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.]