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.