Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Tape recordings of telephone conversations as reported in The Age - Report of Special Prosecution I. Temby, QC, into The Age materials, dated 20 July 1984

Download PDF Download PDF

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia


Report of Special Prosecutor, Ian Temby, Q.C. including Report on inquiries by J. C. Johnson, Acting Commissioner, Australian Federal Police

July 1984

Presented 21 August 1984 Ordered to be printed 21 August 1984 and 13 September 1984

Parliamentary Paper No. 172/1984

Report of Special Prosecutor, an Temby, Q.C., ~ i nto the Age materials

Report of Special Prosecutor,

lan Temby, O.C., into the Age materials

July 1984

Au stralian G ove rnm ent Publishing Service

Canberra 1984

. ~

G) Commonwealth of Australia 1984 ISBN 0 644 03544 7

Printed by C . J. TH O M PSON, Commonwe alth G overnment Printer, Ca nberra


Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, Q.C., Attorney-General, Parliament House, CANBERRA. 2600.

My dear Attorney,

P.O . Box E370 Queen Victoria Terrace, A .f.T. 2600

Telephone 7 0 56 0 0

Your reference :

Our reference : 84/229

20 July 1984

I have the honour to submit my final report.

Th is report is intended to be tabled in the Parliament pursuant to section 20 of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982.

As it seems to me there is no reason why any part of the report should be kept confidential.

Yours faithfully,

Special Prosecutor


Appointment and Terms of Reference

Arrangements made


Possible use of Materials


Conclusion and Recommendation

Paragraph Page


5 3

21 11

26 14

On 21

as a

February Special 1984 I was

Prosecutor appointed by the Governor-General for a period of 3 months. By

instrument dated 27 February t h e At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a 1 s p e c i f i e d

the following matters, namely

"(a) activities illegal under Corrrnonwealth or Territory law in relation to the interception of alleged telephone communications which are referred to in the materials, including cassette tapes, delivered by

representatives of "The Age" newspaper to the

Attorney-General on and 2 February 1984; and

(b) any other activities illegal under Commonwealth or Territory law established as a result of

investigations into, or in relation to, the contents of those materials",

in relat ion to which my functions are to institute

prosecutions for offences against the laws of the

Corrrnonwealth or of the Territories. (Special Prosecutors Act

1982, section 6(l)(a)(l)). The appointment was extended on 18 May for a period of 2 months.

2. It is important to say at the outset that the Act

does not confer any powers which do not otherwise have. In my capacity as Director of Public Prosecutions I have power

to institute prosecutions: section 6(1) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1982. The Special Prosecutors Act 1982 does not confer on me any special investigative powers. cannot insist on anyone assisting in investigations . The

investigators assisting me only enjoy those powers that they h ave a s memb e r s o f a p o l i c e f o r c e . My r e p o r t mu s t be r e a d

w ith this limitation in mind.

Arrangements Made

3. Following the receipt of an opinion sought from me by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, Q .C., he and the Special M inister of State issued a joint statement on 17 February setting out a numb.e.L.oJ decisions made by the


a Special Prosecutor would be appointed to supervise

further investigations in relation to the tapes and transcripts handed by "The Age" newspaper to the Attorney-General on J and 2 February 1984;

the role of the Special Prosecutor would be

independent of the Government;

he wou J d

consisting supervise a of selected joint

pol ice investigating team, officers from the

Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Police Force, and would be charged with bringing prosecutions for any breaches of federal Jaw

discovered as a result of investigations into, or in relation to, the contents of those ~terials;

que s t ions concern i n g State I a w that ~ y a r i s e f rom the materials would be a matter for the Jaw

enforcement authorities of the State of New South Wales.

4. Members of the Australian Federal Police (A.F.P.) and the New South Wales Police Force were assigned by the

r e spec t i v e Comn i s s i one r s to t h i s j o i n t i n v e s t i g a t i n g t e am. I t

was arranged that Deputy Comnissioner John Johnson of the A.F.P. would act as co-ordinator of the joint investigation . I n a c co r dan c e w i t h t h e Go v e r nrne n t dec i s i on s o u t I i n e d i n t h e

j o i n t s t a t eme n t above t h e s p e c i f i c t a s k s t o be u n de r t a k e n b y

officers from the respective forces would involve

concentration by those from the A.F.P. upon possible offences against the Jaws of the Comnonwealth, and concentration by those from the N.S.W. force upon breaches of New South Wales law. The Solicitor-General for N.S.W. was given

responsibility, in consultation with the Crown Solicitor of that State, to supervise inquiries into certain ~tters which exclusively involved the law of New South Wales and fell outside my terms of reference.



5. met with the Solicitor-General

Solicitor for N.S .W. on two occasions and progress of investigations, and met

Comn i s s i one r John son and other rnembe r s

and the Crown

discussed the with Deputy

of the joint

i n v e s t i g a t i n g t e am, p a r t i c u I a r I y t h e f o r me r , w i t h s orne

frequency. The various suggestions made were in all

respect s f o I I owed by the j o i n t i n v e s t i gat i n g team and a I I

written and othe.r material which might be of assistance to me was made available. Members of the A.F.P. furnished me with an interim report dated 28 March setting out the result of their investigations to that date. A further report dated 30

April was received. A copy of that report is attached. It is self explanatory. When furnished to me it was accompanied by four folders of voluminous addenda. have not attached

this latter material as the report itself extracts the essence of the investigation.

6. The materials referred to in the terms of reference comprised 524 pages of documents which are, or purport to be, transcripts of telephone conversations, sumnaries of telephone conversations and profile notes on certain persons,

together with four cassette tapes. The former bear dates within the period from 5 March 1976 to 5 May 1981. The tapes contain no internal evidence as to recording dates. The original source of the materials is not apparent. The materials were handed to the Attorney-General on 1 and 2

February 1984 by representatives of "The Age" newspaper (1).

The tapes were forwarded at an early stage for expert

examination by Mr Don F Craig of Louis A Challis and

Associates Pty Ltd, engineers of Sydney. consulting acoustical and vibration

----------------------------------------------- ---- ----------- ---

1. Ministerial statement of 28 February, 1984, page 1.


7 . As the terms of reference made clear the material

emanated from "The Age", an arrangement was made to interview its editor, Mr. Creighton Burns in Melbourne on 7 March .

However, Mr . Burns wrote to the A.F.P. the previous day and cancelled the meeting. In his letter he said, for stated reasons, that a Royal Comni s s ion should be appointed and "The Age" had no confidence in the investigation action by the Attorney-General. I wrote to Mr . Burns on 9 March, and the

relevant portion of the Jetter said :

"There are two points I w.ish to make.

The first is simple. As understand the position

your newspaper made available to the Attorney-Genera l cop i e s of c e r t a i n rna t e r i a I wh i c h i t r e c e i v e d from an

unknown per son " Cop i e s are present I y be i n g ex ami ned by s c i en t i f i c e x p e r t s " I t d i d no t be c orne c I e a r t o me

until read an editorial in "The Age" last week that the copies received by Senator Evans and passed on by h i m were not those or i g in a I I y r e c e i v e d by you " For

reasons which are no doubt obvious enough, it is h i g h I y de s i r a b I e t h a t t h e s c i e n t i f i c ex ami n a t i on be

of the earliest generation avai !able. Accordingly my available to the A.F.P. originally received.

copies as can be made

request is that you make the materials which you

must stress that the investigat ion is to in a perfectly objective way and w ithout Secondly, proceed political i n t e r f e r e n c e f r om an y q u a r t e r " note that

It is not you and t he At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a I a r e a t o d d s " f o r me t o c orrme n t o n t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e p u b I i c

debate. It is enough to say that the Attorney "

General will not tell me how to perform my task.

I n deed sect ion 7 ( I ) of the Spec i a I Prosecutor s Act

1982 precludes him from g iving directions or



furni~hing guidelines in relation to a particular

case. I am operating at arms length and will continue to do so.

note your be J i e f that the Gover nme n t s h o u I d set up a Roy a I Comn i s s i on " Apparent J y i t i s d i s i n c I i ned to

do so. Again make no comnent on what must be a

Go v e r nme n t dec i s i on "

you i s that at

investigation is supervision, and it further the pub! ic

The point of view

the present time

by those working

behoves alI who are

interest to assist

urge the


upon only my

minded to

the in

ex e r c i s e , wh i c h i s to a s c e r t a i n wh e t he r e v i den c e i s

sufficient to enable a criminal charge to be laid, and then if thought fit to lay it. trust you will appreciate that the fact that there is a sufficiency of evidence to prosecute does not give rise to the

inevitable conclusion that a charge will be laid. There are many matters to be taken into account.

If the point is received where have to decide

wh e t h e r a c h a r g e s h o u I d be I a i d a g a i n s t a n y p e r s on ,

t he n a s Spec i a I P r o s e c u t o r , an d a I s o i n my c a p a c i t y

as Director of Public Prosecutions, will proceed according to settled principles. There will be no political interference.

In the light of the above, ask that you reconsider your decision not to be interviewed by the A.F.P."

On 20 March received a reply from Mr. Burns dated

16 March in which he said inter alia:

"As to your first point, "The Age" will, subject to

the concurrence of the Attorney-General, provide you with the actual material given to "The Age", although as you will appreciate that material itself

constitutes copied material.


Because we have never been in possession of material which we had reason to believe was original, am u nab 1 e t o g u a r a n t e e t h a t we h a v e no t a 1 r e ad y g i v e n

some of the material originally handed to us to

either the Federal or N.S.W. Attorney-General.

Howe v e r , can say t h a t t he t apes wh i c h we have i n

our possession are the copies which were handed to us.

Since the previous material was handed to

Attorney-General, think we should obtain concurrence as a matter of courtesy. have written to him in this regard."




The Attorney-General by telegram dated 21 March advised Mr. Burns that he had no objection to his handing me letter. On 23 March the the material mentioned in his Secretary to Deputy Commissioner Johnson received three cassette tapes and a quantity of transcriptions from "The -Age" newspaper. That material was later given by me to the

Senate Select Committee into the Conduct of a Judge.

10. The transcripts received had the same content as

those previously received by the Attorney-General. The tapes 1 a t t e r 1 y r e c e i v e d d i f f e r i n one imp o r t an t r e s p e c t f r om t h o s e

originally received by the Attorney-General from "The Age". In the copying process by the newspaper one conversation which is of some importance in establishing the source of the tapes was omitted. This conversation is apparently between a member of the NSW Police Force and a prisoner. The content

does not appear to be relevant to any A.F.P. activity or investigation. If it is what it purports to be, the

1 i k e 1 i hood t h a t t he tape s ema n a ted f r om e 1 erne n t s w i t h i n t he

N.S.W. Police Force is increased. It seems likely that both the tapes and the transcripts carne from the same source.


By report dated 21 May prepared by Detective Sergeant

McDonald of the New South Wales Police I was advised that the v o ices on that p or t ion of the tape were those of a n arne d

p r i s o n e r a n d a De t e c t i v e I n s p e c t o r S t e v e n s on , wh o d i e d 1 9

January 1980. It appears the original tape was made between 12 February and 4 July 1978, following a complaint in

December 1977 that there was a discrepancy in moneys

recovered f o I 1 ow i n g the a r res t of three men on a charge of

armed robbery. The report concludes :


am a b I e t o s a y t h a t t h e con v e r s a t i on o n t he

tape did take place and most likely on a body

tape, then transferred onto a reel tape. Despite numerous i n q u i r i e s am una b 1 e to say who rna y have

caused t h i s t ran s fer " I t i s 1 o g i c a 1 to as s ume that

the Stevenson tape was 'stored' at the Bureau of Crime Intelligence as that is performed duty during the relevant I t i s a I s o ope n t o a s s ume t h a t t h e

where Stevenson period of time. tape cou I d have

been ' s tore d ' e 1 s ewh ere , but that w i I 1 never be found out because of the death of Inspector Stevenson."

11. Mr Craig furnished reports dated 19 March and 16

April, one on the tapes first received by the Attorney " Ge n e r a 1 , and t h e o t he r on t h o s e I a t e r r e c e i v e d by t h e A " F " P "

on my behalf.

e x am i n a t i o n o f the

Neither tapes. report f o 11 owed His conclusion was

a complete

that neither

set of tapes comprises an original recording, and each was prepared by utilising the unsophisticated technique of placing a microphone in front of the loud speaker of a

recording device. There are examples of editing on each set of tapes. It cannot be said whether either is of a given generation of copy. The likelihood is that the original record i n g s were rna de on r e e 1 - to-r e e I tapes and reproduced on a r e co r de r w i t h a me c h a n i c a I s y s t em o f ope r a t i o n " A I t h o u g h

Mr Craig does not say this, understand such a system of

recording is likely to be used in conjunction with a device


used for the surreptitious interception of telephone conversations. On 9 July Mr Craig advised that further examination of the tapes appeared to him to be unwarranted. I concur.

12. The transcripts were forwarded to t he Doc ume n t

Examination Bureau within the AFP. An examination of the documents has shown that eight classes of typewriters were used to produce them. The report received by me concludes:

"No corrment can be made regarding the number o f

individual machines used because of the inherent nature of the documents. A 1 1 t he d o c ume n t s o f f e r e d

for ex ami nat i on a r e photo cop i e s and the b u 1 k are at

least third generation and of extremely poor qualit y with introduced distortions and aberrations and a lack of detail features. These factors comb ined preclude a more productive examination of the

doc ume n t s an d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a 1 rna c h i n e s " "

13. The transcripts were also examined by the Document Examination Unit, Scientific Investigation Section, Criminal Investigation Branch, New South Wales Police. Sergeant Chivers, the expert who prepared

pro v i de d w i t h t y p i n g s amp 1 e s of 3 8

New South Wales Bureau of Crimina!

the resultant report, was typewriters issued to the Intelligence, and certain

handwriting samples. No useful conclusion emerged as to either typewriting or handwriting in the documents, this chiefly because the reproductions were of such poor quality .

1 4 . 11 T h e Age 11 h ad r e p o r t e d ( 2 ) t h a t i t h a d r e c e i v e d t h e

material from which it had printed its original feature

----------------------------------------- ----- ------- --------- --

2. 18 February, 1984, page 5; 21 February 1984 page 6.


articles fror:n Mr. Bob Bottom. Members of the investigation team attempted to contact Mr. Bottom without success. On 30 March I wrote to him urging that he assist the A.F.P. in

its investigations. On 10 April Deputy Commissioner Johnson received a telephone call from him in which he said he

p r o p o s e d co -ope r a t i n g w i t h t he S e n a t e S e 1 e c t Comm i t t e e an d

that he would "consider" after that whether he would talk with the A.F.P. On 13 July Mr. Bottom was again contacted by telephone. He said that he was not prepared to be

interviewed by the A.F.P. He also said he had given evidence t o t h e S e n a t e S e 1 e c t Comm i t t e e , and I a s s ume t h a t t o b e t he

case. That Committee has conducted its deliberations in private. have provided the Committee with substantial material and received none from it.

15. A counsel representing "The Age" informed one of the A.F.P. investigators on 5 April that as the newspaper cons i de red the present en q u i r y to be i n adequate , and was pressing for a Royal Corrrnission, it would not co-operate

further in the investigations.

16. Mr. F.A. Silvester formerly the Director of the

Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (ABCI) informed the A.F.P. investigators that he had received from Mr. Bottom papers relating to Mr Ryan, a Sydney solicitor. Those papers are identical in content and form to part of the

alleged transcripts supplied to "The Age". These papers were hand e d t o t h e ABC I i n S e p t emb e r l 9 8 l a n d p u r p o r t t o be

surrrnaries of conversations between Mr Ryan and others between 7 February 1980 and 10 May 1980 and personal profile notes.

Mr. Bottom could therefore obviously assist me in further investigation into the source of the materials, but is unwilling to do so.


17. The other avenue of investigation that has been

closed to me is through Mr. Arthur ("Jock") Hawthorn. a former member of the New South Wales Police Force.

1976 and 1981 he was a member of the Radio Branch

Force attached to the Crime Intelligence Unit. He

He is

Between of that

left the

Pol ice Force in June 1981 as a Sergeant Second Class due to ill health. In July 1980 he met with Superintendent Lamb, then in charge of "B" Division in the A.F.P. in Sydney, and p r o v i de d i n f o r rna t i on o b v i o u s 1 y o b t a i n e d f r om t h e s a me s o u r c e

as the transcripts. His contact with Mr Lamb extended from about May 1980 until March 1981. He supplied Mr. Lamb with tapes of telephone conversations between Mr Ryan and others. Mr. Hawthorn was a registered paid informer (code name

" 1 r i s h" ) w i t h the A. F. P. wh i 1 s t s t i 1 1 a s e r v i n g member of the

New South Wales Police Force. It is not known whether the

payment was used by him to defray expenses, facility, or for his personal benefit. Mr. to maintain a Hawthorn has

refused to be interviewed by either the A.F.P. or New South Wales Police. It is my belief that he could assist in

further investigations into the source of the materials but am unable to insist on this.

18. The A.F.P. investigators attempted to validate the tapes and transcripts by approaching those persons who were allegedly parties to telephone conversations with Mr Ryan What was sought to be established was whether each had

telephone conversations with Mr Ryan and whether the content or theme reproduced was the same or substantially the same as a recollected conversation.

19. The persons approached were the Honourable Mr Justice L K Murphy, Mr M McHugh QC, Mr B Miles and Mr T Christie (all

of the Sydney Bar) and Mr Ryan h imse 1 f. Each of these

persons, with the exception of Mr. Justice Murphy, either personally or through his legal representative has declined to be interviewed or to corrment on the matters sought to be raised.


20. On 18 July I received from the New South Commissioner

of Police a report signed by Executive Chief Superintendent Pry, the senior officer in the New South Wales component of the joint investigating team. His general conclusion is that the authenticity of the materials is questionable. There is

nothing in the report which would assist in laying charges a g a i n s t an y i n d i v i d u a 1 f o r any Fe de r a 1 o f f e n c e " I t wo u 1 d be

i d 1 e for me to express any v i ew as to whether the rna t e r i a 1 s

or any part of the them were prepared by elements within the New South Wales Police Force. make specific mention of

t h a t p o s s i b i 1 i t y be c au s e i t i s t r e a t e d i n s orne c i r c 1 e s a s a

r e c e i v e d t r u t h t h a t t h e rna t e r i a 1 s ema n a t e d f r om t h a t g e n e r a 1

source. What matters for present purposes is proof, not speculation.

Possible Use of Materials

2 1 " S e c t i on 7 ( 1 ) o f t h e T e 1 e c ommu n i c a t i on s ( I n t e r c e p t i on )

Act 1979 which carne into force on 1 June 1980 provides

"A person shall not -

(a) intercept; (b) authorize, suffer or permit another person to intercept; or (c) do any act or thing that will enable him or

another person to intercept,

a communication passing over a telecommunications


Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years"

A similar provision was contained in the Telephonic

Communications (Interception) Act 1960-1973 which was repealed by the 1979 Act.


For a prosecution to be successful under this section it would be necessary to prove to the requisite criminal standard that a person intercepted a telephone conversation and that interception was not authorized within the

exceptions contained in section 7(2) of the Act. have i n v e s t i g a t e d t he 1 a t t e r q u e s t i on and am sa t i s f i e d t h a t t he r e

was no such authorisation.

The interception must be of a corrmunication passing over a teleconmunications system. If a telephone conversation wa s listened to or recorded by means of a device external to the system, there would not be an illegal interception (3). As understand the situation, there are now sophisticated devices available which operate externally to the telephone system and enable what is said in the course of a telephone

conversation to be listened to and recorded. The

difficulties in proving that this did not happen, but rather a telephone conversation was illegally intercepted, are

obvious enough.

22. As the Solicitor-General for N.S.W. said in her

opinion of 17 February 1984 to the Attorney-General for N. S.W.:

"Unless technical assessment is able to bear in some manner on authenticity, authentication could be achieved only by the admissions of the person o r persons involved in the interception and making o f

the tapes and documents, or by the acknowledgement o f t he v a r i o u s p e r s on s who s e con v e r s a t i on s t h e y p u r p o r t

to be."

Technical assessment cannot establish that the tapes a re tapes of interceptions of telephone conversations . No person

3. Opinion of Mr . M.H. Byers CX::, the then Solicitor "

General, dated 22 January 1980.

h a s a dm i t t e d i n t e r c e p t i n g t e 1 e phone co n v e r s a t i on s a n d w i t h

one except ion no person has been prepared to say that what purports to be a recording of a telephone conversation between him and Mr Ryan is in fact so. Mr. Justice Murphy

informed the A .F.P. by letter dated 25 May that "what is on

the tapes is a tampered-with telephone conversation, or more

likely, an amalgam of tampered-with telephone conversations

between (himself) and Mr. Ryan." As to the transcripts, he said he was unable to confirm any of the transcripts and d id "not believe that they are genuine and accurate records of conversations between (himself) and Mr. Ryan". If he gave

evidence to that effect before a court, it would not be of any assistance on the question of authenticity.

23. Consideration has also been given to using the

rna t e r i a 1 s t o p r o s e c u t e f o r o f f e n c e s c omn i t t e d p u r s u an t t o

section 7(4) of the 1979 Act and its equivalent in that Act's precursor. The relevant portion of section 7(4) reads:

"(4) A p e r s on s h a I 1 no t d i v u 1 g e o r c omnu n i c a t e t o

another person, or make use of or record, any

i n f o r rna t i on o b t a i n e d by i n t e r c e p t i n g a c omnu n i c a t i o n

passing over a telecommunications system

Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 2 years"

Howe ver , no such prose cut i on co u 1 d succeed as i t i s not

possible to prove that any information for example that published in "The Age" was obtained by intercepting a commun ication passing over a teiecomnunications system.

24. The tapes or transcr ipts or both themselves could

perhaps be used as evidence in a prosecution for any offence disclosed in the materials .

Th e law in relat ion to the use of tape recordings as evidence

in criminal matters in Australia is clear. Winneke C.J. in


de 1 i v e r i n g the j u d grne n t of the F u 1 1 Co u r t of the Victor i an Supreme Court in R v. Nilson (1968) V.R. 238 at 241 said :

"Provided a recording or accurately recorded and tape the

is proved to be

voices of those

participating are properly identified, and provided t he con t en t s o f t he r e co r d i n g a r e r e I e v a n t t o s orne

issue in the trial, we are of the opinion that such a recording is in law admissible in evidence."

It is for the party seeking to put forward the recordings to prove them to be originals and the standard of proof of this is the balance of probabilities (4). It is for the jury to decide the weight to be attached to them and the possibility of tampering with them is a matter that goes to the weight

rather than the admissibility of the evidence (5).

25 . I t is not possible

transcripts, or any part of conversations. The voices on the I imi ted extent that


them, them Mr.

prove that the tapes or

are of actual telephone cannot be proved, save to " J u s t i c e Mu r ph y g i v e s a n

acknowledgement - paragraph 22 above. The materials have no present probative value.

Conclusion and Recommendat ion

26. As stated at the outset my appointment as special

prosecutor was extended for two months . As a prerequisite was required to furnish an interim report to the Attorney " General in the week comnenc ing 28 May 1984. The interim

report was dated 29 May. Its substance was simi lar to this report.

---------- ------------- ----- ------------ ------- ------------ ------

4. R v Robson (1972) I W.L.R. 65 1 at 653

5. R v Matthews & Ford (1972) V.R. 3 at 14

2 7 " At t he t i me o f t h e i n t e r i m r e p o r t t h e r e we r e c e r t a i n

matters which were under investigation by the A.F.P. The i n v e s t i g a t i on s have bee n c omp 1 e t e d an d i n no c a s e i s t h e

laying of a charge warranted. I have sought to detect all offences disclosed against Federal law. In my view none of them are wo r thy of fur the r i n vest i gat ion " Other p o s s i b 1 e o f f e n c e s wh i c h a p pea r f r om t he con t e n t s o f t he rna t e r i a 1 s a r e

matters of State law with which I am not concerned.

28. Portions of the transcript relate to one Trirnbole, an a 1 1 e g e d rna 1 e factor who i s now over seas " At the t i me of my

interim report the Honourable Mr. Justice Stewart, in his capacity as a Royal Conmissioner, had that portion of the materials. He had been requested by the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments to give priority to investigating

rna t t e r s a r i s i n g f r om t he r e 1 eva n t t r a n s c r i p t. h a v e h a d

discussions with him on several occasions. I t seems 1 i k e 1 y that in the course of that investigation the Judge will see f it to enquire into t he c i r c urns t an c e s i n wh i c h the

transcripts identifying came the

to be prepared. That might we 1 1 ass i s t in person or persons responsible for illegal i n terce p t i on of t e 1 e phone con v e r sat ions , i f that i s what has

in fact happened. At this stage there is room for strong sus p i c ion to that e f f e c t but the g u 1 f between sus p i c i on of

whatever s t r eng t h on the one hand and proof on the other i s

very wide.

29. On 5 June sent to Mr. Justice Stewart, with the

acquiesence report and to him.


a 11

t h e At t o r n e y - Ge n e r a 1 , a c o p y o f

other rna t e r i a 1 s wh i c h m i g h t be of

my interim


30. I am unable to exercise my statutory power as Special Prosecutor , wh i c h i s to 1 a y charges " I n my o p i n i on the

a v a i 1 a b 1 e e v ide n c e fa 1 1 s far s h or t of that wh i c h co u 1 d res u 1 t

in the conviction of any person for any offence against Federal law. Deputy Conmissioner Johnson shares that view.


31. The matter could be taken further by the materials

generally being referred to so~ body or person having coercive powers. Mr. Justice Stewart as Royal Comnissioner has those powers. So does the Senate Se 1 ect Comni t tee. If o n 1 y t o a v o i d d u p 1 i c a t i o n o f e f f o r t , my r e c omne n d a t i on i s

that the matter be left as it is until the Judge and the Comn i t t e e h a v e c omp 1 e t e d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e t a s k s " Whateve r

conclusion ma terials




reached 1 ikely



relat ion to be applicable any


part the

of the


32. No useful purpose would be served by maintaining m y appo i nt~nt as Special Prosecutor, or keeping the joint

i n v e s t i g a t i n g t e am on f o o t. I t rna y be t h a t a s a r e s u 1 t ,

d irect or indirect, of what either Mr. Justice Stewart or the

S e n a t e S e 1 e c t Comn i t t e e doe s t he r e w i 1 1 be s u f f i c i e n t

evidence to enable charges to be laid. In that event I will not hesitate to do so in my principal capacity as Director of Public Prosecutions.


20 July 1984


Office of the Commissioner of Pollee

30 April 1984

Hr Jan D . Temby, OC

Director of Public Prosecutions Hin~ler Building

PARKES A.C.T. 2600

Allegations of Illegal Telephone Interceptionsz Inquiries on Behalf of the Special Prosecutor


1. On 2 February 1984, 'The Age' newspaper reported that Hr Bob BOTTOM, journalist, had provided 'The Age' with copies of tapes, transcripts and summaries which, prima facie, appeared to be the product of telephone interceptions allegedly conducted by

the New South Wales Police against certain crime figures (FLAG 1).

2. On 3 February 1984, Hr N. REABURN, Senior Assistant

Secretary, Attorney-General's Depart~ent , reported to Detective Chief Superintendent B .C. BATES (AFP) that 'The Age' had given the material provided by BOTTOM to the Federal Attorney-General, Senator Gareth EVANS, oc. Mr BATES obtained from the Attorney-General what

later proved to be copies of the subject tapes, transcripts and summaries. At the initial briefing the Attorney-General stressed that an AFP investigation of the material was required to (l) establish the illegality or otherwise of the alleged telephone

interceptions and (2) provide a preliminary assessment of the contents of the material.

3. From the outset it was evident that 'The Age' allegations were substantially the same as those advanced by the 'National Times' in its 25.11.83 edition headed 'Big Shots Bugged'. It is understood that as a direct result of that article the New South Wales Police

ordered an investigation into the allegations. In the event, Detective Superintendent R. SHEPHERD, Officer in Charge, Bureau of Crime Intelligence, investigated and reported to the New South Wales Government. His findings were inconclusive and no further

action occurred (FLAG 2).

4 . On 9 February 1984, Detective Superintendent A. BROWN and Detective Chief Inspector A.M. WHIDDETT submitted a situation report outlining their preliminary findings after having reviewed 'The Age' material (FLAG 3). Influencing the initial assessment

was information provided by Detective Station Sergeant D .J. LEWINGTON. The situation report stated, inter alia, that the alleged interceptions were not authorised under the provisions of

0 0 ol2

2 .

the ~elecommunieations (Jnterception) Act (1960-1979), that th~ ~terial was probably prepare~ by polic~ en~ vhilat there was no

~irect evidence implicating th~ New South Wales Police, their

involvement could not be ~iscounte~. Several options were "~vance~ concerning the metho~ of investigating the allegationsr th~ establishment of " Royal Commission or the eppointment of a Special Prosecutor was favoure~.

s. A aupplementary report aubmitte~ on 10 February 1984

reporte~ that material ha~ been locate~ in the office of the Special

Investigations Unit (SIB) Sy~ney, which suggeste~ that members of the AFP had aome knowledge of information obtaine~ through the interception of telephone calls to end from the premises of Sydney aolicitor, Morgan John RYAN (FLAG 4).

6. A 'Joint Statement' by the Attorney-General and Mr Hick YOUNG, Special Minister of State, was issued on 17 February 1984, announcing that a Special Prosecutor vas to be appointed to super " vise further investigations into 'The Age' allegations (FLAG 5). The announcement also included that a 'Joint Investigating Team' was to be formed consisting of police officers from both the AFP and New South Wales Police, to investigate the allegations (FLAG

6). Interim reports from both the AFP and yourself were provided to the Ministers (FLAG 7).

7. Under the provisions of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982, the Attorney-General announced on 17 February 1984 the terms of reference for the Special Prosecutor to investigate:

(a) activities illegal under the Commonwealth or Territory law in relation to the interception of alleged telephone communications which are referred to in the materials, including cassette tapes, delivered by representatives of 'The Age' newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 and

2 February 1984; and

(b) any other activities illegal under Commonwealth or Territory law established as a result of investigations into, or in relation to, the contents of those materials (SEE FLAG 5).

8. On 22 February 1984, the Premier of New South Wales,

Mr N. WRAN, wrote to the Prime Minister agreeing to co-operate with the Special Prosecutor (FLAG 8). He did, however, identify the role of the State Solicitor-General, Ms Mary GAUORON, OC, who was also tasked with a similar role of investigating 'The Age' material . The Premier advised that the New South Wales Police, who were assisting the Solicitor-General, would also be available to join

the Special Prosecutor's joint investigating team.

9. Commissioner R.A. GREY wrote to you on 1 March 1984

advising that he nominated Detective Superintendent A. BROWN and Detective Chief Inspector A.M. WHIDDETT as the AFP representatives of the joint investigation team. The officers provided by the

... /3


" "w South Wales Police ware Detective Superintendent M. PRY, Detective Inspector& l. COOX, A. McDONALD and Inspector 0. ~AYLOR. It was confirmed that I would act as the co-ordinator of the joint investigation team.

10. On 28 March 1984, I aubmittaO the 'Second Situation Report' (FLAG 9) to you. 1 outlineO the progress of AFP enquiries as well as ~tters still subject of enquiry. I recommended egainat drawing any conclusions until such time as ell witnesses were interviewed

and essential enquiries completed.



11. The material provided by 'The Age' to the Attorney-General on 2 February 1984 consisted of:

(i) one set of photostat pages (106 sheets)r

(ii) one set of photostat pages (146 aheets)r

(iii) one set of photostat pages (64 sheets), (iv) one set of photostat pages in an unmarked folder (97 sheets)r

(v) one set of photostat pages in a manila folder marked 'TRIHBOLE TAPES' (67 sheets)r

(vi) one set of photostat pages headed 'MORGAN JOHN RYAN' (44 sheets)r and

(vii) four (4) cassette tapes marked (1) FARQUHAR, RYAN, CHRISTIE, McHUGH; (2) McHUGH, PRAKASH, MILES; (3) SIDE

Ar (4) unidentified tape. (APPENDICES A, B, C).

The tapes were transcribed and evidence conversations between Morgan John RYAN end possibly eleven (11) other persons. The tapes were duplicated end the originals are held in my safe.

12. Chief Superintendent V.A . ANDERSON, Director of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (ABCI) on 28 February 1984 directed a file, which he located within the ABCI indices, to the AFP. The file (ABCI source file No. 100316) proved to contain

a document identical to the forty-four page Morgan RYAN summary provided by 'The Age'. The file varied in that it comprised forty " five pages and a crude and unsuccessful attempt had been made throughout the pages to conceal certain words, which could be said

to identify the origins of the document, by 'inking' them out. Of interest, too, is the fact that the ABCI document is an earlier generation copy in comparison with 'The Age' copy (FLAG 10) .

. . . /4

4 0


cleime" to Hr BOTTOM.

On 26 Herch 1984, 'The Age' be the 'originel' meteriel The meteriel 1& "e£cribe"

"elivere" to me meterial given to 'The Age' by .,.

(i) one aet of photostet peges, title" 'HORGAN JOHN RYAN' ( 4 5 sheets),

(ii) one set of photostat peges, title" 'A DAZZLER' ( 14 7 aheet6) 1

(iii) one set of photostat peges, untitle" (67 1>heets)1 ( i v) one set of photostet peges title" 'RABID' (48 sheets);

( v) one set of photostet peges titled 'HAD DOG' ( 104 she~ts);

(vi) one set .of photostat peges titled 'SOUTHERN COMFORT ' (61 sheets) 1

(vii) one set of photostat peges titled et the sixth pege 'SOUTHERN COMFORT' (48 sheets); and

(viii) three (3) cessette sound tapes in cleer plastic containers -unmarked. (APPENDICES D, E, F).

With the exception of some duplicated pages, the documents provided by 'The Age' on both occasions are identical. As you are aware. the originals of this documentation were received by your Office on 17 April 1984.

14. The transcripts provided to the Attorney-General on 2 February this year are described as displaying a syste matic, protracted and covert interception of telephone calls to and from the premises of Morgan John RYAN, David George FREEMAN, Ronald DI AS and Robert TRIMBOLE during the period 1976 to 1981 and are in a

style consistent with police preparation. The use of abbreviations within those tra nscripts, such as 'P.N.G.' (used in police termin " ology for 'plea of not guilty') and 'G.I.C.' (for the offence of 'Goods in Custody' - New South Wales), together with the use of AS or foolscap size paper, supports this view.







The material encompassed the following:

Start ing price bookmaking

Bribes for casino esteblishment

Horse race fixing

Immigration rackets

Conversations purportedly between Morgan John RYAN and Justice Lionel MURPHY of the High Court of Australia.

0 0 ./5

5 .

16. Analyiis of the ~terial gave riae to the theory that ita preparation had been aelectively aummariaed, that it vaa incomplete and inconsistent wjth what could have been expected from protract "~ and full telephone interception&. Me believed then,

as we believe now, that the ~terial ha~ been a~ite~.


17. When both aeta of ~terial acquire~ from 'The Age' were

compare~. ~arked differences were rea~ily apparent. An a~ditional

conversation was found on the aecond aet of tapes which is not present on the first aet. Jt appears to be between a police officer and an inmate of Long Bay Gaol. Two further inconsistencies were noted " at page 17 of the transcript of the taped conversation

between RYAN/McHUGH (tape 2 from the Attorney-General) an unknown person aays 'goo~ morning', whereas no such words are evident during the same conversation recorded on the second tape obtained from 'The Age' on 26 March 1984. During another conversation (tape 3

from the Attorney-General) an unknown male voice says 'this is Side B " " " ". Again, this is not evident in the material provided on 26 March 1984.

18. The conversation recorded on Sides A and B of Tape 3, received from 'The Age' on 26 March 1984 appears to be between a police officer and prisoner discussing an armed robbery committed by the prisoner and two other persons, during which recovery and

disposition of the proceeds are traversed . Neither the police officer nor the inmate are identified, however, the inmate's name may be 'Peter'. The conversation does not appear to be a telephone interception and is most probably a recording of a debriefing in

situ (SEE APPENDIX F). I understand that the Ne~ South Wales Police may be able to identify the parties to this conversation.

19. Mr CREIGHTON-BURNS of 'The Age', while not resiling from his decision not to co-operate with a police enquiry (FLAG 11), has acknowledged that the additional conversation vas not included in the material to the Attorney-General because, in the Editor's

view, it was not of a telephone intercepted conversation and there " fore was not relevant. The Editor of 'The Age' also acknowledged that 'The Age' was responsible for the ambient sounds and voices which appear on the Attorney-General's copies . of the tapes. He

profoundly regretted the fact that 'The Age' was responsible for a degree of confusion by employing a less than sophisticated method to replicate the tapes.

20. SP

of organised believed that investigation Government.

Bookmaking: The transcripts reveal a consistent pattern starting price bookmaking in Ne~ South Wales. It is this facet of criminality has been subject of a full by the New South Wales Police and reported on to State

21. Casino Bribes: Allegedly RYAN was telephoned on 7 February 1980 by a John YUEN who said he had paid $50,000.00 to a John DUCKER for consideration over a future gambling casino licence being granted. It is understood that the New South Wales Police are enquiring into this matter.

6 .

22. Horae Race Fixing " Limite~ ~tarlal on doping an~ fixing

in horae racing circles in New South Males, auggeative of organiaa " tion. ~his alao has been the aubject of New South Males Police enquiry.

23. Immigration Rackets, ~here is extensive tranacript material relating to AFP investigations in 1980-81 into a criminal acheme whereby South ~orean nationals illegally obtaine~ permanent residence in Australia. Morgan John RYAN was aubsequently charged with Conspiracy (S.86 Crimes Act 1914) one count and on conviction

receive~ e S year good behaviour bond and e fine of $400.00.

A notice of appeal has been lodged.

24. Alleged Conversations Between Morgan John RYAN end Justice Lionel MURPHY: There ere several telephone conversations between Morgan John RYAN end e person tentatively identified as Justice Lionel MURPHY of the High Court of Australia. The conversa " tions suggest easy familiarity end are frequently cryptic end somewhat furtive, with MURPHY exhorting RYAN to exercise caution when speaking on the telephone.


25. The Attorney-General's Department commissioned Mr Don CRAIG of Louis Challis end Associates Pty Ltd, Consulting end Vibration Engineers, 246-248 Dowling Street, ~ings Cross, Sydney, to audio test 'The Age' tapes. The tapes originally handed by

'The Age' to the Attorney-General were delivered to Mr CRAIG on 21 February 1984, followed by the second 'Age' tapes on 10 April 1984. Mr CRAIG has had insufficient time to analyse the second set of tapes as they were, at your direction, retrieved for the purposes of the Senate inquiry. Understandably, CRAIG awaits further

instructions (FLAG 12).

26. All transcripts and summaries obtained from 'The Age' and including the 'Horgan John RYAN' summary from the ABCI, ere under analyses by the Document Examination Bureau (DEB) of the AFP. Tests, including paper type, type face, photocopy technique etc, are also incomplete.

27. Chief Inspector D.C. WARING, Officer in Charge, Special Projects Branch (SPB), the Unit responsible in the AFP for the monitoring of all legally intercepted telecommunication services, has stated that Morgan John RYAN, David George FREEMAN , Robert TRIMBOLE and Ronald DIAS have not been the subject of legal tele "

communication interceptions by SPB. Sergeant P ~ C. WELLER (SPB) an experie nced member of _the Unit has stated that 'The Age ' trans " cripts are not in the format used by the AFP and no AFP transcripts have ever been typed on foolscap paper; only A4 size is used

(FLAG 13).

28. Chief Inspector P.J. BRITTLIFF, Officer in Charge, Electronic Services Branch (ESB) of the AFP has reported that the names Morgan John RYAN, David George FREEMAN , Robert TRIMBOLE or Ronald DIAS do not appear on any records held in the Branch .

. . . /7


!he only action ever taken on telephonic interceptions ia upon request by the Officer in Charge, 5P8, foll~ing receipt of a warrant authorising an interception. Electronic equipment auitable for telephonic interceptions is not available, an~ has never been

provide~ by ESB, to other membera of the AFP or any other organisa "

tion ( Fl.AG 14).



29. It vas decided to arrange the inquiries into two distinct phases. The rationale for this vas baseO on the questionable nature of 'The Age' materiel end the likelihood that the material would never be sufficiently authenticated by technical or forensic means,

or by indirect inquiry, to sustain a criminal prosecution . Coupled with this was our view that it was undesirable to first confront the persons tentatively identified as participating in alleged telephone conversations with Horgan John RYAN as it was by no means

established that any premature approach would not prejudice the investigation.

30. Before proceeding further, it is also relevant to note that a decision was taken end approved in consultation with yourself , that it would ha~per the investigation if we were precluded from allowing witnesses to listen to the tape recordings and to reed

the transcripts and summaries.

31. After deliberation it was decided to approach the AFP pert of the inquiry as a criminal investigation as opposed to a departmental inquiry, on the basis that the breaches alleged are specifically provided for under the Offence provisions of the Tele "

communications (Interception) Act 1979 and because the breaches, if proven to have occurred, arose from a significant venture which entailed organisation, persistence and commitment of a high order. A departmental inquiry, therefore, was deemed inappropriate.

Phase I of the investigation included:

* the interview of sources; Mr Bob BOTTOM, Mr Brian TOOHEY, Editor, 'National Times' and Hr CREIGHTON " BURNS , 'The Age';

* internal AFP inquiries in order to secure relevant documentation;

* the interview of key AFP personnel; and

* document analyses (tapes and transcripts).

Phase 11 of the investigation included:

* consolidation and follow-up of matters raised in Phase I;

... /8

8 .

" interview of AFP peraonnel not cataaor1aa~ a& of

Phase J importance, or who eoul~ not be interviawe~ beforehan~ owing to circumstances,

" aearch fin~ings,

" ~ocument analyaes findings, an~

" interview of parties to allege~ telephone conversa " tions with Morgan John RYAN.

Synopsis of Interviews - Phase J

32. (i) Detective Sergeant P. WELLER, Special Projects Branch - 6.2.84: Analysis of 'The Age' ~terial.

Comment: Material appears to have been tampered with (FLAG 15).

(ii) Detective Station Sergeant D.J. LEWINGTON - 22, 23.2.84: Investigated Morgan John RYAN and others (Xorean immigra " tion enquiry).

Comment: In company with former Detective Senior Constable R.A. Jones, he listened to segments of sound tapes at 'B' Division, Sydney; this was arranged by Detective Inspector P.J. LAMB; considered that the tapes may have been of intercepted telephone conversations; presumed that such interceptions were legal; was not

shown any written documentation in 'B' Division; identified a number of voices on the tapes (Morgan RYAN, James MASON, Keith BELL and tentatively Justice Lionel MURPHY) as he had subsequently spoken to all of them except

Justice MURPHY; that LAMB told him that one of the parties to a conversation was Justice MURPHY; that the tapes could have been cassettes and reel to reel; that he did not know 'IRISH' or Jock HAWTHORN; and he could not identify 'The Age' material as material he had listened

to in 'B' Division (FLAG 16).

(iii) Hr Bob BOTTOM, Investigative Journalist - 24.2.84, 10.4.84: Provider of material to 'The Age' and 'The National Times'.

Comment: Contacted by telephone to arrange inverview; failed to re-establish contact; eventually responded to the written urgings of the Special Prosecutor and telephoned Deputy Commissioner JOHNSON on 10.4.84; disinclined to be interviewed by police until after he had given evidence before the Senate Select Committee; will then review his position.

. .. 19


(iv) Mr C~tJGHTON-8URNS, E~itor '~he Age' " 24.2.14, 6.3.14,

3.4.14& ∑~he Age' receipt of ~terial from Mr 8ob BOTTOM.

Comment " At firat agree~ to be interviewe~. however,

reaileO from thia position on 6.3.14, approach "~ again to provi~e "original' material received from IOTTOH 1 "original' ~terial receiveO on 26.3.14, approached further to aid police in clarifying apparent ambient

aounds on the tapes given to the Attorney-General and an extra conversation in the original material which were excluded from the Attorney-General's copies; aubaequently refused to assist, McPHEE, OC. for 'The Age' telephoned

5.4.84 to confirm CREIGHTON-BURNS' reluctance to co " operate with an inquiry in which he has no confidence (SEE FL~G 11).

(v) Mr Brian TOOHEY, Editor of 'The National Times' - 2.3.84: Editor of the newspaper which first published details of the alleged telephone interceptions on 2S.ll.83.

Comment: Unco-operative in terms of identifying sources; implied that the material originated from Mr BOTTOM; implied a degree of knowledge of the telephone intercepts on the part of aome senior officers of the AFP, including Sir Colin WOODS ( FL~G 17).

(vi) Former Detective Senior Constable R . ~. JONES- 5.3.84: The AFP member assisting Detective Station Sergeant D.J. LEWINGTON in the investigation of Morgan John RYAN end others.

Comment: Recalls listening to sound tapes in 'B' but recollection is less detailed than LEWINGTON: Division, that en unidentified member of 'B' Division identified RYAN's voice on a tape; believed the tapes could have been of

intercepted telephone conversations: not shown any written documentation in 'B' Division; no knowledge of 'IRISH' or Jock HAWTHORN; was unable to identify 'The Age' material as material he had listened to in 'B' Division

(FLAG 18).

(vii) Detective Superintendent P.J. LAMB- 8-9.3.84: The Officer in Charge, 'B' Division, Sydney, during the period in question.

Comment: Ackno~ledged receipt of sound tapes from Jock HAWTHOR ~ . a serving me mber of the Ne~ South Wales Police;

certain cash payments made to HAWTHORN; HAWTHORN registered as an AFP informant under the code name 'IRISH': denies kno~ledge that the HAWTHORN tapes were of telephone interceptions; assisted LEWINGTON and JONES by facilitat "

ing their access to the HAWTHORN tapes; authorisation to receive tapes from, and pay monies to, HAWTHORN came from Deputy Commissioner R. FARMER; does not corroborate LEWINGTON's statements in respect of Justice MURPHY;

... /10

10 .

eeknowledged ~king three page file note, the content " or which ere identical to certain part " or ∑~he Age' ~terial, but ha~ no knowledge es to the eeeureey or aource

or that ~terial (FLAG 19).

(viii) Deputy Commissioner R. FARMER- 13, 1S.3.84a ~he Commanding Officer of the Crime Department ~uring the period in question.

Commenta About 1980-81 LAMB contacted FARMER by telephone and told him that he (LAMB) had been offered eccess to audio tapes by a member of the NSW Police; told FARMER tapes related to Morgan John RYAN; FARMER referred the matter to Sir Colin WOODS; WOODS queried reasons tapes were being offered; beca\1Se the origins of the tapes were unknown WOODS agreed to accept them; FARMER was

aware that LAMB had a 'contact' in the NSW Police, believed to be HAWTHORN; LAMB told FARMER he believed the tapes were from a listening or bugging device; FARMER did not believe they were the result of a telephonic interception ;

did not believe that NSW Police were intercepting telephone conversations; approved payment of approximately $200.00 to HAWTHORN; had no knowledge of money being used for upkeep of a facility (FLAG 20).

(ix) Detective Chief Superintendent V.A. ANDERSON - 16,21.3.84 : The Officer in Charge, 'B' Division, during the period in question.

Comment: Early 1981, LAMB told him that he was receiving information from a serving member of the NSW Police; knew that LAMB had been offered tapes end LAMB had approached FARMER who in turn had approached WOODS: believed WOODS had said LAMB should accept tapes because

they contained intelligence; he believed that WOODS later became suspicious that tapes were of illegal telephonic interceptions: LAMB told ANDERSON that informant was 'Jock' HAWTHORN; ANDERSON did not listen to tapes; had no knowledge of NSW Police involvement in telephon ic

interceptions; reported the finding of 'Horgan John RYAN' file in ABCI (FLAG 21).

(x) Detective Superintendent D.J. MITCHELL - 20.3.84: Former Officer in Charge, Special Investigations Branch.

Comment: Has no knowledge of audio taped conversations being obtained by LAMB; does not know 'Jock' HAWTHORN; cannot recall informant 'IRISH'; no direct knowledge of illegal telephonic interceptions ; only heard rumours of NSW Police BCl involvement since 1975-76 (FLAG 22).

(xi) Arthur 'Jock' HAWTHORN- 24.3.84, 18.4.84: Former Sergeant Second Class, New South Wales Police and member of the Radio Branch attached to the Crime Intelligence Unit (1976-1981) retired in 1981 due to ill-health.

. .. /11

11 .

Comment " Unprepared to co-operate with AFP inquiries, admit~ed assisting Inspector LAMB with "aetting up radio

gear ", denies being involved in anything illegalr attended NSW ~olice interview 18.4.14 with aolicitor and refused to answer any questions CFLAC 23).

Other Enquiries - Phase 1

33. (i) Search of Special Investigations Branch (SIB) Indices - 6.2.84

Comment1 With the assistance of Chief Inspector ~. MOLLER, Officer in Charge, SIB, conducted e aearch of SIB indices 1 took possession of two (2) file registers marked 'Hester File List' end 'File Register' end index cards in the

names of Morgan John RYAN, Abe SAFFRON end 'Had Dog' HILLER (FLAG 24).

(ii) Search of SIB (UNIT) Eastern Region - 9.2.84

Comment: Arranged through Regional Commander, Assistant Commissioner R. McCABE, Chief Superintendent R. GILLESPIE conducted search; requested he take possession of any file in the name 'Horgan John RYAN' - file numbers

provided; obtain 'Trident' file Number NDOI8 (FLAG 25).

(iii) Search of SIB (UNIT) Eastern Region - 15.2.84

Comment: Search conducted by Detective Chief Inspector WHIDDETT, assisted by Chief Inspector X. HOLLER; ell indices, systems, computerised material, registers and other files searched for material relative to telephonic

interception material; lists of operational targets and cross-referenced to names in 'The Age' material; no significant evidence obtained.

(iv) Search of SIB (UNIT) Eastern Region - 1.3.84

Comment: Deputy Commissioner JOHNSON directed Assistant Commissioner R. McCABE to conduct a search of Detective Inspector A. WELLS' personal 'B' Class container; McCABE and GILLESPIE conduct search; located several audio

tapes - unrelated to this enquiry; also located three documents, two unrelated to this enquiry; one document - three (3) pages headed 'FILE NOTES' allegedly relating to a meeting with 'IRISH' (LAMB) at 7.30am Friday

11 July 1980 also obtained - an apparent synopsis of telephone conversations between Horgan John RYAN and others (FLAG 26).

(v) Location of 'Morgan John RYAN' Summary at ABCI - 28.2.84

Comment : Chief Superintendent V.A. ANDERSON forwarded file, refere nce 100316 which was located in ABCI records; file contained a 46 page document headed 'Summary of ... /12


infor~tlon aupplied by informant in relation to lydney

aolicitor Morgan ~YAN'J re;iaterad ABCI 29.t.l1 1 prima fecie, this document appears to be an earlier generation copy of the 'Horgan John ~YAN' aummary obtained by 'The Age' from BOTTOM (SEE FLAG 10).

Synopsis of Interviews " Phase II

34. (i) P.W. Constable C. HARTEN-OUADE- 20.3.84

Comment1 Deployed in 'B' Division during period in question; has never heard of 'Jock' Arthur HAWTHORN; duties consisted of review and analysis of sound record " ings; those duties always instructed by Inspector

P . LAMB; LAMB never indicated that he knew what was contained on the tapes; no knowledge that recordings were subject of telephonic interceptions; no knowledge of 'The Age' material; format used in 'The Age' material

not the same as that used in 'B' Division (FLAG 1 VOL. 2).

(ii) Detective Inspector~. NEWELL- 22.3.84

Comment: Received intelligence from Inspector P. LAMB during period in question; intelligence irrelevant to NEWELL's inquiries into Chinese immigrants; received copies of 'Running Sheets' from Operation 'Zulu' and perused transcript of recorded conversation between former AFP member, Chief Inspector D. THOMAS and Morgan John RYAN which was not a telephone conversation; did not

listen to tapes of telephone conversations; never provided with tapes from 'B' Division; never heard of Arthur 'Jock' HAWTHORN; no knowledge of illegal interception of tele " phone conversations (FLAG 2 VOL. 2).

(iii) Detective Senior Sergeant B.J. CARTER- 23.3.84 Comment: Deployed 'B' Division during the relevant time; he maintained Informants Register; know 'IRISH' was LAMB's informant; met 'Jock' HAWTHORN on two occasions;

knew HAWTHORN was a serving member of the NSW Police; knew HAWTHORN gave LAMB sound tapes; knew that HAWTHORN received money from LAMB; no knowledge of telephonic interceptions conducted by NSW Police or 'B' Division

( FLAG 3 VOL. 2 ) .

(iv) Former AFP Sergeant - Mr W.R. TAYLOR - 23.3.84

Comment: Deployed during relevant time as an intelligence officer in 'B' Division, Sydney; did not know Arthur 'Jock' HAWTHORN; heard HAWTHORN's name mentioned in 'B' Division; did not introduce HAWTHORN to LAMB; knew HAWTHORN was LAMB's informant; knew that LAMB received

two or three cassette tapes from HAWTHORN; listened to portion of one tape and heard conversations between two persons; identity not known; LAMB told him that one

... /13

13 0

of the per.ona wa& Morgan ~ohn JYAN, did not know converaationa were aubject of telephonic lnterceptiona 1 believe~ tape& were on loan and after tranacription were

returne~ by LAMB to HAWTHORN (FLAG 4 VOL. 2).

(v) Detective Senior Constable ~.P. JOBINSON - 23.3.84

Commenta Deployed 'B' Division during relevant perio~, duties were to provide technical aupport to 'B' Diviaion 1 never been involved in illegal telephonic intercepta 1 knew 'IRISH' and was introduce~ to him by LAMB ln 19801

knew that 'IRISH' was a aerviny ~ember of the NSW Police (scientific-technical area), told by LAMB that be (ROBINSON) bad to meet HAWTHORN who would give him aome tape recordings: receive~ from HAWTHORN three or four tapes: listened to portion of a tape en~ recalls bearing unidentified male voices: did not know that conversations on tape were subject of telephonic interceptions: tapes were reel to reel type: later heard around the office

that 'HAWTHORN tapes' were telephone conversations involving Morgan ~ohn RYAN: cannot recall e specific person saying that conversations emanated from telephonic devices (FLAG 5 VOL. 2).

(vi) P.W . Detective Senior Constable E.A. HARRISON- 27.3.84 Comment: Deployed 'B' Division at the relevant period; she heard of ∑~ock' but not the name HAWTHORN : did not

kno~ that 'IRISH' was LAMB's informant; did not know

that 'IRISH' was a serving member of the NSW Police; did not know the nature of the material supplied by 'IRISH' to LAMB; she typed notes, information reports from information provided by LAMB ; recalls typing inform "

ation attributable to 'IRISH': recalls several tapes from 'IRISH': believed conversations on tapes were obtained by listening devices, body devices or from surveillance electronics; believes tapes were reel to

reel type; tapes contained different conversations between unidentifiable persons; however, recalls conversations involving Morgan John RYAN and members of his family; recalls sound of telephone dialling and only hearing one

side of a conversation; recalls discussing with LAMB portions of tapes relevant to LEWINGTON/JONES Korean enquiry; no knowledge of illegal telephonic devices being used (FLAG 6 VOL. 2).

(vii) Detective Sergeant C . WILLS- 29.3.84

Comment : Deployed 'B' Division at relevant time; no knowledge of LAMB's association with 'IRISH' at relevant time; no knowledge of tapes received by LAMB from HAWTHORN; no knowledge of activities regarding the

illegal use of telephonic interception devices (FLAG 7 VOL. 2).

0 0 0/14


(viii) Detective Sergeant a.,. ONLEY∑ 29.,.14

Comment " Deploy "~ '8' Diviaion at relevant perio~1 no knovl " e~ge at relevant time that LAMB he~ informant name~ 'IRISH',

no knowle~ge of either HAWTHORN or aerving member of HSW Police provi~ing information to LAMB; no knowle~ge of material

aubject or illegal telephonic interceptions being provi~e~ to '8' Diviaion by HSW Police, no knowle~ge of payments to aerving member of HSW Police (FLAG 8 VOL. 2).

(ix) Ms B.A. JAMIESON - 29.3.84

Comment: Typist in 'B' Division aince December 1979; heard of 'IRISH' around office; does not know 'Jock' HAWTHORN; cannot recall transcribing aound tapes; cannot recall typing notes or information reports for 'Trident' file; no knowle~ge of illegal telephonic interceptions; cannot recall payments

to 'IRISH'r no recall of typing for LAMB regarding 'IRISH'; no knowledge of the receipt of sound tapes from 'IRISH' (FLAG 9 VOL. 2).

(x) Detective Sergeant B. PROVOST - 29.J.84

Comment: Deployed 'B' Division at relevant time; no knowl " edge of any covert listening device used on Morgen John RYAN; has heard of 'IRISH' within the confines of 'B' Division; did not know 'IRISH's' identity; did not know LAMB had an

informant in NSW Police; did not know LAMB received sound tapes from informant 1980-81; no knowledge of illegal tele " phonic interceptions (FLAG 10 VOL. 2).

(xi) Inspector F.H. ARTHUR - 6.4.84

Comment: Deployed Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence (ABCI) July 1981 to May 1983; shown ABCI File No . 100316 titled 'Morgan John RYAN'; during September 1981, subject document handed to ARTHUR by Mr F. SILVESTER, former Director, ABCI; SILVESTER did not tell ARTHUR the source of the document; file commenced after receipt of document and file

retained by SILVESTER; file retained in SILVESTER's safe; in October 1982 SILVESTER produced file and submitted same into ABCI Registry (FLAG 11 VOL. 2).

(xii) Detective Chief Inspector K.E. MOLLER - 10.4.84

Comment: Currently employed as Officer in Charge, SIB Canberra; following 'National Times' article (25 November 1983) 'Big Shots Bugged' he enquired for purpose of prepara " tion of 'Possible Parliamentary Question' (PPQ); LEWINGTON

told him that he had been shown some information by LAMB regarding Morgan John RYAN; MOLLER telephoned LAMB in USA; LAMB told him that some information had been supplied to himself concerning Morgan RYAN and others; this information

had been conveyed to then Assistant Commissioner FARMER and to Sir Colin WOODS; he acknowledged the preparation of a file note on AFP File No. 82/3829, headed 'Morgan John RYAN, Solicitor'; file note at folio ten headed 'TELECON K.E.M./P.L∑

... /15

15 .

2t Movamber ltll' " aaid file note vaa hia appreciation or hi& 'ahort enquiries ", hia -.ntion or 'facility run by other a;ency,' 'not knovn if "uthoriaed but doubtful' " " " "nt that the intercept waa not an AFP intercept, 'Intelligence offered

to P.L. by different peraona from other ";ency in reapact or Commonwealth " "ttera,' 'Williams R.C. ~ttera were bein; investigated "t the time' " this information alla;edly from LAMB; 'With knovled;e of c.w. and R.F. amall amount of ~oney

was paid for upkeep of facility because or (Commonwealth) intelli;ence obtained' - aaid he could not recall who told him thi&J 'At times complete tapes were given to P.L. who allowed D.L. (~orean Enquiry) and ~.N. (Chinese Enquiry) to

listen to them " " " " -he is uncertain where this information vas obtained, possibly L~HB or LEWINGTON; 'From facility, intelligence obtained re J.D.D. and D.T. (then AFP member s ) vas obtained' - information allegedly from LAMB; 'Believed

facility was arranged by J.H. (then l/C other agency electronics section) J.H. recently retired medically unfit . It is knovn J.H. bitter about lack of action on intelligence his section was continually obtaining. He could have axe

to grind.' -uncertain vhere this information originated; 'Embarrassment may be caused to AFP if H .W. publishes details of intelligence obtained re J.D.D. and D.T.' -this vas his own assessment, "c.w. and R.F. have knowledge of this intell "

igence' - told by LAMB : believed LAMB told him intelligence vas obtained in various forms, including tapes; believed payment of money for upkeep of facility to mean for payment of transcriptions, copies of transcriptions , tapes, etc;

possibly influenced in his written assessment (file note) by press articles; believed other agency meant the NSW Police; heard of 'Jock' HAWTHORN during his enquiries and referred to as 'J.H.' (FLAG 12 VOL. 2).

(xiii) Hr R.E . KENNEDY - 11.4.84

Deputy Commissioner during relevant period.

Comment: Stated that he was responsible for 'B' Division in theory but not in practice; voiced his concern (to Sir Colin WOODS) that he was not fully briefed on 'B' Division activities; unaware of informant 'IRISH'; unaware of Jock

HAWTHORN; unaware that 'B' Division was receiving sound tapes from HAWTHORN; unaware that HAWTHORN was paid monies end treated as an informer; directed LEWINGTON and JONES to both LAMB and NSW Police CIU on the basis that the two intelligence

groups may have had information on Koreans; has no knowledge of the NSW Police illegally intercepting telephone convers " ations (FLAG 13 VOL. 2).

(xiv) Mr F.A. SILVESTER - 16.4.84

Former Director, ABC!.

Comment : Unaware of illegal telephonic interceptions by NSW Police; received RYAN summary copy from BOTTOM; believed summary may have been of intercepted telephone conversations; knows HAWTHORN; did not kno~ ∑ HAWTHOR N was providing AFP with

tapes (FLAG 14 VOL . 2).

. .. /16

16 0

Other Enguiriea " Phaae II

3~. (1) Examination o! AOvance Accounta

Comrnenta ~he AOvance Account known as the ,oy FARMER ~rust Account ~intaineO in Canberra in reapect to payments

to informants has been examined1 no direct references to paymenta to 'IRISH' or HAWTHORN have been detecte01 examination revealed that payments are recorded under operational names in lieu or personal names1 the Advance Account record ~intained at the Special Investigations

Branch (SIB), Sydney, has been examined: no record was found therein relating to any payment to 'IRISH' or HAWTHORN: no payments were made to informants directly from that Branch during the relevant period: all payments made were again recorded under operational names in lieu or personal names: the pos"sibility exists wherein the

payments made to 'IRISH' or HAWTHORN may have legitimately been made as part or a larger sum recorded under a particular operational name.

(ii) Investigation into Technical Aspects of Tapes

Comment: All cassette tapes received by the AFP on 3 February 1984 end 26 Harch 1984 have been examined by Hr Don CRAIG of Louis A. CHALLIS end Associates Pty Ltd of Sydney; his examinations have identified some positive examples of editing of those tapes; each of those tapes has been copied from earlier versions by use of unsophis " ticated methods; certain electronic noises exist on one of the tapes; such noises ~y have been introduced post

the recording to cover the editing of the conversations; CRAIG holds firm to his opinion that the original record " ings may have been made on a 'reel to reel' tape recorder; earlier or original generations of those tapes would assist CRAIG's further enquiries; some conversations appear

to lack logical continuity (SEE FLAG 12 VOL. 1).

(iii) Review of ABCI Records


Comment: Following the discovery of the Horgan RYAN summary within ABCI indices, the present Director, Hr V.A. ANDERSON, initiated an internal audit at our request in order to establish whether similar material was in evidence. The Director has advised that the audit

failed to reveal additional material.


36. The most problematical issue confronting the investigation team was1 and remains, the validation or authentication of the tapes and copy transcripts and summaries provided to 'The Age'. Indeed, the position would not necessarily have been anv clearer had

0 0 0/17

17 .

Mr IOTTOH. the provider. co∑operate~ by declaring hia aource. lt 1& ~re than likely that even with aome co∑operation on the part of Mr IOTTOH, we woul~ have been confront "~ with an inaoJuble


37. From the outaet it was evident that the ~terial bed been aubject to interference. ~hia was our belief at the beginning and was aupported by ~ember& of the AFP who are experience~ in the

~nitorin; and tranacription of authorised telephone interceptions

(SEE FLAG 1~ VOL. 1). ~he central question is whether this inter " ference owes its origins to innocent expediency or ainiater contrivance.

~he Sound ~apes

38. The final report of the consultant engineer will not be available until such time as tests commenced on the second aet of tapes are completed. Hr CRAIG estimates that he has concluded only some ten percent (10\) of tests and had not reviewed all the convers "

ations on the tapes before they were retrieved. What is certain, however, is that it is unlikely that Hr CRAIG will alter his view that the tapes have been subject to tampering. He cannot say, with " out recourse to the original tapes. whether the tampering occurred at the time they were made or when they were replicated.

Unfortunately, the consultants were obliged to analyse inferior material which could be several generations removed from the original which are thought to be reel to reel recordings.

The Transcripts

39. It is regrettable that .'The Age', without any apparent malicious intent. handled the transcripts and summaries, and indeed the tapes themselves. in such a manner as to lose both continuity and control of not only the 'original' papers provided by Mr BOTTOM,

but of the sequential collation of the several copies which are in existence.

40. The management of 'The Age' chooses not to co-operate with us. but even if co-operation had been forthcoming it is unlikely that the origins of the transcripts end summaries could have been reconstructed sufficiently to guarantee the integrity of the


41. The Document Examination Bureau's report on the trans-cripts is incomplete, nevertheless preliminary advice is that several typewriters were used in the preparation of both the transcripts and summaries and that it is possible that the make and model of

each will be forthcoming.

42. Of critical importance is that it is unlikely that any identified suspected typewriter( s } will have retained its individual characteristics, given the time that has elapsed since the trans " cripts were typed. Normal usage during the past few years almost

certainly ensures that the precise indicators of technical identific " ation are irretrievably lost.

. .. /18



43. ~he principal avenue of validation vas, of courae, to approach those persons vho vere alle~e~ to be parties to convers " ations vith Mor~an ~ohn RYAN, end to approach ~YAN himself, vith a view to determinin~ vhether the parties could identify their

voices, recall the conversations and provide the context. Such approaches vere uniformly unsuccessful, as, vith the exception of Mr J. NORRIS, OC~ the other le~el practitioners " namely, Bruce MILES, Morgan ~ohn ~YAN, ~erry CHRISTIE and Michael McHUGH, 0C ∑

vere unprepared to co-operate with the police enquiry. Mr NORRIS was willing to assist us but is of ill-health and vas unable to recall his conversation vith RYAN.

44. Attempts to validate the materiel by reference to less consequential alleged conversations vith extraneous individuals end businesses, vere inconclusive, owing to the passage of time end the fleeting nature of the transactions.

The ABCI File

45. The ABCI copy of the Horgan RYAN summary was of interest

for two important reasons: firstly, it was identical to part of 'The Age' material and, secondly, it is clearly a copy vhich is much closer to the original than that provided by 'The Age'. More " over. the former Director of the ABCI, Hr F.A. SILVESTER, has

identified Hr BOTTOM as the provider. The common source, as known, is depicted by flo~ chart (FLAG 15 VOL. 2).

46. The Document Examination Bureau's report on this document is awaited.


47. The investigation has been characterised by the fact that only serving police have demonstrated a willingness to assist the inquiry. Hr BOTTOM has declined to be interviewed at this time; Hr CREIGHTON-BURNS of 'The Age' has refused to co-operate with a police enquiry; Hr TOOHEY of 'The National Times' cites journalistic ethics for his refusal to discuss sources; and Hr 'Jock' HAWTHORN, admittedly a retired police officer, has steadfastly refused to

be questioned by elements .of the NSW and AFP Joint Team.

Composite Versions

48. The nineteen (19) me mbers of the AFP interviewed during the investigation provided a composite theme, namely that Arthur (Jock) HAWTHORN, then a serving member of the NSW Police. provided Detective Inspector P .J. L~B with sound tapes; that 'B' Division personnel extracted intelligence from those tapes which was recorded

in AFP indices; that HAI-.'THORN was paid unspecified but nevertheless small sums of money for his services; that there was a professed general belief on the part of the involved AFP members that the tapes were of conversations obtained other than by telephone inter " ception; and that, in time, there was an emerging awareness in administrative circles that the material supplied by HAWTHORN may

have originat~d from an unauthorised telephone interception .

. . . /19

19 .


49. ln an attempt to aaaimilate the ~aterial provi~e~ by a

variety of vitneaaea with diverse roles, it vas neceaaary to firat i~entify pertinent categories of evi~ence an~ to evaluate the atete "

menta of vitnesaes against those categories (FLAG 16 VOL. 2). ~he objective in plotting this ~teriel vas to i~entify the likely degree of 'knowle~ge' of each witness an~ to compare that 'knovle~ge' against the composite version in order to determine inconaiatencies.

l~entifie~ inconsistencies were then evaluate~ to establish whether

it vas reasonable to attribute them to faulty recall or ignorance.

50. We conclu~e that, for the most part, inconsistencies in the accounts and recollections of witnesses are attributable to both the passage of time and to the ~emarcation of ~uties which

necessarily circumscribe knowledge. The totality of the evi~ence ~oes, in our view, veigh against the underlying theme that no

involve~ member of 'B' Division knew, or et any time suspected,

that the material supplied by HAWTHORN originated from the inter " ception of telephone conversations. Accordingly, ve ere bound to say that such a theme is implausible. On the other hand, there is, in our opinion, insufficient evidence to conclude that it is

beyond reasonable ~oubt that any member of 'B' Division, including LAMB, knew that the material provided by HAWTHORN unquestionably originated from the interception of telephone conversations.

51. The chart (inconsistencies etc.) (SEE FLAG 16 VOL. 2) speaks for itself; nevertheless the most outstanding feature is that no witnesses have professed having read or listened to the material originating from 'The Age'.


52. Briefly, the searches demonstrated that Arthur (Jock) HAWTHORN was registered as an informant of the AFP, code-named 'IRISH'; that information provided by HAWTHORN was recorded in a number of information reports prepared by 'B' Division; that

Detective Inspector LAMB personally prepared a three page document of material allegedly acquired from HAWTHORN; that a file note prepared by Chief Inspector HOLLER and located in a file titled 'Morgan John RYAN ' held by SIB. Canberra, contained an analysis

of his brief inquiries into 'The National Times' article of 25.11.83; and that, collectively, the material contained ite~s consistent with portions of 'The Age' transcripts and summaries.

53 . While the payment of sums of money to HAWTHORN is not

in doubt, it was not possible, by reference to witnesses and account " ing records, to identify the payments. No suspicion attaches to this, in our opinion, as it is likely that the payments were part of significantly larger sums drawn for 'B' Division operations during the period and which were acquitted in full. At the relevant

time procedures for such operational expenses were still evolving and therefore uniformity was lacking.

. .. /20


Witnesses Not Interviewed

~4. J have already pointed out that certain key witnesses

have refuse~ to co-operate vith the police enquiry and that it ia conceivable that their refusal has had a bearing on the inconclusive outcome or the investigation.

~~. As you will recall, you ~irecte~ that both Sir Colin WOODS

and Justice Lionel MURPHY not be interviewed by police at this atage. In ad~ition, two matters identified in the transcripts relating to aeparete AFP investigations conducted by Detective Station Sergeants LEWINGTON and COOPER are to be resolved by Internal

Investigations Division.

56. The results thus far of New South Wales Police inquiries have been made available to you, and you have no doubt concluded, as I have, that their inquiries have not as yet produced evidence proving or disproving the authenticity of 'The Age' materiel, or proving or disproving the central allegation, namely that a member

or members of the New South Wales Police initiated the illegal inter " ception of telephone conversations.


57. It is stressed that conclusions reached at this stage ere qualified by the feet that the analyses of experts ere incomplete and some witnesses have not been interviewed. Nevertheless, certain conclusions have been reached which ere unlikely to be reversed. On the other hand, the possible effect of the evidence of unapproached or unwilling witnesses, cannot be measured.

58. The findings, on the evidence available, are that the AFP, through 'B' Division, received sound tapes, most probably of telephone conversations between Horgan John RYAN end other parties, from Hr Arthur 'Jock' HAWTHORN, then a serving member of the New

South Wales Police attached to the Crime Intelligence Unit, end that HAWTHORN accepted payments of money from the AFP for his services. Further, that while witnesses gave rise to inconsistencies which ere explainable, it is our view, taking into account the whole of the material developed during the course of the investigation,

that it is implausible to. suppose that no member of 'B' Division at any time knew or entertained the proposition or suspected that the material provided by HAWTHORN originated from the interception of telephone conversations.

59. We are also of the opinion that, conversely, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate beyond reasonable doubt that members of the AFP, including LAMB. knew that the material provided by HAWTHORN originated unquestionably from a telephone interception.

60. While there ere similarities between what may be termed 'The Age' material end the HAWTHORN material, both drawn together by the three page file note prepared by LAMB , no witness has professed to have listened to or read 'The Age' material prior to

reviewing it during this inquiry.

. .. /21

21 .

61. Finally, whether '~he Age' .. tarial waa prepared by a police organiaeUon or by police acting on their ovn initiative and without approval ia e .. tter for conjecture. ~he ~aterial bears references and idiom which could be aaid to have a police flavour.

On the other hand, it is arguable that the preaantation of the material was contrived ao that that very concluaion could be reached. ~he fact ia that those identified as principal witnesses, persons

who may possess knowledge capable of fundamentally reshaping or re-affirming the conclusions reached during this inquiry, have refused to co-operate. Accordingly, we are left with aeveral sustainable possibilities.

62. In the final analysis, and in the absence of any materiel to the contrary, we ere of the opinion that, on the balance of probabilities, e member or ~embers of the New South Wales Police conducted unauthorised telephone interceptions, but that no judge "

ment can be made as to whether such conduct was officially aanctioned by the NSW police administration .

. Mb∑ Acting Commissioner