolan in 1991. Photo: David Porter

 In that case, many officers, including the present deputy commissioner Nick Kaldas, believed they were victims of a personal "vendetta'' by officers within SCIA.

And M5 - the corrupt officer turned undercover operator who secretly taped his colleagues - agreed. He told investigators: "I was assisting, nurturing corruption." He also said: ''I smelt a rat … I was settling old scores which related to my supervising Superintendent."

The bombshell allegations are contained in long-suppressed reports of internal strike forces code-named Sibutu, Tumen and Emblems, which were established to investigate complaints made about SCIA between 1997 and 2002.

The Sun-Herald has now seen copies of all three reports, which the police hierarchy and successive governments have refused to release.

Strike Force Emblems was set up in 2003 to investigate a controversial listening-device warrant approved in September, 2000. It contained the names of 112 serving and former police and two civilians - and it was one of dozens sought by SCIA officers and the NSW Crime Commission, which were running a covert inquiry into police corruption, Operation Mascot.

But its net was so wide that it placed under surveillance dozens of honest officers, including the current deputy commissioner Nick Kaldas, Detective Inspector Wayne Hayes, Assistant Commissioner Ken Mackay, and Detective Superintendent Paul Jones.

The key player in Operation Mascot was a corrupt NSW cop, code-named M5, who wore a listening device for two and a half years and recorded hundreds of conversations with his colleagues. His home was also bugged, as was his car, his briefcase and his mobile phone.

The Emblems report says eight SCIA officers, including its then boss, Assistant Commissioner Mal Brammer, his deputy Superintendent John Dolan and then acting Inspector Cath Burn were among those investigated. Ms Burn is now Mr Kaldas's fellow deputy commissioner, and both are touted as potential commissioners. Emblems does not make any findings against any particular officer.

It says its inquiries were hampered by the refusal of the NSW Crime Commission to hand over crucial documents, including affidavits, and it therefore could not reach definitive conclusions.
Nevertheless, it found:

There were clear indications that "criminal conduct may have occurred surrounding the affidavit".
On the available evidence there was no justification for 54 serving and former police and the journalist Steve Barrett being placed on the listening-device warrant.

Previous Strike Forces Sibutu, Tumen and Operation Banks had identified "systemic corruption and mismanagement" within SCIA in relation to listening devices, telephone intercepts and search warrants. Serious adverse findings of corruption had been found against senior officers attached to SCIA.

Strike Force Emblems suspected similar "alleged corruption". It reveals M5 became disillusioned with his SCIA handlers and believed they were sending him to record conversations with honest police in a bid to settle old scores. It is believed one of those was Mr Kaldas.

It is well known in police circles that at one stage, Mr Kaldas and John Dolan had a serious disagreement. Emblems says that, about a month after that confrontation, M5 approached Mr Kaldas, who then became suspicious and reported the matter to the then deputy commissioner, Ken Moroney.
M5, who worked undercover between February 1999 and mid-2001, said: "I was sent by my supervising Superintendent to a particular person five or six times, I smelt a rat … I was settling old scores.'' He said he was uncertain of the true motives of those supervising him.
 
Mr Brammer, who left the force in mid-2002, yesterday denied any wrongdoing and strenuously denied any knowledge of a vendetta. [See separate story.]

Mr Brammer has been the subject of adverse findings in previous internal police reports, including for "untruthfulness" a "manifest conflict of interest" as well as "bias" and "a lack of fairness". One inquiry found he allegedly perverted the course of justice by improperly arranging an internal investigation against an officer.

Mr Dolan, who has also left the force, could not be reached for comment.

Mr Brammer has previously said Operation Mascot was run with the full co-operation and supervision of the Crime Commission and the Police Integrity Commission. He said the current Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, was involved at the time and he knew of no improper conduct by Ms Burn or anyone else.

At least one former SCIA officer has raised the "vendetta" allegation. In a formal record of interview with one of Emblems' predecessors, Strike Force Tumen, the detective Paul Albury says he thought the targeting of Mr Kaldas was based more on a "personal vendetta" rather than any evidence.

The officer says there was deep concern by some within the unit that serving and former officers were being targeted on the basis of "third and fourth-person hearsay''.

The previous Labor government and the O'Farrell government have refused to release the Emblems report, despite the current police minister, Mike Gallacher, pushing for its release while in opposition.
The Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission, David Levine, has been asked by the State Government to investigate whether the Strike Force Emblems report can be released. He is currently working his way though documents provided to him by NSW Police and the Crime Commission. It is not known when his inquiry will be completed.

Some former detectives named on the warrant believe he has not been given the resources needed to get to the bottom of the long-running saga. They believe an independent judicial inquiry is required - free of police intervention.

They say the Police Integrity Commission is disqualified from investigating the matter because it was intimately involved with SCIA and the Crime Commission in Operation Mascot from an early stage.
Strike Force Emblems interviewed 35 people who complained about their names being on the warrant. Emblems found there was no justification for 22 of those, including Mr Kaldas, being on the warrant. Overall, it found that of the 114 people named, there was probably no justification for 54 of them being on it.

"The use of 114 names on the subject listening device is an abuse of process and not in the 'spirit' of the legislation. It is not conceivable each person would be part of a conversation over a 21-day period."

(Warrants are approved for 21 days. Police need to reapply if they want to continue bugging).
Many other police named on the warrant are respected and senior detectives. The vast majority have never been told why they appeared on the warrant, let alone questioned or charged.

Emblems investigators said their inquiries were hampered because the then head of the NSW Crime Commission, Phil Bradley, after initially agreeing to co-operate, refused to hand over crucial documents. These included affidavits which were presented to the Supreme Court to support the application for the listening device.

Strike force investigators, which included five detective inspectors, clearly found themselves under intense pressure and took the extraordinary step of recording their fears that they may be subject to "payback''.

"Although there is no evidence of a 'payback' or 'reprisal', the nature of the Strike Force Emblems investigation, with the alleged corruption identified, indicates there is a potential for retribution against Strike Force members," the Emblems report said.

Investigators also reveal they were directed to be less than truthful with the 35 people who formally complained about their names being on the warrant.

It says they were "instructed" to tell complainants ''we are working towards obtaining the affidavit''.
"At no time have the complainants been informed that the affidavit has been refused or that the Crime Commission is being obstructive."

The Sun-Herald asked Mr Scipione, Ms Burn and Mr Kaldas for comment.

Through a spokesman, Mr Kaldas said he was "unable to comment".

Ms Burn did not wish to comment, except to say she had never been the commander of SCIA.

The Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, said: ''All matters relating to Strike Force Emblems and any associated materials have been referred to the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission. NSW Police has provided all materials asked for by the inspector.''

I WAS CLEARED SAID MAL BREMMER

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Not even the state's top cop was immune from culture of surveillance

On the eve of the Sydney Olympics undercover police were watching many senior officers, including Peter Ryan.
Wide net ... former commissioner Peter Ryan and his then wife, Adrienne. Photo: Steve Lunam

It was Christmas, 1999, and NSW police commissioner Peter Ryan was winding down after a hectic year. With his then wife, Adrienne, he was enjoying a few drinks after work at the Marriott Hotel, a short walk from police headquarters in College Street in the city.

Unbeknown to Ryan, he and his wife were under surveillance. Not by the dark forces of organised crime, but one of his own officers, an undercover cop known as ''Joe'' who was working for Special Crime and Internal Affairs, commonly known as SCIA.

It was Christmas, 1999, and NSW police commissioner Peter Ryan was winding down after a hectic year. With his then wife, Adrienne, he was enjoying a few drinks after work at the Marriott Hotel, a short walk from police headquarters in College Street in the city.

Unbeknown to Ryan, he and his wife were under surveillance. Not by the dark forces of organised crime, but one of his own officers, an undercover cop known as ''Joe'' who was working for Special Crime and Internal Affairs, commonly known as SCIA.
"Someone was troubled because in 2002 the warrant leaked to the media."
SCIA's job? To root out corruption. It was supposed to operate to the highest ethical standards.

Undercover police officers ... known as only "Jessie" and "Joe". Photo: Brendan Esposito
The surveillance of the state's top cop had been ordered by the then head of SCIA, assistant commissioner Mal Brammer, who believed the Ryans, under the influence of alcohol, might be loose-lipped about confidential police affairs.

Clive Small
Any way you look at it, it was extraordinary. But it was not the first time SCIA, under Brammer, had been involved in highly questionable surveillance of some of the force's most senior ranks.

Earlier that year, Joe and his partner ''Jessie'' - another undercover, or ''UC'' as they are known in the trade - had spent weeks trying to gather dirt on assistant commissioner Clive Small, then head of crime agencies and in charge of squads such as homicide, armed robbery, sexual assault and fraud.

The jailed murderer and notorious crime figure Neddy Smith had alleged Small had formed an improper relationship with a Sydney organised crime figure and well-known drug trafficker, Michael Hurley, and that they were meeting at the Woolwich Pier Hotel in Hunters Hill.

Deborah Wallace. Photo: Wolter Peeters
The surveillance ran from January 22 until March 12, 1999.

It turned up three parts of, well, nothing, because neither Small nor Hurley ever appeared at the pub. As Joe and Jessie later remarked, at least the food was good. Small was never even interviewed about the allegation.

Just weeks before they started watching Small, Jessie had been tasked by her superior in SCIA with watching another officer, Detective Inspector Deborah Wallace, who at that time was working for SCIA. That operation ran from May5 to December16, 1998, and involved Jessie joining the same gym as Inspector Wallace.

Like the surveillance of the Ryans and Small, it turned up nothing. There was simply no evidence that any of them had done anything improper.

As Jessie later remarked: ''It was ridiculous. She [Wallace] was just there to do aerobics.'' Despite it lasting seven months, senior SCIA officers later said they could not recall Jessie being told to watch Wallace.
We know of these three SCIA surveillance operations, from May 1998 to early 2000, because the two undercover police involved, Joe and Jessie, later told their story to Clive Small, the man they had been told was meeting Hurley at the Woolwich Pier.

Small, now retired, and his co-author Tom Gilling revealed the extraordinary saga in their book Betrayed, published in 2010.

Remarkably, the assertion that an ''out of control'' SCIA under Brammer had put its own commissioner, among others, under surveillance did not garner any publicity in the media.

Nor was there any reaction from NSW Police headquarters or the Police Integrity Commission, which is supposed to take a keen interest in allegations of wrongdoing and improper conduct.

But all these years later, those operations have become relevant because of an aspect of another controversial SCIA investigation that did hit the headlines.
Mal Brammer. Photo: Nick Moir

It was called Operation Florida and it started in early 1999.

At its centre was a corrupt NSW police officer, code-named M5, who ''rolled over'' and, wearing a listening device, secretly recorded dozens of his colleagues to obtain evidence of corruption.

At first it was a covert operation run by police from SCIA and the secretive NSW Crime Commission.

By July 2000, Florida had gathered a large amount of evidence of serious police corruption and the Police Integrity Commission joined the still-secret investigation.

As the then boss of the PIC, Terry Griffin, told a parliamentary committee, ''Operation Florida … is a joint effort between the [Police Integrity] Commission, the NSW Police and the [NSW] Crime Commission.''

For M5 to legally record the conversations, approval for him to wear a listening device had to be sought from the NSW Supreme Court. On September14, 2000, Justice Virginia Bell approved NSW Crime Commission listening device warrant number 266 of 2000.

Nothing unusual about that, you might think. But in fact the warrant was highly unusual in that it gave approval for M5 to record conversations with no fewer than 114 serving and former police and two civilians, including a journalist.

Some of those named, about 15 or so, were undoubtedly corrupt. But many of those named on the warrant were officers with unblemished records. Among them were Nick Kaldas, now a deputy commissioner, and Bob Inkster, a distinguished detective now retired. Many others are still serving in some of the most senior positions in the NSW Police.

At the time, the names on the warrant were obviously unknown except to a handful of people within SCIA and the crime commission.

But clearly, someone with inside knowledge was troubled by what had happened, because in April 2002 the warrant leaked to the media and all hell broke loose. Many named on the warrant were senior investigators. They were furious.

A copy of the warrant found its way to journalist Steve Barrett, a crime reporter with some of the best police contacts in the country.

Barrett recalled last week how he read through the names with growing amazement, saying to himself, ''Know that one, know that one,'' until he came to a name he knew very well - his own. He complained in writing the next day to the NSW attorney-general.

Such was the outcry that Ryan, then in his last days as commissioner, went on Channel Nine's 60 Minutes.

''From what I can gather, the officer [M5] was going to a function at which a lot of people would be present and therefore he may be talking to a hundred people, all of whom had to be named in the warrant.''

Reporter: ''I see, so it wasn't aninvestigation of 110-odd individuals?''

Ryan: ''Oh no. No. If I was at that function my name would have probably been on the warrant, too.''
From the outset, nobody believed it. ''Absolute bullshit,'' was the reaction of more than one senior detective, and they had good cause to be sceptical. The date on the warrant was September 14, 2000.

September15 was the opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympics. Police leave had been cancelled. It was all hands on deck.

Further proof that the ''social function'' explanation didn't hold water emerged when another, almost identical warrant with 113 names was leaked. It was dated April 4, 2000.

Even by NSW Police standards, a social function lasting more than five months is one almighty piss-up.

According to some of those on the warrant, Ryan was misled. So who was behind the warrant?
Tim Sage, then assistant commissioner of the PIC, distanced his organisation. He told a parliamentary committee in May 2002, ''They are not integrity commission warrants.''

Asked who applied for them, he said: ''The officers of Special Crime and Internal Affairs attached to the NSW Crime Commission.''

In other words, officers under the command of Brammer, who was also in charge when the undercover cops Joe and Jessie undertook the dubious surveillance of Ryan, Small and Wallace.

While Brammer and others involved have retired, one officer has since risen in the ranks. Catherine Burn, an acting inspector in SCIA at the time the warrants were obtained, is now a deputy commissioner - along with Kaldas, whose name appeared on the warrant.

Brammer has vigorously rejected any allegation of wrongdoing. In relation to what became known as Operation Florida, he says there was oversight of him and his officers by Peter Ryan and the then head of the crime commission, Phil Bradley.

He also says the current Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, was intimately involved.

''I would also suggest on reasonable grounds Commissioner Scipione in his role as chief of staff to Commissioner Ryan and later as the Commander Special Crime and Internal Affairs had informed knowledge and more than a passing interest in the investigation and its various activities, more particularly from December 2000 when he was nominated by Commissioner Ryan as the next Commander Special Crime and Internal Affairs which he took up and exercised in April 2001,'' Brammer says.

Brammer says PIC officers also had ''day-to-day interaction with the investigators at the Crime Commission and access to information. This included examination of listening device and telephone interception documentation to ensure the product could be legally used by them.''

In regard to the controversial listening device warrants, Brammer says that ''at no time was I involved in directing, preparing or approving the affidavit or any other affidavits prepared under the auspices of the NSW Crime Commission.''

''I might also add I am not aware of any evidence or tangible allegations of impropriety on the part of any of the NSW Police officers involved in the investigation, including Deputy Commissioner Burn.''
He says any suggestion he acted improperly in regards to the issue and execution of the listening device warrant was ''false and mischievous.''

Ms Burn declined to comment, saying through a spokesman on Friday that it would be ''inappropriate'' while the Inspector of the PIC, David Levine, QC, was investigating the matter. It's not the first investigation of the controversial warrants. In April 2002, the then inspector of the PIC, Merv Finlay, QC, found the warrants were justifiably sought and complied with legislation.

But such was the outcry by so many senior and experienced police that in July 2003, Strike Force Emblems was formed to look at seven complaints about the warrant and SCIA from the Police Association. (The final Strike Force Emblems report has never been made public. Levine has been asked by the state government to see whether it should be.)

What we do know is that in a letter to the association in May 2004, Emblems investigator Detective Inspector Mark Galletta said among the complaints investigated were the:

❏ ''Impropriety regarding listening device warrant numbers 95 of 2000 dated 4 April, 2000, and number 266 … dated 14 September, 2000.

❏ ''Failure by NSW Police to process and deal with complaints relating to then Commanders, Assistant Commissioner Brammer, Detective Superintendent [John] Dolan and Superintendent [Catherine] Burn.

❏ ''Unacceptable operational risk taking - strategies concerning the deployment and management of M5.

❏''Breakdown of relations between the [crime commission] and the NSW Police.''

Strike Force Emblems was an experienced team. Of its eight staff, five were detective inspectors.
A total of 35 of those named on the warrants formally complained to Emblems and were interviewed.

While those on the warrant vented their fury, those NSW police from SCIA involved in obtaining the Florida warrant remained tight-lipped. Attached to the secretive and largely unaccountable crime commission, they invoked the commission's secrecy provisions. Nor could investigators get access to the sworn affidavits that allegedly justified the 114 names.

Inspector Galletta's letter outlined the problem. ''After protracted negotiations between the NSW Police and the NSW Crime Commission, including representations made by Ian Temby, QC, the subject affidavit and associated material has not been obtained.

''This restriction, coupled with NSW Crime Commission legislative requirements (S.29 secrecy provisions) saw investigators unable to interview police that were part of the NSWCC Florida reference.

''This included the deponents of the subject warrant and/or involved officers in the investigation.''
In other words, the NSW police from SCIA did not have to answer any questions from their colleagues in Strike Force Emblems. This appears to fly in the face of section 27 of the NSW Crime Commission Act which states that NSW police task forces attached to the commission are ''subject to the control and direction of the Commissioner of Police''.

Nevertheless, Galletta said: ''Investigators objectively concluded that there were persons whose inclusion on the subject warrants may not have been justified …''

The invoking of the secrecy provisions further enraged many of the detectives named in the warrants who saw it as further evidence of double standards: if they did something questionable they were hauled over the coals. If SCIA did the same thing, it was allowed to ''go through to the 'keeper'.''

One of the 35 who formally complained, a former detective posed this question in his complaint to Emblems: ''Have the NSW Police, NSW Crime Commission and Police Integrity Commission for their organisational, personal and collective interests knowingly and corruptly withheld their knowledge of misconduct, unethical and unlawful actions by members of SCIA?''

He also referred to yet another SCIA operation that in mid-1998 targeted alleged police corruption in the NSW town of Young.

It was called Operation Banks.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported in March 2001 that it was sparked by suspicions that some local police were involved in drug dealing with members of the Rebels outlaw motorcycle gang.

Initially hailed as a triumph, it backfired badly. The Herald reported in July 2001 that criminal charges against one man for supplying a kilogram of cannabis were dropped after ''police legal advisers revealed that Internal Affairs officers lied to Supreme Court judges to get search warrants and permission to install listening devices''.

A police officer suspended for 26 months and reinstated complained. An investigation into that complaint found affidavits supplied to Justice Hubert Bell and Justice Graeme Barr to obtain search warrants and listening devices were flawed. ''A large amount of exculpatory evidence from the source documents was omitted from the affidavits,'' the investigation found. ''This resulted in affidavits which were not balanced, and therefore misleading. In one particular area, the affidavits were false.''

In their book Betrayed, Small and Gilling reveal adverse findings were made against seven officers from SCIA involved in Banks. The NSW Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to proceed with criminal charges of perverting the course of justice against some of them.

Eight internal police investigations were launched into complaints about the operations and management of SCIA under Brammer.

As Betrayed revealed, one of them found Brammer had a ''manifest conflict of interest'' in one operation and that he allegedly perverted the course of justice by improperly arranging an internal investigation against an officer. Another quite separate inquiry into the reform process found Brammer ''was affected by bias'' and that he had shown ''a lack of fairness''.

It appears there has been scant interest from the PIC in looking at SCIA's behaviour from a ''big picture'' point of view.

Many former and serving police believe it was compromised because it worked hand in glove with Brammer and SCIA for years in Operation Florida. (The PIC's Florida inquiry, with M5 its star witness, sat in public for 78 days, heard from 99 witnesses, 32 of whom were serving officers.

Fourteen of those left the police, 11 as a result of Florida. It took evidence of wrongdoing that dated from the 1980s to 2001.)

The former officer who wrote to Emblems said: ''Prima facie, there have been numerous NSW Police investigations and inquiries into the allegations of systematic misconduct, unethical and criminal behaviour on behalf of Brammer during his command of SCIA.

''It is beyond belief that these historic and current investigations are unintentionally being isolated, treated as independent, separate or coincidental of each other.''

Relations between the police and the PIC are at a low ebb. The PIC's previous inspector, Peter Moss, QC, repeatedly criticised its investigations as being grossly unfair and biased. In some cases, evidence exculpatory to the officer being investigated had been ignored.

Levine is reviewing the recommendations of Strike Force Emblems but how far his inquiries might go is unclear.

The Police Association recently passed a motion of no confidence in the PIC and called for the Emblems report to be released.

Twelve years after the listening device warrant was obtained, old closet doors are rattling.
At least 100 cops are waiting and watching to see how far Levine is able to open them.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

MPs demand answers on police bugs

By Heath Aston Political reporter Date May 20 2012

Police Minister Mike Gallacher ... the Police Association, at its recent conference, called on the minister to order the "direct release of the report of Task Force Emblems". Photo: Max Mason-Hubers

THE inspector of the Police Integrity Commission will face questions tomorrow about why a report into a secret operation to bug more than 100 of the force's own officers has remained buried for a decade.

David Levine, QC, the inspector of PIC, will front a parliamentary committee at State Parliament and will be asked about the status of the report into Strike Force Emblems.

Emblems investigated an internal affairs operation in which a former corrupt policeman, codenamed M5, used a listening device to gather evidence against colleagues in 2000. More than 100 police officers and some civilians, including a lawyer and a journalist, were approved as targets for surveillance. But there have been questions over the legitimacy of the warrants approving M5's targets.

The Sun-Herald understands one officer on the list was already dead.

Operation Mascot, led by former internal affairs chief Mal Brammer and his assistant, Sergeant Catherine Burn, now a deputy commissioner, targeted some of the force's brightest and best.

Senior police such as Nick Kaldas - a current deputy commissioner - were on the warrants, as were the former commander of Taskforce Gain, Bob Inkster, and Mike Hagan, Brian Harding and Dennis Gilligan, now a lawyer. No one has been told why they were under surveillance.

The Police Association, at its recent conference, called on the Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, to order the ''direct release of the report of Task Force Emblems''.

Catherine Cusack, the Liberal MP who chairs the statutory committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the PIC, said she was keen to get an answer on Emblems from Mr Devine, who has asked to take at least some of the hearing in-camera.

''We will have a lot of questions about the report,'' she said. ''For committee proceedings, the onus is always in favour of public disclosure.''

Mr Gallacher, who asked for the report to be made public while in opposition, has now referred it to Mr Levine, despite the PIC watchdog having already reviewed it in April 2002.

A spokesman for Mr Gallacher said he was committed to resolving the concerns without compromising ''sensitive police operations''. He said the government had already given the new PIC inspector powers to release reports such as Emblems.

''These powers were not available to the PIC inspector who previously examined the matter of the warrants. The minister did not think it appropriate to order the release of sensitive investigations himself. It should be properly reviewed by the appropriate authority.''