Bribes drug dealer jailed for eight years

By Sarah Crichton
May 31 2002

A heroin dealer who once said he gave corrupt police "so much money that I really can't remember" was sentenced to a maximum eight years' jail yesterday.

Judge David Shillington said he would have sentenced Vincent Caccamo to 15 years for the charges of drug supplying were it not for the assistance he had offered and would continue to offer to police.

As a result Caccamo, 45, would face hardship in prison, where he would be in protective custody. His family - in court for his sentencing - was also at risk, the judge remarked.

Caccamo pleaded guilty to charges of supplying a large commercial quantity of heroin, 1.22 kilograms, and supplying 1.28 kilograms of cannabis in 2000. He also pleaded guilty to supplying a commercial quantity of heroin in 1999.

Caccamo's daughter wept quietly in court as the judge ruled that her father would not be eligible for parole before September 30, 2006.

A heroin user and seller since 1985, Caccamo gave evidence to the Police Integrity Commission last year at the end of the long-running Operation Florida into corrupt police on Sydney's northern beaches.

His evidence was instrumental in charges being brought against three Manly detectives - former crime manager detective sergeant Ray Peattie, who was jailed earlier this month for accepting bribes from other corrupt police, and detectives Matthew Jasper and David Patison. Both Jasper and Patison face charges as a result of the investigation but have yet to enter pleas.

Caccamo told the PIC of the tens of thousands of dollars he had paid police to protect his business since 1989, when Peattie claimed payment for charging him with only minor drug possession instead of a more serious supply charge.

He told the commission he knew of other dealers who had paid police, including one who had been "dealing for 20 years open house - you can't do that without protection".

NSW District Court heard yesterday that Jasper and Patison had stolen cash after arresting Caccamo and had been bribed to have the charges dropped.

Payment by was a mystery, PIC told

By Malcolm Brown

August 17 2002

The "Meltdown Man", a police informer permanently scarred by a botched arson job, gave evidence to the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) yesterday that he was given one reward payment without knowing what it was for.

The Meltdown Man, known in PIC proceedings as M13, said the payment, given to him in 1998 by senior detective Dennis Peter "Doodles" O'Toole in a coffee shop near the Sydney Police Centre in Surry Hills, was "clouded".

Mr O'Toole had handed him a piece of paper to sign and had then handed him $250 in a cigarette packet. The Meltdown Man assumed he had signed the paper as an authorisation for Mr O'Toole to give him the money.

He had told investigators recently that he suspected it had been a reward Mr O'Toole had negotiated for him for information he had or was purported to have given and that Mr O'Toole had pocketed the rest.

The Meltdown Man said he had first encountered Mr O'Toole in 1976 when Mr O'Toole and other police had arrested him on a break-and-enter charge.


Mr O'Toole and another police officer had introduced themselves by taking him back to North Sydney police station and beating him up.

The Meltdown Man had not complained about his beating and had become an informant for Mr O'Toole over the years. He had received legitimate reward money, including $1600 in 1996 for giving information on a jewellery robbery.

Questioned yesterday by Chris O'Donnell, counsel assisting the Police Integrity Commission, the Meltdown Man said he did not know what the $250 was for and it "may have been" for information Mr O'Toole had purported that he had given when he had not.
`
He said that in 1993 Mr O'Toole had contacted him and asked him to do "a favour", which was to make false statements that would assist another detective, James King, beat a drink-drive charge. The Meltdown Man had done so, including giving perjured evidence, and Mr King had beaten the charge.
The hearing resumes on Monday.

Police Chronology 2001-2002

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

FOUR CORNERS

Investigative TV journalism at its best

View events in the NSW Police Force since "Directing Traffic" aired in October 2001.

2001
Oct. 11	Vincent Caccamo gives evidence at the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) saying that during a 10 month period to December 2000, he paid detectives David Patison and Matthew Jasper at least $92,000 in cash. The PIC was also told that the men had taken bribes from at least four other long-term drug dealers since the early 1990s. Mr Caccamo tells Acting PIC Commissioner Tim Sage that Sergeant Peattie had first taken money from him in 1989 as payment for downgrading charges.
Oct. 17	Sergeant Raymond Peattie, the chief of Manly detectives becomes the first police officer to roll over at the corruption inquiry, confessing to a career of corruption that began in 1980. Peattie admits to bribe taking and verballing as well as stealing money from drug dealers, including $8,000 on one occasion.
Oct. 19	The Police Integrity Commission is told that Manly detective Matthew Jasper commissioned a convicted housebreaker to burgle an acquaintance's house on Sydney's North Shore. Constable Jasper denies arranging the robbery but has admitted to stealing more than $40,000 from drug dealers.
Oct. 20	After 24 years in the service, David Marshall Hill tells the Police Integrity Commission he was no longer fit to be a policeman and would resign as soon as he could. He said that he had first taken a bribe eight to ten years ago, during his time with the North Region Major Crime Squad. Hill testifies that he had not taken any more money until June 21 last year.
Nov. 19	Paul Whelan announces he will resign from the police portfolio.
Nov. 21	Michael Costa, formerly of the Labor Council, is sworn in as the new Police Minister.
Dec. 4	The Sydney Morning Herald reports that former chief of detectives at Manly, Ray Peattie, has written an open letter of apology to Commissioner Peter Ryan and the entire police service. Peattie formally resigns and offers to take part in anti-corruption education programs for new officers saying, "I only pray that through my exposure, others will be prevented from following this disgraceful path that I have taken".
Dec. 5	The Australian reports that NSW Police Commissioner Peter Ryan plans to take up an offer by Ray Peattie to help weed out corrupt colleagues and teach young officers how to resist greed. New Police Minister Michael Costa also vows to restore morale in the service, which he says is at an all-time low. Measures are to be introduced into State parliament that will streamline the police promotions system to make it more corruption resistant.
Dec. 12	On his third day of evidence, Manly detective David Patison tells the Police Integrity Commission that after eight years of corruption in the armed hold-up and drug squads, he vowed to go straight when he returned to Manly as a suburban policeman in 1996. Patison blames his relapse in 1999 on overwork and lack of support and transfer opportunities. He also says there was a culture of corruption in the North Sydney drug squad. Patison also tells the Police Integrity Commission that putting officers to the test more often would help minimise corruption.
Dec. 13	Detective David Patison confesses to the Police Integrity Commission that he sold a police badge for around $2000 to a drug dealer in 1997. Patison says the drug dealer planned to use the badge at rave parties to pretend to be a cop and confiscate drugs.
2002
Jan. 30	Detective Sergeant Mark Messenger admits to taking bribes amounting to a total of $1500 on four occasions between June and October 2000 from M5, a fellow detective and undercover officer working for Internal Affairs. Sergeant Messenger tells the Police Integrity Commission he had twice taken a bribe of "a couple of hundred dollars" after sanctioning money stolen during a drug raid. Sergeant Messenger is currently suspended from service but has stated he has no intention of resigning.
April 10	NSW Police Commissioner, Peter Ryan resigns.
April 19	Ray Peattie appears before the NSW District Court for sentencing. Peattie says that "I thought by us taking their money we were inhibiting their ability to steal drugs." Judge Michael Finnane defers the matter for mention in Sydney District Court in a week and says that Peattie is the first police officer he has heard who has given evidence about corruption in the force that sounded honest.
May 3	Ray Peattie is imprisoned for a minimum of 12 months maximum four years after pleading guilty to four counts of receiving bribes from corrupt officers. Peattie's jail term is the first to result from the Police Integrity Commission's anti-corruption investigations. Judge Michael Finnane notes that since Peattie resigned from the force in 2001 he has shown himself to be a "genuine…,quite exceptional" man who had given valuable information to anti-corruption investigations, made a public apology and participated in a police training video on the perils of corruption. Judge Finnane says "he was weak and, rather than carry out his duty, he gave in to the police culture and … took the money." Ray Peattie was initially sentenced to a total of eight years' imprisonment but District Court Judge Michael Finnane found Peattie warranted a substantial discount in his sentence because he had not only admitted his guilt but had been honest and provided fresh evidence on other corrupt police.
May 8	Another NSW Detective codenamed F7 admits his corruption to the Police Integrity Commission. He also suggests that almost the entire Major Crime Squad North at the time was party to corruption of some sort.
May 31	A long-serving detective codenamed F7 admits to the PIC that for much of his 22 years in the service he was a thief, a liar, a perjuror and a perverter of the course of justice. He also admits to lying to courts since the 1980s.
June 3	Inspector Kim Dowding admits to dumping firearms in the Hawkesbury River in 1995. He says he disposed of the firearms with the assistance of M5 after conducting a sweep of the officers' lockers at Major Crime Squad North in Chatswood. He says he was told by the then commander, Ron Smith, to make sure there wasn't any incriminating evidence at the station while a royal commission into the NSW Police was investigating. They also dumped another lot under the Roseville Bridge.
June 4	An officer codenamed N1 names eight detectives apart from himself - the entire hold-up unit - who he says kept secret gun caches and used them to load up suspects. N1 tells the PIC that the detectives would confiscate the guns in raids and hide them in their lockers in case they needed one for planting during arrest, that if officers were "short of a gallop" they would use guns as more evidence to "tip it over". When the alleged offenders were brought back to the station they were then verballed.
June 11	On his first day of evidence, M5, a former member of major crime squad north armed hold-up unit says that bashing offenders, loading them with weapons and writing up false statements under the eyes of senior officers was common practice. Detective Superintendent Ron Smith admits he acted improperly in not reporting two subordinates who used his fishing boat to dump illegal weapons, but denies knowing about the illegal weapons at the time. He also denies knowing of any load-ups, verballing, swearing of false statements and records of interview and perjury.
June 17	Dennis O'Toole, a Senior Sergeant of the armed hold-up unit tells the PIC he knew nothing about the guns kept for the "load-ups" being thrown in the Hawkesbury in 1995, and the allegations recorded accusing him of planting a gun was "drunken banter".
July 10	M5 tells the Police Integrity Commission that the seizing of illegitimate cash on jobs happened so often that he even received a share when he was on vacation. M5 said that he was briefed on what was expected of him when he started at the North Sydney drug unit in 1992.
October 4	Former Manly detective David Patison pleads guilty in the Supreme Court to a string of charges including taking bribes and supplying heroin. Patison had earlier pleaded guilty to most of the 10 charges in the District Court.

The .38 Colt: used by Wild West heroes and bent cops alike

By Philip Cornford

June 6 2002

The .38-calibre, long-barrelled Colt was an ancient, rusting "Wild Bill Hickok" revolver. But it was still a useful exhibit for detectives from three major crime squads.

F7, a confessed crooked cop and perjurer turned Police Integrity Commission informer, got the revolver from an illegal cache of weapons kept by his mates in the Northwest Region Crime Squad at Parramatta.

The Colt went into the "future exhibits" locker at the Major Crime Squad North at Chatswood, awaiting a victim.

Finally, it was given to the South Region Crime Squad based at Surry Hills, where it was used to "load up" criminal suspect A2 with false evidence, F7 testified yesterday.

"Esho [Peter Ehsman from South Region] rang up and said, `We need a gun'," F7 laments in a secretly taped conversation.

"That was a bloody keepsake. Wild Bill Hickok [1837-76] had that one.

"If they needed an illegal exhibit, we would have given it to them."

The "future exhibits" locker at Chatswood was a Pandora's Box of illegal evidence, including masks, balaclavas and disguises. Northwest and South regions "would have had a locker like we had", F7 said.

At Chatswood, it was the property of the armed hold-up squad, to which F7 belonged. But the other squads knew about it, he said. It contained about a dozen firearms, including shortened Ruger rifles and shotguns, weapons favoured by armed robbers.

Illegal hand guns were kept separately, hidden beneath the locker, because they "didn't want them to go missing" because they were "scarce" and "hard to get".

F7 testified that illegal Uzi machine pistols were stowed in the Special Weapons Operation Squad weapons locker, watched over by the squad's top officer, Inspector Kim Dowding, who also had responsibility for the illegal stashes. Inspector Dowding has denied loading up anyone.

F7 said that before he sent his detectives out to make an arrest, the armed hold-up boss, Senior Sergeant Dennis "Doodles" O'Toole, now retired, would read the statements of victims and instruct his team to get matching evidence from the "future exhibits" locker.

In April 1994, it was the turn of the Colt revolver. F7 said he had cleaned it up to make it look more serviceable, but "I wouldn't have been game to fire it".

He said Mr Dowding got the revolver from the stash and took it to Mooney Mooney on the Hawkesbury River where F7, Mr Dowding and M5, a corrupt detective turned informer, met the detective who wanted the revolver, Peter Ehsman from South Region.

They arrested A2 for harbouring a fugitive and took him to Hornsby, where Mr Ehsman and F7 "fabricated" a confession while Mr Dowding and M5 planted the Colt in A2's car and photographed it.

F7 could not recall who had originally given him the Colt, but he wrote down the names of six detectives who were in the armed hold-up squad at Northwest Region at the time. They were all "amenable" to load-ups, he said, otherwise "they wouldn't have been on the squad".

Big laugh, then tears after mate's betrayal

By Philip Cornford

Date June 4 2002

Secretly recorded on tape, big Kim Dowding laughed about bashing a couple of suspects. But yesterday he wept in the witness box because his mate had betrayed him.

A police video of the gun stash being recovered from the Hawkesbury River.

"I considered him my friend," he said of M5, a crooked policeman turned undercover agent for the Police Integrity Commission. "I trusted him ... [it's] a feeling of betrayal."

Inspector Dowding is not alone. M5 has betrayed a lot of mates, with the PIC yesterday suppressing the name of the eighth policeman to "roll-over" after getting the "supergrass" treatment.

Inspector Dowding is on sick leave and he has not rolled. He claims his only misdemeanour was "finding" a dozen or more firearms stashed by fellow officers and dumping them, helped by M5, in the Hawkesbury River.

M5 surreptitiously taped five conversations with Inspector Dowding and the tapes were obviously a bigger shock than finding the guns at Major Crime Squad North's offices at Chatswood in 1995.
Inspector Dowding wiped away tears, lowered his head and fell silent. Three times Chris Hoy, counsel assisting the PIC, offered him an adjournment, which he declined.

But Inspector Dowding's distress turned to anger when Mr Hoy played a tape on which M5 and a couple of colleagues made merry about Inspector Dowding's discovery of the gun stash.

M5 was sprouting a "fair bit or rubbish", Inspector Dowding said, denying he had stashed the guns himself so he and other cops could "load up" suspects.

"It didn't take place," Inspector Dowding declared emphatically, prompting Mr Hoy to wonder about his sudden recovery of his memory. "I didn't plant any gun."

Inspector Dowding's version is that his boss at Major Crime Squad North, Inspector Ron Smith, now a chief superintendent at Crime Agencies, told his men he wanted the premises cleaned of any incriminating evidence.

Inspector Dowding "volunteered" to do "a sweep" and found the guns in the locker room. They were all in unmarked lockers, so he could not identify whose they were.

That night in the Willoughby Hotel, he consulted his mate, M5, who suggested they dump them. The next day, he asked Inspector Smith if he could borrow his boat.

Inspector Dowding said he did not tell Inspector Smith about the guns, saying that he wanted the boat to go fishing. Inspector Smith asked no questions.

That night, Inspector Dowding and M5 sledgehammered the guns, which included two sawn-off Rugers and a shortened shotgun. They collected the boat from Inspector Smith, towed it to Brooklyn, put it in the water and dumped the guns off Long Island.

Inspector Dowding agreed he saw "nothing sinister" about the guns, strenuously denying he had "loaded up" two men with a shortened Ruger and a pistol in an operation Mr Hoy said they called Wogs Out of Work.

The guns did not work, the PIC heard. The men were bashed so badly they took their bruises to court and had the armed robbery charges thrown out.

On the booze with his mate M5 and other drunks with detective badges, Inspector Dowding and his mates had a big laugh. But the joke ricocheted when the tapes started to play.

Judge Finnane's Sentencing Remarks

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

FOUR CORNERS

Investigative TV journalism at its best

THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
JUDGE FINNANE, FRIDAY 3 MAY 2002
01/11/1303  REGINA v RAYMOND JOHN PEATTIE

SENTENCE
HIS HONOUR: The offender appeared before me on 19 April 2002 and pleaded guilty to four offences of receiving bribes. These offences were preferred against him under section 200 of The Police Service Act each offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.

I should now set out the facts that bring him to this Court. The offender was a member of the New South Wales Police Service, he was a detective sergeant. He joined the police force as it was then on 18 April 1977 and he became a detective sergeant on 10 August 1990. At the time of his offences three of which were committed in May 2000 and the fourth in September 2000 he was the acting crime manager for the Manly Davidson Local Area Command, stationed at the Manly Police Station. He resigned on 31 October 2001. As a result of his resignation he took with him only the contributions he had made for his police pension plus some appropriate interest payment, but forfeited any entitlement to any police pension. I should also say I have heard him give evidence and I accept that he has made no claim to receive what are called Hurt on Duty Benefits. These are benefits payable to police officers who entered the police service before 1 April 1988 and who can show within six months of resigning that they have as a result of police service, some form of medical infirmity which makes it impossible for them to be a serving member of the police service. I mention this because it is the fact that many people in my experience who are quite corrupt and who are exposed as being corrupt during the time of the Police Royal Commission sought and obtained Hurt on Duty pensions. It seems odd that somebody could, as a result of exposure for corruption, and a forced resignation, claim a police service pension, but that in fact is what happened to many.

He however has not claimed that, although it is undoubtedly the fact that he has had some degree of stress and anxiety as a result of the matters that bring him to this Court.

The facts of the matter are not in dispute, they show that on 3 May 2000 an undercover police officer and other police including a police officer who is currently facing trial attended some premises to execute a search warrant. This officer who is currently facing trial, located a sum of money that was solicited from the occupant in the presence of the undercover police officer who was wearing a listening device. The undercover officer, needless to say, was not known to the corrupt police officer as being undercover, nor did the corrupt police officer know that the undercover officer was wearing a listening device. This was all part of a police operation aimed at various police officers at the Manly Police Station.

On the day following the undercover officer met the offender and gave him $100, telling him that the money was money obtained during yesterday's search. Again the offender did not know this other officer was doing this as part of a police operation to trap corrupt people at the Manly Police Station. The conversation was recorded on a listening device.

There is no doubt in my mind that he was deliberately chosen for this approach because it had come to the attention of police that he was someone who might well agree to receive part of the proceeds of money that were illegally obtained.

He took the money, he was not present at the search and did not know precisely what was taken but he did know, because of what he was told, that it came from money that was illegally obtained. It was his duty as crime manager to immediately report the approach to him by the undercover officer and report to relevant authorities that something illegal was going on; he, however, did nothing but merely took the money and put it in his pocket.

On 11 May  that is only eight days later  a number of police officers, again including an undercover officer and two police officers one of whom I have mentioned before and the other one, also a man who is facing trial executed a search warrant. During the execution of this search warrant a large sum of money was found. The two corrupt officers in the presence of the undercover officer extorted $30,000 from the occupant of the premises. Later, one of the corrupt officers gave $400 to the offender. Again he knew nothing about the actual search apart from the fact it had occurred, he did not know the quantity of the money taken, he did not himself participate in any extortion but he knew that the money was part of the proceeds of money illegally obtained. Again, it was his duty as crime manager to report the fact that this other officer who was well known to him had approached him and given him money, but he did not do that.

The third offence related to events of 23 May 2000. On this occasion, the two corrupt officers  whom I have mentioned and an undercover officer attended premises in Manly and executed a search warrant. On this occasion he himself took part. He attended as the independent officer.

The function of an independent officer, when a search warrant is executed, is to be present as an officer not directly involved in the investigation, for the purpose of overseeing the honesty and integrity of the operation. The independent officer is expected to ensure that what is done is bona fide and he is often required to give evidence in court about the circumstances of the search. That evidence is obviously of great importance, where those whose premises are being searched want to make claims that something improper occurred. It was his duty then, to apply his mind on behalf of the police service and indeed on behalf of the people of this State to what occurred and to make sure that what occurred was honest. During the search a large quantity of cannabis was located by one of the police officers and a large sum of money, some $11,000 was found. The offender before the Court, saw both the cannabis and the money. He then  despite his duty to do otherwise left the room, leaving the occupant of the house alone with the corrupt officers. He, of course, knew they were corrupt.

Whilst he was out of the room, one of the corrupt officers solicited money in return for the reduction of the quantity of cannabis; indeed the arrangement entered into was that he would give false evidence that the occupant was in possession of a relatively small amount of cannabis, so that he could be charged with the offence of possessing prohibited drugs instead of supplying.

The offence of supplying prohibited drugs can carry a very large prison sentence. The offender before this Court was not aware of the precise arrangements being made inside the room and whilst, he was aware of the presence of a large quantity of money, he was not aware of its exact quantity. However, he was aware that the corrupt officer and the occupant were entering into some totally illegal arrangement.

After the arrangements had been entered into, the offender returned to the room. There was no video taping of the search and the offender was aware that the money was located but not disclosed in the exhibit list, nor was, of course, the actual amount of cannabis that had been found.

Later on one of the corrupt officers gave to the offender $1000 which came from the moneys found in the search of the premises. Of the four offences to which I have referred this clearly was the most serious because he was actually participating in a police operation in which extortion, bribery and perversion of the course of justice were involved. Clearly he took the money on the basis that he would keep quiet about what would happen and would utterly neglect his duties as an independent officer. It might well have involved him ultimately in giving false evidence before a court.

The fourth charge which occurred on 21 September 2000 involved a search during which the two corrupt officers I have mentioned and an undercover operative attended premises at Balgowlah Heights. Again, money was located and extorted from the occupant by one of the corrupt officers in the presence of the undercover operative. On 22 September 2000, the undercover operative met the offender and gave him $400. Unbeknown to the offender, the conversation was recorded on a listening device.

He did not know the exact details of the extortion because he was not there, but he knew this money came from proceeds that had been extorted. He did nothing to draw it to anybody's attention, he took the money and put it in his pocket. These are all serious offences, but, in my opinion, the third offence stands out as the most serious offence.

In December 2000 the offender was made aware by an approach from officers of the Internal Affairs Office that they were investigating the conduct of the two corrupt officers and was asked for his assistance. He declined to give it. Though not being given specific information to link this particular matter with the other matters but I would for the purposes of this sentence assume that the entire operation caught both the two corrupt officers who are yet to face trial and the present offender, were organised by the Internal Affairs Branch of the New South Wales Police Service with the knowledge and assistance of the Police Integrity Commission.

In approaching him, police were giving him the opportunity of revealing what he knew, turning himself in and bringing to an end his part in this type of matter. However he did not say anything. I have little doubt that at this particular stage he became extremely apprehensive, as indeed, he had reason to be.

In October in the following year, the Police Integrity Commission commenced to conduct public hearings into what was going on with Manly Detectives, and on 9 October the offender attended the Police Integrity Commission.

When he did, he and his legal representative were played some electronic material which made it plain to him that he not only was involved but they knew of his involvement. He then agreed to disclose what he knew.

On 9 October he made an induced statement to police officers who were involved in the investigation to which I have referred, and that material has been provided to me. In this material, I do not propose to refer to the content of this statement other than to say that it reveals honesty and frankly in my opinion, material similar to that with which I am familiar from my association with the Police Royal Commission, showing that from an early age in the police service he was exposed to blandishments by corrupt officers and criminals, and from time to time gave into those blandishments. From time to time also he engaged in what some choose to call noble cause corruption, I would call merely the perversion of the course of justice, the fabrication of confessions and the giving of false evidence to get convictions.

This material however is not put forward to me with a view to showing that the offences with which he is charged are more serious than they appear to be, but rather to establish that he has honestly and frankly revealed things to the investigators who ultimately are the New South Wales Crimes Commission that they did not otherwise know. I accept them in that light. I accept that what he says in that statement appears to me to be honest and true.

The offender not only made this statement on 9 October 2001 but he has provided other material assistance of a very significant nature, in my opinion, to the Crime Commission. That material will enable the Commission to provide a basis for charges to be laid against a number of police officers and will strengthen the case against those who have already been charged. He also has agreed to give evidence at trial. The material provided by the Crime Commission was in an envelope which was sealed and I propose to ensure that it goes back into a similarly sealed envelope. I direct that that envelope not be opened except with my agreement or by order of a superior court.

The offender also did something which was most unusual, he provided a written apology to the New South Wales Police Service for his conduct and agreed that the document should be published in the Police Service Weekly which is circulated to all police officers. The apology itself was ultimately published on the front page of The Daily Telegraph on 5 December 2001 and thus has been read by probably a couple of million people. The Police Service itself has also taken an unusual course at the suggestion of the offender, and that is he agreed to be interviewed by a well known journalist, Mr Chris Masters on video and agreed that that video could be played to intending police officers and indeed, to others, with a view to educating intending police officers and other persons in the police service about the evils of what he had done.

It would be easy to adopt a cynical approach and say he has done these things merely to save himself from having severe punishment visited upon him. I am sure that he hopes that these matters would be taken into account, but in my opinion, he also understands that the offences which he has committed are serious and expose him to a risk of full time custody. I have seen him give evidence, I accept that the evidence which he gave was honesty, and I accept that he has given the assistance to the Crime Commission  which is referred to in the material provided to me  genuinely and honestly. The Crime Commission I might say accepts that. It is not every person who offers to assist the authorities whose word can be accepted. Very often, persons who agree to assist the authorities are people of very dubious character and it is very doubtful to know the extent to which they can be believed. He has gone beyond merely revealing his own part in the committing of criminal offences, and has gone beyond merely revealing the parts of others in criminal offences which the authorities already knew about and revealed other matters about which they did not have full knowledge or any knowledge at all. His frank confession through the Police Service Weekly and his willingness to make a video interview about the matter also it seems to me to go far beyond what any offenders I have ever struck have been prepared to do when faced with serious offences. He accepted before me that what he did was wrong and corrupt. He accepted before me that he could have taken another course, he did not have to do what he did and it was his duty to do otherwise.

Having heard his evidence it seems to me he is a man who, through weakness and perhaps financial pressure, because he was maintaining three families, gave in to inducements knowing he was committing criminal offences in doing so. He is weak and I think as events show should never have been put in the position in which he was placed. He clearly was not suitable to be a detective sergeant, much less a crime manager.

The question is what should be done now. He has put forward material of a subjective nature to show that he is well regarded in the community and many people regard him as a decent and valuable man. Since his leaving the police service he has used what money was made available to him to pay out debts and to buy equipment for a lawn mowing service, and he has been supporting himself, his various family members and even his aged father with the proceeds obtained by mowing lawns. There is no doubt he has had a large fall from grace to go from detective sergeant to lawn mower, it is certainly a substantial fall in status and power within the community. He has of course been publicly disgraced and had to face his family and come face to face with himself.

The question is what is the appropriate sentence. Each of the offences is a very serious one in my opinion. The amount of money involved is not great, that is not the gravamen of the offence. What is involved in this particular offence is in three cases taking money from people he knew to have been involved in criminal conduct and doing nothing to bring it to attention. And on the fourth matter deliberately taking part in an operation criminal in its nature in which extortion, bribery and the perversion of the course of justice were involved.

Each of the offences involved him neglecting his duty, the third offence involving a very serious way perversion of the course of justice. The Crown has submitted that I should send him into a period of full time custody and has said that I would err were I to do otherwise. His counsel has put to me that I can by applying an appropriate discount get to a stage where he would obtain a sentence of three years and require that that be served by periodic detention. I have given very serious consideration to the submissions put on both sides, they are all weighty. I have taken into account of course his prior good character and for this purpose I regard him as being a good character, notwithstanding his revealing for the purposes of the assistance to the authorities things which he had done during his police service. He clearly acts responsibly and decently. He is supporting three families and an aged father. What I have to focus on it seems to me first of all is the objective facts of the matter. Those objective facts show him to have committed serious criminal offences.  

The Crime Sentencing Procedure Act requires that a person should be sent to gaol only if that is the only remedy. For a police officer to engage in actions deliberately which involve the perversion of the course of justice, extortion and the protection of criminals who happen to wear police uniforms is very serious conduct. It is not conduct that can be dealt with in any way other than by a sentence of imprisonment. I of course have to take into account when deciding that question and deciding what sort of imprisonment the question of general deterrence, in this regard general deterrence of all police officers who might be minded to engage in similar conduct. Specific deterrence is a matter I have to consider although, I am convinced that he has seen the error of his ways and will never come before the Courts again. The process of rehabilitation I think commenced some time ago. There is nothing that the probation service or anybody else need do to rehabilitate him, he is dong that himself. I have to take into account though, the important principle of retribution, that is designing a sentence that fits the facts of the matter  to use the old expression, making the punishment fit the crime. The facts require what I think are salutary sentences. I having considering subjective matters have to place them rather to one side.

The first thing I have to do is fix an appropriate sentence then I consider what can be done about it, having given whatever I think is the appropriate discount. I wish I could in this sentence reflect in some way a feature of leniency to encourage other people to  other police officers particularly  to come forward in the expectation that they might be treated similarly leniently, however I think that would be on reflection taking a wrong course. I do not think I can apply such a principle although it would be my personal choice that I do it.

In my opinion each of charges one, two and four warrant a sentence of three years imprisonment. In my opinion each of those sentences because of their nature should be served concurrently. The third matter I think is a very serious matter  I have indicated already why it is  and in my opinion it warrants a sentence of five years imprisonment which will be served consecutively. That means a total sentence of eight years imprisonment.

I have considered the question of discount for assistance and for early plea of guilty. I consider that he is entitled to a truly exceptional discount. Consequently I propose to discount his sentence by 60 per cent.

HIS HONOUR: I think that leads to a discounted sentence of three years 2.6 months does it not.

FULLERTON: I'm not sure about that your Honour. Your Honour said 60 per cent of eight years?

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

FULLERTON: Yes that's right.

HIS HONOUR: Three years and what did I say?

FULLERTON: Two months.

HIS HONOUR: 2.6 months is that right?

FULLERTON: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: I then have to consider what can then be done what sentence can be served. The maximum sentence that I can permit to be served by way of periodic detention is three years. Although this is very close to three years I cannot go beyond what the law permits me to do. I cannot award any other form of alternative prison sentence, again because of the limits. It then becomes a task I am afraid to require that that sentence be served on a full time basis. Because there are exceptional circumstances here, because of his willingness to assist, the subjective factors I'm not double counting when I say this the subjective factors in his favour, the prospects of rehabilitation, his age, his previous good service to the community, I propose to impose a non-parole period of one year. Which is a significant discount on what would be the normal non-parole period of more than two years I think seven and a half months, close to that.

Raymond John Peattie in respect of the first charge I sentence you to a period of three years imprisonment, it will run from today which is 3 May 2002 to 2 May 2005. I sentence you to sorry that's wrong I withdraw what I have just said. I sentence you on counts one, two and four, in each case to a period of imprisonment for one year and six months. Each of those sentences will be concurrent with one another. They will commence today 3 May 2002 and they will go to 2 November 2003. In respect of the third charge I sentence you to a period of imprisonment of two years and six months. That sentence will be served cumulatively on the other sentences. It will commence on 2 November 2003 and will go to 1 May 2006. I specify a non-parole period of 12 months, the non-parole period will commence from today 3 May 2002, it will conclude on 2 May 2003. I am sorry Mr Peattie but you will have to go with the officers. I recommend that the sentence that the prisoner be provided with protection immediately and that he be classified as soon as possible and taken to an open institution.