Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Postmaster-General's Department - Alleged improper practices and improper refusal to co-operate with the Victoria Police Force on the part of persons employed in the Postmaster-General's Department in Victoria in relation to illegal gambling - Report of Royal Commissioner (the Hon. Mr Justice R.L. Taylor)


Download PDF Download PDF

1 9 6 2 - 6 3 . 3 3 7

T H E P A R L IA M E N T O F T H E C O M M O N W E A L T H O F A U S T R A L IA .

Report of

The Honourable Mr. Justice R. L. Taylor,

Royal Commissioner,

on

Alleged Improper Practices and Improper

Refusal to Co-operate with the Victoria

Police Force on the Part of Persons

Employed in the Postmaster-General’s

Department in Victoria in Relation to

Illegal Gambling.

Presented by Command, 23rd M a y , 1963; ord ered to be p rin te d , 30th O ctober, 1963.

[CoMt o f P a p e r : — P rep aratio n , n o t given; 675 copies; a p p r o x i m a t e c o s t o f p r i n t i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g , £300.]

Printed and Published fo r th e G overnm ent of the C o m m o n w ea lth of A ustralia b y A. J. A rthur, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra. (P rin te d in A u stra lia .)

No. 280 [Group I].—F. 11389/63.—Price 8s. 6d.

··' < . ■

■ » ' .

. - ■

i V ' !

■ i i i iy. ,ιιΖ

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith:

To Our Trusty and Well-beloved— The Honourable R o b e r t L i n d s a y T a y l o r , a Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

G r e e t i n g :

1 / NOW YOU THAT WE do by these Our Letters Patent, issued in Our name by Our Governor-General in and over I X Our Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of Our Federal Executive Council and in pursuance of the Constitution of Our said Commonwealth, the R o y a l C o m m issio n s A c t 1902-1933, and all other powers him thereunto enabling, appoint you to be a Commissioner to inquire into and report upon the following matters:—

(a) whether there have occurred any improper practices on the part of persons employed in the State of Victoria in the Postmaster-General’s Department, in connexion with or in relation to illegal gambling activities in Victoria, of the kind referred to in the letter sent on the ninth day of April, 1962, by the Chief Secretary of the State of Victoria to the Postmaster-General and in the report that the Chief Secretary enclosed in that letter and, if so, what improper practices; and (b) whether there has occurred any improper refusal on the part of persons employed in the State of Victoria

in the Postmaster-General’s Department to co-operate to the extent permitted by the relevant statutory provisions and the administrative procedures of the Postmaster-General’s Department with the police force of that State in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in the State of Victoria, and, if so, in what respect has such co-operation been lacking and for what improper

motives has it been refused,

and, generally, the facts relating to and the circumstances attending any such improper practices or refusal to co-operate :

AND WE REQUIRE YOU with as little delay as possible to report to Our Governor-General in and over Our said Commonwealth the result of your inquiries into the matters entrusted to you by these Our Letters Patent.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF WE have caused these Our Letters to be made patent and the Great Seal of Ou' said Commonwealth to be thereunto affixed.

WITNESS Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Cousin and Counsellor, William Philip, Viscount De L’lslc, upon whom has been conferred the Decoration of the Victoria Cross, a member of Our Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George. Knight of the Venerable Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Our Governor-General and Commander-in­ Chief in and over Our Commonwealth of Australia, this twenty-third day of May in the year of our Lore,

One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, and in the eleventh year of Our Reign.

DE L'ISLE, Governor-General.

By His Excellency’s Command, ROBERT G. MENZIES, Prime Minister.

To:

HIS EXCELLENCY WILLIAM PHILIP, VISCOUNT De L’ISLE, upon whom has been conferred the Decoration of the Victoria Cross, a member of the Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight of the Venerable Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Governor- General and Commander-in-chief in and over the Commonwealth of Australia.

M a y i t p l e a s e Y o u r E x c e l l e n c y :

I have the honour to deliver my Report upon the matters entrusted to me for inquiry by Letters Patent dated 23rd May, 1962.

Your Excellency’s Most Obedient Servant,

ROBERT LINDSAY TAYLOR, Commissioner.

Supreme Court, Sydney. March, 1963.

401

Report

of

The Royal Commissioner

on

Alleged Im proper Practices and Im proper

Refusal to Co-operate with the Victoria Police

Force on the Part of Persons Employed in

the Postmaster-General’s Department in

Victoria in Relation to Illegal Gambling.

,. ■ /. v

4 0 3

C O N T E N T S

PART I

I n t r o d u c t i o n

B a c k g r o u n d E v e n t s . . . . . . . . . .

A p p e a r a n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . .

S i t t i n g s a n d E v i d e n c e . . . . . , . . . .

P e r i o d C o v e r e d b y I n q u i r y . . . . . . . . , .

S t a t u t o r y P r o v i s i o n s . . . . . . . . . .

A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . .

P a g e .

3

3

3

4

4

4

PART II

T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e

Chapter 1 .-Re-statement of the Terms of Reference .. .. .. .. .. .. ,, η

Chapter 2.—Interpretation of the Terms of Reference .. .. ., .. .. ., .. η

Chapter 3.—Particulars Furnished by the State of Victoria .. .. .. .. .. .. 8

PART III

A l l e g a t i o n s o f I m p r o p e r P r a c t i c e s

T erm o f R e ference (a)

Chapter 4.—Improper Practices .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11

Section 1.—Introduction (paragraph 18) Section 2.—Provision of Telephone Services— (1) Organization of the Department (paragraphs 19-23) (2) Application for a Telephone Service (paragraphs 24-31) Section 3.—Directives and Instructions Relating to the Installation of Telephones—

(1) The 1950 Directive (paragraphs 32-40) (2) Instructions Pursuant to 1950 Directive (paragraphs 41-44) (3) The 1956 Directive (paragraphs 45-49) (4) The 1960 Directive (paragraphs 50-53) (5) Instructions Relating to the Installation of Telephones in Unusual Locations

(paragraphs 54-55)

Section 4.—Forms of Improper Practices (paragraphs 56-57) ? Section 5,—Evidence of Breaches of Directives (paragraph 58) Section 6.—Application of the Directives (paragraphs 59-62)

Chapter 5.—Improper Installation of Multiple Telephones (Particular A) .. .. 15

Section 1.—Introduction (paragraphs (63-64) Section 2.—Two or More Telephones in One Room of a Private Residence (paragraphs 65-73) Section 3.—Two or More Telephones in Premises Other than Private Residences (paragraphs 74-77)

Section 4.—Telephones Installed in Unusual Locations (paragraphs 78-82) Section 5.—Special Cases of Multiple Telephones (paragraphs 83-84)

Chapter 6.—Installation of Telephones Without Proper Authority (Particular B) .. .. . . . . 20 Chapter 7.—Failure to Investigate (Particulars C and D) .. . . . . . . .. .. 22

Chapter 8.—Blocking and Diversion of Calls (Particular E) .. .. .. .. ., .. 24

Section 1.—Blocking of Calls (paragraph 89) Section 2.—Diversion of Calls (paragraph 90) Chapter 9.—Improper Practices in Relation to Tipsters (Particular F) .. .. .. .. .. 24

Chapter 10.—Failure by Chief Postal Investigation Officer to Assist Police (Particulars G and P) .. . . 24 Chapter 11.—Trafficking in Telephones (Particular H) .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter 12.—Actively Assisting Illegal Gaming Operators (Particular K) .. .. .. .. .. 25

Chapter 13.—Removal of Trunk Line Dockets (Particulars L and Q) .. . . . . . . . . 25

Chapter 14.—Unauthorized Provision, Alteration or Removal of Telephones (Particular M) .. .. 26 Chapter 15.—Employees Using Telephones Installed for Gambling (Particular N) .. . . .. .. 26 Chapter 16.—Alterations to Telephone Exchange Equipment to Divert Calls (Particulars O and S) . . .. 27

C ontents— continued.

PART IV

Allegations of Improper Refusal to Co-operate

T e rm o f R e fe re n c e (b)

Chapter 17.—Refusal to Co-operate .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Section 1.—Introduction (paragraph 117) Section 2.—Importance of Co-operation (paragraph 118) Section 3.—Obligation to Assist the Police (paragraphs 119-121) Section 4.—Statutes, Regulations and Administrative Procedures (paragraphs 122-128) Section 5.—Policy of the Department on Co-operation (paragraphs 129-134) Section 6.—Secrecy of Communication (paragraphs 135-137) Section 7.—Responsibility to Co-operate with Police (paragraphs 138-140)

Chapter 18.—Telephone Services .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Section 1.—Introduction (paragraphs 141-142) Section 2.—Provision of Telephone Services (paragraphs 143-146) Section 3.—Diversion of Telephone Calls (paragraphs 147-156) Section 4.—Fixed Time Calls (paragraphs 157-165) Section 5.—Cancellation and Reconnection of Telephone Services—

(1) Cancellation of Telephone Services (paragraphs 166-167) (2) Reconnection of Telephone Services (paragraphs 168-171)

Chapter 19.—Postal and Telegraph Services .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Section 1.—Introduction (paragraph 172) Section 2.—Tipsters (paragraphs 173-179) Section 3.—Legislation (paragraph 180) Section 4.—Fraud (paragraph 181) Section 5.—Telegrams (paragraphs 182-188) Section 6.—Re-Direction of Mail (paragraphs 189-199) Section 7.—Private Boxes (paragraphs 200-217)

Chapter 20.—Provision of Information .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Section 1.—Introduction (paragraphs 218-219) Section 2.—Police Access to Records (paragraphs 220-223, 228) Section 3.—Supplying Information to the Police (paragraphs 224-227, 228)

PART V

Conclusion

Chapter 21.—Summary and Conclusions

A P P E N D IC E S..............................

435

PART I

IN TR O D U C TIO N

I

437

INTRODUCTION

BA CK G RO U N D EVENTS

1. On Saturday, 10th March, 1962, Inspector G. W. Hill who had been in charge o f the Gaming (Special Duties) Branch of the Victoria Police Force (which I shall refer to as “ the Gaming Branch ” and “ the Police Force ”) since 24th April, 1961, visited Colac with other members of the Gaming Branch for the purpose of obtaining evidence against a number o f starting-price bookmakers, who, to the

knowledge of the Police, had been using the telephone as their medium for many years. Shortly after the Police entered the telephones connected to the suspect premises went dead and it was concluded that someone within the telephone system had been employed to forestall Police detection o f the illegal telephone

betting.

2. The following day Inspector Hill, exasperated and very angry, to use his own words, informed an inquiring newspaper reporter that in his opinion corruption and fraud existed in the Postmaster- General’s Departm ent (which I shall refer to as “ the D epartm ent ”). The views of Inspector Hill received widespread newspaper publicity. On 13th March, 1962, Inspector Hill forwarded to his Chief

Commissioner a written report covering his experiences at Colac and other matters which he stated left no doubt in his mind that there were persons in the Department who were in the employ of starting- price bookmakers and satisfied him that he was not receiving the co-operation from employees of the Department that was necessary to enable the Gaming Branch to suppress illegal gambling in Victoria. A copy o f Inspector Hill’s report was forwarded to Mr. G. N. Smith, Director of Posts and Telegraphs for the State o f Victoria. M r. Smith replied to these allegations by letter dated 27th March, 1962,

addressed to the Under Secretary to the Chief Secretary for the State of Victoria. Mr. Smith remarked that, although police observations were in several instances accurate, the conclusions drawn were far from correct. He then went on to add that several of the assertions attributed to Inspector Hill were extravagant or distorted the real position. Inspector Hill’s report and Mr. Smith’s reply are set out in the First Appendix.

3. Meanwhile, on 19th March, 1962, the Chief Commissioner had appointed a Board of Inquiry consisting of Inspector Hill (Chairman), Sergeant S. 1. Miller and Senior Constable F. A. Silvester to inquire into all aspects of co-operation between the Departm ent and the Police Force in relation to detecting and charging alleged offenders against the gaming laws of Victoria. In particular the Board

was instructed to inquire into co-operation between the Departm ent and the Police Force in relation to:

(1) The detection of employees of the Departm ent who were suspected offenders or accomplices of offenders against the gaming laws of Victoria.

(2) Alleged failures of employees of the Departm ent to provide information when requested which would assist members of the Police Force to detect offenders against those laws.

4. The Board delivered a written report of its findings to the Chief Commissioner on 2nd April, 1962, and a copy was forwarded to the Postmaster-General by the Chief Secretary for the State of Victoria by letter dated 9th April, 1962. This report and the Chief Secretary’s letter are the documents referred to in Term of Reference (a ) and are set out in the Second Appendix.

5. Following these events this Commission of Inquiry was constituted on 23rd May, 1962.

APPEARANCES

6. The first sitting of the Commission was held on 5th June, 1962, and leave was then given to Mr. J. A. Nimmo, Q.C., and with him Mr. R. K. Fullagar to appear to assist the Commission, to Mr. P. M urphy to appear for the State of Victoria and to Dr. E. G. Coppel, Q.C., and with him Mr. M. O’Sullivan to appear for the Department. Mr. Fullagar was later required to appear before the Privy Council in

London and from 16th July, 1962, Mr. R. E. McGarvie appeared with Mr. Nimmo, Q.C., to assist the Commission.

7. On 8th August, 1962, I granted leave to Mr. D. S. Sonenberg to appear for James Ogilvie Noall, a person who had been summoned to appear before the Commission and against whom allegations had been made in the evidence. Mr. Sonenberg appeared before the Commission on 13th and 14th September while evidence was being given by Noall.

8. There were no other applications for leave to appear.

SITTINGS A N D EVIDENCE

9. After preliminary hearings on 5th and 25th June, 1962, the evidence was heard on 42 days between 16th July and 18th September inclusive and final addresses were made on 13 days between 8th and 25th October inclusive. Ninety witnesses, some of whom appeared more than once, gave evidence before me. Fifty-nine exhibits were received. The evidence and addresses cover 3,959 pages of transcript.

4

10. At Dr. Coppel’s invitation on behalf o f senior officers o f the Department, accompanied by Counsel I inspected the following D epartm ental facilities:—

M ain Trunk Exchange, M elbourne.

M anual Exchange (Central Battery), Chelsea.

A utom atic Exchange, Frankston.

M anual Exchange (Magneto), Hastings.

Telegraphic Counter Section, Postal Hall, Elizabeth-street Post Office, Melbourne.

M ain Operating Room 1 Reperforation Section >Chief Telegraph Office, Melbourne. Phonogram Section J

Commercial Branch, Telecommunications Division, Victorian Administration, G.P.O., Melbourne.

PER IO D COVERED BY THE IN Q U IRY

11. The Terms o f Reference do not indicate any period during which improper practices or

improper refusals to co-operate on the part o f employees in the Victorian Administration may have occurred. After hearing argument I decided that I would only accept evidence o f illegal gambling activities which had been detected by members o f the Police Force after the commencement o f the year 1956 and that where the improper practices or refusals to co-operate related to the provision of the

facilities concerned in illegal gambling activities I would only deal with the instances which took place after 14th June, 1950. It was in the year 1956 that the Police Force commenced to attack illegal gambling activities in Victoria with unprecedented determination, and the Central Administration of the Department issued a Directive designed to prevent the use of telephone services for illegal gambling purposes. On

14th June, 1950, the Central Adm inistration issued a Directive designed to ensure that telephone services were provided in strict order of priority. Both Directives were the outcome of adverse publicity of illegal telephone betting.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

12. The statutory provisions and regulations applicable to the Department, its employees and activities for the purposes o f this Inquiry are set forth in the Third Appendix.

ACKN OW LED GM EN TS

13. I wish to express my appreciation for the assistance given to me by all Counsel. I am deeply indebted to M r. J. A. Nimmo, Q.C., and M r. R. E. McGarvie of the Victorian Bar, Counsel appointed to assist the Royal Commission, and to my Secretary, M r. L. W. King, LL.B., of the Attorney-General’s Department for their services during the course of the Inquiry and the preparation o f this Report,

439

PART II

TERM S O F R EFER EN C E

7 4 1 1

CHAPTER 1

RE-STATEM ENT O F TH E TERM S OF REFERENCE

14. In order to minimize differences as to the construction of the Terms of Reference it was agreed by the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth and the Chief Secretary for the State of Victoria and it was accepted by all Counsel appearing before me that the proper construction of the Terms of Reference was the construction which they bore if the words set out in italics in the following re-statement were

included in the Terms of Reference. A m emorandum o f the Acting Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth recording this agreement is set out in the Fourth Appendix to this Report. Accordingly, I have treated my Terms o f Reference as being as follows:— (a ) whether there have occurred any improper practices on the part of persons employed

in the State of Victoria in the Postmaster-General’s Department, in connexion with or in relation to illegal gambling activities in Victoria, of the kind referred to in the letter sent on the ninth day of April, 1962, by the Chief Secretary of the State of Victoria to the Postmaster-General and in the report that the Chief Secretary enclosed in that

letter and, if so, what improper practices; and (b ) whether there has occurred any improper refusal o r f a i l u r e ( in c lu d in g a n d c o v e r in g r e fu s a ls o r f a i l u r e s w h ic h w e re d u e to m is c o n c e p tio n o n th e p a r t o f a n o ffic e r a s to w h a t c o u ld

p r o p e r ly b e d o n e b y w a y o f c o -o p e r a tio n a s w e ll a s r e fu s a ls o r f a i l u r e s a c tu a te d b y m o tiv e s

o f a r e p r e h e n s ib le k i n d ) on the part of persons employed in the State of Victoria in the Postmaster-General’s Departm ent to co-operate to the extent permitted by the relevant statutory provisions and the administrative procedures (in c lu d in g d ir e c tiv e s , p r a c tic e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s g iv e n o r a d o p te d a s p a r t o f o r to c a r r y o u t th e p o l i c y o f s e c r e c y

o f c o m m u n ic a tio n m a d e th r o u g h o r b y p o s t o ffic e s e r v ic e s b u t n o t in c lu d in g p r a c tic e s o r

p r o c e d u r e s a d o p te d o r f o l l o w e d m e r e ly f o r d e p a r tm e n ta l c o n v e n ie n c e u n r e la te d to s u c h

p o lic y o f s e c r e c y ) of the Postmaster-General’s Departm ent with the police force of that State in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in the State of Victoria, and, if so, in what respect has such co-operation been lacking and for what improper motives i f a n y has it been refused, and, generally, the facts relating to and the circumstances attending any such improper practices or

refusal to co-operate.

CHAPTER 2

IN TER PRETA TIO N OF TH E TERM S OF REFEREN CE

15. Having reflected on the arguments as to the ambit of the Terms o f Reference and having

considered the terms themselves and the circumstances in which they came into existence I am satisfied that the following several expressions used in the Terms of Reference bear the meanings I will now state:— T e r m o f R e fe r e n c e (a )

“ improper practice ” —A wrong practice; one which is reprehensible in that it contains an element of blameworthiness. For example, this would include a departure from the standard of conduct to be expected from an employee as well as a failure to observe an instruction or direction.

“ persons employed in the State of Victoria in the Postmaster-General’s Department ”— Persons employed in the Victorian Administration of the Department. The Central Administration is the Departm ent’s supreme administrative and policy making organ while the Victorian Administration functions as an executive body at State level. Although at all material times the offices of the

Central Administration were located in Victoria this expression does not include persons employed in the Central Administration.

“ illegal gambling activities in Victoria ”—Activities connected with or related to offences against the gaming laws of the State of Victoria, but not activities which are lawful within Victoria but lead to the commission of an offence against the gaining laws of another State or Territory.

T e r m o f R e fe r e n c e (b )

“ improper refusal or failure ”—Any refusal or failure to co-operate with the Police Force in the detection of illegal gambling activities in Victoria where co-operation is not forbidden by the statutory provisions and administrative procedures of the Departm ent in relation to its policy o f secrecy of communication.

“ on the part of persons employed in the State of Victoria in the Postmaster-General’s Departm ent ”—The same meaning as the corresponding expression in Term of Reference (a ).

8

“ to co-operate with . . . the police force ”—Subject to any prohibition

imposed by the policy of secrecy of com m unication:

(1) To take action itself in appropriate circumstances to ascertain whether or not any Departm ental facility is being used to evade the gaming laws o f the State of Victoria.

(2) To provide all the help it can when requested by the Police Force or when required by its statutory provisions and administrative procedures to give assistance.

“ administrative procedures ” —The extended meaning given by the words set out in italics in the re-statement of this Term of Reference a t paragraph 14 o f this Report.

“ illegal gambling activities in the State o f Victoria ”—The same meaning as the corresponding expression in Term of Reference (a ).

“ improper motive ”—A wrong motive; one which is reprehensible in that it contains an element of blameworthiness. For example, a failure or refusal to co-operate with the Police Force in order to aid or protect a person engaged in illegal gambling activities in Victoria. “ policy of secrecy of comm unication ”—The policy which prohibits disclosure o f the

contents of a communication by one person to another through the medium of any services o f the D epartm ent to any other person.

CHAPTER 3

PARTICULARS FU R N ISH ED BY TH E STATE O F V ICTORIA

16. Pursuant to a direction given by me on 5th June, 1962, particulars o f alleged improper practices and refusal to co-operate on the part o f persons employed in the Postmaster-General’s Departm ent in Victoria were furnished in writing by the State o f Victoria. These Particulars are set out in Part 1 of the Fifth Appendix. Specific items contained therein are numbered in accordance with an arrangement made by Counsel. Evidence in relation to additional allegations which came within the Terms of

Reference was received and particulars of those allegations are summarized in Part 2 o f the Fifth Appendix.

17. I am satisfied that each o f the fifteen separate allegations set out in the first section o f these Particulars (excepting Particular J which was withdrawn) relate to improper practices of the kind referred to in the letter and the report mentioned in Term of Reference (a ) and set out in the Second Appendix.

4 1 3

PART III

A LLEGATIONS OF IM PR O PER PRACTICES

T E R M O F R E F E R E N C E (a)

F.l 1189/63.— 2

1 1

4 1 5

CHAPTER 4

IM PR O PE R PRACTICES

Section I—I ntroduction

_ 18· Before dealing with the allegations falling within Term of Reference (y) it is desirable to refer briefly to the divisions of the Departm ent and the procedures concerned with the installation of telephones, to the Directives issued by the Central Adm inistration to the Victorian Adm inistration in the years 1950, 1956 and 1960 and to several instructions issued by the Victorian Administration.

Section 2.—Provision of T elephone Services

(1) O r g a n iz a tio n o f th e D e p a r tm e n t

T he Victorian A dministration 19. The functioning of the Departm ent in Victoria is administered by a Director of Posts and Telegraphs. The units of the State organization are the several Divisions each supervised by an Assistant Director and sub-divided on a functional basis.

20. In this Report I shall refer in particular to the Commercial, Telephone Service and Telegraph Service Branches of the Telecommunications Division and to the M etropolitan Branch of the Engineering Section. M odern re-organization effected certain structural changes within the Victorian Administration. However, although current terminology is used, the following brief commentary conveys a general description of the procedures followed in Victoria in relation to the provision of telephone services over the period covered by this Inquiry.

21. The relevant organization charts are set out in the Sixth Appendix.

T he Commercial Branch, T elecommunications Division 22. Under the supervision of a Superintendent and his Assistant Superintendents, the greater part of the operations of the Commercial Branch (formerly the Telephone Branch) of the

Telecommunications Division are directed to the provision o f telephone services, including the completion of contracts of hire for telephone services and authorizing the Engineering Division to connect telephones to the premises of subscribers. In the M etropolitan area these duties are performed by sub-groups each led by an employee who is fully informed on all local conditions appertaining to the provision of telephone

services in a particular area or district.

T he M etropolitan Branch, E ngineering D ivision 23. Under the supervision of an Executive Engineer, the M etropolitan Branch of the Engineering Division functions through a technical staff organized into Plant, Equipment Installation and Equipment Service Sections and sub-divisions headed by divisional engineers, including the several District W orks Divisions each responsible for the connection of telephone services in an area or district corresponding to tne area served by one o f the Commercial Branch administrative sub-groups.

(2) A p p lic a tio n f o r T e le p h o n e S e r v ic e

24. A proper understanding of the allegations made regarding the unauthorized provision of telephones requires some preliminary account of the general procedures which have been followed in relation to applications for telephone services in Victoria.

25. The evidence shows that the organization of the Victorian Administration and the procedure for obtaining a telephone have undergone a number of changes during the period with which this Inquiry is concerned. It is also evident that the alterations made in Departm ental practice since 1950 have made it progressively more difficult for persons intending to use telephones for illegal gambling activities to

obtain them. The evidence, however, is that the procedure followed for the approval of additional services has been much the same over the whole of this period. 26. An application for a telephone service may be made either on the official application form or by letter and is received by the Commercial Branch. Approximately 70 per cent of applications are made

by letter. The application is first sent to the group which is responsible for the area in which the service is required. The Priority Allotment Officer of the group then allots the appropriate priority and stamps this on the application. 27. If it is disclosed in the application that there is an existing service installed in the premises

the Priority Allotment Officer will approve of the additional line if the applicant is a well know'n and reputable organization and otherwise will pass the application to his group leader. If the group leader, from his local knowledge of his area, considers the application a genuine one he will approve of the additional line or he may have the application investigated by one of his outdoor staff. If he is not

satisfied as to the genuineness of the application he will refer the m atter to his Assistant Superintendent who, in turn, might discuss it with the Superintendent, Commercial Branch. If it is thought that further investigation is warranted an outdoor representative is sent to obtain a statutory declaration from the person making the application.

1 2

28. The next step is that details of the application are sent by teletype to the Cable Recording Section of the Engineering Division and generally within a day a teletype answer is received which shows whether cable is available. W hen the Cable Recorder checks the availability of cable he should check whether a telephone service is already installed at the premises in question. In most cases he has sufficient information in hand for this purpose. However, where a building is sub-divided or the application states that it is sub-divided into a small number of flats the Cable Recorder may be able to detect whether there is an existing service in the premises in respect of which the application is made. If the teleprinter details from the Commercial Branch do not indicate that an additional line has been approved and the Cable Recorder discovers that there is an existing service in the premises this inform ation will be contained in the answer sent to the Commercial Branch.

29. If cable is available and the service can be provided a contract is completed with the applicant and a num ber allocated. If the applicant requests a “ feature num ber ” , that is, a number easy

to remember, such a num ber will be allocated if available.

30. A Telephone Order which is the authority for the installation, removal or transfer of a telephone service is than prepared and checked. In the ordinary case the telephone order is prepared in a set of nine distinctive parts. Each part is numbered with a serial number which applies to the area in which the connection is to be made. The senior technician, technician, lineman and exchange supervising technician and other employees of the Departm ent who have an interest in the provision of the telephone service each receives and acts upon their particular part of the telephone order.

31. In all cases the Departm ent accepts applications for a telephone service, assuming, quite properly, the good faith of the applicant and will process the m atter without further query unless there appears upon the face of the application or in other contemporaneous information a suggestion that it is being made in a fictitious name or for an illegal purpose. In either of these events the application may be refused under Telephone Regulation 8.

Section 3.— Directives and Instructions Relating to the Installation of Telephones

32. The three policy Directives issued by the Central Adm inistration which are relevant to the provision of multiple telephones are dated 14th June, 1950, 16th October, 1956, and 14th July, 1960, and are set out in the Seventh Appendix.

(1) T h e 1950 D ir e c tiv e

33. A Directive was issued by the Director-General on 14th June, 1950, to the Deputy Directors in all States following the discovery of two, three or four telephone services which were being used for illegal betting activities in residences and small business establishments in the Sydney metropolitan area. At that time there was an acute shortage of telephone equipment and cable plant in many areas throughout the Commonwealth. The police discoveries were ventilated in Parliament and the then Postmaster-

General made a statement in the House of Representatives concerning them.

34. The declared object of this Directive was that there should be a full investigation of all applications for the provision of telephone services in or the removal of existing services to private residences or very small business establishments where a service was already installed and that in any case where there was evidence that the normal needs of the subscriber could be met by the existing service the application should be allotted “ Priority 4 (ii) ” , the lowest priority o f all.

35. The Directive was essentially a priority instruction and its procedures were framed with the Sydney conditions in mind as the title “ Provision of additional telephone services in private residence or very small business establishments ” indicates. It was aimed at the ordinary dwelling house, the corner shop, the hairdresser’s salon or the average small suburban type of business where one telephone is normally adequate and this was the interpretation placed upon it when carried into effect in Victoria.

36. The purpose of the Directive was that a bona fide application for an additional service would not be refused but would be placed on the deferred list and would not be satisfied until the area concerned had been provided with enough extra underground cable and exchange equipment to meet all applications on hand with a higher priority. This usually imposed a very lengthy delay in the provision of the additional service sought, and in the years following 1950, due to the extreme shortages of cable, equipment and manpower, meant in most areas a delay of many years. However, where cable and equipment were available, as was the case in the inner city areas, the installation of an additional service was not

significantly delayed as a result of the Directive.

37. The Directive provided that all applications for the provision of new exchange services in private residences or very small business establishments or the removal of existing services to such premises in the M etropolitan area and in country districts should include the clause “ A telephone service is

In^ installed in the premises.” . It was provided that the applicant should cross out the reference

which did not apply and initial the deletion. This Directive also provided that telephone orders covering approved cases for the installation of an additional exchange service in premises where such a facility was already installed should bear the suitable notation “ Additional Service Approved ” .

13 4 1 7

38. By 1955 the notation indicating that the additional service had been approved was altered to “ A .L A .” (Additional Line Approved). In a Victorian Administration m emorandum o f 30th August, 1955, it was stated that, unless the authority for additional lines had been given, telephone orders must not be issued under any circumstances. In November, 1957, following the detection of a num ber of

services in premises in Gardenvale, the “ A .L .A .” instructions were reissued. After the 1950 Directive was received action was taken to stamp all the relevant forms. However, it was not practicable to stamp the application forms held in suburban post offices, or those held by estate agents and flat owners for the use of purchasers and lessees of premises. In the course o f time new forms were prepared containing the printed question.

39. It was provided in the Directive that employees in the Cable Records Section should bring to the notice of the Telephone Branch any cases where a service was required in a residence where a service was already installed. The evidence, however, is that this provision was a dead letter in Victoria for many years as the records of the Cable Records Section in that State did not show the address at which a particular telephone service was installed prior to 1955.

40. The Directive provided that the technical field staff, linesmen and technicians, should bring under the notice o f the Telephone Branch cases where the telephone order did not bear the notation that an additional service was approved and it was found that there was a telephone service already installed in a private residence or a very small business establishment. In these cases the telephone orders were to be returned to the Telepnone Branch and technicians were not to proceed with the installation until the Superintendent, Telephone Branch, had authorized the installation.

(2) I n s tr u c tio n s P u r s u a n t to 1950 D ir e c tiv e

41. Instructions designed to carry the 1950 Directive into effect and detailing the procedures to be followed were issued by the Victorian Adm inistration to employees in the Engineering Branch on 27th June, 1950, and to employees in the Telephone Branch on 6th July, 1950.

42. Further instructions designed to improve the procedures contained in the earlier instructions were issued to the officers in charge of the relevant sections o f the Telephone Branch on 30th August, 1955. Under the instruction of 1955 the responsibility for the approval of the installation of an additional line was taken from the Priority Allotment Officer and given to a nominated senior officer. The officer

originally nom inated for this duty was the Superintendent, Telephone Branch. The instruction stated that unless the approval for the installation of two or more telephone services in small business establishments or residences was initialed by the nominated officer the telephone orders were not to be issued in any circumstances.

43. Further instructions involving some m inor changes in procedures were also issued to employees in the Engineering Branch on 1st October, 1955. For the first time the Cable Recording Section was now instructed to bring under the notice of the Commercial Branch cases where the application was not stamped “ Additional Line Approved ” and where the Cable Recorder found that there was one or more services

already installed in the premises whether under the name of one subscriber or of different subscribers.

44. The several instructions referred to are set out in the Eighth Appendix.

(3) T h e 1956 D ir e c tiv e

45. The Directive of 1956 stemmed from a raid by the newly organized Gaming Branch on premises known as “ Chapel Lodge ” at 16a Chapel-street, St. Kilda, on 19th May, 1956. The raid disclosed the presence of 45 telephones in a fortress type of penthouse on top o f a five-storey block of flats. The telephones were being used for illegal betting.

46. The Directive was issued by the Director-General to the Directors in the States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. It went far beyond questions of priorities and sought to prevent the provision of telephone services, whether new or additional, for illegal purposes in any kind of premises whatsoever. The Directive was headed “ Use of Telephone Services for Illegal Purposes ” , and it expressly directed attention to the need for ensuring that telephone facilities were not provided where it

seemed they were required for an illegal business and, further, that services be disconnected where it was apparent they were being used for illegal purposes unless the lessees could furnish evidence that the telephones were being used and were required for the conduct of a legitimate business activity.

47. The Directive strengthened the existing instructions by providing that the technical field staff should report any case— (a) where groups o f services were required to be terminated on handsets, instead of switchboards, in one room or suite of rooms;

(b) where single line services were provided in business premises in the same room but under various names; (c) where there was reason to assume that the name of the subscriber shown on the telephone order was fictitious; ( d ) where the layout of the room in which the services were required suggested that they may

not be used in the norm al business m anner; or (e) where the listed business of the applicant as shown on the telephone order appeared to be fictitious.

14

48. The Directive further provided that there should be a check o f telephones installed in rotary groups. W ith a rotary group if the first num ber dialled is engaged the call is automatically passed on to the next unengaged num ber in the group. These groups of telephones were to be checked for tampering with the telephones or lines and other tests, including a check of the daily calling rate on each of the lines, were to be made to determine what lines were actually necessary. As a result of these checks the Victorian Adm inistration disconnected 58 rotary groups covering a total of 403 lines.

49. The Directive also required that the files on telephone services found to be used for illegal purposes were to be checked to see whether there had been any irregular action by employees of the Department. (4) T h e 1960 D ir e c tiv e

50. The Directive of 1960 which issued from the Director-General to the Directors in all States amended and consolidated the Directives of 1950 and 1956. This review of the previous provisions was made to minimize the possibility o f telephone services being used contrary to Commonwealth or State laws by ensuring that a uniform procedure was adopted throughout the Commonwealth. For the first time State administrations were empowered to refuse applications for additional telephone services where investigations showed that the normal needs of a subscriber could be met by the existing service.

51. The Directive required that an application for a silent line, that is, a telephone service the number of which would not appear in the telephone directory, was to be scrutinized by the Superintendent, Commercial Branch, before the service was approved. Where the good faith of an applicant was in doubt an appropriate statutory declaration was to be obtained.

52. The Directive also provided for the establishment of a liaison group of officers nominated by the D epartm ent and the Police in each State to expedite the supply of specified information by the D epartm ent to State police forces.

53. The other provisions of the Directive were to substantially the same effect as the provisions of the earlier Directives, save that the check of rotary groups required under the 1956 Directive was omitted.

(5) I n s tr u c tio n s R e l a t i n g to th e I n s ta lla tio n o f T e le p h o n e s in U n u s u a l L o c a tio n s

54. In July, 1950, written instructions were issued to the installation staff regarding the locations in which telephones should be installed. These instructions stated that where a request was made to install a telephone in an unusual location, for example, in a bathroom or other obscure or minor room, the m atter was to be brought to the notice o f a responsible officer before the installation was commenced.

55. These instructions, which were reissued several times in substantially the same form over the period covered by this Inquiry, are set out in the N inth Appendix.

Section 4.—F orms of Improper Practices

56. I am satisfied that an improper practice is some blameworthy conduct by an employee which led to telephone services being used for illegal gambling activities and which the employee knew or ought to have known would lead to their being so used.

57. Such an improper practice would take one of the following form s:— (1) P e r fo r m in g o n e o f th e s te p s w h ic h l e d to th e p r o v is io n o f a te le p h o n e s e r v ic e—

(a ) k n o w in g th a t th e s e r v ic e w o u ld b e u s e d f o r ille g a l g a m b lin g a c tiv itie s ; o r

(b ) w ith o u t s u c h k n o w le d g e b u t in c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h m a d e it o b v io u s th a t it w o u ld

b e so u se d .

In the latter case installing technicians would be concerned with this type of improper conduct. If it was obvious to the technician that the service was to be used for illegal gambling activities it would be improper for him to proceed with the installation without referring the m atter to a superior officer. If the technician reported his observations to a superior officer who, without proper inquiry, directed that the service be installed there would be an improper practice within the meaning of Term of Reference (a ) on the part of the superior officer.

It is to be noted that improper practices of the type mentioned in this sub-paragraph do not depend upon the breach o f any Directive or instruction. Such practices are improper because they aid or facilitate the provision of telephones when the employee o f the Department knows or ought to know that the telephones will be used for illegal gambling activities thus departing from the standards which the community is entitled to expect of him both as a Public Servant and a citizen.

(2) I n s ta llin g a te le p h o n e s e r v ic e in a n u n u s u a l lo c a tio n in b r e a c h o f th e in s tr u c tio n o f J u ly , 1950

Before a breach of this instruction would constitute an improper practice it would be necessary to show that the technician who failed to report the matter or the responsible officer who directed the installation to proceed knew or ought to have known that the service was likely to be used for illegal gambling. However, a failure by a technician to report a request to install in an unusual location would not amount to an improper practice within the meaning of Term of Reference (a ) if he reasonably believed that the subscriber desired to have his telephone in the un.usual location due to some eccentricity unconnected with illegal gambling.

15 419

(3) C o m m i t t i n g a b r e a c h o f th e 1950, 1956 o r 1960 D ir e c tiv e In order to am ount to an im proper practice within the meaning of Term o f Reference (a ) it would be necessary to show that the employee knew or ought to have known that his breach was likely to lead to a telephone service being provided or being provided more quickly than normal for use in illegal

gambling activities. In determining this question it must be remembered that the real object of each of the Directives was to prevent persons engaged in illegal gambling activities from procuring telephones. Employees of the D epartm ent must have been aware of this object and, to some extent, the possibility that the breach would lead to the provision of a telephone for illegal gambling purposes.

Section 5.—E vidence of Breaches of D irectives

58. In most of the items relating to multiple telephones there was no direct evidence given before me to prove breaches of the Directives. Reliance, however, was placed by the State of Victoria on the fact that two or more telephones had been discovered by the Police at the same address (usually in the same room side by side) being used or having been used for illegal betting and from that fact I was invited to

draw an inference that the im proper practice alleged had occurred. In some of the cases specified it was claimed that the inference was even stronger for one or more o f the following reasons:— The telephone numbers concerned belonged to a rotary group. The telephone numbers were easy to remember.

The telephones were situated in unusual places, for example, in a cellar, beneath a staircase, in an attic. The absence o f any lawful business.

The num ber o f telephones appeared to be excessive for the type of premises in which they were found.

Section 6.—Application of the D irectives

59. In relation to multiple telephones 177 items of alleged im proper practice are specified in the Fifth Appendix. Their numbers are 1 to 98 inclusive, 98a, 98b, 99 to 139 inclusive, 217 to 252 inclusive.

60. During the hearing of the evidence items 20, 242, 243, 244 and 245 were found to be duplicates of other items and were struck out. Counsel for the State of Victoria conceded that I could not be expected to draw the inference that there had been any improper practice in relation to 23 of the items, namely, 3, 16, 24, 28, 30, 38, 44, 48, 59, 62, 81, 84, 88, 105, 109, 118, 133, 134, 138, 234, 235, 248, 249.

61. C ontract papers which contained the personal particulars of the applicant for a telephone service and the use to which he proposed to put it were available in only 45 of the remaining 149 items, the others having been destroyed pursuant to norm al departmental procedures before there was any suggestion of an inquiry. However, by reference to other departmental records and telephone directories it has been established to my satisfaction that the Directives applied to the remaining 149 items as follows:—

(1) The 1950 Directive applied to the last installation in 92 of the items, namely, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 31, 37, 39, 40. 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 64, 65, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85, 86, 89, 91, 93, 98, 98a, 98b, 99, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125. 126,

127, 128, 129, 130, 131. 132, 136, 139, 218, 219. 221, 222, 223, 224, 228, 229, 230, 232, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 246, 247, 250, 251.

(2) The 1956 Directive applied to the last installation in 27 o f the items, namely, 10, 11, 18, 25, 26, 29. 32, 54, 57, 58. 60, 61, 63, 68, 69, 70. 71, 72, 77. 82, 87, 90. 92. 94, 96, 97, 102. (3) The 1960 Directive applied to the last installation in three of the items, namely,

34, 35, 95.

62.

namely— Either no Directive applied or clearly there was no breach of any Directive in 27 of the items, 4, 8, 12, 21, 23, 27, 33, 36, 47, 66, 67, 73, 75, 100, 108, 114, 116, 135, 137, 217, 220, 225, 226, 227, 231, 233, 252.

CHAPTER 5

IM PR O PER INSTA LLA TIO N O F M ULTIPLE TELEPHONES (PA R TIC U LA R A)

Section 1.—Introduction

63. The allegations of improper practices made under Particular A appearing in the Fifth Appendix relate to the circumstances in which a number of telephones used for illegal betting came to be installed together in the same premises. The evidence shows that starting-price bookmakers who conducted substantial bookmaking businesses by telephone normally had a number of operators in a room each

using a telephone to receive bets from punters. Many such multiple installations of telephones were

16

discovered by members of the Police Force. It is alleged by the State of Victoria that these telephones came to be installed as a result o f im proper practices on the part o f one or more employees in the Victorian Adm inistration at some point between the application for and the connection of the services.

64. In this section I report my findings on improper practices on the part of employees in the

Victorian Adm inistration in relation to the installation o f multiple telephones in the following situations:— Two or more Telephones in One Room o f a Private Residence. Two or more Telephones in Premises other than Private Residences. Telephones Installed in Unusual Locations.

Special Cases o f M ultiple Telephones.

Section 2.—Tw o or M ore T elephones in One Room of a Private Residence

65. I am satisfied that there has been an improper practice on the part o f some employee or employees in the Victorian Adm inistration in cases where, after the date of the 1950 Directive, a second telephone was installed in a room of a private residence where an existing service was already installed and there was no legitimate business activity carried on at the residence.

66. It was suggested on behalf of the Department that in a residence where no business was conducted a second telephone may have been installed in the room for a number of legitimate reasons. A householder who was a business executive may have required a second telephone in the room. However, this is answered by the fact that most of the residences now being considered were not of the type likely to be occupied by the kind of business executive who would need a second telephone. It was also suggested that the second telephone may have been installed by parents to cater for the telephonic loquacity of teenage daughters. Again the evidence indicates that most o f the residences would not be occupied by persons who could afford the luxury o f a second telephone for the use of their children. Further, it was claimed that the second telephone could have been installed for the use o f a lodger. A telephone installed for a lodger would be installed in the part of the premises he occupied and not in the same room as the householder’s telephone. Also, the basic requirements of convenience and privacy render it most improbable that the parents, the landlady or the busy executive would expect to improve the harmony

of the house by having a second telephone installed in such a position that they would have their telephone conversations cheek by jowl with and subject to interference from the telephone conversations of the teenage daughter, the lodger or other members o f the household.

67. In these cases the application for a further telephone should have first been given a Priority 4 (ii). The evidence is that a second telephone service for a private residence would not be installed until every other application for a telephone service in a residence in the area had been satisfied. In view of the shortage of cable and equipment I am satisfied that, in all probability, if an application for a second telephone service for a residence had been given Priority 4 (ii) in the ordinary course that service would not have been installed at the time when it was in fact installed.

68. Having regard to the foregoing sections of this Part, the following conclusions may now be draw n:— (1) An application for a second telephone which was knowingly given a higher priority than that to which it was entitled, or the installation of a second telephone ahead o f its priority would amount to a breach o f a Directive.

I am satisfied that an employee committing one of these breaches would know or ought to know that his breach was likely to lead to the telephones being used for illegal gambling purposes.

(2) In cases where it was not known that there was a telephone service already installed in the residence this may have been due to the fact that the applicant answered untruthfully the question required by the Directive to be included on the application, or that the application was accepted without the question being answered. Where the application was accepted without the question being answered (and this was frequently the case) there was a breach of a Directive.

However, having regard to the other procedures designed to prevent a second telephone from being installed otherwise than in accordance with the Directives, I am not satisfied in the absence o f positive evidence that such breach o f itself led to the provision of the second telephone or that the employee committing the breach knew or ought to have known th a th is breach would lead to the telephone being

used for illegal gambling. (3) In cases where it was not known that there was a telephone service already installed in the residence the telephone order would not bear a notation that an additional service was approved. In such a case the technician was required by the Directives to report the circumstances through the proper channels. Further, under the 1950 and 1956 Directives the technician was not to install the telephone

until the appropriate authority was given. {a) If the technician concerned with the second service found an existing telephone in the residence he would commit a breach of a Directive if he failed to initiate a report of the circumstances through the specified channels. (b) If an officer whose duty it was to relay the report failed to do so he would commit a breach

of a Directive.

(,c) If the telephone was installed by the technician without the appropriate authority he would commit a breach of the 1950 or 1956 Directive.

17

I am satisfied that, in the majority of cases, the employee committing such a breach knew or ought to have known that his breach would make telephones available for illegal gambling purposes.

(4) W hen a report of the technician was relayed in the proper manner it became the obligation of a responsible officer to arrange for the m atter to be thoroughly investigated. His obligation under the 1950 Directive was to cause a selected officer to make a full investigation of the application. Once the result of the investigation was received the obligation was then to authorize the installation to proceed forthwith

or to allot it Priority 4 (ii).

A part altogether from the Directives, I am satisfied that the installation of multiple telephones in a room in a private residence constituted an improper practice of the kind set out in paragraph 57 (1) (a ) and (b ) of this Report. In these cases it should have been obvious to any employee concerned with the installation that the second telephone was required for illegal gambling.

(a ) If, having been alerted by the technician’s report, the employee directed to investigate the application either failed to investigate or failed to make a proper investigation and report he would have been guilty o f an improper practice.

(b ) If a proper investigation and report were made the employee who issued the authority for the installation of the second telephone, whether immediately or under Priority 4 (ii), would have been guilty of an improper practice.

(5) W ith regard to the refusal of an application, the Departm ent was entitled under Telephone Regulation 8 to refuse to install a telephone service at its discretion. Indeed, Mr. James Leishman Skerrett, Assistant Director-General (Telecommunications), Central Administration, gave evidence in relation to the 1950 Directive that installation would be refused if the Department knew a telephone was to be used for illegal gambling. It was not until the issue of the 1956 Directive, however, that the Central

Adm inistration purported to refer authority to refuse the installation of a telephone to the Victorian Administration.

I am satisfied that, at all material times, this power o f refusal was available to the Victorian Adm inistration in respect of applications for the installation of telephone services in Victoria. In such cases the employee concerned should not have authorized the installation but should have referred the case to a superior officer. If he did refer it to higher authority the employee in the Victorian

Adm inistration who ultimately decided that the second telephone should be installed was guilty of an improper practice.

69. In relation to the installation of the following 25 groups of telephones in one room of a private residence appearing in the Fifth Appendix, I find that there have occurred improper practices on the part of persons employed in the Victorian Adm inistration in connexion w'ith and in relation to illegal gambling activities in Victoria:—

Item 2.— 7 Pilley-street, East St. Kilda—4 telephones.

Item 5.—42 Bilston-street, Balaclava—2 telephones.

Item 7.— 51 Greeves-street, Fitzroy—4 telephones.

Item 15.—21 David-street, Brunswick—2 telephones.

Item 19.— 13 Plantation-avenue, Brighton—2 telephones.

Item 22.—282 W arrigal-road, South Oakleigh—2 telephones.

Item 25.— 176 W ellington-parade, East Melbourne—2 telephones.

I tem 26.— 17 Bowman-street, M ordialloc—2 telephones.

Item 32.— 70 Edinburgh-street, Flemington—2 telephones.

Item 34.—88 Rutland-road, Box Hill—3 telephones.

Item 39.—3 Sheridan-grove, Caulfield—2 telephones.

Item 40.—414-416 Bay-street, Brighton—4 telephones.

Item 50.—66 Barrow-street, Coburg—2 telephones.

Item 78.—91 Lennox-street, Richmond—2 telephones. Item 79.—7 Darlington-parade, Richmond—2 telephones.

Item 80.— 11 Edna-grove, Coburg—2 telephones. Item 86.—22 Roseberry-street, Hawthorn—2 telephones.

Item 93.— 51 Walsh-street, South Yarra—2 telephones. Item 98.— 15 M acDonald-street, M ordialloc—2 telephones.

Item 124.— 1 Daly-street, West Brunswick—2 telephones. Item 137.—66 M arshall-street, Flemington—3 telephones.

Item 139.—6 M artin-street, St. Kilda—2 telephones.

Item 218.—680 Sydney-road, Brunswick—3 telephones.

Item 219.— 13 Park-street, East Brunswick—3 telephones.

Item 246.— 106 Webster-street, Ballarat—3 telephones.

18

70. Although I am satisfied that in each of these cases an improper practice or practices occurred I am not able to identify the employee or employees concerned, or am I able to say at what stage of installation an impropriety was involved. In m ost cases the contract files and other records relating to the service in question were destroyed following upon cancellation of the service in accordance with normal records procedures. There was no criticism o f this destruction and I am satisfied that no valid criticism could have been made.

71. I wish to emphasize that in each of the above instances where an improper practice is found to have occurred there was no evidence of any legitimate business being carried on at the residence or was there any evidence to suggest that the telephones were installed by the Department in different rooms and were later improperly moved by other persons to the one room.

72. These findings of im proper practices are limited to items where the Victorian Administration was able, from its records, to find the date of the installation of the last telephone to be installed in the group. In a number of cases evidence was given of the time when a service first appeared in a telephone directory under the name o f a particular subscriber. I do not act on this as evidence of the time of installation of a service or make any findings in these cases. The service may have been installed earlier and either it did not appear in a directory or it appeared in a directory under the name of another subscriber.

73. It was put to me that a combination o f errors and oversights by employees could explain how two or more telephones could be installed in the one room of a residence without there being any improper practice on the part of employees. I reject this argument on the basis o f the high degree of improbability o f such a coincidence ever occurring.

Section 3.—Tw o or M ore Telephones in P remises Other Than Private R esidences

74. In respect of cases falling under this heading different considerations apply to the provision of telephones after the 1956 Directive came into operation. The Police activity in early 1956 had drawn the D epartm ent’s attention to the presence of large numbers of telephones terminating on handsets in one room or suite o f rooms used for illegal gambling. In many cases these telephones had been installed despite the 1950 Directive. To ensure that telephone facilities would not be available to starting-price bookmakers the 1956 Directive required the technical field staff to look out for and report instances of the kind referred to in paragraph 47.

75. In considering whether the presence of two or more telephones in one room in business premises involved an improper practice—the inference suggested by Counsel for the State of Victoria—I have borne in mind that during the period with which this Inquiry is concerned shortage of accommodation resulted in the sharing of office premises, and many legitimate businesses then and now require a number of

services terminating on handsets. 76. In relation to each of the following items appearing in the Fifth Appendix I find that there have occurred improper practices on the part o f persons employed in the Victorian Administration in connexion with or in relation to illegal gambling activities in Victoria in that they committed breaches of the 1956 Directive either by failure of the installing technician to report the termination of two or more

services on handsets in a room or suite of rooms or the presence of single line services in the same room under various names or if he did so report by reason of there not being any proper investigation—

Item 61.—396 F linders-lane, M elbourne Two telephones terminating on handsets in Room 19 at these premises were installed on 11th and 30th September, 1958, respectively. When members of the Gaming Branch visited the room on 9th M arch, 1959, two persons were found using the telephones for illegal betting. They were

Messrs. N orthrope and Doig, Departmental employees, both of whom had been convicted on 4th March, 1958, for a similar offence in Room 7 of the same premises.

Item 68.— 128 Jolimont-road, Jolimont Two telephones terminating on handsets in Room 8 on the first floor or these premises were installed on 10th and 11th June, 1959, respectively. When members of the Gaming Branch visited the room on 20th June, 1959, they found Mr. Goode, a Departmental employee, and Mr. Grigg using the telephones for illegal betting.

Item 70.—376 H igh-street, N orthcote Two telephones terminating on handsets in a front room on the first floor of these premises, being a residence behind a ladies’ hairdressing salon, had been extended to the room from garage premises situated at 1 Separation-street, Northcote, on 15th April, 1959. When members of the Gaming Branch visited the room on 19th M arch, 1960, Messrs. Baron and Splatt were using the telephones for illegal

betting.

Item 71.— 186 G ertrude-street, F itzroy Two telephones terminating on handsets in an office on the first floor of these premises were installed on 6th M arch, 1958, and 17th September, 1959, respectively. When members of the Gaming Branch visited the office on 9th April, 1960, they found Mr. Goode, the employee detected in Item 68. using the telephones for unlawfully communicating betting prices.

77. F o r the reasons appearing in paragraph 70 I am not able to identify the employee or employees responsible for the im proper practices involved in these cases. '

19

Section 4.—Telephones I nstalled in U nusual Locations

. 78. Evidence was given o f telephones installed in unusual locations and being used for illegal betting. Each location was unusual in that it had one or more of the following characteristics:— (1) The place was one where it v/ould be difficult to imagine any legitimate reason for a telephone or telephones being used there.

(2) The place was difficult to detect.

(3) The place was one designed to delay the entry o f police.

79. I have set aside those cases where there was evidence that the telephones may have been moved to the place of unusual location by unauthorized means. The Instructions referred to at paragraph 54 and set out in the N inth Appendix forbid a technician to instal telephones in an unusual location and a failure to observe those Instructions would be an improper practice. In any case, the installation oi

telephones in an unusual location clearly made them available for illegal use and quite apart from an> breach o f the Instructions would am ount to an improper practice by the technician.

80. If the technician reported such a case and was instructed by his superior officer to proceed with the installation it would be the latter who was guilty of an improper practice since, in the cases with which I am dealing, there could not be said to be any legitimate reason for providing the telephones in such an unusual place.

81. In relation to the installation in an unusual location of each of the following eleven groups of telephones appearing in the Fifth Appendix I find that there has occurred an improper practice on the part of employees in the Victorian Adm inistration in connexion with or in relation to illegal gaming activities in Victoria:—

I tem 18.—2 telephones in a shed used as a “ two-up ” ring at 204 Vere-street, Collingwood.

I tem 46.—4 telephones in a small partitioned room being portion o f a storeroom at 386 Flinders-lane, M elbourne.

I tem 57.—2 telephones in a disused bank vault at 410 Brunswick-street, Fitzroy.

I t e m 7 5 .— 4 telephones in a windowless brick building with steel plates over the one door in a yard at 86-90 Gellibrand-street, Colac.

I t e m 9 8 a .— 4 5 telephones in premises b u i l t like a fortress at 16 a Chapel-street, St. Kilda.

I tem 9 8 b .— 5 telephones in a den between the ceiling and the roof in a heavily barred house at 905 Havelock-street, Ballarat.

Item 127.— 8 telephones in a room 16 ft. x 5 ft. 6 in. built under a flight of stairs at the rear of a cafe at 321 King-street, Melbourne.

I t e m 1 2 8 .— 5 te l e p h o n e s in a p a r t i t i o n e d p o r t i o n o f a s t o r e r o o m a t 4 3 8 - 4 4 0 F l i n d e r s - s t r e e t ,

M e l b o u r n e .

Item 129.—6 telephones in a cubicle in the corner of a large storeroom on the first floor of premises at 236 Latrobe-street, Melbourne.

Item 131.—6 telephones in a 3-storey tower-like building at 1 High-street, Prahran.

I t e m 2 5 1 .— 4 telephones in a windowless brick room at the rear of premises at 1113 Sydney- road, N orth Coburg

82. Such employees would have been the installing technicians or the responsible officer concerned. However, for the reasons appearing in paragraph 70 I am not able to identify any employee responsible for any improper practice involved in these cases.

Section 5.—Special Cases of M ultiple T elephones

83. The following three items call for separate examination:—

Item 34.— 88 Rutland-road, Box H ill (1) On 11th April, 1962, members o f the Gaming Branch raided these premises which consisted of a brick villa with a large weatherboard shed standing in the backyard some 30 feet away from the villa. There were two telephones terminating on handsets in the shed and another in the villa. The subscribers

and their addresses were Miss W. M arsland, Flat 1, W. Schwartz, Flat 2, and O. Jackson, Flat 3, 88 Rutland-road, Box Hill. The services provided for the first two subscribers were connected on 15th June 1961, on an intact basis (which means that on that date the villa was already wired and equipped for two telephone services). The service provided for the third subscriber was installed in the shed on 29th

June, 1961. (2) There is no evidence of the dates when the services connected to the villa were first installed, and I make no finding in respect of them.

20

(3) As to the installation in the shed, the installing technician was under an obligation to report to his superior officer that the building concerned was not a flat but a shed. It appears to me that, if for the purposes of a Directive a room in a house or a shed in a backyard is regarded by employees of the Departm ent as a “ fla t” and, in consequence, as “ separate premises ” , the whole purpose of the Directive is destroyed. If he did not make the report I find that he was guilty o f an improper practice. If he did make the report and was directed to proceed with the installation then the person who gave the direction was guilty o f an improper practice.

(4) F or the reasons I have given in connexion with my findings o f improper practices in relation to the presence o f more than one telephone service in a suburban residence, I also find in this case that the technician knew or ought to have known that the shed was being used or was likely to be used for illegal gambling.

Item 98a.—“ Chapel Lodge ” , 16a Chapel-street, St. K ilda (1) This building consists o f a block of flats of five storeys with a fort-like structure of brick divided into a number of small rooms and cubicles erected on the roof. The lift terminated on the fifth floor and access to the roof was by a stairway and to the fort-like structure through a steel-plated door.

(2) On 19th May, 1956, members of the Gaming Branch raided this structure and discovered there 45 telephones terminating on handsets. It was then being used and indeed always had been used for starting-price betting, the purpose for which it was erected. The telephones were installed in groups between May, 1953, and October, 1955. M ore than half of those installed were silent lines, that is, not listed in the telephone directory. Cable was provided in accordance with normal practice prior to the erection of the building. The telephones, which were being used for betting, had been interfered with in one way or another. Following publicity given to the police raid all services were cancelled by the D epartm ent without notice on 25th May, 1956. Neither the supervising technician who arranged for five cable pairs to go into each room or cubicle nor the technicians who installed the telephones made any report to the Commercial Branch.

(3) I find that each of these technicians was guilty of an improper practice in relation to illegal gambling activities in Victoria in failing to report what was obviously the provision of telephones for starting-price betting. I have reached this finding after having paid due regard to the fact that the owner o f the building was a member of the local Municipal Council and engaged in legitimate business.

Item 119.— 121 Leicester-street, Carlton (1) When members of the Gam ing Branch visited an office on the second floor of the factory building at this address on 3rd August, 1956, they found fifteen telephones terminating on handsets. The telephones had been installed between 5th June, 1951, and 24th October, 1955, in the names o f six different subscribers. According to admissions made to a Departm ental investigator the telephones had from their installation been used exclusively for starting-price betting. Five of the subscribers were fictitious and the other was one o f the principals in the starting-price bookmaking business conducted

on the premises. (2) It must have been apparent to the technician who installed each service after the first two services that in the absence of any sign o f a legitimate business the telephones were being used for illegal gambling. The most perfunctory investigation would have disclosed the all too obvious use to which

the services were being put. (3) I find that the installation o f each of the third and subsequent telephones was an improper practice in relation to illegal gambling activities in Victoria either on the part of the installing technician who did not report or, if the report had been made, on the part of the employee having a duty to investigate.

84. For the reasons previously stated I am unable to identify any o f the employees responsible for the improper practices I have found to have occurred in the three preceding cases.

CHAPTER 6

INSTA LLA TIO N OF TELEPHONES W ITHOUT PROPER A U THO RITY (PARTICULAR B)

85. The allegation made under Particular B appearing in the Fifth Appendix is concerned with the installation or removal of telephones as the result of irregular conduct on the part of employees in the Victorian Administration. I shall deal with the following three items, the first two o f which concern the illegal gambling activities of one Jack Dow.

Item 92.— 115 M t. A lexander-road, F lemington (1) On 5th March, 1960, members of the Gaming Branch entered the office of Dow Manufacturing Co., a timber building, at 115 Mt. Alexander-road, Flemington. The four telephones installed there were, according to Police evidence, being used for betting. Christine Gleeson, who was present in the office with Dow and others, maintained she was using only one telephone for betting. Dow- lived at

157 Princes-street, Flemington, which adjoins the premises in question. The Police prosecuted Gleeson who was convicted and Dow who was acquitted on a technicallity. The police report to the Department

2 1

4 2 5

on 7th December, 1960, stated that all four telephones were being used for betting and notified this conviction. The Departm ental practice under Telephone Regulation 62 where there had been a conviction for using the premises in breach of the gaming laws was to cancel all telephones on the premises. However, only the telephone Gleeson admitted she was using for betting was cancelled by the Department. No

explanation or reason was offered why the Victorian Adm inistration cancelled only the one telephone in this case.

(2) On 22nd December, 1960, a telephone was installed in the name of j. Hill of 157 Princes-street, Flemington. It was installed by Harold Fenton W ade, a supervising technician, who had no telephone order authority for the installation but claimed that he had been asked to do the work by some person in the Contracts Section whom he could not identify. Wade went to the premises of Dow M anufacturing Co. and installed the telephone in the office with an adaptor point in a billiard-room in one of the other

buildings. He stated in evidence that he was told by the unidentified Contracts clerk that the line was required as a m atter o f urgency for a person who was ill.

(3) I am satisfied that J. Hill did not exist but was a name used by Dow, that Wade knew that the service was being installed for Dow for the purposes of illegal gaming and that Dow was able to arrange for the installation of this telephone to replace the service cancelled on the conviction of Gleeson. I am satisfied that he arranged this through W alter William Sheppard, a clerk employed in the Contracts

Section, and that it was Sheppard who spoke to Wade. Wade was proceeded against by the Department on a num ber of charges for installing a telephone without authority and was reduced in status. In the police report relating to the four telephones being used for betting on 5th M arch, 1960, it was pointed out there had been interference with the services. This makes the failure on the part of employees in the Victorian Adm inistration to cancel the three other services even more inexplicable.

(4) I find that in obtaining and making the connection o f a telephone service at 115 Mt. Alexander- road, Flemington, on 22nd December, i960, there occurred improper practices on the part o f the said H arold Fenton W ade and of the said W alter William Sheppard, persons employed in the Victorian Adm inistration, in connexion with or in relation to the illegal gambling activities of the said Jack Dow in

Victoria.

Item 95.— 13a A lbion-street, E lsternwick (1) On 6th September, 1961, telephone service 91-4180 was connected to the premises at 13a Albion-street, Elsternwick, in the name of Cox, and on 7th September, 1961, telephone service 91-4187 was connected to the same premises in the name of M ason. Both these services were connected in advance

of any proper telephone order. The applications were in fact made out by W alter William Sheppard, the employee previously mentioned in connexion with Item 92 already dealt with in this paragraph.

(2) I am satisfied that Sheppard did this by arrangement with Dow, that neither Cox nor M ason existed, and that the services were provided to give Dow two new telephone numbers because he had become aware of the investigation, described at Chapter 13, into the abstracting of dockets relating to his existing services at Flemington.

(3) Sheppard finally admitted that he filled in the application form for service 91-4180. He also conceded that it was possible he could have been responsible for the connection of service 91-4187, but all papers in relation to this service were missing.

(4) I find that in obtaining the connection of telephone services 91-4180 and 91-4187 in the names of non-existent persons there occurred improper practices on the part of the said W alter William Sheppard, a person employed in the Victorian Administration, in connexion with or in relation to the illegal gambling activities of the said Jack Dow in Victoria.

It was submitted that these events did not fall within Term of Reference (a ). Counsel for the Departm ent pressed in argument that the two services in question were used by Dow for interstate calls solely in connexion with his tipping business and telephone tipping was not illegal in Victoria. In any case, the tipping would in fact occur outside Victoria as the information was only communicated to the interstate client upon his receiving the trunk line call.

There is abundant evidence that Dow as well as being a tipster had been a starting-price bookmaker for many years. I am satisfied that he not only used his telephone services at Princes-street, Flemington, both for tipping and for starting-price betting, but that he also used the two telephones at Albion-street, Elsternwick, for both purposes.

Efforts were made to secure Dow’s attendance to give evidence. He was not to be found at his place of business, his home or any other place he normally frequented. A search was made by members of the Victoria Police Force and Commonwealth investigators but it was not possible to effect personal service of a summons to appear before this Inquiry. I am satisfied that Dow went into hiding for the

purpose of avoiding service. 1 am further satisfied that Dow has conducted the business of a starting- price bookm aker and a tipster for many years now, that he is a man without scruples and that he has deliberately corrupted employees in the Main Trunk Exchange, the Commercial Branch, the Engineering Branch and the Accounts Branch of the Victorian Administration.

Item 101.— 114 Bridge-road, R ichmond (1) On 4th June, 1956, members of the Gaming Branch visited these premises. On the first floor they found two men operating four telephones in one room and a woman operating another three telephones in another room. The telephones were being used for illegal gambling. On being advised of

22

what the Police discovered, the D epartm ent immediately caused an investigation to be made and it was found that six o f the telephones had been transferred from 60 to 114 Bridge-road, Richmond, without authority. The Departm ental Investigators found that these six telephones had been so transferred as the result of im proper practices in connexion with illegal gaming activities on the part of employees in the Victorian Adm inistration. A starting-price bookm aker named Howard Hugh M artin admitted before me th at he had paid to a person named “ Fred ” a bribe of £15 for the installation o f the six lines at 114 Bridge-road.

(2) In all probability the recipient o f the £15 was Frederick J. Northausen, a tem porary clerical assistant who was later dismissed from the service. It seems clear that N orthausen arranged for and shared the bribe with Joseph Cornell, a line foreman, to perform the unauthorized work. Cornell was charged on two counts of im proper conduct and on two counts of negligence in the discharge of his duties

and upon conviction was fined £5.

(3) I find that Northausen and Cornell, persons employed in the Victorian Administration, were both guilty of improper practices in connexion with or in relation to illegal gambling activities in Victoria in that they effected a transfer o f the said telephones without authority to enable Howard Hugh M artin to carry on business o f a starting-price bookm aker at the said premises.

CH APTER 7

FA ILU R E TO INVESTIGATE (PARTICULARS C A N D D)

86. It was contended by the State of Victoria that the following three kinds of inactivity on the part of employees in the Victorian Administration amounted to improper practices:—

(1) T h e y f a i l e d to in v e s tig a te in te r fe r e n c e w ith o r a lte r a tio n to te le p h o n e s e r v ic e s w h e n th e s e c a m e u n d e r n o tic e

I am satisfied that each instance of interference or alteration to a telephone service brought under the notice of the Departm ent was investigated.

(2) T h e y f a i l e d to a c t o n e v id e n c e o f in te r fe r e n c e w ith o r a lte r a tio n s to te le p h o n e s e r v ic e s

Three cases were relied upon by the State of Victoria in support of this allegation, namely,

Item 140.— 114 Perry-street, Portland Item 141.—25 R owe-street, Armadale In these two cases officers of the Victorian Administration made an investigation and decided to recommend that no action be taken. In each case it was a m atter for them to recommend whether or not any action should be taken and their decision was not improper.

Item 142.—332 W yndham-street, Shepparton (1) In this case the Director for Victoria gave notice that the telephone service, Shepparton 333, connected to these premises in the name of a deceased subscriber would be cancelled as from 15th November, 1957, for an unauthorized extension o f the service and removal of a handset. The extension was for the purpose of starting-price betting by Nick Alexandratos, a registered and starting-price bookm aker who was a son of the deceased subscriber. This was the second time Alexandratos had been responsible for an unauthorized extension to a telephone service. He had procured an unauthorized extension for his tenant’s telephone service, Shepparton 797, for the same purpose. Alexandratos had flouted an investigation by the Department, and in both cases he had himself lied to the investigators and had persuaded his tenant to do the same.

(2) On 15th November, 1957, the Solicitor acting for Alexandratos wrote to the Director for Victoria stating that all gaming charges against his client and all persons connected with the premises had been dismissed, that his client was highly respected and hard-working, that the telephone was absolutely necessary for the conduct of his client’s business and requested that the telephone be allowed to remain. The Director’s reply of 26th November, 1957, stated that the service was disconnected under Telephone Regulation 47 because of the unauthorized extension and affirmed that this action was in no

way associated with any charges laid by the Police. On 17th December, 1957, the Director wrote to the Solicitor informing him that the Department would offer no objection to a re-application for a telephone service. The service was restored on 30th December, 1957. (3) Counsel for the State of Victoria submitted that this restoration o f the service, in what was a particularly bad case, amounted to an improper practice on the part o f the person responsible. I feel I must accept the submission of Counsel for the Department that the application for the restoration of this

service was regarded as one of substance because of the political representations made on behalf of the widow of the "deceased subscriber and the strong political support it secured. (Transcript pages 697 and 3483.)

(3) T h e y f a i l e d to in v e s tig a te th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s u n d e r w h ic h m u ltip le te le p h o n e s c a m e to b e in s ta lle d f o r

ille g a l g a m in g p u r p o s e s w h e n th e s e w e r e b r o u g h t u n d e r n o tic e

M r. Francis G rant Harvey, Investigation Officer, stated in this connexion that his instructions in all cases were to investigate no more than whether there were any unauthorized installations or alterations. He was not instructed to investigate the circumstances under which telephones were originally installed. M r. John Franklin Howard, Superintendent, Commercial Branch, said that in all cases where he received police reports he went through the files to see whether or not telephones had been installed in breach of

existing Directives. He found no such case. I was further informed during the Inquiry that the telephone order form which identifies the technician installing the telephone was not kept for more then twelve months.

If any of the Directives were to be effective as a means o f preventing the installation of telephones for illegal gaming purposes, proper steps would have to be taken to see that they were obeyed. This called for an investigation o f all cases where the Police had discovered telephones used for illegal betting and a breach of any one o f the Directives could have been involved. I am satisfied that in respect of all

installations of two telephones in the one room in a private residence an investigation should have been held into how the second telephone, if it was put in after 1950, came to be installed. It would not be a sufficient reason for not holding such an investigation to say that the telephone order form identifying the technician was not available. There were other means open to the Departm ent for identifying the

installing technician.

In each of the unusual location cases dealt with in paragraph 81, the discovery of telephones in the position described, obviously not there for any legitimate purpose, called for an immediate investigation into the circumstances of their installation. Such an investigation was held in respect of 905 Havelock- street, Ballarat (Item 98b).

In the following cases police raids took place not long after the installation of telephones and in these circumstances immediate investigation was w arranted:—

23

Item. A ddress. D ate o f Installation. D ate o f R aid.

25 Flat 20, 176 Wellington-parade, East Melbourne . . . . .. . . 17.9.58 25.10.58

26 Flat 2, 17 Bowman-street, Mordialloc .. . . . . . . .. 5.9.58 4.11.58

Furtherm ore, in these and the following six cases wffiere Police had detected illegal gaming in premises and advised the D epartm ent within 12 m onths of the installation of the last telephone it is to be noted that the records identifying the installing technicians were still available:— Item 39.—3 Sheridan-grove, Caulfield

Item 61.—386 Flinders-lane, M elbourne Item 68.— 128 Jolim ont-road, Jolimont Item 99.— 125 Flinders-lane, Melbourne Item 218.— 680 Sydney-road, Brunswick Item 231.— 8 Rosamond-street, Balaclava

In addition, the following two cases call for special m ention:—

Item 36.—F lat 1, 51 A cland-street, St . K ilda (1) In tnis case members o f the Gaming Branch raided the premises on 23rd February, 1957, and found three telephones and an unauthorized adaptor in a bedroom in a flat. Departmental investigators went to the premises on 1st M arch, 1957, and the telephones were subsequently cancelled under Telephone

Regulation 47. (2) It is not possible from the evidence to establish when the telephones were installed or to make any finding with respect to any of the Directives. I am satisfied that the dates of installation could have been ascertained at the time of the Departmental investigation. Further enquiries would have shown

whether or not the 1950 or 1956 Directive was applicable and would have thrown some light on how' three services came to be installed in one room in a flat.

Item 40.—414-416 Bay-street, Brighton This case received much publicity and an investigation v/as made by the Department. Four telephones were installed on 25th February, 1955, in a fibro-cement bungalow in a yard at the rear of a butcher shop. Members of the Gaming Branch raided the premises on 17th June, 1957, and obtained convictions. The m atter came under notice on 4th December, 1957, as a result of remarks made by Judge

Stafford in the Court of General Sessions at Melbourne in the course o f an appeal by one of the convicted persons. The Departm ent was able to ascertain from its records the identity of the installing technician although the publicity occurred nearly two years after the last installation.

24

87. In relation to the failure of the responsible officer to order an investigation in each of these ten cases into the question o f whether or not there had been a breach of any Directive or whether or not any telephone had been installed in circumstances which clearly indicated that it was to be used for illegal gaming I find that there occurred im proper practices on the part o f employees in the Victorian Adm inistration in connexion with or in relation to illegal gambling in Victoria.

88. I am unable to identify the employee or employees guilty o f these improper practices, but if at any time no subordinate officer was charged with this duty the responsibility for the failure to investigate would rest with the Director.

CHAPTER 8

BLOCK IN G A N D D IVERSION O F CALLS (PA RTICU LA R E)

Section 1.—Blocking of Calls

89. Regarding alleged blocking o f telephone calls in connexion with or in relation to illegal gambling activities, I am satisfied that no improper practice on the part o f any employee in the Victorian Adm inistration occurred in respect of any item set out under Particular E appearing in the Fifth Appendix.

Section 2.—D iversion of Calls

90. A question of wrongful diversion arose in connexion with the following case:—

Item 75.— 88-90 Gellibrand-street, Colac (1) M embers of the Gam ing Branch raided these premises on 27th March, 1957, and detected Reginald Phillip Frauenfelder using four telephones (Colac 587, 650, 720, 883) for starting-price betting in a brick room fitted with a steel door. Some time after the Police entered, incoming calls on all four telephones ceased. The acting m onitor on the Colac Exchange that afternoon was a Miss McKay. She told Departm ental Investigators that at about 4 p.m. she received a telephone request to divert all calls for the four lines to Colac 274 “ as the police are here ” . I should add that Colac 274 is the telephone

number o f one Gordon Trask who was a starting-price bookm aker working for Frauenfelder. Miss M cKay said the request came from Miss Frauenfelder and that she did not think she was doing any wrong in diverting the calls to Colac 274 as this had been done frequently on previous occasions.

(2) In relation to the diversion o f these calls in the circumstances in which the request was made I find that Miss M cKay was guilty of an im proper practice in connexion with the illegal gambling activities o f the said Reginald Phillip Frauenfelder in Victoria. (3) I am satisfied, however, that there was no element of dishonesty involved in Miss M cKay’s action or was there any pre-existing arrangement between her and the bookmakers to divert the calls.

CHAPTER 9

IM PRO PER PRACTICES IN RELATION TO TIPSTERS (PARTICULA R F)

91. A great deal of evidence was placed before me on the subject o f tipsters and the use they make of the D epartm ent’s facilities to promote their illegal gambling activities. However, I have found no indication of an improper practice under Term of Reference (a ) in respect of this allegation.

92. This evidence also relates to the question of refusal or failure on the part of employees in the Victorian Administration to co-operate with the Police Force and a particular examination of the subject appears at Chapter 19 of this Report.

CHAPTER 10

FA ILU R E BY C H IEF POSTAL INVESTIGATION O FFIC ER TO ASSIST POLICE (PARTICULARS G A N D P) 93. The allegations made under this head concern Reefton Harry Adolphus Spicer who, at all material times, occupied the position of Chief Postal investigation Officer for Victoria. I am satisfied that Mr. Spicer always gave members of the Gaming Branch all the assistance he believed he was competent

to give. 94. It is true that a number of tipster circulars with Post Office box addresses were drawn to Mr. Spicer’s attention, and that he was asked by members of the Gaming Branch to take action to have these boxes cancelled. However, he had no power to cancel a box himself and he genuinely believed that Departm ental policy was to cancel boxes o n ly —

(u) if a certificate was given by the Chief Commissioner of Police that the box was being used for illegal tipping activities; (b) if a conviction was obtained for breaches of the gaming laws and the use of the box was involved; or (c) if the lessee used a fictitious name or address. These were binding decisions of policy and there was no improper practice on the part of Mr. Spicer in failing to take the action requested of him

95. No evidence was placed before me which could support the other allegations against Mr. Spicer.

25

CH APTER 11

T R A FFIC K IN G IN TELEPHONES (PA RTICU LA R H)

96. Particular H appearing in the Fifth Appendix alleges that an employee in the Victorian

Adm inistration had been dismissed for trafficking in telephones between 1957 and 1958. The allegation was that the employee had provided the telephones to be used for illegal gambling. No evidence was given which could support this allegation.

CHAPTER 12

ACTIVELY ASSISTING ILLEGAL G A M IN G OPERATORS (PA RTICU LA R K).

97. The substance of the allegation made under Particular K appearing in the Fifth Appendix was that employees in the Victorian Adm inistration acted in concert to assist the illegal activities of starting-price bookm akers, tipsters and prices agents.

98. The allegation was based upon entries in several diaries or notebooks confiscated by the Police which mentioned persons employed in various positions in the Victorian Adm inistration by name and telephone number. Some of the employees named were technicians and others had nothing to do with the installation of telephones. Each of the named employees called to give evidence denied

they had any im proper association with starting-price bookmakers or that they had done anything to assist starting-price bookm akers to obtain telephone services.

99. Although I was not satisfied with the explanation given by some of these witnesses, the case sought to be made by the State o f Victoria never, in my view, rose above a case of suspicion.

CHAPTER 13

REM OVAL O F T R U N K LINE DOCKETS (PARTICULARS L A N D Q)

100. The allegation made under Particular L appearing in the Fifth Appendix was that employees in the Victorian Adm inistration, in furtherance of the business of starting-price bookmakers and prices agents, had attempted to conceal the fact that money was owing to the Departm ent for trunk line calls.

101. During June, 1961, inform ation was received at the M ain Trunk Exchange that dockets recording trunk line calls made on the four telephone services used by Dow and the Dow M anufacturing Co. at the Flemington premises (Items 92 and 95, paragraph 85) were being removed from the Exchange to avoid payment.

A trunk line docket is written by the telephonist at the time a call is made and is then sent to a sorting machine and priced in the Exchange itself. Soon after, the dockets are transferred in bulk to the Accounts Branch where each is ultimately debited to the subscriber’s trunk line calls account. The D epartm ent has no record that a call has been made if the docket is abstracted before it is recorded in

the Accounts Branch.

An investigation into the alleged removal of dockets was undertaken by Investigation Officer Harvey. It appears from his report that these four telephone numbers and others had been used by Dow over a period o f years in connexion with his gaming activities to make interstate calls on race days to places as far distant as N orthern Queensland, N orthern Territory and Western Australia. For some years past some, if not all, of the dockets relating to these calls had been abstracted and consequently

the cost o f the calls had not been debited. It is evident that this malpractice was known to many of the employees interviewed by Mr. Harvey and, indeed, it was said to be common knowledge in the Main Trunk Exchange. As a result of this investigation Norm an Welch M cDougall, a clerk employed in the Accounts

Branch, was detected removing dockets recording calls made on the new telephone services at Albion- street between the dates of connection and 18th September, 1961. The value of the dockets was £127. M cDougall m aintained that he took the dockets only on the occasion when he was detected, and that he was asked to do so by a man named Garney whom he met in an hotel bar. McDougall was subsequently

charged and convicted of an offence under the Commonwealth Crimes Act and was dismissed from the Department.

102. Having regard to all the circumstances there can be little doubt that McDougall assisted Dow in his interstate gambling activities when he abstracted the trunk line dockets. However, it is by no means certain that those dockets were directly connected with the commission of an offence against the gaming laws of the State of Victoria.

103. Accordingly, although M cDougall was clearly guilty of an improper practice in abstracting these dockets I leave open the question whether that improper conduct was in relation to or in connexion with illegal gambling activities in Victoria. F . 11 3 8 9 / 6 3 . — 3

26

C H A PTER 14

U N A U TH O RIZED PROVISION, A LTER A TIO N OR REMOVAL OF TELEPHONES (PA R TIC U LA R M) 104. The basis of the allegations made under Particular M appearing in the Fifth Appendix is that telephones were found in places other than the premises where, according to Departm ental records, they were officially installed. The explanation in each of these cases was that the telephone service concerned had been led in from the authorized premises. In no instance was there evidence that unauthorized wiring had been done by an employee o f the Department.

105. These allegations also involve instances of unauthorized extensions. These cases have been dealt with at Chapter 6 as unauthorized installations.

CHAPTER 15

EM PLOYEES U SIN G TELEPHO NES INSTA LLED FO R G A M BLING (PARTICULA R N)

106. Under Particular N appearing in the Fifth Appendix it was alleged that Departmental employees themselves were found betting on telephones installed without proper investigation or authority, and that the same employees were instrum ental in having the telephones so installed.

107. The allegation is sustained in the following cases:—

Item 186.—James Peter Bennett (1) On 25th October, 1958, Bennett, a clerk attached to the Central Administration, was found betting on two telephones at Flat 20, 176 Wellington-parade, East Melbourne. I have already found, in respect of Item 25 (paragraph 69), that the second o f these telephones was installed in breach o f the

1956 Directive. I am satisfied that this employee was concerned in obtaining this telephone.

(2) As the Terms of Reference have no application to employees in the Central Administration I am prevented from making a finding of an improper practice against Bennett.

Item 188.—John Ronald A rthur D oig Items 189 and 190.—Frederick William Goode (1) On 9th March, 1959, Doig, a mail officer employed in the Victorian Administration, and a m an named N orthrope were found betting in Room 19, 386 Flinders-lane, Melbourne, on two telephones.

I have found in respect of Item 61 that the second of these telephones was installed in breach of the 1956 Directive (paragraph 76), and that the installation of these telephones should have been investigated in view of the short period between installation and detection o f their use for illegal gambling (page 23). I am satisfied that Doig was concerned in the im proper installation of these telephones. There is support for my conclusion in respect o f Doig from the fact that on 15th January, 1958, both he and Northrope had been found using four other telephones installed in Room 7 of the same premises and were duly convicted for illegal betting.

(2) On 26th June, 1959, Goode, a technician, and Oliver Francis Grigg, both employees in the Victorian Administration, were found betting in Room 8, 128 Jolimont-road, Jolimont, on two telephones. On 9th April, 1960, Goode and a woman named Black were detected at 186 Gertrude-street, Fitzroy, using two telephones to communicate betting odds.

(3) 1 have found in respect of Items 68 and 71 (paragraph 76) that the installation of the second telephone in each of the premises concerned was in breach of the 1956 Directive. I am satisfied, and do not accept the evidence o f Goode to the contrary, that he was directly involved in obtaining the installation of telephones for illegal gambling activities at each of the said premises.

(4) I find both Doig and Goode guilty o f improper practices in that each was instrumental in procuring the installation of a telephone in breach of the 1956 Directive in connexion with or in relation to iilegai gambling activities in Victoria.

108. Evidence was given in relation to several other employees in the Victorian Administration against whom convictions had been obtained for starting-price betting. There was no evidence which would justify a finding that the telephones used by them in connexion with their gambling activities had been installed without proper investigation or authority.

109. i am satisfied that upon discovering that any of its employees had been convicted for illegal gambling the Departm ent immediately took action against the employee under the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service Act.

110. Evidence was given to the effect that there never had been an arrangement between the Police Force and the D epartm ent whereby the Police would inform the Department of any conviction of an employee for offences against the State gaming laws. There was no evidence of any occasion during the years covered by this Inquiry when the Police, in reports or otherwise, drew the attention of the Department to the fact o f an employee’s conviction for illegal gambling. In my view such an arrangement between the two Authorities is highly desirable.

27

431

CHAPTER 16

A LTERA TIONS TO TELEPH O N E EX CH A N G E EQ U IPM EN T TO D IV ERT CALLS (PA R TIC U LA RS 0 A N D S) 111. The allegation made under Particular O appearing in the Fifth Appendix relates to an anonym ous letter received by the Police on 9th July, 1957, stating that telephone service MX 2513 located

at 101 M erton-street, Albert Park, was being used on race days with the consent of the subscriber (Item 203). It was suggested that money was paid for the use of the num ber, that no incoming calls were received on MX 2513 on race days but that outgoing calls could be made. The letter was forwarded to

the D epartm ent on 5th August, 1957.

112. On Saturday, 24th August, 1957, a Departm ental investigation was made. The South M elbourne autom atic telephone exchange was visited and inspection there showed that M X 2513 had been “ jum pered ” over to the vacant line for the unallotted telephone service MX 6170 and that the line was being used for betting. A “ ju m p e r” is the piece of equipment which connects, at the Exchange, a

subscriber’s telephone and his cable pair with the autom atic equipment, in this case the “ jum per ” on M X 2513 was disconnected and re-connected to MX 6170. The result was that a person who dialled M X 6170 would be autom atically connected to the premises where MX 2513 was installed. Departm ental Investigators disconnected both services and visited 101 M erton-street, Albert Park. There they found two unauthorized plugs installed in the service M X 2513 and they described the place

as “ being set up for starting-price betting

113. A technician employed in the Victorian Administration, Ronald W alter Harris, who was on duty on 24th August, 1957, admitted that he had blocked out M X 2513 in response to a telephone request received from an employee of the Telephone Branch in the norm al course of his duties. Harris endorsed the m aster card for M X 2513 “ Blocked at the subscriber’s request ” , signed and put the initials

(“ A. R .” ) of the officer who made the request on the card. There was no record of any request having been received from the subscriber to block out this service. Harris denied that he had done the “ jum pering ” ,

114. Each employee at the South M elbourne Exchange who was on duty on 24th August, 1957, was interviewed and denied any knowledge of the “ jumpering ” . It is beyond doubt that some person employed in the Exchange on that day carried out this unauthorized interference, and the probability is that the person was Harris. However, on the evidence I am unable to make a definite finding on this

issue. 115. In relation to the alteration of telephone equipment to divert calls I find that an improper practice occurred on 24th August, 1957, on the part of an employee at the South Melbourne Telephone Exchange in connexion with or in relation to illegal gambling activities in Victoria.

116. There is no evidence to support the allegation o f conspiracy to divert calls under Particular S appearing in the Fifth Appendix.

433

PART IV

ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER REFUSAL TO CO-OPERATE

TERM OF REFERENCE (b)

31 4 3 5

CHAPTER 17

REFUSAL TO CO-OPERATE

Section 1.—I ntroduction

117. Term of Reference (b) requires that I inquire into and report upon whether there has occurred any improper refusal or failure (reprehensible or otherwise) on the part of employees in the Victorian Administration to co-operate, to the extent permitted, with the Police Force in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in Victoria and, if so, in what respect has such co-operation been lacking and for what improper motives, if any, has it been refused.

Section 2.—I mportance of Co-Operation

118. There can be no doubt that in the suppression of illegal gambling activities in Victoria, co-operation between the Department and the Police Force is of the utmost importance. Sergeant Miller, who from 1956 to 1959 was in charge of the administration of the Gaming Branch, said in evidence that by far the greater part of illegal betting turn-over in Victoria is comprised of wagers placed by telephone, and that the Department's effective co-operation would lead to the eradication'of such illegal

activities. The co-operation he envisaged was that the Department should adequately police its own statutes, regulations and procedures. He claimed that this of itself would reduce starting-price betting to such proportions that the Gaming Branch could turn its attentions elsewhere.

Section 3.—O bligation to A ssist the Police 119. There was much debate as to whether or not the Department was fixed with any legal obligation to assist in the policing of the anti-gaming laws of the State of Victoria. This is not a matter that concerns me. It is implicit in the wording of Term of Reference (b) that the Department shall

co-operate with the Police Force to the fullest extent permitted by its policy of secrecy of communication. My task is to determine whether there has been a refusal or failure to co-operate on the part of employees in the Victorian Administration and that task involves, first of all, a determination of the nature and extent of the responsibility of those employees to co-operate with the Police Force in connexion with

the detection of illegal gambling.

120. It was contended for the Department that, for its part, co-operating with the Police Force was confined to giving assistance of the nature and to the extent found in correspondence which passed between the Director-General and the Chief Commissioner of Police in 1960. This correspondence, which is set out in the Tenth Appendix, requires the Department to give assistance only upon the specific

request of the Police Force. It was further contended that the only question that arose under this Term of Reference was whether or not there had been an improper failure or refusal to co-operate in this limited sense. I do not accept these contentions. Having regard to the wording of Term of Reference (b) and to the matters to which I shall now turn, the Department’s responsibility, in my opinion, goes a great

deal further.

121. With the detection of breaches of the State gaming laws the Department is not directly concerned. It is the function of the Police Force to detect and suppress such breaches and prosecute the offenders. The responsibility of the Department commences when illegal gaming activities are carried on by means of the services it provides. The Department enjoys the sole power of control and

administration of public communication media and bears the attendant responsibility to suppress abuses of its facilities. Indeed, this concept is found expressed in the statutes, regulations and administrative procedures which I shall now examine.

Section 4.— Statutes, R egulations and A dministrative Procedures

122. Section 57 of the Post and Telegraph Act gives the Postmaster-General power to refuse to register, transmit or deliver mail where he has reason to believe that the addressee is engaged in receiving money in connexion with wagering, carrying on a lottery, fortune telling or a fraudulent, indecent, obscene or immoral business or undertaking.

Regulation 62 of the Telephone Regulations gives the Department power, where a subscriber or any person is convicted of carrying on an illegal business at any place which is connected to an exchange, to determine its agreement with the subscriber and remove the installation. Regulations 138 and 139 of the Postal Regulations provide that a private post office box shall

not be let and may be cancelled where the Postmaster-General is satisfied that the applicant or lessee is or is the agent of a person engaged in receiving money in connexion with wagering or carrying on a lottery or is using a fictitious or assumed name. A box may also be cancelled if the lessee is in breach of the Postal Regulations or the Postmaster-General has ieason to believe that it is being used

for fraudulent, illegal, indecent or immoral purposes.

123. Subject to the obligation of the Department to keep inviolate secrecy of communication, its responsibility to co-operate to the utmost with the Police Force in the detection of illegal gaming activities has never been questioned. On the contrary such a responsibility has been recognized by most responsible persons.

32

124. On 30th January, 1943, the then Prime Minister, the late Mr. John Curtin, sent a letter to all State Premiers expressing his concern at the expenditure of man-power and money on racing. It was stated in this letter that there was scope for the Department to co-operate more closely with the State Authorities by preventing evasion of otherwise adequate State gaming laws through the use of Post Office services. To this end the Prime Minister issued the following particular instructions:—

(i) Private Box Services (a) Upon the receipt of a written request from the Police Department in the State concerned, accord to a responsible Police officer access to the records of private box services in any specified centre, on the definite understanding that the information extracted by him will be regarded as

confidential and used solely for the purpose of detecting illegal practices. (b) Cancel a private box service where the Commissioner of Police in the State concerned certifies that the box is used in connexion with illegal tipping, race cards or betting practices.

(ii) Telephone Subscribers’ Services (a) Allow a responsible Police official to have access to the records of telephone services (silent lines or otherwise) under similar conditions to those proposed in regard to private box services. (b) As at present, cancel a telephone service only where a written request is made by the Police

Department subsequent upon the subscriber or other person having been convicted of carrying on an illegal business at the place where the telephone is installed. (c) Review the list of silent telephone services and terminate all such services, excepting where the subscriber furnishes a statutory declaration showing reason why such service is required and

such reason to be adjudged by the Postmaster-General as being in the public interest.

(iii) Press Agencies Furnish the Police Department with details of private boxes and telephone services leased by or on behalf of Press Agencies, so that the activities of these organizations may be specially investigated.

(iv) Fixed Time Line Calls (Trunk) Withdraw the Fixed Time trunk line call facility on Saturdays, excepting in respect of the Armed Forces, essential organizations or business, commercial, professional and industrial undertakings associated with the war effort.

125. Subsequent correspondence with the Premier of Tasmania made it clear that the reference to records of telephone services meant the forms of contract and any relevant cards or registers relating to subscribers’ services, and did not mean details of telephone conversations or information showing the nature of calls.

126. The Prime Minister’s letter and the correspondence with the Premier of Tasmania are set out in the Eleventh Appendix.

127. It will be noted that the Prime Minister’s instructions regarding silent lines, press (prices) agencies and fixed time trunk calls not only required that the Department should take action at the request of the police but also that the Department itself should initiate certain steps whether or not requested by the police to do so.

128. These instructions were reviewed in September, 1945, and again in December, 1946. On each occasion it was decided that these procedures should continue and, indeed, it has been confirmed by the Postmaster-General in his statement to the House on 27th March, 1962, that they still remain in force (Hansard p. 950).

Section 5.—Policy of the D epartment on Co-operation

129. At the 1958 Royal Commission into off-course betting in Victoria, senior officers of the Department stated that the Department was vitally interested in the problem of preventing the use of its telephone services for illegal gambling. Mr. Skerrett, Assistant Director-General (Telecommunications), in giving evidence as to the extent to which his Department was prepared to co-operate with the Police

Force in the detection of starting-price betting said— Within the framework of the Post and Telegraph Act and the Regulations made under that Act the Department has consistently followed a policy of co-operating with State Police Authorities to the utmost extent possible without infringing on private rights of members of the community.

130. Mr. Skerrett also made some point of the fact that the Victorian Administration, on its own initiative and without any request from the Police Force, had disconnected some 400 services investigated by Departmental officers in accordance with the 1956 Directive. It did not hesitate to exercise its powers under Telephone Regulation 8 or 47 in these cases independently of any action by the Police Force. The investigations were carried out by Departmental officers unknown to the Police Force although ordinary communications with the Gaming Branch continued as in the past.

131. In carrying out these investigations into the use made of rotary groups terminating on handsets, the Department employed its own resources, including records of the outward calls from numbers’ test calls on certain non-racing days, investigation of the subscribers and their business as stated in Departmental records, and the location of their telephones. If it was satisfied that the telephones were not being used for legitimate purposes, the subscriber was given a notice to the effect that the telephone was not being used for the purpose stated in the application. Failing a satisfactory answer from the subscriber, the telephone was cancelled. The object of the Department was to prevent

33

its telephone services being used for illegal gambling activities, and it claimed before the 1958 Royal Commission and before me that by cancelling these many services it has to some extent reduced the amount of starting-price betting. That the cancellation of so many services did reduce the amount of starting-price betting in Victoria cannot be doubted. These activities certainly establish that, by adequately policing its own statutes, regulations and procedures, the Department was able, as Sergeant Miller claimed, to deal effectively with starting-price betting by telephone.

132. Mr. Skerrett stated before the 1958 Royal Commission that, if a person who used a single telephone for legitimate purposes on six days of the week allowed another to use it for illegal gambling activities on the Saturday, the Department without hesitation would disconnect the telephone under the provisions of Telephone Regulation 8.

133. Mr. Skerrett also gave evidence before me that it was the policy of the Department to cancel under Telephone Regulation 8 if it found that a telephone had been obtained by a subscriber and was being used by him for a purpose contrary to the representations he made when applying for the service. The 1950, 1956 and 1960 Directives, in Mr. Skerrett’s understanding, were directed at the prevention of

the use of postal facilities for illegal gambling purposes. The Department, he said, was constantly on the alert for any indication that services were not being used within terms of the contract and, if a breach was discovered, the service would be disconnected. Recognizing the duty of employees to watch for and report illegal gambling activities, Mr. Skerrett said that the staff were put on the alert to give

information to their superiors if, in the course of their duties and without infringing secrecy, they learned that services were being used for illegal purposes.

134. In his statement to the House on 27th March, 1962, the Postmaster-General said— It is important that there be the utmost co-operation between Commonwealth and State authorities in the control of illegal activities. While control of illegal betting is primarily a matter for State police, both sides of this House have been concerned to limit the extent to which Commonwealth communication facilities are used to circumvent State laws and to ensure that the Post Office, without violating public confidence, provides State police with certain information

when requested to do so . . . It will be apparent that the Post Office extends to State police a very considerable degree of co-operation, consistent with its responsibility to maintain a communication service in which the public can have complete confidence. It has always been Post Office policy to co-operate fully with police in the maintenance of the law whilst maintaining its obligation to treat as confidential its transactions with its customers, something of extreme value in the life of any democratic community.

4 3 7

Section 6.—Secrecy of Communication

135. The paramount obligation to preserve secrecy of communication between its customers permeates the whole of the Department’s administration. All personnel employed by the Department, except mail contractors and casual staff engaged for less than seven working days, are required to make the declaration provided in the Second Schedule to the Post and Telegraph Act (Third Appendix). In

substance the employee declares himself bound— (a) not to interfere with any postal article; (b) to hold strictly secret all communications he deals with in the course of his duties; and (c) not to divulge the contents of any matter received for transmission by telegraph.

136. While employees are thus personally bound not to disclose contents of communications, the strict requirement of secrecy in postal and telegraphic matters is further enforced, in particular, by the Department’s statutes, including Post and Telegraph Act, s. 127, Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act, s. 5, Postal Regulations, r. 255, Postal and Telegraphic Services (General) Regulations, r. 2, and, generally, by other Commonwealth statutory provisions, including Public Service Act, s. 55 (1),

Public Service Regulations, r. 35, and Crimes Act, s. 70 (Third Appendix).

137. Broadly these statutory provisions lay down two basic rules which all employees are obliged to observe. Firstly, they are absolutely forbidden to make any disclosure of some matters learnt in the ordinary course of their duties. Secondly, they are enjoined not to disclose other matters without first obtaining permission from the proper authority. In the latter case, no breach of the secrecy

obligation occurs if the disclosure is authorized.

Section 7.—Responsibility to Co-operate with Police

138. In the light of the instructions given by the Prime Minister in 1943 and confirmed by Cabinet from time to time, the statements of the Postmaster-General in the House of Representatives and the evidence of Mr. Skerrett, it is clear that the nature and extent of the responsibility of the Department to co-operate with the Police Force during the period with which this Inquiry is concerned was, subject to any prohibition imposed by its policy of secrecy of communication, as follows:—

(1) To take action itself in appropriate circumstances to ascertain whether or not any Departmental facility was being used to evade the gaming laws of the State of Victoria. (2) To provide all the help it could when requested by the Police Force or when required by its statutory provisions and administrative procedures to give assistance.

34

139. This measure of the Department’s responsibility to co-operate with the Police Force is in accordance with the intention of its statutes and regulations. Furthermore, I am of the view that within the area where strict adherence to the policy of secrecy prevented any communication with the Police the Department bore an even heavier responsibility to alert its own organization both to the detection of abuses of its facilities by persons engaged in illegal gambling and to the application of available sanctions.

140. I now propose to consider whether or not there occurred any improper failure or refusal to co-operate in respect of each of the facilities of the Department which are alleged in the Particulars appearing in the Fifth Appendix to have been used in connexion with or in relation to illegal gambling activities in Victoria. However, before doing so I would comment on the fact that while the Department accepted in principle its responsibility to co-operate to the extent I have observed, under the direction

of the Central Administration there have been significant departures in practice in Victoria. These departures will appear in the course of my consideration of these allegations.

CHAPTER 18

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Section 1.—I ntroduction

141. It was stated before the 1958 Royal Commission that even after the Gaming Branch had succeeded by an intense campaign in reducing the volume of telephone betting in Victoria by one-third, the annual turn-over of this illegal enterprise was estimated at £112,000,000.

142. During the inquiry it was alleged that employees of the Victorian Administration had refused or failed to co-operate in respect of each of the following matters:— Provision of Telephone Services. Diversion of Telephone Calls.

Fixed Time Calls. Cancellation and Reconnection of Telephone Services.

Section 2.— Provision of Telephone Services

143. It was alleged by the State of Victoria that the Victorian Administration did nothing itself to ascertain whether or not its telephones were being used to evade the gaming laws of the State. It is true that when the Department had been subjected to adverse publicity in 1956 in connexion with the use made of its telephones by starting-price bookmakers it made a check of rotary groups terminating on handsets which led to the cancellation of some 400 services. The Administration’s explanation for doing nothing of a similar nature in the intervening years is that it considered that the 1950 and 1956 Directives were adequate to prevent, so far as it was possible, telephones from being used for illegal gambling. The 1960 Directive, it should be noted, did not continue the provisions requiring that checks

be made of rotary groups terminating on handsets, and that field staff report facts giving rise to suspicion that telephones were being used for illegal gambling. The large number of telephones in fact detected by the Gaming Branch in the use of starting-price bookmakers indicates the Administration’s superficial assessment of the situation.

144. My report and finding at Part III. on improper practices within Term of Reference (a), which involves breaches of one or other of the written procedures, clearly demonstrates that full effect was not given within the Victorian Administration to any of the Directives or to those instructions designed to avoid installation of telephones in unusual locations.

145. In a number of cases described at paragraph 86 where the Department was notified of telephones being used for illegal gambling within twelve months of installation, the basis of each finding was that the Victorian Administration neglected to direct prompt investigation in these instances.

146. In relation to the provision of telephone services 1 find that in each case where 1 have found an improper practice under Term of Reference (7?) there was on the part of persons in the Victorian Administration an improper failure to co-operate with the Police Force in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in the following respects:—

(1) They did not continue to take action to ascertain whether or not telephones were being used to evade the gaming laws of Victoria. (2) They did not observe the provisions of the Directives and the Instructions relating to the provision of telephones in unusual locations. (3) They did not investigate or order an investigation into the installation of telephones

proved to have been used for illegal gaming at a time when all records relating to the installation were available. I am satisfied that each person against whom I have found an improper practice under Items 92, 95, 101, 188, 189, 190 and 203 was actuated by an improper motive in his failure to co-operate.

35 4 3 9

Section 3.—D iversion of T elephone Calls

147. The diversion of telephone calls is a facility which has been provided by the Department for many years. Authority for this facility is to be found in Regulation 56 of the Telephone Regulations. The procedure for manual and automatic exchanges differs. In the case of a manual exchange, where diversion has been arranged the telephonist who receives a call to a diverted number connects the call

to the new number without comment. In the metropolitan area callers who call a diverted number are answered by a recorded announcement which directs them to dial a special information number. In large country automatic exchanges the recorded announcement is not used and callers are automatically connected to a telephonist who gives the required information. The Commercial Branch instructions dealing with diverted calls provide that applications for diversion should be in writing. I was informed in evidence, however, that for many years past it has been the practice of the Department to accept oral requests for diversions of calls. A fee is charged for each period of diversion and a record of the request

for diversion is kept at the exchange.

148. In addition to providing the diversion service, the Department also provides the service of temporary disconnection. This, in the case of a manual exchange, is provided by connecting the call to the monitor’s information desk and the caller is informed that the number is temporarily disconnected.

149. Illegal gaming operators, where manual exchanges exist, have made great use of the facility to have calls for one number diverted to another to escape police detection. The departure from the Commercial Branch instruction that an application for a diversion had to be in writing has enabled them to do this. A starting-price bookmaker aware of the presence of the police in the area in which he is operating can make a verbal request that calls to his number be diverted to another number and this will be done forthwith. No calls come over the telephones at the premises listed by the Police and they cannot obtain the evidence that persons are placing bets. Since employees at Post Offices are forbidden to give any information to the Police as to diverted calls, and since the Police are not allowed to see the record made of the diversions they are unable to locate the place to which the calls are being diverted.

150. The following cases illustrate how this facility of the Department is used by illegal gambling operators to evade detection:—

Item 152—W angaratta (1) On 18th April, 1959, Senior Constable Silvester and other police visited premises at the corner of Meldrum-street and Allan’s Court, Wangaratta, where they detected a Mrs. Robinson using a telephone (Wangaratta 112) for illegal betting activities. Senior Constable Silvester, because of a lack of calls coming over the telephone, rang the local exchange and said to the operator “ I have not been getting any calls this afternoon. What happened to my calls? ” She replied “ They have been diverted to another telephone number, number 1035 ” . The Detective then examined the Wangaratta telephone book and discovered that the telephone service Wangaratta 1035 was located at 5 Perry-street, Wangaratta. He

visited that address and detected a Mrs. Boland accepting bets over the telephone. Both Mrs. Robinson and Mrs. Boland were subsequently convicted of gaming offences. (2) Evidence was given before me on behalf of the Department which established that there was, at the time of this Police raid, a standing arrangement for the diversion of calls from Wangaratta 112 to Wangaratta 1035 from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. each Saturday. The arrangement had been made in writing pursuant to normal Departmental procedure for the diversion of calls. Senior Constable Silvester

secured the information only by posing as the subscriber.

Items 155 and 207—W erribee (1) On 5th January, 1957, members of the Gaming Branch raided premises at 36 Synott-street, Werribee, but no evidence of any unlawful gaming was found. The occupier of the premises, Bernard Joseph Ryan, made the following statement to the Police:—

My telephone number is Werribee 385. When a person wants to bet with Phemister or Hart they ring Werribee and ask for my number. It is a code. It is put through to the number where the betting is being done that day. The location often changes but the operator always knows and the caller is put through to the number where the betting is being done on that day.

(2) Evidence given before me on behalf of the Department established that over the months of December, 1956, and January, 1957, calls to Werribee 385 were diverted to five different numbers. On the day of the Police raid, calls to Werribee 385 were diverted to Werribee 674. On this occasion also the diversions had been effected in accordance with normal Departmental procedure.

Item 75.—Colac (1) The facts relating to the diversion of calls at Colac on 27th March, 1957, to other numbers are set out in paragraph 90. (2) Frauenfelder, who was summoned to give evidence at this Inquiry, said that the diversion of his calls could have been to any one of half a dozen numbers. It was the regular practice to have his calls diverted. Some evidence of the effectiveness of the practice is to be found in the fact, that although raided on many occasions, Mr. Frauenfelder had carried on the business of a starting-price bookmaker

for 29 years and had never been convicted.

36

(3) The combination of the Department’s acceptance of verbal requests for diversion and its directions that the Police be given no information as to diverted calls or shown any records at the exchange in this and other cases, led to there being no evidence of betting taking place although there could be no doubt that illegal betting was going on, that the employees in the telephone exchange knew it and that the Police knew it.

(4) It is not surprising that in these circumstances the Police claimed the Department was more interested in protecting the illegal gamblers who used its services from apprehension rather than in co-operating with the Police in their detection.

151. There are 175 manual exchanges in the State of Victoria. I see no reason to suppose that the three examples of diversion of calls set out above are in any way unique or peculiar to the manual exchanges in those towns. On the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that the same type of practice is followed in all other towns where there is a manual exchange and where people are engaged in illegal gambling activities. It is difficult to doubt that the telephone operators, monitors and other officials when dealing with diversion of calls and who are aware of the volume of traffic to the diverted numbers

must have a strong suspicion, if not a conviction, that the Department’s facilities are being used for illegal gambling. This conclusion is supported by the evidence that was given in what became known as the Dromana case (Item 153).

Item 153.—D romana On Saturday, 16th December, 1961, at 2.35 p.m., members of the Gaming Branch entered the residence behind Gardner’s Gift Store at Dromana. They suspected that starting-price betting was taking place there on the telephone and they had some difficulty in gaining entry. No evidence of betting was found when they entered although they found burnt paper and ashes in the fireplace. The

telephone did not ring while they were there. Mrs. Thelma Marion Ridout, the monitor on duty, gave evidence at the Inquiry to the effect that, at 2.30 p.m., Dromana 79 called and requested that no calls be connected to that number. This request was made to the telephonist who passed it on to Mrs. Ridout who instructed that the request be carried out. Mrs. Ridout was asked at the Inquiry—

Q: “ Do you know who the subscriber was?” A: “ Y es”

Q: “ Who was i t ? ” A : “ The number ” Q: “ No, the person? ” A: “ The local S.P.” .

152. It is possible for the Department to detect readily whether or not a diverted service is being used in connexion with illegal gaming operations if the records show over a period that a number is regularly diverted only on Saturdays and other race days. In addition, it can ascertain from its operators the extent of the traffic on the diverted number at any time on a Saturday or other race day.

153. The Police themselves have no means of knowing whether a starting-price bookmaker’s calls have been diverted. The means of detection lies solely in the hands of the Department. If the instruction that applications for diversions be in writing, and if the Prime Minister’s instruction of 1943 as to records being made available to police officers were observed, members of the Police Force could go to a country manual exchange and examine the diversion records to detect which numbers were being diverted regularly on Saturdays and other race days.

154. So that persons who used the diversion service for illegal gambling might be detected, it was open to the Department—

(1) To require that its employees observe the Commercial Branch instruction that applications for diversion be in writing. An exception to this instruction could have been made in the case of an emergency, for example, in the case of a doctor. The proximity of members of the Gaming Branch to the premises of a starting- price bookmaker certainly ought not to be regarded as such an emergency. The very observance of the instruction would prevent last minute diversions and would enable the Gaming Branch more readily to secure evidence against the suspect.

(2) To impose upon a responsible officer in the manual exchange the duty to bring under notice those numbers from which calls were regularly diverted on Saturdays and other race days. If any such notice had been received, then the Department would have been obliged to apply its own tests to ascertain whether or not the telephones were being used for the purposes for which they were provided. If the subscriber failed to satisfy the Department, the service should have been cancelled under Telephone Regulation 8, as was done after a Departmental investigation in the Frauenfelder case

(Item 75, paragraph 90). In cases of doubt, the subscriber could have been asked his reasons for the diversions and for an undertaking that his service would not be used for illegal gaming.

37

441

155. The 1958 Report on off-course betting drew attention to the fact that in the case of diverted calls the subscriber’s number comes under the notice of the operator every time it is called. Heavy traffic on any particular diverted number on a Saturday, the Commissioner suggested, could be reported by the operator and could lead to a Departmental investigation. This procedure has never been adopted on the grounds that it would encourage operators to remain alert for indications that a particular subscriber’s service was being used for illegal purposes and that it could ultimately lead to telephone tapping. I find this argument specious. If it be proper for the telephonist to record outgoing calls from every number in the normal course of her duties, I do not see that the occasional task of noting

incoming calls on diverted numbers on certain race days would damage either the morale of the telephonist or the integrity of the Department.

156. In relation to the diversion of telephone calls 1 find that there was on the part of persons in the Victorian Administration an improper refusal or an improper failure to co-operate with the Police Force in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in the following respects:—

(1) That they did not observe the provisions of the Commercial Branch instruction requiring that requests for diversion of telephone calls be made in writing. (2) That they did not take any action to ascertain whether or not diverted services were being used to evade the gaming laws of Victoria. (3) That they did not allow the Police Force to inspect and make extracts from Departmental

records.

I am satisfied that the persons concerned acted pursuant to the policy of the Central Administration and were not actuated by any improper motive in their refusal or failure to co-operate.

Section 4.—F ixed T ime Calls

157. A fixed time call is a facility of the Department by which under Telephone Regulation 137, at the Department’s discretion, subscribers may make trunk line calls at fixed periods and book calls in advance.

158. In his letter of 30th January, 1943, the Prime Minister was concerned that the trunk line service was being used for conveying betting information and he instructed that the facility be withdrawn, with certain exceptions, on Saturdays.

159. The Prime Minister’s letter of 1943 also required that a responsible Police officer be given access to the Departmental records of any telephone. I shall deal with this aspect of the matter at Chapter 20.

160. The restrictions imposed by the Prime Minister remained unchanged until May, 1950, when they were relaxed slightly, and continued until February, 1956, when they were finally removed. Insofar as the easing of these restrictions in 1950 are relevant to this Inquiry, provision was then made whereby fixed time calls from prices agencies (which existed for the purpose of supplying sporting information)

became permissible provided that they were not accepted for completion before 12 noon on Saturdays. On and from February, 1956, acceptance of fixed time calls from any person became a matter to be determined in the discretion of the Superintendent, Telephone Branch, having regard to traffic conditions

on each particular route. No limitation was to be placed on the duration of fixed time calls unless, due to unusual conditions, it was necessary to limit traffic on any route. 1 accept that the use of this facility by illegal gambling operators in Victoria for the dissemination of betting odds, as disclosed by Police evidence, is the life blood of starting-price betting.

161. Section 124 of the Victorian Police Offences Act, which appears in the Third Appendix, makes it an offence for any person who at any time during a race meeting held on a racecourse communicates or attempts to communicate, by any means whatsoever, any information relating to betting on the racecourse. Under an exception to this provision, however, it is permissible to transmit betting odds by teleprinter service from a Victorian racecourse to an interstate racecourse. Through the agency of a “ tick-tack ” man on the interstate racecourse where they are broadcast, the odds are relayed to a person outside who, having booked a trunk line call, immediately telephones the information to the prices agent in Melbourne who advises his clients, the starting-price bookmakers. The whole circuitous

operation is completed in two minutes.

162. A record of fixed time trunk line calls taken on 18th August, 1962, is set out in the Twelfth Appendix. Other evidence before me relating to Richard Jose and Phillip George Sedawie established that they were the persons who received the 19 calls and 21 calls appearing under the heading “ Main Trunk Exchange, Sydney” . Each of these men conducts a prices agency in Melbourne.

163. I am satisfied that the Department, without committing any breach of its policy of secrecy of communication, could have ascertained the person or persons who were regularly making or receiving fixed time calls on Saturdays and who might reasonably have been suspected of using the facility in connexion with illegal gaming. I am further satisfied that if, after the Prime Minister’s restrictions had

been relaxed, the Department had applied the checks made in respect of rotary groups terminating on handsets, the use of the fixed time call facility for illegal gaming would have been prevented.

38

164. It has also been established to my satisfaction that, if the Department had given effect to the Prime Minister’s instruction and allowed a responsible Police officer to inspect and make extracts from its records of fixed time calls on a race day, the Gaming Branch would have been greatly assisted in its task of detecting illegal gambling operators.

165. In relation to fixed time trunk line calls I find that there was on the part of persons in the Victorian Administration an improper failure to co-operate with the Police Force in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in the following respects:— (1) They did not take action to ascertain whether or not the fixed time trunk line call facility

was being used to evade the gaming laws of Victoria. (2) They did not observe the instruction laid down by the Prime Minister in 1943 that Departmental records of telephone services be made available to the Police Force.

I am satisfied that the persons concerned acted pursuant to the policy of the Central Administration and were not actuated by an improper motive in their failure to co-operate.

Section 5.—Cancellation and R econnection of T elephone Services

(1) Cancellation o f Telephone Services

166. It has been the policy of the Victorian Administration to cancel a telephone service under Telephone Regulation 62, in the event of a gaming conviction, only when a Police request for cancellation is made. Regulation 62 contains no such limitation. With the exception of the failure of the Department to cancel all of the services at the Flemington address in the Dow case (Item 92, paragraph 85), the evidence before me indicates that every request for cancellation made by the Police following upon a conviction was granted. However, a request for cancellation of telephone services in premises used for gaming purposes was refused where a conviction had not been obtained. Items 211 to 215 inclusive appearing in the Fifth Appendix are remarkable instances of such a refusal. In each of the first four of these cases the presiding magistrate decided not to record a conviction against the defendant who was found to have committed a gaming offence. He adjourned the proceedings on the basis that, if at the end of six months there was no evidence of bad behaviour on the part of the defendant in the meantime, the complaint would be dismissed. In the fifth case the presiding magistrate was satisfied that the premises in question had been used as a common gaming house but for technical reasons it was not

open to him to convict the defendant.

167. In all five cases it is clear that the Victorian Administration could not act under Regulation 62, on its strict interpretation, but in my view there was nothing to prevent the Administration from using Telephone Regulation 8 to cancel the services which were in the premises of the defendants. The explanation by the Department for its refusal to cancel in these cases was that as the Legislature had

specifically dealt with illegal gambling offences under Regulation 62 it was not the legislative intention that Regulation 8 be invoked in such cases. I find this explanation inconsistent with what was done by the Victorian Administration under Regulation 8 in connexion with the rotary groups terminating on handsets, or pursuant to the policy expressed by Mr. Skerrett before the 1958 Royal Commission that, quite apart from the question of a conviction, the Department would cancel even one service used on a Saturday for illegal gaming purposes notwithstanding that for the remainder of the week it was used for legitimate business purposes.

(2) Reconnection o f Telephone Services

168. Telephone Regulation 62 (4) permits the reconnection of a telephone service, after the expiration of six months, to premises from which a service has been withdrawn under Telephone Regulation 62 (1). In practice, however, reconnection of the service at the end of the six months may not be possible as the original equipment is not reserved. If at the time of an application for reconnection any doubts are held concerning the good faith of the applicant, he is required to make a statutory declaration setting forth the purposes for which he seeks the service. It was alleged by the State of Victoria that there has been a refusal to co-operate in that the Department has refused to notify the Police Force of the reconnection of telephone services cancelled under Regulation 62 (1). A refusal to notify the Police Force when a reconnection was sought and the reason for the refusal appear in a letter from the Chief Commissioner of Police to Mr. Norman W. Strange, Director, Victoria, dated 19th March, 1957, and Mr. Strange’s reply dated 15th April, 1957. The Chief Commissioner’s letter reads—

I am enclosing herewith a report from a member of my Gaming Squad relating to the reconnection of telephone services to premises where a conviction has been obtained for unlawful gaming. You will appreciate the difficulty which confronts this department in suppressing unlawful betting if, after a specified period, a telephone service is restored to such establishment. Could some consideration be given, please, to the suggestion that this Department be notified in

advance of any application for reinstatement of a telephone service at premises where a conviction for unlawful betting has been obtained during the previous twelve months against the occupier or lessee of such service.

The relevant passage of the Director’s reply reads— Consideration has been given to your suggestion that your Department be notified in advance of any application for reinstatement of a telephone service at any premises where a conviction for unlawful betting has been obtained during the previous 12 months against the occupier or lessee of such premises and this Department is not prepared to adopt such

a course of action. For this reason if the police made investigation in those cases where the applicant was conducting a legitimate business this Department would be placed in a serious and embarrassing position.

39 4 4 3

169. As was stated in a further letter of the Chief Commissioner to Mr. Strange, dated 16th April, 1957, the reason for the request was to give the Gaming Branch the opportunity of keeping a discreet eye on subsequent use of the telephone. The desirability of the Police being able to do so was established before me. Starting-price bookmakers do not lack determination to remain in business and several of those who came before me who had lost their telephones were quick to procure fresh services.

i ^ 170. It would have assisted the Police in their task of detecting offenders against the gaming laws if they had been informed of the reconnection of telephone services after the six-month period. 1 do not accept the reason given by Mr. Strange for refusing the Chief Commissioner's request. 1 think it most unlikely that the Police would disturb a subscriber engaged in no more than a legitimate business. If, perchance, this did happen I fail to see how such an occurrence could possibry embarrass the

Department. It would more likely embarrass the Police.

171. In relation to the cancellation and reconnection of telephone services I find that there was on the part of persons in the Victorian Administration an improper refusal or an improper failure to co-operate with the Police Force in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in the following respects:—

(1) They did not invoke the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Telephone Regulations to cancel telephone services where it was established beyond any doubt that they had been used for illegal gambling but no conviction had been recorded.

(2) Mr. Strange, Director, Victoria, did not afford the Police Force the assistance sought by the Chief Commissioner of Police in his letter dated 19th March, 1957.

1 am satisfied that the persons concerned in finding (1) acted pursuant to the policy of the Central Administration and were not actuated by any improper motive in their refusal or failure to co-operate. Regarding finding (2) I am unable to say whether or not Mr. Strange acted pursuant to the policy of the Central Administration, but in any case 1 am satisfied that he was not actuated by any improper motive in his refusal or failure to co-operate.

CHAPTER 19

POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES

Section 1.— Introduction

172. In respect of the postal and telegraph services of the Department the allegations appearing in the Fifth Appendix are confined to the activities of pci sons engaged in illegal tipping and relate to telegrams, redirection of mail, and private box facilities.

Section 2.—Tipsters

173. A large body of evidence was placed before me relating to the operation of persons who are known as “ tipsters ” . A tipster operates, broadly speaking, in the following fashion. He sends out a circular to people outside Victoria which gives as the address of the tipster an address which is either a post office (private) box or, if it is a street address, is an accommodation address only, the obvious purpose being to ensure that neither the Police nor the recipient of the circular can find its author.

For the same reasons the circular is sent out in an assumed name adopted by the tipster. A circular of this type contains a number of statements as to the special qualifications and previous history of the alleged writer, all of which establish him as one pre-eminently qualified to select winners of horse races. It also contains a great deal of matter couched in the language of those familiar with the mysteries of horse racing, and calculated to impress the impressionable.

174. The circular will invite the recipient to pay for the information to be sent to him the day before or the day of the race. The form of payment varies. In some cases a straight out payment is to be made in advance before the information is given; in other cases the client agrees to invest a certain amount on the horse for the tipster at starting-price odds. Three of these circulars which may be taken as fairly typical are shown in the Thirteenth Appendix.

175. The client pays the tipster by medium of postal notes, money orders or telegraphic money orders. These are collected by the tipster or his agent from the private box or postal accommodation address. Where the tipster is using a street address, redirection orders are lodged at the local Post Office so that the mail will never go to the address shown in the circular but will be redirected by the Post Office to another address known only to the tipster and the Post Office. On the day before or the day of the race the tipster sends out his telegrams which give the names of the horses in a pre-arranged code or in ordinary language. In practice the telegrams are lodged at a main city Post Office and are

sent “ collect ” so that the recipient pays the cost. Advice of any non-acceptance is telegraphed to the sender who is debited with the cost of the telegram and the cost of the advice. For collect telegrams the Department requires the deposit of a fund to cover the cost of non-acceptance telegrams. Approximately 75 per cent, of tipster telegrams are sent collect.

176. Records of the Central Telegraph Office, Melbourne, for the past ten years were produced showing the names of the persons making deposits; the names and addresses of the senders; that in approximately 60 per cent, of the cases the addresses are private box numbers; and that the bulk

40

lodgments of tipster telegrams on Fridays at the Central Telegraph Office varied between 600 and 3,000 and has for years averaged about 1,200. Evidence given by the Postmaster at Croxton who redirected to Elizabeth Street Post Office telegraphic money orders sent to “ T. Cromwell ” and “ Cromwell Racing Service ” , which were tipster organizations, disclosed that the value of those orders ranged from £3 10s. to £10 10s. Thus, if clients pay £1 for the tipping information contained in each telegram, which is a conservative estimate, the gross annual value of these payments to tipsters in Victoria would be in

excess of £60,000.

177. Further evidence was given that since the commencement of this Inquiry the average number of tipster telegrams lodged on Fridays had decreased substantially, despite the fact that a record of the tipster lodgments at the Central Telegraph Office counter for Friday, 24th August, 1962, showed that 615 telegrams were lodged by one person, between 10.45 a.m. and 3 p.m., under the name of H. Duncan whose address was given as Box 93, Caringbah, N.S.W.

178. Members of the Gaming Branch believe that the whole of the tipster business in Victoria has, for many years, been operated by two or three people who send out circulars in a variety of invented names. James Ogilvie Noall admitted in evidence that for many years up to 1960 he had been engaged in this business and that he was the person responsible for no less than seven circulars, each in a different name. At one period he was sending out tipster circulars under five different names for the one race day.

179. Tipping circulars are sent interstate and do not as a rule come under the direct notice of the Police Force. They are, in the main, brought under the notice of the Gaming Branch as a result of complaints made in other States.

Section 3.—Legislation

180. The Acts and Regulations relating to the facilities under consideration are as follows:—

Fraudulent Undertakings— Section 57 (1) (e) of the Post and Telegraph Act provides that the Postmaster- General if he has reasonable grounds to suppose that a person is receiving money or other valuable consideration in connexion with, inter alia, a fraudulent

undertaking may by an order published in the Gazette direct that any postal article be not transmitted or delivered to that person.

Telegrams— Section 96 of the Post and Telegraph Act provides that an officer may refuse to receive or transmit a telegram containing blasphemous, indecent, obscene, offensive or scandalous matter. Regulation 60 of the Telegraph Regulations provides that telegrams may be

sent “ collect ” , that is charges to be paid by the addressee, if the sender lodges with the Post Office a deposit sufficient to cover the cost of transmission and the advice of any refusal by the addressee to pay.

Redirection o f Mail— Regulations 97 and 99 of the Postal Regulations provide for the redirection of postal articles. Such applications are to be complied with by the Postmaster-General only in cases where the addressee has actually changed his address permanently

or temporarily and if temporarily only when the redirection cannot be undertaken by a person at the address from which he is temporarily removed. Applications must be signed by the person to whom the correspondence is directed and should state the places from which correspondence is expected.

Private Boxes— Regulations 138 and 139 of the Postal Regulations deal with the power of the " Postmaster-General to refuse to let or to cancel private boxes. Private boxes should not be let to persons using a fictitious or assumed name unless they

establish their bona fides and if the Postmaster-General has reason to believe that they are being used for a fraudulent business or are held by a person under a fictitious name he may cancel the tenancy of the box.

Illegal Betting— Section 122 of the Victorian Police Offences Act, which appears in the Third Appendix, provides that any person who writes, sells or distributes any writing or notice to the effect that any person will, if required, give information or advice directly

or indirectly as to the probable result of any horse race in the Commonwealth or as to betting odds on any race shall be guilty of an offence.

Section 4.—F raud.

181. I am satisfied on the evidence that, in substance, the contents of tipping circulars are completely false; that the circulars are put out by no more than two or three people; that the names they use are fictitious; that the circulars are in breach of Section 122 of the Victorian Police Offences Act and are designed to induce people to pay money for information as to the probable winners of horse

41 4 4 5

races; and that the whole business of tipping by circular and telegram amounts to a swindle by which many thousands of pounds are obtained from gullible persons. I am satisfied that persons who engage in this business are concerned in a fraudulent undertaking within the meaning of Section 57 of the Post and Telegraph Act.

Section 5.—T elegrams

182. It is vital to the successful conduct of a tipster’s business that he be able to communicate information to his clients without cost or delay within several hours of the race. The Department’s telegram facilities, and in particular the collect system, remove any difficulty he might otherwise have in this regard.

183. It was contended by the State of Victoria that tipping telegrams lodged at the Post Office are illegal, being in breach of Section 122 of the Victorian Police Offences Act, and that employees who received regular bulk lodgments of telegrams for transmission could not avoid recognizing an illegal gambling activity but did not report their observations to any responsibile officer.

184. The responsible official in charge of the Telegraph Services Branch, Mr. Thomas James Emmerson, Superintendent, stated in evidence it was known that tipping telegrams were being sent and indeed he had a record of the names of the persons furnishing deposits for collect telegrams, the names under which the telegrams were despatched and the addresses given by the persons despatching them.

He produced records showing the numbers of telegrams sent on particular days, the dates when deposits were lodged and refunds collected. He also produced telegrams, some in code and some openly naming a horse or horses. However, Mr. Emmerson expressed his view that he was bound to receive and transmit tipping telegrams. His only power to refuse a telegram was given by Section 96 of that Act, which empowered employees of the Department to refuse to receive or transmit a telegram if it contained blasphemous, indecent, obscene or scandalous matter. I agree with Mr. Emmerson’s appreciation of the limit to his statutory powers.

185. It was further contended that the Postmaster-General had a discretion to refuse to accept deposits to cover collect telegrams, and that this discretion should have been exercised to deny this facility to the senders of what were obviously tipping telegrams.

186. I am satisfied that employees may be instructed to refuse the collect facility to persons suspected of using this facility for tipping purposes. Indeed, such a step is essential to the curtailment of this illegal business. If this were done, a tipster desiring to use the collect facility would be forced to pay the full charges on each telegram at lodgment. This would not only require the frequent outlay of large cash amounts but would also expose him or his agent to a greater danger of police detection by compelling prolonged attendance at the public telegram counter.

187. I would mention that the police may procure documentary evidence in these matters by recourse to Telegraph Regulation 70 which provides that a telegram may be made available on the authority of certain officers for perusal or for copies to be made by specified persons in any case where the production of such telegram is required in the interests of justice or for the prevention or detection

of crime or illegal practices.

188. In relation to the acceptance and transmission of telegrams I find that there was on the part of persons in the Victorian Administration an improper refusal or improper failure to co-operate with the Police Force in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in that they did not refuse the collect telegram facilities to persons known to be lodging telegrams for the

purpose of tipping. I am satisfied that the persons concerned were not actuated by any improper motive in their refusal or failure to co-operate.

Section 6.—R edirection of M ail

189. A striking illustration of the misuse of this facility to avoid detection of tipping activities is the case of the tipster operating under the name of “ Tommy Cromwell ” and “ Wally Steele ” .

190. A circular send out by this person directed recipients to sent £6 10s. for four tips to “ Tommy Cromwell, 13 Christmas-street, Croxton, Victoria ” . Police inquiries revealed that no person of the name of Tommy Cromwell lived or was known at that address. The inquiries further revealed that the mail of Tommy Cromwell was diverted pursuant to redirection orders lodged at the local Post Office to premises occupied by Mrs. Norma Florence Ryding first at 25 Speight-street, Thornbury, and then at

29 Separation-street, Alphington.

191. Recipients of other circulars in the name of Wally Steele were directed to forward their mail to “ 439 Waterdale-road, West Heidelberg ” , but pursuant to a redirection order such mail was also diverted to 29 Separation-street, Alphington. No person of the name of Wally Steele lived or was known at 439 Waterdale-road, West Heidelberg.

192. Following upon seizure by the Police of mail diverted to 29 Separation-street, requests were made by telegrams sent in the names of Cromwell and Steele to the appropriate post offices requesting that the mail addressed to Cromwell or Steele be held until further instructions were given. Shortly after the telegrams were sent, written authority above the names of Cromwell and Steele was given

F .11389/63.—4

42

authorizing delivery to Mrs. Ryding of all postal articles addressed to Cromwell and Steele. About the same time a writ was issued in the name of Mrs. Ryding against members of the Police Force for wrongful detention of the mail seized and taken from her premises. 193. I am satisfied that neither Cromwell nor Steele was a real person notwithstanding that Mr. R. H. McMennemin, Solicitor, wrote to the Director, Victoria, on behalf of “ Mr. T. Cromwell ” and issued a writ in respect of mail addressed to that name and the name of Wally Steele.

194. Without any enquiry whatsoever as to the circumstances and necessities of this case, the Department extended the term of redirection of the mail beyond the prescribed maximum period of six months during which any redirection order shall be acted upon (Postal Regulation 99 (2)). 195. Regulations 97 and 99 of the Postal Regulations are plainly designed to prevent such misuse

of the redirection of mail facility and I am satisfied that the tipsters concerned in the cases before me would never have obtained the benefits of the service if the Department had given effect to these provisions.

196. I have no doubt that in the Cromwell and Steele case, for example, an investigation prior to the granting of the redirection service would have revealed the devious tipping scheme. The use of fictions, the fact that the real person or persons using those names had never resided at the addresses given for redirection and the part played by Mrs. Ryding would certainly have been discovered.

197. I am satisfied that even in the case where a tipster or his agent managed by false representations to procure a redirection order it would not be long before the employee handling the mail would become aware of an irregular situation and, I expect, initiate an inquiry. The regular and monotonous task of endorsing volumes of mail with the redirected address surely would give rise to the conviction that the addressee was no ordinary householder.

198. The evidence before me establishes that no proper enquiries were ever made before this facility was made available to a person apparently conducting a tipping business and, prior to the commencement of this Inquiry, nothing was done with a view to withdrawing the facility after it had been made available to such a person.

199. In relation to the redirection of mail I find that there was on the part of persons in the Victorian Administration an improper refusal or improper failure to co-operate with the Police Force in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in that they did not observe the Postal Regulations governing the redirection of mail.

I am satisfied that the persons concerned were not actuated by any improper motive in their refusal or failure to co-operate.

Section 7.—Private Boxes.

200. The Department provides private mail boxes at official Post Offices for rental by members of the public upon application to the Postmaster in charge of the post office concerned. A lessee is provided with one or two keys to the box and he may at any hour collect the mail, other than registered mail, delivered direct to the box.

201. In extension of Postal Regulations 138 and 139, it is stated in Section 6 of the Post Office Guide, that the Department will refuse an application for a box if there is reason to believe the applicant is engaged in a gambling or tipping business and, further, a box will not be made available to persons using fictitious or assumed names unless the Department is satisfied as to their bona fides. This text also provides that a box will be withdrawn if there is reason to believe it is being used in connexion with such gambling or tipping activities or with any illegal, fraudulent, indecent or immoral business or where a fictitious name or address has been used. The relevant provisions of the Post Office Guide,

Section 6 (1961 edition) and paragraph 351 (1955 edition) are set out in the Third Appendix. 202. This policy is given effect at a particular level by paragraph 1338 of the Postmasters Instructions which authorizes postmasters to let private boxes subject to the conditions prescribed in the Post Office Guide, and which requires that where a postmaster suspects that a box will be used for any of the purposes mentioned in the Post Office Guide he is to forward a full report and the application form to the District Inspector. This provision is set out in the Third Appendix.

203. The Postmaster-General has delegated his powers under Postal Regulations 138 and 139 relating to private boxes to the Assistant Director, Posts and Transport Services, Victoria. It is to be noted, however, that this delegation is subject to any direction by the Postmaster-General on specific matters or to any direction which may be given by the Director-General, the Director-General Designate

or the Deputy Director-General. 204. Section 57 of the Post and Telegraph Act and Postal Regulations 138 and 139 recognize that private boxes can be used to cloak illegal activities and that it is important that they be let only to persons whose good faith can be established. Indeed, it was established in evidence that this postal facility was widely used by tipsters for carrying out their fraudulent and illegal operations.

205. In his 1943 Instructions the Prime Minister also recognized that private boxes could be used to evade the provisions of State gaming laws, and he directed that the police be given access to private box records on the definite understanding that the information extracted would be regarded as confidential. The purpose, of course, was to enable the police to find out the name and address of the holder of a

suspect box.

43

4'*7

206. It was further provided in these Instructions that the Postmaster-General could cancel a private box where the Commissioner of Police certified that the box was used in connexion with illegal tipping, race cards or betting transactions.

207. From time to time members of the Gaming Branch brought tipping circulars under the notice of the Investigation Branch of the Department, and Mr. Spicer, the Chief Investigation Officer, was shown many of them. The Police also made requests to Mr. Spicer that the Postmaster-General cancel boxes which were being used for tipping or to institute his own investigations into boxes with a view to their being cancelled.

208. Mr. Spicer had made a study of these documents and believed that many of the circulars were prepared by James Ogilvie Noall and that Noall was the person responsible for the organization and running of most of the tipping business in Victoria. He also believed that these circulars were part and parcel of a wholesale fraud. Mr. Spicer also knew that Noall had maintained a cash deposit with the Central Telegraph Office for many years as security for collect telegrams sent in the course of his tipster activities.

209. Postmasters were not permitted to disclose to the Police the name of the lessee of a box or the type of mail which was being delivered and collected there, and the Police in their investigations frequently found that where a private box was being used for tipping the only way of detecting the tipster was by posting a 24-hour watch on the box in the hope of catching him in the act of collecting his mail.

210. It was established to my satisfaction that from the year 1956 onwards the 30 private boxes set out in the Fourteenth Appendix were used for the purpose of carrying on an illegal and fraudulent tipping business, and that in many cases they were let to a person who gave a fictitious name and address. An examination of several of these cases will illustrate the way in which boxes were used by tipsters.

Box 19, Balaclava This box was originally leased to “ H. Dewhurst, Beach-road, Sorrento ” , who never existed. This was a mere fiction selected by a tipster for a circular, and I am satisfied that the person responsible for the circular was Jame Ogilvie Noall. The box was transferred on 25th June, 1954, to “ C. Henry,

30 Fairview-avenue, Burwood ” . This, too, was a fiction. A tipping circular was put out from time to time in the name of “ Cliff Henry, Manager, Sports Turf Combine, Box 19, Balaclava” . “ Cliff Henry ” was a name used by James Ogilvie Noall who also sent out circulars under the name of

“ Combine ” or “ Sports Combine ” . On 15th June, 1956, the Department cancelled this box on being satisfied by the Chief Commissioner of Police that the name of the lessee was fictitious.

Box 13, M ordialloc This box was originally leased to J. Jordan who traded under the name of “ Dewhurst ” and gave 102 Mt. Alexander-road, Newmarket, as his address. People who have lived at that address for the past 20 years knew neither Jordan nor Dewhurst or anything about the box. This box was cancelled by the

Department on evidence furnished by the Chief Commissioner of Police that the name and address of the lessee of the box were fictitious.

Box 35, F lemington (1) Following the cancellation of Box 19, Balaclava, and Box 13, Mordialloc, Box 35, Flemington, was leased on 19th June, 1956, in the name of “ C. J. H. Bartlett, St. Kilda-avenue, Upwey ” . Bartlett existed and lived at that address. He stated to the Police that he used Box 35 only for the purpose of

collecting betting information for his friend Cliff Henry. In fact, circulars were sent out under the name of “ Cliff Henry, Manager, Sports Turf Combine, C/o Box 35, Flemington ” . At the same time, telegrams were lodged for despatch in the name of “ Cliff Henry ” giving this box number as the address of the sender. These were collect telegrams and the covering deposit stood in the name of “ Combine,

James Ogilvie Noall ” . This box continued to be used for this purpose up to the end of 1959. (2) At that time it was the considered opinion of Senior Constable Silvester, the officer charged with the task of investigating the activities of tipsters using Box 35, that the documents relating to the Fred Dewhurst Tipping Service and the Sports Turf Combine were printed and distributed by a person named Mayne, who also printed and distributed numerous other tipping circulars in various names. It was also the opinion of this Police officer that all the tipping circulars, with the exception of one, were put out by James Ogilvie Noall under a variety of different names. However, Police were unable to

secure sufficient evidence to prosecute in respect of any of the tipsters using Box 35. (3) Police reports containing all the relevant information and the opinion of the Police that the box was obviously used for an unlawful tipping business had been sent to the Department with a request that consideration be given to cancellation of the facility. The following is the correspondence between the Chief Commissioner and Mr. Strange, the Director for Victoria at the time —

Letter dated 16th October, 1956, from Chief Commissioner of Police to Director, Posts and Telegraphs— I am forwarding herewith for your information reports concerning the use of Box 35, Flemington Post Office.

As it would appear that the box is used for the collection of mail relating to an unlawful ‘ race tipping ’ business perhaps consideration could be given to the cancellation of the service.

44

Letter dated 11th December, 1956, from Director, Posts and Telegraphs, to Chief Commissioner of Police— With further reference to your communication of 16th October, 1956 (No. 17-5-4719), inquiries concerning private letter box No. 35 at Flemington Post Office have now been completed.

In accordance with the procedure adopted by this Department, it is the practice to cancel a private letter box service in cases where the Chief Commissioner of Police certifies that the box is used in connection with illegal tipping or race cards or betting practices. Provided that you or a senior officer of the Chief Office Staff of the Police Force are prepared to

furnish a certificate to the effect that the particular private box is used in connection with illegal tipping or race cards or betting practices, and particulars of the circumstances justifying cancellation of the service are included in the certificate, the necessary further steps will be taken to cancel private box service No. 35 at Flemington Post Office.

Letter dated 19th December, 1956, from Chief Commissioner of Police to Director, Posts and Telegraphs— In answer to your letter of 11th December (your ref. No. V.238/5/9) I certify that all the evidence available indicates that letter box No. 35 at Flemington Post Office is used in connection with an unlawful ‘ race tipping ’ business. It is therefore recommended that this private box service be cancelled.

I would like to stress that any such recommendation is merely an expression of opinion by this Department as it is fully realized that it is your prerogative to decide what action is to be taken and no objection can be nor will be raised by this Department to whatever decision you make.

Letter dated 1st February, 1957, from Director, Posts and Telegraphs, to Chief Commissioner of Police— Adverting to your letter of 19th December, 1956 (reference 17/5/4719) concerning private letter box No. 35 at Flemington Post Office, I regret that this Department is not prepared to proceed with the cancellation of the box services unless it can be definitely certified that the box is used for illegal purposes.

Whilst it is our desire to co-operate with you to the utmost extent in matters such as this, we are not in a position to cancel any such facilities unless we are very sure of our grounds and our legal authority for taking such a course of action. Of course, if a conviction were obtained against the lessee for making use of the box for illegal purposes, the Department would proceed immediately with the cancellation of the facility on receipt of advice from you.

(4) The evidence before Mr. Strange established that the box was being used solely for a race tipping business, and that the lessee Bartlett was a “ front ” for James Ogilvie Noall who was engaged in this and other race tipping businesses. Why the Commissioner of Police would not certify to this effect I do not know. However, his failure to do so did not relieve Mr. Strange from his responsibility

to take action to prevent the box being used to evade the State gaming laws. His failure to act on the evidence indicates that the Victorian Administration was prepared to allow the Department’s facilities to be used for an illegal tipping business so long as the Commissioner of Police refrained from giving his certificate. Mr. Strange was no doubt carrying out the policy laid down by the Central Administration. I should add that during the course of this Inquiry the box was still in use, and the authorities changed the lock and required the lessee to establish his good faith. I was informed that if he failed to do this

his tenancy would be cancelled. All this could and should have been done in 1956 rather than in 1962. This correspondence should be contrasted with the Post Office Guide (1961 edition) the susbstance of which is set out at paragraph 201.

Box 3 and Box 90, Caulfield South (1) Werner Arthur Pechan applied for Box 3 on 29th April, 1958, and gave as his address 14 Oak-street, Hawthorn. Previously on 29th October, 1957, he had become the lessee of Box 90 and had given his address as 424 Auburn-road, Auburn. Pechan was in fact a builder, but both boxes were used as the addresses to which replies were to be sent to tipping circulars published in the name of “ C. Ray Barton Green Ribbon Service ” and in the name of “ Lionel S. Masters ” . To these boxes came registered letters and telegraphic money orders in favour of C. R. Barton. Mail also came to the

boxes addressed to Lionel S. Masters.

(2) On 3rd October, 1958, the Postmaster at Caulfield South received a written order purporting to be signed by Pechan authorizing one R. Strong to sign for registered letters addressed to or care of Box 3, and also to sign for telegraphic money orders in favour of C. R. Barton addressed to the same box. The Postmaster knew neither Strong nor Barton and sought instructions from the District Inspector who. in turn, referred the matter to Mr. Spicer. At this time there was a considerable quantity of mail, registered and otherwise, waiting for collection. Mr. Spicer was interviewed by a solicitor accompanied by Strong and Pechan. After discussion the solicitor agreed that it was unreasonable to expect the

Department to act on this order, but that the matter would be corrected by registration of “ Werner Arthur Pechan trading in the name of Lionel S. Masters ” and “ Bernard Raymond Strong trading in the name of C. Ray Barton ” as business names. This was done and subsequently the mail was delivered to Strong on Pechan’s signed authority.

(3) The Police, not as a result of any information supplied by the Department but acting independently, interviewed Pechan in connexion with these boxes and the illegal tipping business which was being carried on.

45 4 4 9

(4) Pechan lodged an application for cancellation of the two boxes which was received on 3rd February, 1959. On 4th February he sent a letter to the Postmaster-General asking that the cancellation not take effect until 28th February, 1959, and on 18th February he sent another letter to the Postmaster-General cancelling all previous instructions and enclosing a form of transfer to Mr. P. Wayne, 15 Maple-street, Springvale.

(5) The Postmaster at Caulfield South advised the Inspector that these boxes under the trading names of Masters and Barton were used for tipping, and that in his view Wayne would carry on the same type of business. The matter was referred to Mr. Spicer who made a report to the effect that in his view the boxes had been used for tipping, that James Ogilvie Noall was “ the mastermind ” and that

Pechan was his “ stooge ” . This report also drew attention to the fact that Peter K. Wayne was a poulterer by occupation and that his address was 15 Maple-street, Springvale. Mr. Spicer suggested that Wayne be asked for an assurance that he was not acting in any way, either as agent or principal, in receiving money in connexion with any of the matters referred to in Section 57 (1) (a) to (e) of the

Post and Telegraph Act, which include a business or undertaking that is fraudulent, obscene, indecent or immoral.

(6) This advice was followed by the District Inspector, Mr. Kemp, who wrote to Wayne on 11th March, 1959, requiring him to give such an assurance and informing him that when he did so the Postmaster would be instructed to transfer the boxes. Mr. Kemp, under instructions from his Superintendent, called on Wayne who stated he had received the letter and had replied to it. In fact Wayne had not replied and the Inspector left sharing the view of the Chief Investigation Officer that Wayne was merely a dummy in the tipping operation.

(7) In the meantime, on 3rd March, 1959, solicitors had written to the Postmaster-General at Canberra complaining of the treatment Pechan had received from the Police and alleging that the Police had been given Pechan’s address by the Department. The letter was referred to Mr. Spicer who ascertained that the information was not given to the Police by any officer of the Department. The

Police had given him two tipping circulars and envelopes which were self-addressed “ C. Ray Barton, Box 3, Caulfield In his report Mr. Spicer reiterated his view that the boxes were being used for tipping and that Noall was the man behind the whole business.

(8) Pechan sent to the Inspector a letter obviously drafted by a person with some legal training but refused to give the required assurance, while his solicitor then wrote to the Postmaster-General complaining of the request for the assurance that was being sought.

(9) On 21st April, 1959, the Director, Victoria, referred the matter to the Director-General with a review of all the statements made in the letters to the Minister. He pointed out that, although the transfer forms from Pechan to Wayne had been signed personally by Pechan and Wayne, there was no doubt that the particulars in the body of each form had been printed by James Ogilvie Noall who was well known to officers of the Department for his association with extensive tipping activities. Enclosed

with this correspondence were two tipster circulars and a card in the name of C. Ray Barton. The Director also pointed out that there was no doubt the private boxes were used in connexion with race tipping operations but that, as the Police had not proceeded against any person, it could not be determined that they were conducted in an illegal manner. He also observed, however, that Wayne was a poultry dealer in a small way, that he received only approximately six letters a day and that he could hardly require two private boxes in another suburb some miles from his private and business addresses.

Regarding Pechan, the review concluded that he had been acting as a dummy for the persons using the private boxes concerned. The Director then proceeded to make the following recommendations:— (1) That the Department decline to approve of the transfer to Wayne. (2) That as the boxes were being used for a race tipping service they should be cancelled

under the relevant provisions of the Post Office Guide.

(10) I have set out the substance of the Director’s report in some detail because it affords an illustration of officers of the Department conducting a proper investigation on being made aware of the use of facilities to evade State laws, and making a recommendation to prevent the services being so used.

(11) On 1st May, 1959, Inspector Webb of the Gaming Branch made his report on the Green Ribbon Tipping Super Service (C. Ray Barton). The Inspector reported that Barton could not be located, in fact Noall controlled this business, and he requested that his report be forwarded to the Deputy Director, Victoria.

(12) These reports established beyond all doubt, if there was any room for doubt, that these boxes were used for tipping. However, the recommendations of the Director, Victoria, never reached the Minister.

(13) The file found its way to the Melbourne office of the Director-General and finally the following direction, written, I was told, by an Assistant Controller in Central Administration, emerged:— Copy referred in connection with your V.238/5/12 of the 21st April and 5th May, 1959, for appropriate action to transfer the private boxes in accordance with the application.

2. In the past, the policy on cancelling the tenancy of a private box on the relative grounds mentioned in Postal Regulation 139 have only been taken upon the receipt of a certificate from the Commissioner of Police, stating that the private box is used in connection with illegal tipping, race cards or betting practices. If these boxes should be cancelled because they are used in connection with betting practices, the responsibility of declaring a particular business to be illegal

46

under a State Act would, in effect, have been assumed. The position might arise that the Postmaster-General, having reason to believe that a private box holder is using the boxes in connection with an illegal purpose, will cancel the tenancy, but later the State Authorities may prosecute under the Section of the Act on which the Postmaster-General based his belief but fail to secure a conviction. The Postmaster-General could not be called upon to account for his action because

the Postal Regulation empowers him to exercise his own personal discretion, but nevertheless the position would be quite anomalous. 3. The power vested in the Postmaster-General under Postal Regulation 138 regarding refusal of tenancy should also not be invoked unless the Commissioner of Police is prepared to certify as to the illegal use of the box. The position of the Postmaster-General is, in this case, analogous to cancellation and the policy followed regarding cancellation should also apply to refusal of tenancy.

4. It would be as well, please, to arrange for the liaison between this Department and the Police to continue and, if the required certificate from the Police is forthcoming, the cancellation may be further considered.

(14) In accordance with this advice, the Solicitors for Wayne were informed by ministerial letter that the Department would agree to the transfers and would not require the assurance sought by the District Inspector. The boxes thereafter continued to be used by these two tipping services.

211. An examination of the memorandum of the Assistant Controller in the matter of Box 3 and Box 90, Caulfield South, reveals an attitutde of mind that would prevent any co-operation by the Department in the prevention of the use of its own services for illegal activities. Indeed, it is the view of this gentleman, as I read his memorandum, that these facilities should be made available and continue to be made available to persons who use them for illegal tipping unless the Commissioner of Police issues his certificate. The Director for Victoria was, of course, bound by this ruling. Its effect on the

officers whose duty it was to see that the Department’s regulations were observed could only be to create in their minds the firm impression that, above all else, the activities of illegal tipsters and their use of the Department’s facilities were not to be disturbed unless it were at the instigation of the Police. This advice is a completely irresponsible document. It resulted in the Minister giving his blessing to the use of the Department’s facilities by rogues who carried on an illegal and fraudulent business and who preyed upon a gullible public. This statement of policy from the Central Administration must have meant that any tipping operator in Victoria was to be treated in no way different from legitimate enterprises,

unless and until the Commissioner certified against him. It is little wonder that the business of illegal tipsters continued to flourish in Victoria.

212. During the course of this Inquiry a great deal of information in the possession of the Police was made known to the Department which, without any certificates from the Commissioner of Police, has proceeded to cancel a number of boxes under Postal Regulation 139 on the ground that they were held by a person who gave a fictitious or assumed address in his application. In many other cases it has caused the locks on certain boxes to be changed, so that the lessees must identify themselves at the counter and satisfy the Postmaster as to their good faith before fresh access to any of the suspect boxes is given. I was told that if such bona fides were not established these boxes would be cancelled. Mr.

John Hill, Superintendent, Post Office Branch, stated before me that each box which came under notice during this Inquiry as being used for tipping services was being investigated and that, unless the good faith of the lessees or users was established, the box would be cancelled.

213. It was contended by the State of Victoria in relation to the use of private boxes that employees of the Victorian Administration had failed to co-operate in the detection of illegal gaming activities in the following respects:— (1) Postmasters had failed to investigate applications to lease private boxes in cases where

the applicant was not in established business even by checking the electoral roll or the Postmen’s Walk Book. (2) In the case of private boxes used by tipsters the quantity of mail undelivered, the amount of registered mail, the receipt of telegraphic money orders and correspondence varying

with the racing season should have led Postmasters to inquire as to the use to which the boxes were being put and, where the circumstances were suspicious, they should have brought the case under notice. (3) In each case where the Police supplied a tipping circular which used a private box number

as the address for replies the Department should have (a) required the lessee to establish his good faith, and upon his failure to do so or upon finding evidence that it was used for carrying on a tipping business, cancelled the box, or (b) where the name or address of the lessee given in the application was shown to be

fictitious, cancelled the box under Postal Regulation 139.

214. It was demonstrated before me that, in practice, there was no obligation that employees bring under notice circumstances which indicated the use of boxes in breach of the Department’s own regulations or for illegal purposes.

215. I also found that there was no machinery for receiving and collating information which would indicate any misuse of the private box facility. Such information was certainly available. Mr. Emmerson, Superintendent, Telegraph Services Branch, had information of box numbers given to him

47

as the postal addresses of the persons despatching collect telegrams; Mr. Spicer, Chief Investigation Officer, from time to time had in his possession many tipster circulars; and various postmasters must have known that boxes were being used by tipsters.

216. I am satisfied that if it had been the duty of the officers who possessed such particular information to report their observations to a central agency within the Administration for collation and immediate investigation, the pattern of widespread misuse of private boxes by tipsters would have emerged more clearly and compelled action to withdraw the facility from these fraudulent and illegal

operators.

217. In relation to private boxes I find that there was on the part of persons in the Victorian Administration an improper failure or improper refusal to co-operate with the Police Force in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in the following respects:— (1) They did not observe the clear intention of the relevant statutory and administrative

provisions.

(2) They did not collate the wealth of evidence distributed among them of the fraudulent and illegal activities of tipsters. (3) They did not investigate or sufficiently investigate or report or refuse applications in the circumstances prescribed in the Postmasters Instructions.

(4) They did not withdraw tenancies in the circumstances prescribed in the Post Office Guide. (5) They did not make records of private boxes available to the Police Force in accordance with the instructions laid down by the Prime Minister in 1943.

I am satisfied that the persons concerned acted pursuant to the policy of the Central Administration, which misconceived the true intent of the relevant statutory and administrative provisions and in particular the Instructions of 1943 insofar as a certificate of the Chief Commissioner of Police was made requisite to the cancellation of a private box, and were not actuated by any improper motive in their refusal or failure to co-operate.

4 51

CHAPTER 20

PROVISION OF INFORMATION

Section 1.—I ntroduction

218. Having dealt with the question of co-operation in direct reference to the several telephonic, telegraphic and postal facilities provided by the Department, I am satisfied that it is necessary to report specifically on a matter which is common to each and is essential to any adequate measure of co-operation between the Department and the Police Force towards the suppression of illegal gambling operations. I have in mind the particular Instructions issued by the Prime Minister in 1943 requiring the Department to disclose certain information not otherwise available to the Police. These Instructions provided

for the granting to the police access to records and for the furnishing of information to the police. I have dealt with particular applications of these Instructions in other parts of this Report.

219. As I have observed, the Prime Minister’s letter and his Instructions of 1943 recognized that the Department’s facilities were open to misuse by illegal gambling operators and, further, the confidential access to records could greatly assist the gaming police in their task.

Section 2.—Police A ccess to Records

220. It would appear that no Police Force, and certainly not the Victoria Police Force, has ever been granted access to Departmental records as contemplated by the 1943 Instructions.

221. According to the evidence no Police officer was ever allowed access to records which, of course, are kept upon the Department’s premises. Inspector Webb when in charge of the Gaming Branch endeavoured to establish the privilege to inspect records, and conceded that the Police officer making such a search would do so only in the presence of the employee in charge of the records concerned. This was refused.

222. Both before and after 1960 the Police and employees of the Department have been required to follow the procedure now contained in the Directive issued by the Director-General on 29th December, I960, to Directors in all States, which is set out at the Fifteenth Appendix. This procedure is that a member of the Gaming Branch must channel his request for specific information regarding, for example, the name and address of a subscriber to a telephone number, to an Investigation Officer who then obtains

the information from the appropriate Branch and passes it on to the Police. This procedure, in effect, denies the Police the real benefit of direct access to the Departmental records as envisaged by the 1943 Instructions.

223. My findings in relation to fixed time trunk line calls (Chapter 18, Section 4) and private boxes (Chapter 19, Section 7) apply with equal force to the refusal of access to records in respect of information sought by the Police in relation to telephones generally.

48

Section 3.—Supplying I nformation to the Police

224. The 1943 Instructions required the Department to furnish to a Police Force details of telephone services leased by or on behalf of prices agencies in order that their activities might be specially investigated. The Department, no doubt because it alone would possess such information, was required to take particular note of these cases on its own initiative and pass the details to the police. This was never done in Victoria.

225. Mr. Skerrett stated before me that in no circumstance whatsoever was the Department prepared to take the initiative in informing the Police of any use of postal services by a customer, even for illegal gambling.

226. It appears that, at least in one case, the Victorian Administration went to an extreme in applying this policy as stated by Mr. Skerrett. The Departmental file on the Alexandratos case (Item 142, paragraph 86) discloses that when the Divisional Engineer discovered the unauthorized extension of the telephone service at Wyndham-street, Shepparton, and the handset in a shed at the rear of the premises, he observed a considerable amount of material which indicated that illegal betting operations had been going on. He rang the Police and stated what he had found believing, no doubt, that it was his duty to do so. Although no question of the policy of secrecy of communication was involved, it is recorded in the file that the Director, Victoria, received a report from his Assistant Director that the Divisional Engineer “ was suitably spoken to regarding his indiscretion in advising the Shepparton Police Station of his suspicions regarding the use of this telephone ” .

227. Finally, I have stated the view earlier at paragraph 138 that, subject to its policy of secrecy of communication, in appropriate circumstances it is the responsibility of the Department to take action itself to ascertain whether or not any Departmental facility is being used to evade the gaming laws of a State.

228. In relation to the provision of information, I find that there was on the part of persons in the Victorian Administration an improper refusal or an improper failure to co-operate with the Police Force in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities in the following respects:—

(1) They did not observe the provisions of the Prime Minister’s Instructions of 1943 in relation to the granting to the Police Force access to the records of telephone and private box facilities. (2) They did not furnish to the Police Force on their own initiative the information as to

press (prices) agencies specified in the Prime Minister’s Instructions of 1943. (3) They did not or were they at any time prepared to volunteer information regarding illegal gaming activities to the Police Force.

I am satisfied that the persons concerned acted pursuant to the policy of the Central Administration and were not actuated by any improper motive in their refusal or failure to co-operate.

PART V

CONCLUSION

· ' ·

.. . ,

·- t .. 1 :·ÎŠ ! ; '

; ,, ; . - - ■

• f

51 4 55

CHAPTER 21

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

229. In respect of Term of Reference (a), I have found at Part III. of this Report that improper practices on the part of employees in the Victorian Administration occurred in 55 of the 260 items set out in the Fifth Appendix, but having regard to the number of employees in that Administration and the nature and extent of its activities over the period concerned, these improper practices, though themselves reprehensible, were relatively few.

230. In respect of Term of Reference (b), I have found at Chapters 18, 19 and 20 that there was on the part of persons in the Victorian Administration an improper refusal or improper failure to co-operate with the Police Force in connexion with or in relation to the detection of illegal gambling activities as follows:—

1. Provision o f Telephone Services. (1) They did not continue to take action to ascertain whether or not telephones were being used to evade the gaming laws of Victoria. (2) They did not observe the provisions of the Directives and the Instructions relating

to the provision of telephones in unusual locations. (3) They did not investigate or order an investigation into the installation of telephones proved to have been used for illegal gaming at a time when all records relating to the installation were available.

2. Diversion o f Telephone Calls. (1) They did not observe the provisions of the Commercial Branch instruction requiring that requests for diversion of telephone calls be made in writing. (2) They did not take any action to ascertain whether or not diverted services were

being used to evade the gaming laws of Victoria. (3) They did not allow the Police Force to inspect and make extracts from Departmental records.

3. Fixed Time Calls. (1) They did not take action to ascertain whether or not the fixed time trunk line call facility was being used to evade the gaming laws of Victoria. (2) They did not observe the Instruction laid down by the Prime Minister in 1943

that Departmental records of telephone services be made available to the Police Force.

4. Cancellation and Reconnection o f Telephone Services. (1) They did not invoke the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Telephone Regulations to cancel telephone services where it was established beyond any doubt that they had been used for illegal gambling but no conviction had been recorded.

(2) Mr. Strange, Director, Victoria, did not afford the Police Force the assistance sought by the Chief Commissioner of Police in his letter dated 19th March, 1957.

5. Telegrams. They did not refuse the collect telegram facilities to persons known to be lodging telegrams for the purpose of tipping.

6. Redirection o f Mail. They did not observe the Postal Regulations governing the redirection of mail.

7. Private Boxes. (1) They did not observe the clear intention of the relevant statutory and administrative provisions. (2) They did not collate the wealth of evidence distributed among them of the

fraudulent and illegal activities of tipsters. (3) They did not investigate or sufficiently investigate or report or refuse applications in the circumstances prescribed in the Postmasters Instructions. (4) They did not withdraw tenancies in the circumstances prescribed in the Post Office

Guide.

(5) They did not make records of private boxes available to the Police Force in accordance with the instructions laid down by the Prime Minister in 1943.

8. — Provision o f Information. (1) They did not observe the provisions of the Prime Minister's Instructions of 1943 in relation to the granting to the Police Force access to the records of telephone and private box facilities.

52

(2) They did not furnish to the Police Force on their own initiative the information as to press (prices) agencies specified in the Prime Minister’s Instructions of 1943. (3) They did not or were they at any time prepared to volunteer information regarding

illegal gaming activities to the Police Force. Except in cases where I have found to the contrary in relation to the provision of telephone services, I am satisfied that the persons concerned were not actuated by any improper motive in their refusal or failure to co-operate but acted pursuant to the policy laid down by the Central Administration.

231. While I have not the slightest doubt that the officers at the executive level in the Central Administration are competent, dedicated and honest public servants, I am equally certain they failed to grasp the real issue at the core of the problem, namely, the widespread abuse of the Department’s facilities for illegal gambling activities. That a department of the Commonwealth would consciously tolerate the use of its facilities for the commission of offences against the gaming laws of a State is unthinkable. If the Central Administration had realized the nature and extent of the Department’s obligation to see that its facilities were not made the medium for illegal activities in breach of the State laws, one would have expected that a concerted and relentless drive to eradicate such abuses would have been put into effect many years ago and that this would have been maintained while the abuses continued. That the Department was capable of such a drive and how effective it could be was demonstrated by the activity of the Department when the police raid on “ Chapel L odge” in 1956, with its resultant blaze of adverse publicity, showed how the telephone facility was being used to carry on illegal gambling activities.

232. Not having realized this obligation, the Central Administration has followed a “ do-nothing ” policy by taking the purely negative role of acting only when requested by the Police for names and addresses and when supplied by the Police with advice of a conviction for a gaming offence or a certificate as to the illegal use of a private box. The Central Administration—

(1) Did not itself accept the responsibility to detect and prevent abuses of its facilities for illegal gambling purposes as imposed upon it by its statutes, regulations and administrative procedures, the Prime Minister’s 1943 Instructions and Ministerial statements of policy. (2) Failed to establish the necessary and effective procedures to detect and prevent those

abuses since— (a) employees were not required to bring those abuses under notice; (b) no arrangement was made for gathering together information of those abuses ; and (c) no employees were charged with the duty of withdrawing facilities which were

so abused.

(3) Encouraged and promoted in its employees an attitude of mind which allowed the illegal gambling operator abusing the facilities of the Department to be treated in no different fashion from the ordinary law-abiding customer.

233. The attitude of the Central Administration was well known to illegal gaming operators in Victoria and they readily took advantage of it in carrying out their activities.

234. The absolute requirement that secrecy of communication remain inviolate did not justify this negative attitude of the Central Administration. It was within the power of the Department to take positive steps to prevent abuse of its facilities by illegal gambling operators without any infringement of secrecy by employees. The procedure in dealing with rotary groups terminating on handsets in 1957 (described at paragraphs 130 and 131), which resulted in the cancellation of over 400 telephone services in Victoria, did not raise any questions of secrecy.

235. In its approaches to the Department for co-operation in connexion with detection and suppression of illegal gambling in Victoria, it is clear from the evidence that the Police Force never suggested that the Department should do anything that would require a breach of secrecy of communication.

236. Throughout the period covered by this Inquiry the policy of the Central Administration did not permit adequate co-operation with the Police Force on the part of the Victorian Administration. If there had been proper co-operation by the Department and unrelenting Police activity in Victoria, illegal telephone betting would have been reduced to a minimum and fraudulent tipping rackets would have been eradicated. ·

Dated the Twentieth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-three.

ROBERT LINDSAY TAYLOR.

L. W. K in g , Secretary.

APPENDICES

55 4 5 9

APPENDICES

Page.

First Appendix .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 57

Second Appendix . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Third Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Fourth Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Fifth Appendix .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Sixth Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Seventh Appendix . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . I l l

Eighth Appendix .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 9

Ninth Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Tenth Appendix .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · ■ . . 125

Eleventh Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 1 3 1

Twelfth Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ·· . . 1 3 5

Thirteenth Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. · · .. 137

Fourteenth Appendix .. .. .. .. .. .. .. · · · ■ .. 147

F ifteenth Appendix 149

Η

57 461

FIRST APPENDIX

1. Inspector G. W. Hill’s report of 13th March, 1962 ..

2. Mr. G. N. Smith’s letter dated 27th March, 1962 ..

Page.

. . 58

. . 59

F. 11389/63.— 5

58

VICTORIA POLICE

Inspector’s Office, 4 Division, Special Duties, 43 Little Bourke-street, Melbourne, C .l.

13th March, 1962.

Subject: Illegal Bookmakers and R acing T ipsters—P rotection of by E mployees of Postmaster-general’s D epartment, and Possible D efrauding By.

Superintendent, “ A ’’ DISTRICT

I desire to bring under notice obstacles which are being placed in the way of this Branch in the suppression of illegal bookmakers and Racing tipsters by some person or persons employed by the Postmaster-General’s Department.

First of all I will deal with the Racing Tipster about whom this Branch has received numerous complaints.

These are separate and distinct from firms and individuals advertising the sale of racing systems, such as “ El Dorado ” “ Pacemaker” “ Raceway” and others, and usually operate by sending out a snide letter or circular, signed with a fictitious name and address, and usually a Post Office Box number is given for reply, and the addressee is invited to send a certain amount of money, usually ranging from £2 to £10, or in some case five or six pre-stamped and self addressed telegram

forms. On receipt of a telegram on Friday afternoon or Saturday morning the client will decode the telegram against the master code, then place the wager on the horse, either by Totalizator, Starting Price or Registered Bookmaker. In the event of the horse selected winning, the tipster requires the return to him of a certain amount of money, i.e., in the event of a 3/1 winner he may require the odds to £5, in which event the client would forward £15. If no money is sent, no more selections are forwarded by the tipster.

During the past months a tremendous amount of time and energy has been devoted by members of this Branch, in an attempt to gain evidence against one or more of these persons. These investigations have involved at times, 24 hours watches on Post Office Box banks, in an endeavour to trace the persons picking up the mail.

Discreet inquiries have eventually revealed the identity of a person collecting mail, and observations have been carried out of this man, with another, and also other apparently unconnected persons lodging telegrams in bulk which are obviously connected with tipping matters.

However, no sooner were these actions observed when another method of lodgment of telegrams apparently came into operation. It is known that on Fridays about 12.30 p.m. a number of telegrams are transmitted from Elizabeth-street Post Office and their lodgment is apparently internal. It is obvious that they are not handed over the counter, as would occur with normal civilians. The first indication that a lodgment has been made is the totalling of the cost by the cash register operator on the first telegram counter. The cost is firstly sub-totalled under different names such as “ T E D ” “ LES” “ TO M ” , &c., and then a complete overall total is arrived at; however at this time no payment is made for lodgment and the total again disappears internally. The method of lodgment and receiving of the telegrams indicates more than a transaction between customer and employee in ordinary course of duty, it indicates a grave suspicion that the customer is the employer and the person or persons behind the counter are the employee or employees of the said customer (the Racing Tipster).

By virtue of the Postmaster-General’s Regulations, no offence is committed if telegrams are sent in code or cipher but under Victorian Statute if the coded content of the telegram is and can be co-related to racing information an offence exists insofar as communication is prohibited of racing or betting information under Section 122 of the Police Offences Act 6337.

Some time ago, on receipt of information I sent Senior Constable Wood to premises at 13a Albion-street, Elsternwick which consisted of a flat occupied by one James L ack. On entering under the provisions of a Special Gaming Warrant, one Jack Dow was found to be inside, and further inquiries revealed that he was using two telephones in the flat to telephone betting tips interstate. Dow is at present warned off all racecourses because of certain incidents in connection with the running of a steeplechase at Caulfield Racecourse.

Further inquiries revealed that Dow had certain persons inside the General Post Office, Elizabeth-street, removing the chits which are issued for trunk line calls and either destroying them or handing them to Dow. Either method was defrauding the Postmaster-General of a large amount of revenue, and allowed Dow to ring to some of the remotest parts of Queensland and other States with impunity and with very little cost.

Inquiries also reveal that a tipster using the name of Tom Cromwell and giving the address of 13 Christmas-street, Croxton was plying his trade, and inquiries revealed that there was a re-address at the respective Post Office to 29 Separation-street, Fairfield, and strange as it may seem, on the 8th, 9th and 10th November, 1961, Money Order Advices for an average amount of £10 each were forwarded from Elizabeth-street Post Office to 13 Christmas-street, Croxton;

but persons at 13 Christmas-street have no knowledge of any such mail being received there so it indicates that someone in authority diverted the mail to some other address, possibly Separation-street. Again it leaves the impression that this is being done outside the line of duty.

It is well known that Post Masters have full control over the letting of Post Office Boxes, and it is quite obvious that a dead end is reached in investigations once the internal operation of the Postmaster-General’s Department conceals primary facts on which the investigation is based.

Now to the illegal bookmaker using the telephone in connection with his business. It is a well-known fact that these bookmakers have some personnel of the Postmaster-General’s Department in their employ, particularly in country areas where manual exchanges operate and also where automatic telephones operate.

The method of operation of the bookmaker is to have some responsible person inside the exchange transfer telephone calls intended for a certain number known to the punter to the number operating for the day so that it is nearly impossible for this branch to detect the bookmaker if we have received information that a certain number is being used for the day because in raiding the premises we usually find everything quiet whilst the bookmaker is operating at another number for the day with the co-operation of someone inside the Post Office Exchange.

59

45 3

Recently on raiding premises at Dromana, members of this Branch waited outside the premises with the bookmaker to receive any further bets but were told by the bookmaker that no more calls would be received that day because he had told the girl on the exchange not to put any more calls through to him. No doubt he told the girl why but I wonder what the telephonist told the punters when she was beseiged with calls for the particular number; probably that the Gaming Police were in attendance.

On Saturday the 10th March, 1962, with other members from this Branch, 1 went to Colac to raid five premises where it was believed illegal betting was taking place. On forcing entry to one premises which were behind a Solicitor’s Office and part of the same building, we were astounded to find therein a Roman Catholic Priest, Michael James G rady , an ex-Solicitor now retired, Patrick A rundel , and a man believed to be the biggest Starting-Price bookmaker controlling all of the Western District, one Reginald F rauenfelder . There was a telephone in the room with a dial

attached thereto, but no number on the dial and each of the occupants declined to tell us the number. Shortly after our entrance this telephone became dead, and all efforts to send and receive calls failed.

At another premises which we used force to enter, we found a man locked inside. There was a telephone in operation, and all the atmosphere of an illegal bookmaker in operation. Shortly after our entrance calls were received but then this telephone too went dead. A call was made from a public telephone booth to the receptionist at the exchange to try and raise the number, but she informed the Police, that it was apparently out of order and as there was no technician available

on duty she could not get through.

There is no doubt in my mind that by a pre-arranged signal the exchange was notified and some person or persons conversant with the mechanics of the telephone cut these lines, and possibly others which we did not know of, and again this leaves no doubt in my mind that bookmakers have these persons in their employ.

I am satisfied that I am not receiving the co-operation from certain Postmaster-General’s employees that is necessary to successfully combat this Social Evil and that the people of this State cannot be educated to use the service of the T. A. B. which has been provided by the Government of this State while Starting-Price bookmakers are available for them to bet with, and I also feel certain that Post Office personnel are committing the offence of Aiding and Abetting the bookmaker, and until these barriers and obstacles are removed, illegal bookmakers will continue to operate, particularly in the country districts.

It was rather significant that immediately after the last race on Saturday all telephones in the premises raided became alive and could be used. It is also quite conceivable that if employees go to such extents to assist bookmakers to evade detection, then they may also forget or omit to charge for some calls.

I am of the opinion that if I am expected to successfully carry out my duties as Officer in Charge of this Division, then this blatant co-operation by personnel of the Postmaster General’s-Department with illegal bookmakers and Racing Tipsters should cease immediately.

G. W. HILL Inspector.

Chief Commissioner M elbourne For information (sgd.) R. R. Thomson

Superintendent Melbourne District 15 Mar., 1962.

13th March, 1962

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Postmaster -G eneral ’s D epartment

Melbourne,

Our Reference'. 27th March, 1962.

V.298/8/10

Dear Sir, Since writing to you on 20th March, 1962, the report by Inspector Hill of 13th March, 1962, has been carefully examined and the following paragraphs explain the Departmental procedures concerned with each of the specific matters referred to in the report.

Tipster Telegrams: As Inspector Hill has stated in his report the Post and Telegraph Act covering the acceptance of telegrams dose not contain anything to authorise the Post Office to refuse to accept “ tipster ” telegrams and there is of course provision in the Regulations for the acceptance of telegrams in code or cipher.

It is true that on Friday of each week a large number of telegrams addressed to interstate destinations are lodged simultaneously. The texts of these telegrams are in code but nevertheless they are suspected of containing “ tipster ’’ information. About 75 per cent, of these are lodged as “ collect ” telegrams and an amount is handed in with the

telegrams sufficient to cover the charges for the remainder. Lodgment is made by ways open to any member of the public, i.e., by presentation at a Post Office or by phonogram.

60

On some occasions these lodgments are made at City Branch Post Offices but generally they are tendered at the Telegraph Counter at the Elizabeth-street Post Office. Staff at the Elizabeth-street Post Office Telegraph Counter is sufficient to deal with normal telegram lodgments and when other large lodgments are made it is the practice for the Officer-in-Charge of the Telegraph Counter Section to handle these using an otherwise spare cash register to account for the payments.

The charges are totalled under the relative signatures appearing on the message and the sender is furnished with this information in the form of a rough statement when he calls back later in the day. Additionally he is refunded any amount tendered by him which is in excess of the total charges involved.

After the completion of register action the paid messages are forwarded by pneumatic tube on a progressive basis to the operating room.

Regarding the “ collect ” telegrams the staff at the Telegraph Counter is inadequate to assess such a quantity of telegrams without inconveniencing other clients at the Telegraph Counter and therefore these are despatched by hand to the main operating room for assessment and transmission, to avoid overloading the pneumatic tube.

After transmission all the telegrams are handled in exactly the same way as any other telegram.

There is nothing unusual in the method of handling telegrams which may contain “ tipster ” information and I am quite sure that the procedure does not warrant the implications contained in Inspector Hill’s report.

Telephones at 13a Albion-street, Elsternwick:

The raid on this address was a Police matter and was made independently of a departmental inquiry which was in train simultaneously and concerned the same telephones. The information that certain trunk line dockets were missing resulted entirely from departmental inquiries and the information was given to the Police when they were called to my office to discuss other aspects of the inquiry which it was considered may have involved civil action against a person or persons outside the Department.

Actually, on 19th October, 1961, departmental Investigation Officers apprehended an officer who was suppressing the charges for trunk line calls originated from telephones installed at 13a Albion-street, but, as other inquiries could have been jeopardized had action been taken at that time, the officer concerned was not suspended from duty until 1st November, 1961. The Department then delayed further action at the request of the Police Company Squad who were pursuing other inquiries in connection with the case until

about 9th February, 1962, when this Department instituted Court proceedings against the departmental officer which culminated in a conviction being recorded in the City Court of Petty Sessions on 2nd March, 1962. A submission has been forwarded to the Commonwealth Public Service Board after allowing time for the lodgment of an appeal recommending the dismissal from the Service of the officer concerned.

I might also mention that the departmental inquiry brought to light other improper practices and appropriate disciplinary action is in course against the officers concerned.

Transfer o f Money Orders from Elizabeth-street Post Office to 13 Christmas-street, Croxton:

No information can be obtained on the alleged forwarding of Money Order Advices from Elizabeth- street Post Office to 13 Christmas-street, Croxton.

However, as you are perhaps aware either the remitter or the payee of a money order can, upon written application and the payment of prescribed fees, arrange for the payment of money orders at a Post Office other than that named in the original order. Mr. Cromwell has used this facility for the transfer of money orders from Croxton for payment at Elizabeth-street Post Office.

Redirection o f Mail Matter: Regulations provide for mail matter to be re-directed upon the written application of the addressee and, in normal circumstances, such re-direction order can remain current for a period of six months.

Such an order dated 12th October, 1961, was held at the delivery office and it would follow therefore that correspondence for Tom Cromwell would not be delivered at 13 Christmas-street, Croxton, during the period stated in the report but would in fact be redirected upon receipt at the Northcote Post Office, which is the delivery office for the Croxton area.

Letting o f Post Office Private Boxes: It is confirmed that Postmasters have the authority to lease Post Office Private Boxes but the implication of this paragraph of the report is not clear.

Diversion o f Calls at Manual Exchanges: This is a normal service which is provided to meet the convenience of the Department’s customers. Any subscriber connected to a manual exchange may have his calls diverted to any particular number he nominates, and the service is availed of quite extensively; for example, by Doctors who, in many cases, arrange for their calls to be diverted over a week-end to another Doctor or for short periods to a Hospital. A charge is made for the facility and the request will be accepted verbally, but later confirmation in writing is required. The method of arranging the diversion is to place a stop in the jack of the particular subscriber’s line with the number to which calls are to be connected shown thereon. Any telephonist handling a call destined for the original number sees the white stop with the red number and connects to the latter without comment. In short, the diversion service is a standard facility provided for the convenience of subscribers on request.

Dromana Raid: This case is well documented in the Department’s files. On the afternoon in question a telephonist at Dromana answered a call, presumably from the subscriber concerned and was told that he was not taking any more calls. Before the telephonist could connect the call to the Monitor the caller had hung up and the

Monitor was unable to recall him to the telephone. The latter officer who was in charge of the exchange at

61 4 55

the time then treated the request as a bona fide one for temporary disconnection and acted accordingly. Any subscriber may ask for his line to be temporarily disconnected and at a manual exchange this can be effected promptly by placing a blue stop in the subscribers’ jacks on the switchboard. An appropriate charge is made and if the request is made verbally, written confirmation is required later. In this particular case, as the subscriber did not specifically ask for his line to be temporarily disconnected, the decision of the Monitor was a borderline one. Incidentally, callers to the number in question, following receipt of the subscriber’s message were told by the telephonist that the particular number was not taking any calls; this is at variance with the

standard phraseology for disconnected services.

According to the departmental reports on this incident, the Gaming Police represented themselves to the Monitor at the exchange as Commonwealth Police and endeavoured to obtain from her the name of the telephonist who handled a call made from the public telephone near the exchange, presumably by a member of the Gaming Police. The Monitor properly refused to give the information and after endeavouring to contact the Postmaster, connected Senior Constable Conway to a departmental Traffic Officer at his home in Frankston. The latter officer confirmed that the Monitor was not to give such information to the Police and that the latter should contact the Investigation Branch should they require any assistance. The tactics of the Gaming Police in endeavouring to obtain information from the staff on duty at the time at the Dromana Exchange were at least questionable.

Following the occurrences at Dromana, a memorandum was issued to all manual exchange staffs reminding them of their responsibilities concerning requests for temporary disconnection and diversion of calls, as well as pointing out that in no case is the request to be met where a subscriber to a manual exchange asks that incoming calls be not connected.

Colac Raid:

The first intimation that the Department had of the Colac incident was from the reports which appeared in the Press. Inquiries made at Colac showed that complaints were received during the afternoon regarding a number of automatic services which subscribers were having difficulty in raising. Tests made in the usual way by the operators on the manual assistance positions showed that these services were out of order and they

were reported for technical attention at the earliest opportunity. There is no technical staff on duty at the Colac automatic exchange over the week-end and therefore no immediate action was taken toward restoring the services. On 16th March an experienced officer from the Investigation Branch went to Colac and thoroughly

examined the installations associated with the numbers with which trouble was experienced on the Saturday afternoon of the raid, and he was completely satisfied that there were no unauthorized attachments to the services which would permit their being rendered out of order by the subscriber and that they were not made inoperative at the telephone exchange. The telephonists on duty during the afternoon in question were

interviewed and their statements concerning the events which took place are considered to be completely truthful. It is quite possible that one of the calls received concerning the numbers in question was the one made from a public telephone by a member of the Gaming Squad, and the advice given that the particular number asked for was out of order and there was no technician available to attend to it was in accordance with the facts.

In the typical automatic telephone exchange the subscriber has the means of putting his telephone temporarily out of order within his own control. He can have any number call him., and having answered, hang up his receiver. In such event his number cannot be reached by another subscriber until such time as the subscriber who called restores his receiver. At Colac the method is even more simple because the equipment

there is so arranged that it is the last party to restore his telephone who releases the connection. That is, any subscriber who wishes to temporarily put his service out of action need only call another subscriber and ask the latter to leave his receiver off for the appropriate period. The conclusion was reached by the Investigation Officer that this is what in fact happened in the case of the service in the raided premises at Coiac. In summary,

there is no evidence to suggest that any person in the Department was involved in temporarily disconnecting the services in question.

It will be seen that, although the observations made by the Police were in several instances accurate, the conclusions drawn were far from correct. This applies particularly to the items covering tipster telegrams and transferred Money Orders. In all items referred to, the Departmental procedure was carried out correctly except, of course, in the theft of trunk line dockets and to a minor degree in the Dromana case.

I am pleased to find that Inspector Hill’s report is not as outspoken as the remarks attributed to him in the Press. I was naturally most disturbed by these latter remarks because they involved the Department and its officers and more importantly because several of the assertions were extravagant or distorted the real position. Furthermore, as the Post Office at that time had nothing to answer except the Press versions of part of Inspector Hill s report, it was placed in a position where it could not effectively remove the impression the statements created in the minds of the public. Perhaps even more important, it could not remove the implication that there was dissension between the Post Office and the Victoria

Police. I am sure the work of Inspector Hill’s unit would have been more effective had he discussed the cases he referred to with the Department at the time or had his report been discussed before it was made public.

It has long been the aim of this Department to offer assistance to further Police investigations as far as this is practicable within the limits of Regulations which are designed to secure for our customers the privacy of our communication services. At the request of the Police Department, information regarding names of lessees of telephone services (silent lines or otherwise) and private box services, will be made available to the Police on the understanding that the information

is to be regarded as confidential and is used solely for the purpose of detecting illegal practices. In addition, details of the names of lessees and telephone service numbers at an address furnished by the Police will be provided. In order to assist the Police in this matter, a liaison group of Senior Police and Post Office officials has been set up in each State.

The Department always acts promptly in disconnecting telephone services when advised by the Police that a person has been convicted of carrying on an illegal business at a place where a telephone is installed, in the past three years 311 telephone services had been disconnected in Victoria as a result of such requests from the Police Department. A noticeable feature has been the decrease in the number of these requests since the T.A.B. commenced operations.

62

In addition, the Post Office frequently disconnects services where, as a result of its own routine inspections or following Police investigations, it is established that a telephone installation has been tampered with.

Furthermore, the Post Office always attempts to establish the bona fides of applicants (other than reputable business firms) who make applications for more than one telephone at an address. The Post Office has power to refuse applications for telephone services and to withdraw services in excess of legitimate business requirements.

I have set out these fields of co-operation in some detail so that they may be more fully known and I would like to reiterate the willingness of the Post Office to continue its present co-operation with the Victoria Police in these fields.

It would be appreciated if the contents of this reply could be treated as confidential but when they have been examined, I would be pleased to discuss any aspect of these matters with yourself or the Chief Commissioner of Police. It is felt desirable in the meantime that undue publicity should be avoided and for that reason any public statements made ori behalf of the Post Office will be made by the Postmaster-General.

Yours faithfully, G. N. SMITH D irector.

Mr. J. V. Dillon, The Under Secretary, Chief Secretary’s Office, Spring-street,

Melbourne, C. I.

63 4 3 7

SECOND APPENDIX

1. Victoria Police Board of Inquiry Report of 2nd April, 1962

2, Chief Secretary’s letter dated 9th April, 1962 ..

Page

64

6 4

64

CHIEF SECRETARY

VICTORIA

The Honourable C. W. Davidson, O.B.E., M.P., Postmaster-General, Canberra, A.C.T.

Old Treasury Building, Spring-street, Melbourne 9th April, 1962

Dear Postmaster-General, As you know, the Victorian Police authorities and myself have for sometime been very concerned about the use of Postal facilities for the furtherance of unlawful gaming in this State.

With the object of ascertaining factual information concerning such furtherance of these unlawful activities, the Chief Commissioner of Police recently appointed a fact-finding Board of three Police officers experienced in this particular field, to report upon the subject.

I now forward for your information a copy of the Board’s report, together with a copy of a covering memorandum from the Chief Commissioner which summarizes the principal findings of the Board.

You will observe that those findings confirm that Postal facilities have been extensively used to aid and abet the activities of illegal gaming operators.

It is reasonably apparent from the examples quoted in the report that, in some instances, those unlawful activities have been knowlingly and actively aided and abetted. In other instances, it is plain that Postal officials must have been aware of the use and the extent of the use of Postal facilities in aid of such activities. It is also clear that in many cases Police investigations into specific gaming offences have been either frustrated or hindered by the failure or refusal of Postal officers to communicate or disclose to Police officers relevant information either at all or in sufficient time to enable the Police enquiries to be successfully completed.

It is recognized that, in some instances, such apparent lack of co-operation may have been due to the interpretation placed by Postal officials upon Departmental policy as expressed in the relevant legislation or regulations. In other cases, however, there is strong ground for belief that lack of co-operation was actuated by other considerations.

As the Board’s report confirms that there is every reason to believe that the suppression of unlawful gaming is being substantially hampered, if not frustrated, by the use of Postal facilities, I request that, having regard to the nature and extent of the information now available you take the necessary action to initiate a full and independent enquiry to ascertain the extent to which and the means by which unlawful gaming is being aided and abetted in this State by the use of such facilities and the steps necessary to be taken to secure the maximum permissible co-operation between Police and Postal officers in the suppression thereof.

An investigation at the instance of the Commonwealth is necessary to ensure that the full facts are obtained and that all aspects of the problems are comprehensively covered. The State will, of course, see that its facilities are fully placed at the disposal of any investigation you may see fit to initiate.

Yours faithfully, A. G. RYLAH.

REPORT

O F T H E

BOARD OF INQUIRY

Appointed to Inquire in to:

A ll A spects of C o-operation Between the P ostmaster-G eneral’s D epartment and the Victoria Police F orce in R elation to D etecting and C harging A lleged Offenders against Victorian State G aming Laws.

Appointed—19th March, 1962

Board M embers:

Chairman: Inspector G. W. H ill Member: Sergeant S. I. Miller Member: Senior Constable F. A. Silvester

APPOINTMENT

19th March, 1962.

The Report o f Inspector G. W. Hill on the subject o f Lacking Co-operation between the Postmaster-General's Department and the Gaming Branch o f the Victoria Police Force.

A Board of Inquiry is hereby appointed to inquire fully into all aspects of co-operation between the Postmaster- General’s Department and the Victoria Police Force in relation to detecting and charging alleged offenders against Victorian State Gaming Laws.

The Board will consist of— Chairman: Inspector G. W. H ill Member: Sergeant S. I. M iller Member: Senior Constable F. A. Silvester

65 4 39

Terms o f Reference.

The Board will examine co-operation between the two parties in relation to:—

(a) Detecting P.M.G. employees who have been suspected offenders or suspected accomplices of offenders.

(b) Alleged failure of employees of the P.M .G .’s Department to provide information which would assist police in detecting and charging alleged offenders against State Gaming Laws when asked by members of the Victoria Police Force.

It will report separately upon failure to provide information on grounds that the provision of such information would- be a breach of Commonwealth Postal Regulations and failure to provide information, or hindrance of Police investigation, which could not be as a result of restrictions imposed by Commonwealth Postal Regulations.

The Board will list instances of failure to provide information or hindrance of Police investigation by types. It may supplement these by quoting actual examples. In particular, it will indicate the incidence of each, so that a reasonable indication is given of the prevalence of alleged offences committed by P.M.G. employees and failure of P.M.G. employees to assist the Police. ‘ ' ’ ’

(Signed) S. H. PORTER, Chief Commissioner.

To the Chief Commissioner of Police, Melbourne.

Pursuant to the directions contained in the appointment set out above, your Board of Inquiry, having completed its appointed task, has the honour to submit the following report:— 1. In examining the question of co-operation between the Victoria Police Force and the Postmaster-General’s Department in relation to detecting and charging alleged offenders against Victorian State Gaming Laws, consideration must be given to the definition of the term “ co-operation ” as used in this sense. The Oxford Dictionary defines co-operation as “ working together to the same end ” . It would seem, therefore, that some confusion and a fundamental

lack of appreciation of this relationship exist. To place the issue in proper perspective, it can be properly stated that, while it is the direct responsibility of the Victoria Police Force to enforce the Gaming Laws, it is not conceded by the Postmaster-General’s Department that a similar responsibility devolves upon them to police their own enactments in relation to gaming matters.

2. The problem is not a new one. Official correspondence indicates that various members of the Gaming Branch of the Victoria Police Force, over the years, have alleged frustration of their attempts to enforce the gaming laws by the apparent apathy of the Postmaster-General’s Department. There seems to be no doubt that the Postmaster-General’s Department has been able to assist, but has refused to do so on the grounds of official policy. This evidences a farcical situation from a Police point of view. No doubt, the Commonwealth Government, in formulating policy, never intended that State Police investigations should be hampered as a result. The necessity to protect the liberty of the subject and the secrecy of private communications is appreciated, but at the same time, it seems incongruous that offenders against

State laws can avail themselves of the complete protection afforded by these principles.

3. Obviously, the parts of the gaming laws which come into calculation in this regard, are those in which improper use is made of the facilities provided by the Postal Department. Consequently, certain investigative aspects are peculiarly within the province of the Postal Department. Therefore, reference must be made to the relevant regulations of the respective Departments, their structure and the manner in which they can be interpreted and implemented.

4. It is proposed to discuss the situation under the following sub-headings before proceeding to the actual Terms of Reference: (a) Nature of offences in which P.M.G. assistance is sought. (b) Type of assistance requested.

(c) Ability of Postal Department to assist. (d) Police Regulations relative to co-operation with P.M.G. (e) The relevant provisions of the Acts and Regulations relative to the control and supervision of P.M.G. facilities are set forth in the Appendix to this report.

5. (a) Nature o f offences in which P.M.G. assistance is sought. Assistance is usually sought in the detection of persons keeping, using or occupying any house or place in contravention of Victorian State Gaming laws. This embraces all aspects of illegal betting in which use is necessarily made of postal facilities. Despite police activity, these offences are still comparatively prevalent.

(6) Type o f assistance requested. 6. Since the operation of betting, prices and tipping businesses depend on telephonic communications to a great extent, there is an obvious necessity for the police to be permitted to ascertain the identities and addresses of certain subscribers promptly. When investigation indicates that a subscriber is using, or permitting the use of, his telephone for betting, it is not always possible to proceed without the assistance of the Postal Department. Furthermore, when use is made of private boxes at Post Offices, it is necessary for the police to establish the identity and address of the box lessee,

for the purpose of proceeding with the investigation. 7. When such information is required, a formal request is made to the Officei -in-Charge, Postal Investigation Branch, Postmaster-General’s Department. No undue delay arises in obtaining the information requested. This arrangement applies to routine requests made in normal office hours. However, the critical period of police activities in relation to telephone betting in particular, is on Saturday afternoons and holidays. It is very frequently the case that on such days, information is received by the police of a telephone service being used for betting. Sometimes this information is unsolicited,

but usually arises out of the discovery of a series of alternative bookmaker’s telephone numbers found in premises visited by the Police On these occasions it is imperative that particulars of the location of the suspect telephone should be obtained forthwith and the premises visited immediately. Obviously, in these circumstances, ihc police can locate the premises only with the active co-operation of the Postal Department.

66

8. It will be seen that the type of assistance requested is generally restricted to establishing the identities and addresses of telephone subscribers and private box lessees from numbers supplied. Information has not been sought as to the nature of the communications for which the services are used. From time to time, Postal Investigators have been called to betting premises by the police to inspect irregular installations. During the increased police activity of the year

1956, this was the general practice in order to assist the Postmaster-General’s Department.

9. Requests for assistance by the gaming police have generally been restricted to the foregoing because of the expressed view of Postal Investigation Branch officers that any further assistance beyond this, would continue a breach of Postal Regulations. This opinion has been accepted by gaming police as being authoritative. It will be seen that the type of assistance requested relates to offences committed outside P.M.G. premises by telephone subscribers and users.

10. Offences which may have been committed within P.M.G. premises, such as interference to or manipulation of regular services by P.M.G. employees to make possible or to facilitate the commission of gaming offences, were considered by police to be domestic matters under the control of the Postal Department. Any such instances coming to the notice of gaming police, were reported direct to the Postal Investigation Branch.

11. Suggestions have been made to the Postal authorities that the use of telephones for the purpose of betting could easily be detected by telephonists or P.M.G. technicians making casual observations at both manual and automatic exchanges in the normal course of their duties. Inquiries have revealed that this is possible merely by observing the volume of inward cal's to a particular subscriber on race days. Experienced telephonists have suggested that it would be difficult for a telephonist or technician to be unaware of the significance of a large volume of calls in these circumstances. The reply from the Postmaster-General’s Department has always been that official poiicy would preclude such action.

12. P.M.G. private boxes are in a slightly different category. The assistance sought in relation to these boxes to date, has been confined to a request for particulars of the lessee’s name and address. These requests have been acceded to and the particulars supplied. Further assistance has been refused on the grounds of official policy.

(c) Ability o f Postal Department to assist.

13. There appears to be nothing in the Post and Telegraph Act or Regulations to preclude the Postmaster-General’s Department from supplying the information requested by gaming police, as to the identities and addresses of telephone subscribers and private box lessees. Nor, it seems, is any difficulty experienced by postal officials in establishing this information. This fact is conceded in correspondence between the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs and the Chief Commissioner of Police dated 8/9/60. (C.C.B. 17.12.13), in which the Chief Commissioner of Police expresses his appreciation of the co-operation extended in this regard.

14. This has been the extent of the assistance supplied by the Postmaster-General’s Department to date. The question of further assistance, which the Board considers possible, is discussed later in this report.

(d) Police Regulations relative to co-operation with Postmaster-General’s Department. 15. The following passages from the Standing Orders of the Victoria Police Force, as laid down by the Chief Commissioner of Police, extend and apply :— Para. 1873: Members of the Force shall render assistance to officials of the Postal Department when requested

to do so.

Para. 1879: Where in the interests of justice, information legitimately within the knowledge of the Postmaster- General’s Department is required by Police, such information may be supplied only on the request of a responsible officer such as the Chief Commissioner or an Officer of Police. A member of the force desiring to obtain such information shall obtain a written authority from an Officer of Police and then submit his application for the information to the Deputy Director, Posts and Telegraphs, through either the Superintendent of Personnel or the Senior Investigation Officer, General Post Office, Melbourne.

Para. 967: Whenever a person is convicted for conducting gaming or betting upon premises to which a telephone service is connected, a special report should be submitted through the usual channels, to the Chief Commissioner for transmission to the Postmaster-General’s Department. The report should contain the following details:—

(a) The address and exact location of the premises concerned. \b) The number of the telephone service and the exact location in the premises of the instrument. (c) The full name and address of the lessee of the telephone service. (d) The full name and address of the person convicted, and particulars of such conviction. (e) The existence or otherwise of any evidence that the lessee of the telephone service knew

of its use for unlawful betting.

Where telephone services are involved and there is not sufficient evidence available to support a prosecution, or charges have been laid and dismissed at Court, a general report of the circumstances should also be submitted.

16. The policy expressed in Paragraph 1873 of Police Standing Orders is fully implemented. Every courtesy is extended to the Postal Department and its officers, even to the extent of permitting Postal Investigators to personally check criminal histories at the Police Information Bureau and to make checks of registration particulars at the Motor Registration Branch. Similarly, the Postal Investigation Branch is promptly informed of any misuse of telephone services in relation to offensive or indecent calls. Moreover, in the case of offensive or indecent telephone calls, which aie offences under the Post and Telegraph Act, every facility is provided and the resources of D.24, the Wireless Patrol Branch and the C.I.B. are made available. Particulars of Postal employees convicted of gaming and other offences are supplied on request. Between 1956 and 1959, information concerning any telephone services being used for betting was telephoned to Postal Investigation Branch every Monday morning, following the Saturday gaming raids, at the request of the Postal Investigation Branch.

17. Paragraphs 967 and 1879 are self-explanatory. Paragraph 967 of Police Standing Orders corresponds with Regulation 62 of the Telephone Regulations. The last paragraph of Standing Order 967 is of no real value as the Postal Department does not cancel telephone services unless a conviction is recorded. (C.C.B. File 77.1.75 illustrates this practice.)

18. It is impossible accurately to assess the incidence and prevalence of the matters discussed in the Terms of Reference. The instances outlined herein have occurred as a m atter of general application. Failure to render assistance to Police has been attributable to adherence to or misinterpretation of the policy of the Postmaster-General's Department. The end-result has been hindrance to Police investigations.

67

R egulations, P olicy and D irectives of P ostmaster-G eneral’s D epartment in R egard to A ssistance to be R endered to the P olice.

19. Since the policy of the Postmaster-General s Department appears to be the determining factor in P.M.G.-Police relations, the Board considers that it should endeavour to give an appreciation of that policy. " 20. The only detailed expression oi official P.IV1.G. policy to which the Board has been able to make reference is the evidence on oath given by Mr. J. L. Skerrett, Assistant Director General, Telecommunications, Postmaster-General’s Department, at the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into Off-course Betting in 1958. It is considered that this gentleman must be regarded as an impeccable authority on P.M .G. policy. Excerpts from his evidence are quoted

hereunder, but is is felt that the complete transcript of his evidence (Official Transcript pages 2750-2759 and 2793-2892) should be considered so that he is not quoted out of context. However, the following excerpts from his evidence may be regarded as authoritative expressions of that policy, namely:—

(а) “ Within the framework of the Post and Telegraph Act and Regulations made under that Act, the Department has consistently followed a policy of co-operating with State Police authorities to the utmost extent possible without infringing on private rights of members of the community The policy followed here has been laid down by the Commonwealth Government of the day.............. ” (б) “ In 1943 the Postmaster-General’s Department’s co-operation with State Police authorities in the

administration of State laws to deal with the evils of illegal betting was extended as follows:— “ Upon the receipt of a written request from the Police Department in the State concerned, forwarded to a responsible Postal Officer, access to the records of telephone services, silent lines or otherwise, on the definite understanding that the information extracted by him will be

regarded as confidential and used solely for the purpose of detecting illegal practices. As a result of a review by the Commonwealth Government in 1946, it was decided that the procedures as existing, should continue. In actual practice, in Victoria, the requests for this information are conveyed under confidential cover to the Senior Postal Officer and, after the required details have been inserted on the list, it is returned in the same confidential way

to the responsible Police Officer

21. In his evidence, Mr. Skerrett also stated that a directive w-as issued by the Postmaster-General’s Department to the Engineering Division in 1956, requiring them to report the following: (i) Any case where groups of services are required to be terminated on handsets instead of switchboards in one room or suite of rooms.

(ii) Any case where single line services are provided in business premises in the same room but under different names. (iii) Any case where there is reason to assume that the name of the subscriber shown on the telephone order in fictitious and where the layout of the rooms in which the services are required suggests that they

may not be used in the usual business manner. (iv) Any case where the listed business of the applicant as indicated on the telephone order, appears to be fictitious. This direction also requires a close watch to be kept for any tampering with the telephones or

lines of rotary services and also a check to be made on the daily calling rate and the normal hours of business observed in the premises where a rotary service is installed.

22. Mr. Skerrett also said in his evidence that, prior to this directive being issued, instructions were given that full inquiry was to be made before granting a request for additional telephones in private houses or small businesses.

23. Mr. Skerrett went on to say that P.M.G. regulations entirely precluded the prospect of tapping telephones and that the nature of communications was inviolable. In the absence of telephone tapping, he said that he saw no way in which further assistance could be given to the Police. In M r. Skerrett’s opinion, it was impossible for a telephonist to realize that a particular line at an exchange was being used by an S.P. bookmaker simply by observing the volume of calls to that particular number. He said that, even if it were possible, the information would not be passed on to the

Police. He added it was not the responsibility of the Postmaster-General’s Department to assume the functions of the State Police.

E xamples of Breaches of P.M.G. R egulations or D irectives.

24. It seems that these directives were not obeyed to the fullest extent. During 1959 and 1960, the following premises were discovered being used for betting, and in each case, more than one telephone was installed.

(1) 21/2/59—48 Wilson’s-road, Mornington—two phones. (2) 16/12/61—48 Wilson’s-road, M ornington—one phone. This phone was installed in the premises after the previous two had been cancelled. Installation was made in a different name to that of the occupier of the premises. (3) 28/3/59__410 Brunswick-street, Fitzroy—two phones. Phones installed in disused bank vault.

(4) 9/3/59—52 Collins-street, Melbourne—three phones.

(5) 9/3/59—386 Flinders-lane, Melbourne—two phones.

(6) 11/3/59—9 Dalgety-street, St. Kilda—two phones. (7) 14/3/59—104 W ellington-parade, East M elbourne— two phones.

(8) 30/5/59—50-52 Market-street, Melbourne—two phones.

68

(9) 6/6/59—78 Jolimont-road, East Melbourne—two phones. The two phones were in rotary sequence. P.M .G. later reported that one of the two phones was a silent line allocated to the Public Works Department and that there was no trace of any other service at that address. Postmaster-General’s Department claim that this phone could not have been at 78 Jolimont-road, East Melbourne. P.M.G.

File reference V.298/25/155 refers.

(10) 20/6/59—128 Jolimont-road, East Melbourne—two phones. P.M.G. technician named Frederick Goode was convicted of using these phones for betting.

(12) 4/7/59—2 Gilbert-road, Preston—three phones.

(13) 11/7/59—361 Clarendon-street, South Melbourne—two phones. Phones installed in basement.

(14) 29/8/59—425 Elizabeth-street, Melbourne—two phones.

(15) 29/8/59—22 Roseberry-street, Hawthorn East—two phones.

(16) 26/9/59— 15 McDonald-street, Mordialloc—two phones.

(17) 12/12/59—53 Westbury-street, St. Kilda—two phones.

(18) 27/2/60—116 Queen-street, Melbourne—four phones.

(19) 19/3/60—376 High-street, Northcote—two phones.

(20) 5/3/60—157 Princes-street, Flemington—four phones. Only one of the four phones was cancelled by the P.M.G. as the offenders admitted betting on only one phone. The cancelled telephone has since been re-installed and all telephones moved to different locations in the premises. Two of the phones were seen on 23/3/62 in a private billiard room at the address.

(21) 9/4/60— 138 Gertrude-street, Fitzroy—two phones. P.M.G. technician named Frederick Goode, again convicted of using premises for betting.

(22) 9/4/60—761 Gilbert-road, Reservoir—three phones. These premises are a combined Newsagency—Post Office. (23) 20/8/60— 111 High-street, Kew—three phones. (24) 17/12/60—217 Fitzroy-street, St. Kilda—two phones. (25) 18/2/61—70 Edinburgh-street, Flemington—two phones.

(26) 18/2/61— 18 Milton-parade, Tooronga—two phones. (27) 7/10/6! — 13a Albion-street, Elsternwick—two phones. (28) 2/1/61—Flat 3, 50 Walsh-street, South Yarra—two phones. (29) 20/5/61—27 Hillside-crescent, Maribyrnong—two phones.

(30) 21/10/61—231 Union-road, Ascot Vale—two phones. (31) 2/12/61—28 Crimea-street, St. Kilda—three phones. On 28/8/57, the same premises were entered by Police and betting was taking place over five telephones.

T erm of R eference (a):

Examination o f co-operation between the two parties in relation to detecting P.M.G. employees who have been suspected offenders or suspected accomplices o f offenders.

25. It must be assumed that this Term of Reference is intended to apply to the commission of breaches of trust by P.M.G. employees in relation to their employment. There have been occasions on which employees of the Postmaster- General’s Department have been detected by Police in the commission of street betting offences and offences in betting houses. In these cases, such employees have been in no different category to private citizens and no breach of trust has

been involved.

26. Therefore, this Term of Reference applies more specifically to acts committed within P.M.G. establishments or by technicians making unauthorized installations. These are matters within the province of the Postmaster-General’s Department for supervision and attention.

27. Offences which can be committed in these circumstances involve active participation in betting operations or assistance supplied to bookmakers. These matters are discussed academically because their existence and prevalence is largely speculative. No doubt, the greatest secrecy would attend such operations.

28. It would be possible, more particularly in small exchanges, for a P.M.G. employee to actually operate as an S.P. bookmaker and to use a telephone or telephones for this purpose. It is also possible for a technician to make unauthorized installations of telephones for an S.P. bookmaker, knowing the purpose for which they are to be used.

29. Again, an employee in the exchange could manipulate wiring or divert calls to another number or stop all inward calls by pre-arrangement should a Police raid occur. In these cases, the employee would have a full knowledge of the purpose for which these things were done.

30. Similarly, a Postmaster, having complete control over the allocation of private boxes, could knowingly provide such box facilities. Private boxes are used by both bookmakers and tipsters.

31. These are all matters of commission in which the employees would be knowingly assisting offenders by facilitating, or making possible, their operations. It must be conceded that occasions could arise on which some of these things could be done unknowingly and innocently, without any sinister intention.

32. There are acts of omission which could also arise. These involve the failure of P.M.G. employees to report to their departmental superiors matters, such as the foregoing, which it is their duty to report. Persons in the latter category would, nevertheless, be assisting the gaming offenders by their apathy.

33. Suggestions that all of the foregoing propositions exist have been made to various members of the Gaming Branch by informers (including P.M .G. employees) who, not unnaturally, refuse, for various reasons, to allow themselves to be identified with their information by giving specific instances or making statements in writing. Again, experiences of Gaming Police themselves, have led them to the suspicion that these types of offences do occur.

/ 7 Ο

69 4 / J

34. Since malpractices such as these would be committed by P.M .G . employees as such, investigation is more properly the function of the Postal Investigation Branch than of the State Police Force.

35. Suspicions of such malpractices have been confided to Investigation Officers of the Postal Department from time to time, since 1956. On occasions, Postal investigators have conceded the possibility of such things occurring, but claim that insufficiency of information has prevented further action by them.

36. By virtue of the structure of the Postal Regulations (this term includes the Post and Telegraph Act and Regulations made thereunder) State Police have no right oi entry to P.M.G. premises without permission. Consequently, they are powerless to follow up an apparent irregularity within P.M.G. premises at the time of the occurrence. Since these occasions occur mainly on Saturday and holidays, and without warning, it is impossible to have a Postal investigator on hand to render assistance.

37. Types of assistance required in these circumstances would be— (a) Checking of diverted telephone calls made for betting to ascertain location of alternative number. (b) Questioning of telephonists or exchange personnel regarding legitimacy of diversion or cessation of calls. (c) Investigation of legality of installation of certain telephones at betting premises.

(O Checking on regularity of fixed-time trunk line calls on Saturday afternoons, particularly prior to the advertised starting times of races. (This is a matter which could be supervised by the P.M.G. Observation Section.) (e) Supervision of private boxes and assistance to Police in detection of offenders using boxes.

38. Following the increased activity of the Gaming Branch from 1956, information of any irregularity or suspicious circumstance discovered, was relayed to the Postal Investigation Branch. In view of the apparent inability of the Postal Investigation Branch to successfully investigate such matters, the practice lapsed. It is significant to note that, in the criminal province in Police work, successful prosecutions arise from information of a similar nature.

E xamples of I nformation received S uggesting Offenders D o E xist in Postmaster-G eneral’s D epartment.

39. Examples of information received which suggest that offenders do exist in the Postmaster-General’s Department are outlined in the next succeeding paragraph hereunder. The offences alleged are mainly breaches of Postal Regulations, however, the offenders could fairly be described as accomplices, in fact if not in law, of offenders against the State gaming laws. This information is reported at face value. Names, places and dates have been supplied where possible. Other

names have been withheld at this stage, but will be supplied if the Postmaster-General’s Department chooses to hold a full-scale inquiry in the future. The truthfulness or otherwise of these allegations is not a matter for inquiry by this Board. They are supplied for the purpose of indicating the persistency of the suggestion that accomplices (aiders and abettors in

law) and offenders against State laws do exist in the Postal Department. It can also be suggested that persons assisting in the manner alleged become accomplices in a criminal conspiracy.

40. (1) Since publicity given to Inspector Hill’s statement in the daily press, a woman claiming to be a P.M.G. telephonist on the Central Exchange, stated that a senior telephonist was demoted by or on the recommendation of a man named Noseda, said to be in charge of the Trunk Line Exchange, who alleged that she had not been giving sufficiently prompt service to certain S.P. bookmakers. The woman added that preferential treatment was given to S.P. bookmakers and

Prices Agencies by way of fixed-time calls.

(2) A male person phoned Inspector Hill to say that S.P. bookmaking was rife in the Mail Room of Spencer-street Post Office and that a number of Third-Grade Officers were involved.

(3) Senior Constable Bertram of Woodend reports that S.P. bookmaking in this town is conducted from the Post Office. He suspects the following employees of the P.M .G .: Harold T yres, his wife and a Raymond Cogan. Tyres is said to be a technician and his wife a telephonist. Mrs. Tyres is said to work invariably on Saturday afternoons. Cogan is said to be the Assistant Postmaster. A Mrs. Olden, said to be the wife of another technician, was detected using her private telephone for betting on 3/11/59. Also complaints from Woodend of telephonists eavesdropping on Police calls.

(4) First Constable Machen of Bairnsdale reports that whilst at Orbost in 1959, he investigated the activities of S.P. bookmakers. As a bluff, Machen informed a suspected S.P. bookmaker that he was in possession of the telephone numbers of all S.P. bookmakers in Orbost. Following this, two P.M.G. telephonists, one of whom was a friend of Machen’s family, were interrogated by P.M.G. officials (named) and accused of supplying the S.P. bookmakers’ telephone numbers to Machen. One other telephonist was not questioned by the officials. She is the daughter of a man named N owlan who has convictions for S.P. betting. Machen was informed by a telephonist at Orbost that the telephonists received presents of various kinds from local S.P. bookmakers. These were delivered to the exchange.

(5) Four telephones were installed at 157 Princes-street, Flemington, for a bookmaker and tipster named Jack Dow. It is alleged that these telephones were installed by Dow’s cousin, a man named “ Arthur ” who was employed at the Newmarket exchange about two years ago but has now transferred to another exchange. “ Arthur is said to reside at Avondale Heights and to be one-legged. Dow, himself, describes “ Arthur as a small crumb and says that “ the worst that can happen to him is that he will get the sack ” . This man “ Arthur ” is said to have intercepted telephone conversations made by horse-owners and trainers and used the information so gained for his own benefit.

Dow is said to have had a woman named Coral Ferguson, a P.M.G. telephonist from City West Exchange, destroy his trunk line dockets relative to his interstate betting operations and to have supplied him with “ open lines ” for the same purpose. On one occasion about two years ago, it is said that she provided Dow with an open line ” to Ulverstone, Tasmania, which occupied the particular line for the entire afternoon. It is also said that Dow s interstate calls are mainly made via Ulverstone and other Tasmanian exchanges, as the service is supposed to be effected more quickly in that way.

Dow is alleged to have a man in the Postal Investigation Branch in his pay, for the purpose of notifying him should the Police check on one of his telephone numbers. The allegation in respect of the destruction of trunk line dockets appears to be corroborated by the fact that proceedings have been taken against a certain P.M.G. employee by his own department and brought to a satisfactory conclusion. It is believed that, as a result, Dow has been required to pay a large sum of money to the P.M.G. in relation

to his trunk calls.

70

(6) Information has been received that a postal official (now deceased), in a responsible position, supplied telephones to S.P. bookmakers on payment of a fee of £50. The business of the Applicant as shown on the Application Form was always Importer and Exporter, Indentor or Manufacturer, it is said that the body of the Application was completed by this person and signed by the Applicant. Several technicians are also said to have been involved in that they were paid a fee to be available on race days in case of faults occurring to these services.

(7) Suggestions that technicians are working in league with S.P. bookmakers in the manner suggested above, appear to be sustantiated by the manner in which a number of technicians’ telephone numbers, both business and private, were found in diaries belonging to S.P. bookmakers. Particulars of these have been supplied to the Postmaster-General’s Department. (File C.C.B. 37.8.2. refers.)

(8) The Postmaster at Lakes Entrance is supposed to be on duty Saturday afternoons at the local telephone exchange for the purpose of putting through calls for local S.P. bookmakers of Lakes Entrance and Bairnsdale. (9) On 9/9/61, when Gaming Police visited Ararat, they called at the house of an ex-P.M.G. technician believed to be using his telephone for betting. On entering the house, the telephone was found to be out of order although it had

been in working order immediately prior to the Police entry. The man in the premises had no time to interfere with the service himself. (10) A number of country centres have been visited by Gaming Police in recent years. Almost invariably, their efforts have been hampered by the sudden cessation of inward telephone calls following their entry to the premises. Colac, which is dealt with elsewhere in this report, is an example. Cessation of calls has never been encountered in gaming raids carried out in the metropolitan area.

(11) In recent weeks, investigations into the activities of a tipster have led to the Elizabeth-street Post Office. Observations have been made at the telegram counter where it was found that a man was lodging coded telegrams in bulk. Shortly after this, the system was changed and the first indication that the telegrams had been lodged was the operation of the costing machine. No telegrams had been lodged for some time prior to the operation of the machine. How the telegrams arrived at the Post Office is still a mystery.

In 1960, a printer named William Mayne was successfully prosecuted for tipping offences. During an interview with Mayne, he said that it was his practice to lodge his tipping telegrams at the Elizabeth-street Post Office in bulk. At times he used to hand them in a shoe-box to a P.M.G. employee before the Post Office was open to the public. (12) On 27/3/57, at Colac, Police endeavoured to make a call from a public telephone box in a street. The intending Police caller, on picking up the receiver, was greeted by a voice saying, “ Do you want a bet ? ” On attempting to make a call from the adjoining cabinet, he had a similar experience.

Other visits to suspected betting premises at Colac since this date have failed because of the cessation of inward calls following Police entry. On the last occasion, 10/3/62, a cable was observed running from the suspected betting premises to the next door premises of a person believed to be a postal official. No calls were received per the telephone at the suspected premises nor were outward calls possible. The instrument apparently went out of order and remained in

that condition until after the running of the last Melbourne race on that day. Significantly, the telephone resumed functioning after the last race.

(13) From 1957, approximately 35 country areas have been visited by the Gaming Branch in an effort to detect telephone betting. Some of the areas have been visited on more than one occasion making a total of 64 visits and 97 premises entered. As a result of convictions recorded, a total of 37 telephones were subsequently cancelled by the Postmaster-General’s Department following advice from the Chief Commissioner. See Appendix B.

These statistics do not include the efforts of members of the Police Force stationed throughout the country, but are confined to results of Gaming Branch operations. It must also be remembered that these country visits were not for the sole purpose of detecting offenders using telephones for betting. Action was taken simultaneously against S.P. operators in streets, hotels, billiard rooms and common gaming houses as the occasion required.

T erm of R eference (b ):

Examination o f co-operation between the two parties in relation to alleged failure o f employees o f the Postmaster-General's Department to provide information which would assist Police in detecting and charging alleged offenders against State Gaming Laws when asked by members o f the Victoria Police Force. 41. Since 1956, there have been many discussions, both official and unofficial, between members of the Gaming Branch and officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department on the matter of co-operation. The general tenor of these discussions has been that no more co-operation or assistance has been possible than that of obtaining subscribers’ identities and addresses from telephone and private box numbers supplied. It has been suggested bv Postal officials that Commonwealth Government policy precluded any further assistance. It has been this policy, or the application of it, that has resulted in the failure of Police to obtain further assistance in detecting offenders against the State gaming laws.

42. It has been suggested by Gaming Police that the Postal Department ought to be able to detect, without phone tapping, the location of phones used for betting by observation of the volume of calls to particular numbers at both manual and automatic exchanges. Similarly, it has been suggested that illicit use of private boxes could be detected by proper supervision. This assistance has not been forthcoming.

43. There have been no instances of outright refusal to co-operate other than on the authority of regulations, It seems that P.M.G. policy is so rigid and is applied so inflexibly, that any refusal to co-operate on these grounds has been regarded as being in consonance with that policy. There is a strong possibility that the refusal to co-operate on the grounds of policy may have been used as a pretext by some employees to impede Police inquiries.

44. After considerable research into the Post and Telegraph Act and Regulations, together with the Post office Guide, a conclusion has been reached that these authorities do not restrict the Postmaster-General’s Department as some of its officers claim. On the contrary, some of these authorities give them wide powers to deal with certain suspected offences without reference to the Police. It would seem that the secrecy provision is in fact the oath of office. Each employee is legally bound to take this oath when entering the Postal service.

45. As can be seen from Section 9 of the Post and Telegraph Act, the oath is divided into three separate parts. One deals with postal articles, one with telegraphic communications and the third with telegrams. It specifies that a Postal employee must not willingly or knowingly open, delay, detain or return any postal article. This is something which no employee has been asked, or is likely to be asked, to do. There is no necessity.

71 4 75

46. In view of the fact that, in the Post and Telegraph Act, “ telegraphic ” includes “ telephonic ”, the latter two parts of the oath can be read together. This being so, it appears that a strict bond of secrecy is placed on every employee of the Postmaster-General s Department and that no information relating to telephones or telegrams can be supplied to the Police.

47. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the oath, which was drawn up for the purpose of ensuring secrecy in respect of lawful communications, now becomes an obstacle to law enforcement bodies.

48. No matter what interpretation is placed upon the oath, it is evident that the Postal Department have wide powers to deal with various types of gaming offences without reference to the Police. Indeed, it would appear to be their duty to enforce their own regulations. To date, to our knowledge this had not been done.

Instances, by type, o f failure to provide information to Police or o f hindrance o f Police investigation:

49. (1) Failure to supervise multiple telephone installations.

(2) Failure adequately to check bona fides of applicants for multiple telephone installations.

(3) Failure to supply technical assistance for the purpose of tracing suspected illegal installations.

(4) Failure to supply sufficient facilities for checking of telephone subscribers’ installations on Saturdays and holidays.

(5) Failure to supply names of persons requesting diversion of telephone calls.

(6) Refusal to allow Police to remain in P.M.G. premises for purpose of apprehending offender.

(7) Refusal to authorise member of Postal Investigation Branch to indicate suspected offender to Police in P.M.G. premises.

(8) Refusal to allow ordinary books of Post Office records to be viewed by Police.

(9) Failure to enforce Section 62 (4) of Telephone Regulations. (Relates to misuse of telephone following cancellation and re-installation).

(10) Failure to cancel Post Office boxes in accordance with provisions of Post Office Guide, page 69. when sufficient “ reason to believe ” misuse is supplied by Police.

(11) Failure to properly investigate bona fides of applicants for private boxes.

(12) Hindrance to Police by Postal Investigation Officer in advising P.M.G. employee not to answer Police questions.

(13) Failure or inability to locate telephones used for betting by observation by Postal officers at exchanges.

Examples o f failure to provide information to Police and o f hindrance o f Police investigations:

50. (1) Police investigations have revealed that no more than three tipsters have operated at the one time, although using numerous fictitious names. The tipsters experienced no difficulty in leasing private boxes under different fictitious names.

(2) In June, 1960, the Postmaster-General’s Department refused to allow Police to maintain observations from behind a counter in the Flemington Post Office for the purpose of apprehending a tipster collecting his mail from a private box. It also refused, as an alternative, to allow a member of Postal Investigation Branch to indicate the suspect after he had collected his mail.

(3) In June, 1960, permission was refused Police, despite a written request from a Police Superintendent, to examine ordinary books of business regarding records of mail collections by box-holders suspected of tipping offences. Request related to private boxes at Post Offices at Coburg, Caulfield South and Balaclava.

(4) Report of Inspector Heath, dated 8/4/58, complains of lack of assistance from Postmaster and staff at Flemington Post Office in investigation of tipping offences. (C.C. 17.5.5218A).

(5) On 16/12/61, Senior Constable Conway, of Gaming Branch, entered suspected betting premises at D roman a. Whilst on the premises, no inward calls were received on the telephone. Police then called the number of the premises from a nearby phone box and were informed by the exchange operator that instructions had been given that no more calls were to be connected to that particular number. Conway then went to the Dromana Telephone Exchange and saw the Exchange Supervisor. Conway requested that he be

informed of the identity of the person who instructed that no further calls were to be connected. The Supervisor refused to give this information. The Supervisor also declined to state her own name or that of the duty telephonist. Conway then spoke to a man who claimed to be the Superintendent of the area. This man informed Conway that he did not intend to answer any questions and that any inquiry should be made from the Postal Investigation Branch. (6) Senior Constable Taylor, of the Gaming Branch, visited suspected betting premises at Frankston on 18/7/59.

The premises were a private house at 14 Woodlands Grove, Frankston, which, at that time, was occupied by a man named Alan Goodwin. Goodwin was alone in the house at the time. He admitted he was there for the purpose of betting and was charged accordingly. Whilst on the premises, Taylor discovered two wires connected to the telephone junction box, in what appeared to be suspicious circumstances. Taylor contacted the P.M.G. District Supervisor and requested assistance in tracing the wiring. The

request was refused. (7) On 27/5/59, Senior Detective Knight, then of the Gaming Branch, was in the vicinity of the Ballarat Miners’ Race Club, Miners’ Rest, investigating the method of illegal transmission of betting odds from the race­ course. He was investigating the activities of a man named Waugh and it was necessary to ascertain

whether Waugh had made any telephone calls from Miners' Rest Post Office to Melbourne that day. Knight endeavoured to ascertain this information from the Postmistress. He made no request for any details of the nature of any such calls. An Officer of the Postal Investigation Branch w-ho was present

for the purpose of assisting Knight on that day, advised the Postmistress not to answer any questions. Consequently, police were precluded from pursuing the inquiry.

73 477

Section 40: Every postal article received in a Post O ffice-fa) on which the postage stamps have been previously obliterated or defaced (unless the postage thereon has been prepaid by money); or

fa) which contains an enclosure contrary to the provisions of this Act or the regulations or any other Act; or

fa) which is posted contrary in any other way to the provisions of this Act or the regulations; or fa) on the outside of which any profane blasphemous indecent obscene offensive or libellous matter is written or drawn shall be deemed to be posted in contravention of this Act.

Section 41: Every postal article— (e) which is without address or bears an illegible address; or fa) which is posted or is reasonably suspected to be posted in contravention of this Act; or (c) which the person to whom it is addressed refuses to receive; or

fa) upon which any postage is payable by the person to whom it is addressed and in respect of which such person refuses to pay the postage shall be transmitted without delay by the postmaster receiving it to the General Post Office.

Every postal article containing or supposed to contain an enclosure upon which the duties of Customs are payable shall be dealt with in the prescribed manner.

Section 57: (1) If the Postmaster-General has been reasonable grounds to suppose any person to be engaged either in the Commonwealth or elsewhere in receiving money or any valuable thing— fa) as consideration (1) for an assurance or agreement express or implied to pay or give or (2) for securing that some other persons shall pay or give any money or valuable thing

on an event or contingency of or relating to any horserace or other race or any fight game sport or exercise; or (b) for promoting or carrying out a scheme connected with any such assurance agreement or security or a lottery or scheme of chance or an unlawful game; or (c) as contributions or subscriptions towards any lottery or scheme of chance; or fa) under pretence of telling future events; or (e) in connexion with the fraudulent, obscene indecent or immoral business or undertaking;

he may by order under his hand published in the Gazette direct that any postal article received at a Post Office addressed to such person either by his own or fictitious or assumed name or to any agent or representative of his or to an address without a name shall not be registered or transmitted or delivered to any such person.

(2) The order shall specify such name or address and shall upon publication be of full force and effect until cancelled by the Postmaster-General.

Telephone Regulations: Section 5: All telephone and other like services provided, or authorized by the Department to be provided or used at any time prior or subsequent to the commencement of these regulations shall be subject to the conditions set forth in these regulations or any amendments or extensions thereof.

Section 6: On being provided with a telephone or other like service, or authorized to provide or use any such service, subscribers shall in all cases be deemed to have agreed to be bound by the several provisions of these regulations in force from time to time.

Section 7: The decision of the Department shall be absolute in respect of the charges and conditions which are to apply to any telephone or any other like service provided or authorized to be provided or used under these regulations.

Section 8 (1): The Department may at its discretion refuse to comply with an application for a telephone or other like service or for the transfer for any such existing service or for the construction or use of any telephone line or service and it also reserves the right to withdraw either totally or partially any telephone or other like service at any time.

Section 8 (2): Neither the Department nor any of its officers shall be liable to any action, claim or demand for compensation arising from the refusal to provide or authorize any telephone or other like service or from interruption of service through any cause whatever.

Section 47 (1): Except where otherwise provided by these regulations, all telephone lines, instruments and fittings in connexion with the telephone system shall be erected and supplied by the Department and shall be its exclusive property, and no person except an employee of the Department provided with proper means of identification shall interfere with or make any additions or alterations

to any wires, instruments or fitting under the Department’s control.

Section 47 (2): In the event of any such interference, the subscriber concerned shall be liable to have his service disconnected and he may be required to defray the costs of any alteration or replacement necessary.

Section 56: A subscriber who temporarily desires callers for his telephone number to be connected to another number, or to be otherwise specially treated during certain hours may, at the discretion of the Department, be granted this facility on the payment of 5s. for each temporary facility authorized.

F. 1 1 3 8 9 /6 3 .- 6

74

Section 62 (1): If any subscriber is convicted of carrying on any illegal business, and the place where the illegal business is carried on is connected to an exchange, or if any person is convicted of carrying on any illegal business at or in any such place, the Department may, without waiting for the result of any appeal from any such conviction determine the agreement with the subscriber, remove the subscriber’s name from the telephone directory, and remove all wires, instruments and other property of the Department used in connection with the service.

Section 62(2): If such agreement is determined during any period in respect of which rental has been paid in advance, a proportionate part of the rental shall be returned to the subscriber.

Section 62 (3): A subscriber shall, for the purpose of this regulation, be deemed to have been convicted of carrying on an illegal business if he is convicted of any of the following offences:— (a) Keeping any common gaming house, common betting house, common bawdy house, or house of disorderly entertainment;

(b) Keeping, occupying or using any house or premises in contravention of the law of any State relating to gaming or wagering; or (c) Keeping or occupying any house or premises for the illicit sale of intoxicating liquors, or the illicit supply of intoxicating liquors in exchange for any valuable consideration.

Section 62 (4): A person whose telephone service has been discontinued under this regulation shall not be allowed to become a subscriber again within six months of the date of discontinuance, and if at any time after that person again becomes a subscriber the Department has reasonable grounds to suppose that the subscriber is again carrying on an illegal business, the Department may forthwith determine the agreement and take the further action described in sub-regulation (1) of this regulation.

Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act No. 27:

Section 5 (1): 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 any other person to intercept, a communication passing over the telephone system.

Section 5 (2): The last preceding sub-section does not apply to or in relation to— (a) an act or thing done by an officer of the Department in the course of his duties for or in connection with— (i) the installation of a telephone line or any other apparatus or equipment or the

operation or maintenance of the telephone system; or (ii) the tracing of the origin of a telephone call during which a person has

contravened or is suspected of having contravened or of being likely to contravene a provision of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1950 or any regulation in force under that Act; or (b) the interception of a communication in pursuance of a warrant.

Section 5 (3): A person shall not divulge or communicate to another person, or make use of or record any information obtained by interception of communications passing over the telephone system except— (a) in or in connexion with the performance by the Organization of its functions or otherwise

for the security of the Commonwealth; or (b) in the performance of any duty of that first-mentioned person as an officer of that Department.

Post Office Guide, 1961:

Page 69: Conditions o f supply o f private boxes.

Ineligibility for tenancy:

If the Department has reason to believe that an applicant for a private box service is engaged either as agent or principal in a gambling or tipping service, it will refuse his application for a box and will cancel the tenancy of a private box already held if there is reason to believe that the box is being used for activities of this type. Similarly, the tenancy of boxes will be cancelled if there is reason to believe they are being used in connexion with any illegal, fraudulent, indecent or immoral purposes.

Tenancy will not be conceded to persons using fictitious or assumed names unless the Department is satisfied as to their bona fides and tenancy may be cancelled where a fictitious name so used by the tenant or a fictitious or assumed name or address has been given by the tenant in making application for the service.

The Department may cancel tenancy of a private box if it is held used or controlled by a person convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Tenancy is also subject to cancellation if the Departmental conditions as set out in the Form of Application are not observed by the tenant.

Where the tenancy of a box is cancelled for any of the foregoing reasons, no refund of key charges or unexpired rental is made.

75 4 7 9

A

Ararat . . ..

Bairnsdale ..

Ballarat . . ..

Belgrave . . ..

Bendigo . . ..

Berwick . . ..

Bruthen . . ..

Colac . . ..

D andenong ..

D aylesford ..

D romana . . ..

D rouin . . ..

E chuca .. ..

E uroa . . ..

F rankston ..

G eelong .. ..

M acedon .. ..

M erbein . . ..

M ildura .. ..

M ornington ..

M onbulk . . ..

M urchison ..

N agambie . . ..

Portland . . ..

R ye .. ..

Seaford .. ..

Sheeparton ..

Sorrento .. ..

Stawell .. ..

W illaura .. ..

W arrnambool ..

W angaratta ..

W arburton ..

W arracknabeal ..

W O O D E N D . . . .

Total: 35 Towns

APPENDIX “ Î’ ”

B C D

. L

3 . 4 . 1

4 . 12 . 1

2 . 2 . 1

1 . 1 . 1

1 . 1 . 1

1 . 1 . 1

3 . 4 . Nil

1 . 1 . 1

1 . 2 . 1

2 . 2 . Nil

1 . 1 . 1

2 . 2 . 2

1 . 1 . 1

7 . 9 . 2

2 . 4 . Nil

2 . 2 , 1

1 . 1 . Nil

2 . 7 . Nil

3 . 5 . 4

1 . 1 . 1

1 . 2 . Nil

3 . 4 . 2

2 . 2 . 1

1 . 1 . Nil

1 . 1 . 1

4 . 4 . 3

1 . 1 . 1

1 . 1 . 1

1 . 2 . 1

1 . 1 . 1

1 . 4 . 4

1 . 1 . Nil

1 . 3 . 1

1 . 2 . Nil

64 . 97 . 37

Key: A ·— Town or locality visited.

B — Number of occasions on which visited.

C — Number of premises entered.

D — Number of telephones cancelled following conviction.

f

77 431

THIRD APPENDIX

PART 1

C ommonwealth Statutes

Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1961— S . 9 ..................................

S.57 .. .. .. ..

S.96 .. .. .. ..

S.127.. .. .. .. ..

Second Schedule, Form A .. ..

Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960— S.5 .. .. .. .. ..

Public Service Act 1922-1960— S.55 (1) .. .. .. ..

Crimes Act 1914-1960— S.70 .. .. .. .. ..

PAGE

78 78 78 78

78

78

79

79

PART 2

Commonwealth R egulations

Telephone Regulations— R.8 .. .. .. .. .. .. .

R.16a (1) .. .. . . .. .. ..

R.47 .. .. .. .. .. ., ., ..

R.56 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ,.

R.62 .. ,. .. .. .. .. .. ..

R.137 ,, .. .. .. .. .. ..

Postal Regulations— R.97 (1) .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

R.99 (1) .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

R.138 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

R.139 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

R.255 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Telegraph Regulations— R.60 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Postal and Telegraphic Services (General) Regulations— R.2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Public Service Regulations— R.35 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

PART 3

Victorian Statutes

Police Offences Act 1958— S.122.. .. .. .. .. .. ..

S. 124.. .. .. .. .. .· ··

PART 4

Post Office Guide— Redirection of articles (1961) .. .. ..

Private Box Services (1955) .. .. ..

Conditions of Supply of Private Boxes (1961) ..

Instructions to Postmasters— paragraph 1338 (private boxes) .. .. ..

paragraph 1350 (private boxes) .. .. ..

paragraph 1353 (private boxes) .. .. ■ ·

paragraph 1681 (delivery of registered mail) .. paragraph 2344 (telegrams—secrecy) .. · ·

paragraph 2345 (telegrams—secrecy) .. · ·

Local Call Operating Instructions (Traffic Circular No. 6)— paragraphs 12, 14, 36, 239 (secrecy) ■. · ·

Engineering Instructions (Training)— paragraphs 1.2, 1.3 (secrecy) .. .. · ·

79 79 79 80

80 80

80 80 80 80 80

81

81

81

81 81

82 82 82

82 82 83 83 83 83

83

8 3

78

PART 1

COMMONWEALTH STATUTES

Post and Telegraph A ct 1901-1961

D e c l a r a t i o n s

t o b e t a k e n b y

o f fic e r s , & c .

S e c o n d

S c h e d u l e ( A ) .

P o w e r in

c e r t a i n c a s e s

t o r e f u s e

t o r e g i s t e r

o r d e l i v e r

l e t t e r s & c .

9. Every officer shall before exercising the duties of his office take and subscribe before a justice of the peace a declaration in the form A set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act.

57.—(1.) If the Postmaster-General has reasonable ground to suppose any person to be engaged either in the Commonwealth or elsewhere in receiving money or any valuable thing— (a) as consideration (1) for an assurance or agreement express or implied to pay or give or (2) for securing that some other person shall pay or give any money or valuable thing on an event or

contingency of or relating to any horserace or other race or any fight game sport or exercise; or (b) for promoting or carrying out a scheme connected with any such assurance agreement or security or a lottery or scheme of chance or an unlawful game; or (c) as contributions or subscriptions towards any lottery or scheme of chance; or (d) under pretence of foretelling future events; or (e) in connexion with a fraudulent obscene indecent or immoral business or undertaking; he may by order under his hand published in the Gazette direct that any postal article received at a post office adressed to such person either by his own or fictitious or assumed name or to any agent or representative of his or to an address without a name shall not be registered or transmitted or delivered to such person.

B l a s p h e m o u s

o b s c e n e a n d

s c a n d a l o u s

t e l e g r a m s m a y

b e r e f u s e d .

96. Any person employed under the authority of the Postmaster-General may refuse to receive or transmit a telegram containing blasphemous indecent obscene offensive or scandalous matter in its contents address or signature.

P e n a l t y t o r 127. Any person employed in a telegraph office who divulges the contents or substance of a telegram

s e c r e c y ! n ° otherwise than by delivering the telegram or giving a copy of it to the person to whom he is authorized to deliver

such telegram or give such copy shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and on conviction thereof shall be liable for every such offence to a penalty not exceeding One hundred pounds or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years.

Second Schedule.

Form A.

S e c t i o n 9 . I , A.B., do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will not willingly or knowingly open detain return or delay

or cause or suffer to be opened detained returned or delayed any postal article which shall come into my hands power or custody by reason of my employment relating to the Department except by the consent of the person or persons to whom such postal article shall be directed, or by an express warrant in writing for that purpose under the hand of the Postmaster-General or unless otherwise in pursuance and under the authority of any of the provisions in that behalf contained in any Act law or duly authorized regulation of the Department passed and made for or in relation to the postage and conveyance of postal articles. And I further declare that I will be true and faithful in the execution of the telegraph duties intrusted to me, and that I will hold strictly secret all telegraphic or other communications that may pass through my hands in the performance of my duties. I also further declare that I will not give any information directly or indirectly respecting any telegrams or despatches transmitted or intended to be transmitted by telegraph except to the persons to whom such telegrams or despatches may be addressed or to their recognised agents.

T e l e p h o n e

c o m m u n i c a t i o n s

n o t t o b e

i n t e r c e p t e d .

Telephonic C ommunications (Interception) A ct 1960

5.—(1.) 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 the telephone system.

Penalty: Five hundred pounds or imprisonment for two years.

(2.) The last preceding sub-section does not apply to or in relation to— (a) an act or thing done by an officer of the Department in the course of his duties for or in connexion with— (i) the installation of a telephone line or of any apparatus or equipment or the operation

or maintenance of the telephone system; or (ii) the tracing of the origin of a telephone call during which a person has contravened or is suspected of having contravened or of being likely to contravene a provision of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1950 or of any regulation in force under that

Act; or

(b) the interception of a communication in pursuance of a warrant.

(3.) A person shall not divulge or communicate to another person, or make use of or record, any information obtained by intercepting a communication passing over the telephone system except— (a) in or in connexion with the performance by the Organization of its functions or otherwise for the security of the Commonwealth; or

(b) in the performance of any duty of that first-mentioned person as an officer of the Department. Penalty: Five hundred pounds or imprisonment for two years.

79 4 3 3

(4.) An offence against this section may be prosecuted either summarily or upon indictment, but— (a) an offender is not liable to be punished more than once in respect of the same offence; (b) the offence shall not be prosecuted summarily except in the name of the Attorney-General; and (c) where the offence is prosecuted summarily, the court shall not impose a penalty exceeding a

fine of One hundred pounds or imprisonment for six months.

(5.) Subject to sub-section (2.) of this section, this section extends to a person in the service of the Commonwealth.

P ublic Service A ct 1922-1960

55.—(1.) An officer (other than an officer in the First or Second Division) who—

(a) wilfully disobeys or disregards any lawful order made or given by any person having authority to make or give the order; or (b) is negligent or careless in the discharge of his duties; or (c) is inefficient or incompetent through causes which appear to be within his own control; or (id) uses intoxicating liquors or drugs to excess; or

(e) is guilty of any disgraceful or improper conduct, either in his official capacity or otherwise; or i f ) commits any breach of the provisions of this Act or any regulations thereunder; or (g) having made or subscribed an oath or affirmation in the form in the Fourth Schedule of this Act, does or says anything in violation of that oath or affirmation; or

(h) has wilfully supplied to any officer or other person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth incorrect or misleading information in connexion with his appointment to the Commonwealth Service, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to such punishment as is determined upon/under the provisions of this section.

C r i m e s A c t 1914-1960

70.—(1.) A person who, being a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his knowledge, or into his possession, by virtue of his office, and which it is his duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2.) A person who, having been a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him), any fact or document which came to his knowledge, or into his possession, by virtue of his office, and which, at the time when he ceased to be a Commonwealth officer, it was his duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for two years.

PART 2

COMMONWEALTH REGULATIONS

T e l e p h o n e R e g u l a t i o n s

8.—(1.) The Department may at its discretion refuse to comply with any application for a telephone or other like service or for the transfer of any such existing service or for the construction or use of any telephone line or service and it also reserves the right to withdraw either totally or partially any telephone or other like service at any time.

(2.) Neither the Department nor any of its officers shall be liable to any action, claim, or demand for compensation arising from the refusal to provide or authorize any telephone or other like service or from interruption of service through any cause whatever.

16a,—(i.) Any person who, without the authority of the Department (proof whereof shall lie

upon him)— (a) connects any telephone line or apparatus to an authorized telephone line; (b) authorizes, permits or suffers any other person to connect any telephone line or apparatus to an authorized telephone line, or to use, directly or indirectly, any apparatus, device or

fittings for the purpose of listening to or recording any conversation, signal or any form of electrical communication passing or being received over any authorized telephone line or of interrupting any such telephone line; or (c) directly or indirectly uses any apparatus, device or fittings for the purpose of listening to or

recording any conversation signal or any form of electrical communication passing or being received over any authorized telephone line or of interrupting any such telephone line;

shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Twenty-five pounds.

47.—(1.) Except where otherwise provided by these Regulations, all telephone lines, instruments, and fittings in connexion with the telephone system shall be erected and supplied by the Department, and shall be its exclusive property, and no person except an employee of the Department provided with proper means of identification shall interfere with or make any additions or alterations to any wires, instruments, or fittings under the Department’s control.

(2.) In the event of any such interference, the subscriber concerned shall be liable to have his service disconnected, and he may be required to defray the cost of any alterations or replacements rendered necessary.

O f i e n e e i .

D i s c l o s u r e o f

i n f o r m a t i o n b y

C o m m o n w e a l t h

o f fic e r s .

P o w e r o f

D e p a r t m e n i .

U n a u t h o r i z e d

c o n n e x io n

w ith t e l e p h o n e

s y s te m , & c.

S u p p l y o f

a n p a r a t u s b y

D e p a r t m e n t .

81 435

T e l e g r a p h R e g u l a t i o n s .

60.—(1.) Subject to these Regulations “ collect” telegrams addressed to places within Australia may be accepted when the sender is known to the Postmaster or Officer in Charge, and signs an undertaking that, in the event of the addressee failing to pay the charges for the telegram, he will be responsible for the payment of the amount and the cost of the telegraphic advice of non-payment by the addressee.

(2.) Subject to these Regulations, when the sender is not known to the Postmaster or Officer in Charge, a “ collect ” telegram may be accepted upon the sender lodging with the Postmaster or Officer in Charge a deposit sufficient to cover the cost of transmission of the telegram and the advice of the addressee’s refusal to pay.

(3.) The word “ collect ” shall appear before the address of “ collect ” telegrams, and shall be counted and charged for as part of the telegram.

P o s t a l a n d T e l e g r a p h i c S e r v i c e s ( G e n e r a l ) R e g u l a t i o n s

2. Except under the directions of the Director, Posts and Telegraphs a postmaster or other employee shall not supply information regarding the financial position of any person, firm or company.

P u b l i c S e r v i c e R e g u l a t i o n s

35. Except in the course of official duty, no information concerning public business or any matter of which an officer has knowledge officially shall be given, directly or indirectly, nor shall the contents of official papers be disclosed, by an officer without the express authority of the Chief Officer.

PART 3

VICTORIAN STATUTES

P o l i c e O f f e n c e s A c t 1958

122. (1) Every person— who is registered as the proprietor printer or publisher of a newspaper; or who prints writes publishes exhibits sells circulates distributes gives away or causes to be printed written published exhibited sold circulated distributed or given away any placard handbill

card writing or notice (whether published printed or written in Victoria or elsewhere)— wherein or whereby— (a) it is made to appear that such person or any other person will if required— (i) bet in connexion with any intended horse race or pony race or trotting race in any

part of the Commonwealth; or (ii) give information or advice directly or indirectly as to the probable result of any such race; or (iii) give information or advice directly or indirectly as to the betting odds on any such

race; or

(b) any information or advice is given or purports to be given— (i) as to the probable result of any such race; or

(ii) as to the betting on any such race; or (iii) as to totalizators; or (iv) as to any unlawful game— shall be guilty of an offence:

Provided that nothing herein contained shall prohibit the publication in a newspaper by the proprietor printer or publisher thereof of a forecast of the probable result of any race but not by way of advertisement or for valuable consideration.

(2) Nothing in this or the last preceding section shall apply to the publication of information with regard to a prosecution for an offence.

124. (1) Any person who, at any time while a race-meeting is being held on a race-course, conveys or communicates by any means whatsoever or attempts to convey or communicate to any person not on such race-course any information relating (whether directly or indirectly) to the betting on such race-course on any race or any betting odds in connexion therewith shall be liable to a penalty of not more than Fifty

pounds or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months or to both such penalty and imprisonment.

(2) Nothing in the last preceding sub-section shall apply to the conveyance or communication of information as aforesaid to the place of printing of a registered newspaper in any case where such information is conveyed communicated and published under and subject to the conditions imposed in a permit in writing issued by the Chief Secretary and in force.

(3) For the purposes of this section a race-meeting shall be deemed to be held for a continuous period of time commencing one hour before the advertised starting time of the first race of the race-meeting on any day and ending at the advertised starting time of the last race of the race-mecting on that day.

“ C o l l e c t "

t e l e g r a m s .

I n f o r m a t i o n

n o t t o b e

d i v u lg e d .

i n f o r m a t i o n

n o t t o b e

A d v e r t i s e m e n t s

b v p e r s o n s

o f f e r in g t o b e t ,

o r o f f e r in g

i n f o r m a t i o n

o r a d v ic e

c o n c e r n i n g

b e t t i n g o r t h e

b e t t i n g o d d s

o r g iv in g

i n f o r m a t i o n

c o n c e r n i n g

u n l a w f u l

g a m e s & c.

C e r t a i n p u b l i c a t i o n s i n

n e w s p a p e r s p r o t e c t e d .

P e n a l t v f o r

c o m m u n i c a t i n g

c e r t a i n r a c i n g

i n f o r m a t i o n

r a c e m e e t in g is

b e i n g h e ld .

82

PART 4

POST OFFICE GUIDE

R edirection of A rticles other than P arcels

All types of mail, except parcels, may be redirected from the original address by any qualified person acting on behalf of the addressee. However, if any article is redirected to a person other than the original addressee, or if it bears the appearance of having been opened or tampered with, fresh postage, and, if the article is registered, a fresh registration fee, will be payable, otherwise the deficiency will be chargeable upon the addressee at delivery. Unregistered articles redirected by the public may either be posted in the ordinary way or handed to a postman. Registered articles so redirected

must be handed in at a post office counter for registration.

The Postal Department also undertakes to redirect articles upon application being made for the purpose by the addressee or head of the household concerned. If possible, applicants should use the special forms provided for the purpose at post offices. There is no charge for the service, which will be provided normally only for a term of six months unless in unusual circumstances which the Postal Department deems sufficient to justify a more extended term. Where, however,

a client desires to arrange by telegraph for the redirection of his mail, he must pay the costs of telecommunication service. Redirection service will not be fulfilled by the Postal Department unless it corresponds to an actual change of address, either permanent or temporary, by the applicant. In addition, the Postal Department will not undertake to redirect articles which can be redirected at the original place of address; for example, mail addressed to community addresses such as clubs, hotels, institutions, groups of flats served by a common delivery box or agent or the like; or mail addressed to the care of either a private box or private mail bag holder.

Finally, the Postal Department will refuse requests for redirection service from an address where the applicant has neither resided nor carried on business previously.

Senders of postal articles may, if they so desire, include a specific direction upon mail they send out that it is not to be readdressed but returned to them if the addressee has left the address shown. Clients should note that a direction to the foregoing effect will be obeyed by the Postal Department only if it contains a specific request for return of the article to the sender as well as the request for no redirection service to be given.

Redirection to another country will be provided for all types of mail permitted entry to the country of destination.

(1961 Edition, pages 64-65.)

Private Box Services

351. Cancellation of Service.—The Department may cancel the tenancy of a private box at any time if the person who rents such box fails to comply with the prescribed conditions or if the Department has reason to believe that the box— (a) is being used for any purpose, or in connexion with any matter mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) inclusive of sub-section (1) of section 57 of the Post and Telegraph Act.

(b) has been used by, or by the permission of, the tenant for or in connexion with any illegal, fraudulent, indecent, or immoral purpose; or (c) is held, used, or controlled by a person who has been convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty; or (d) is held by any person using a fictitious name, or who in his application for the private box service gave

a fictitious or assumed name or address.

Where the tenancy of a private box is so cancelled no portion of the rental for the box nor the amount paid for the use of the keys will be refunded. (1955 Edition, page 290.)

Conditions of Supply of P rivate Boxes

Ineligibility for Tenancy If the Department has reason to believe that an applicant for private box service is engaged either as agent or principal in a gambling or tipping business, it will refuse his application for a box, and will cancel the tenancy of a private box already held if there is reason to believe that the box is being used for activities of this type. Similarly the tenancy of boxes will be cancelled if there is reason to believe that the box is being used in connection with any illegal, fraudulent, indecent or immoral

purpose. Tenancy will not be conceded to persons using fictitious or assumed names unless the Department is satisfied as to their bona fides, and tenancy may be cancelled where a fictitious name so used by the tenant, or a fictitious or assumed name or address has been given by the tenant in making application for the service.

The Department may cancel the tenancy of a private box if it is held, used, or controlled by a person convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Tenancy is also subject to cancellation if the Departmental conditions as set out in the form of application are not observed by the tenant.

Where the tenancy of a box is cancelled for any of the foregoing reasons, no refund of key charges or unexpired rental is made. (1961 Edition, page 69.)

INSTRUCTIONS TO POSTMASTERS

1338. Postmasters are authorized to let private boxes subject to the conditions prescribed in the Post Office Guide which should be read and observed in conjunction with the following instructions. Where the Postmaster suspects that the box will be used for the purposes outlined in Section 6 of the Post Office Guide the application together with a full report, must be forwarded to the District Inspector.

1350. Although a box-holder generally is not entitled to have his mail delivered other than to his private box, the following exceptions to this rule apply:— A private box-holder, or his agent, who has forgotten to bring the box key to the Post Office may, as an exceptional measure and subject to identification, collect the private box mail at the counter. This should

not be allowed as a regular practice. The counter officer should tactfully explain that the box mail should be cleared in the normal manner.

83

437

1353. Disclosure o f Name o f Box-holder.

The name and address of any private box-holder must not be given to inquirers unless the Postmaster has been authorized by the Director to supply this information.

1681. Delivery at a Post Office:—Registered articles for delivery at a Post Office must not be sorted with ordinary mail matter nor be placed in the delivery pigeon-holes, or private boxes, but must be kept apart in a secure place under lock and key.

2344. Contents o f Telegrams to be kept Secret.

The contents of telegrams handled by officers must be regarded as strictly confidential. An officer must not read or make himself acquainted with the contents of a telegram, except in the course of his duty; nor must the contents of a telegram be made the subject of conversation in the office or communicated from one officer to another, except in the ordinary course of transmission.

2345. Section 127 of the Post and Telegraph Act provides that any person employed in a telegraph office who wrongfully divulges the contents or substance of a telegram passing through his hands, or which is seen or heard by him in the performance of his duties, shall be liable to a penalty of £100 or two years’ imprisonment. Moreover, it is contrary to the Declaration of Secrecy (which all officers are required to make in accordance with Section 9 of the Post and Telegraph

Act) to give any information directly or indirectly respecting any telegram transmitted or intended to be transmitted by telegraph except to the person to whom such telegram may be addressed or to his recognized agent.

TRAFFIC CIRCULAR No. 6

Local Call O perating Instructions

12. Telephonists shall not listen to a conversation between subscribers other than to supervise the call in accordance with the normal procedure.

14. Secrecy Officers are reminded that they make a declaration of secrecy when entering the Service and are forbidden to divulge any information which they may overhear passing between users of the telephone, or of which they become aware. Any violation of this rule will be regarded seriously.

36. Visitors Visitors to an exchange must first secure permission from the Superintendent, Telephone Service Branch, or the Postmaster in the case of country exchanges, and unauthorized persons must not be allowed in the switch-room or the Telephonists’ quarters.

239. Request for Name o f Telephonist If a subscriber asks a Telephonist for her name, he shall be connected to the Officer-in-Charge, who should first be advised of the request.

ENGINEERING INSTRUCTIONS

T raining—T echnicians—A1010 (C.O. I nstruction)

G eneral I nformation for T rainees—P aras. 1.2 and 1.3—Secrecy

In telephone exchanges and subscribers premises you will overhear and see things which must be kept secret and not discussed with any other person.

The Commonwealth Crimes Act and the Posts and Telegraphs Act prescribe severe penalties for disclosing official business to unauthorized persons and for any other serious misconduct.

Distribution to all Technicians-in-Training, Supervising Technicians and O.I.C.’s, Technician Stations.

85

439

FOURTH APPENDIX

Memorandum of the Acting Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth

P age

86

86

MEMORANDUM OF THE ACTING SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH DATED 28th MAY, 1962.

Some questions have been raised by the Acting Premier of Victoria as to the scope of the second term of reference in His Honour’s Commission. The Attorney-General has had a personal discussion with Mr. Rylah and explained the Government’s intention in expressing this term of reference in the form it takes. Mr. Rylah is satisfied that the words should bear the meaning which the Attorney-General has indicated to him and which the Government intends by them. The Attorney-General has agreed with him that counsel shall be instructed to contend for and to accept this interpretation of the language of the Commission.

Accordingly, the Attorney-General has asked me so to instruct you and I set out categorically the meanings intended by the words and phrases concerned as they are found in the second term of reference.

1. The word “ refusal ” is intended to include and to cover “ failure ” , so that a lack of co-operation which was passive would fall within the term of reference.

2. The word “ improper ” where firstly occurring is intended to include and to cover refusals or failures which were due to misconception on the part of an officer as to what could properly be done by way of co-operation as well as refusals or failures actuated by motives of a reprehensible kind.

3. The words “ if any ” ought to be regarded as present after the words “ what improper motives ” in the latter part of the term of reference.

4. The expression “ administrative procedures ” is intended to include directives, practices and procedures given or adopted as part of or to carry the policy of secrecy of communication made through or by post office services but is not intended to include practices or procedures adopted or followed merely for departmental convenience unrelated to such policy of secrecy.

J. Q. EWENS Acting Solicitor-General.

87

431

FIFTH APPENDIX

PART 1

Particulars of Allegations by the State of Victoria—

I. Particulars of Improper Practices ..

II. Particulars of Failure to co-operate ..

Page

88

102

PART 2

Particulars of additional allegations by the State of Victoria .. .. .. .. .. .. 104

P A R T 1

p a r t i c u l a r s d e l i v e r e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r ,

Mr. JUSTICE TAYLOR

I P articulars of Improper P ractices w ithin T erm of R eference ( a ) of the Commission

A.

(a) The technician installing a telephone in premises—(whether business or private premises)—and finding another or other telephone services already installed—fails to bring this fact to the notice of his senior officer.

φ ) I f any such report is made, the senior officer to whom such a report is made fails to convey this information to the Commercial Branch or to take any further steps in the matter. _

(c) In the case of the receipt of such a report a special officer is not detailed in each such case to visit such premises and make a thorough investigation. (d) No such special officer makes any such thorough investigation in each such case.

(e) If any such thorough investigation is made, no further step is taken in many cases.

(f) Such omissions as are detailed in («) to (e) above result from an improper carrying out of the practice of the Department as set out in Policy Directions of 14th June, 1950 and 16th October, 1956. (g) It is alleged that such failures have occurred in connexion with the following matters investigated by the Police

since 1956:—

D a t e .

P l a c e a n d D e s c r i p t i o n . T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r s .

P o l i c e C o n c e r n e d .

1. 26.9.56 . . 80 High-street, Westgarth. Dwelling ..

JW 4189 JW 1771

S/C. Cook

2. 20.11.56 . . 7 Pilley-street, East St. Kilda. Dwelling ..

LA 2730 LA 2948 LA 3322 LA 6436

3. 21.11.56 . . 275a Glenferrie-road, Malvern. Office ..

UY 2164 UY 4862 UY 5030 UY 5244

4. 8.12.56 . . 17 Howe-parade, South Melbourne. Dwel­

ling

MX 6123 MX 6124

5. 2.2.57 . . 42 Bilston-street, Balaclava. Dwelling . .

LB 3478 LB 4164

6. 2.3.57 . . 35 Tennyson-street, Kew. Dwelling . .

WM 8473 WM 9959

7. 22.5.57 . . 51 Greeves-street, Fitzroy. Dwelling . .

JA 1286 JA 2659 JA 3685 JA 4848

g 6.7.57 . .

81 Nicholson-street, East Coburg. Dwelling MJ 3183 MJ 3403 9. 14.9.57 . . 194 Dow-street, Port Melbourne. Dwelling

10. 2.11.57 . . Room 10, 252 Sydney-road, Brunswick.

Office

11. 9 11.57 . . Room 2, 1st Floor, Moor Arcade, 600

Burke-road, Camberwell. Office UJ 8225 UJ 9063 12. 23.11.57 . . 18 Main Hey-crescent, Springvale. Dwel­

ling

1 st Floor, 62 Dudley-street, West Melbourne. Office

13. 1.2.58 . .

FY 3841 FY 3842 FY 3843

14. 8.1.58 . · 19 Canberra-street, Brunswick. Dwelling

FM 5029 FM 5763

15. 15.2.58 .. 21 David-street, Brunswick. Dwelling ..

FW 9077 FW 5070

16. 15.2.58 .. 14 McCrae-street, Elwood. Dwelling . .

XA 1856 XA 2891

17. 22.2.58 .. 18 Mentone-parade, Mentone. Dwelling

XF 5805 XF 1556

18. 1.3.58 . . 204 Vere-street, Collingwood. Shed . .

JA 6416 JA 6493

19. 15.3.58 .. 13 Plantation-avenue, Brighton. Dwelling

XB 2324 XB 2385

20. 7.4.58 .. 521 Elizabeth-street. Dwelling .. . ■

FJ 2445 FJ 4876 FJ 5987

21. 7.4.58 .. 327 Collins-street, Melbourne. Office ..

MU 4635 MB 2115 MB 2116

89 4 : 3

D a t e . P l a c e a n d D e s c r i p t i o n . T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r s . P o l i c e C o n c e r n e d .

22. 12.7.58 .. 282 Warrigal-road, South Oakleigh. Dwel­

ling

LU 1500 LU 2170

S/'C. Cook

23. 26.7.58 .. 548 City-road, South Melbourne Dwelling MX 4423

MX 4820

24. 22.10.58 .. 1st Floor, 40 Elgin-street, Carlton. Factory F J 3311

FJ 6434

»

25. 25.10.58 .. Flat 20, 176 Wellington-parade, East Mel­

bourne. Dwelling

JA 1717 JA 3535

»

26. 4.11.58 .. Flat 2, 17 Bowman-street, Mordialloc.

Dwelling

XY 4127 XY 3058

27. 21.2.59 .. 48 Wilson’s-road, Mornington. Bungalow M’tn. 2463

M’tn. 2476

»

28. 11.7.59 .. 361 Clarendon-street, South Melbourne.

Office

MX 6488 MX 6533

»

29. 20.8.60 .. 1st Floor, 111 High-street, Kew. Office .. WM 7070

WM 7799 WM 8486

30. 29.8.59 .. 425 Elizabeth-street, Melbourne. Shop .. FJ 6577

FJ 9510

31. 26.9.59 .. 238 Barkly-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling .. 94 4184

94 3675

-

32. 18.2.61 .. 70 Edinburgh-street, Flemington. Dwelling FF 3508

FF 1950

33. 18.2.61 .. 38 Milton-parade, Tooronga. Factory .. BY 3472

BY 4708

34. 11.4.62 .. Rear 88 Rutland-road, Box Hill. Bungalow 89 8180

35. 14.4.62 .. Flat 8, 245 Dandenong-road, Windsor.

Dwelling

LA 4368 LA 1795

> *

36. 23.2.57 .. Flat 1, 51 Acland-street, St. Kilda. Dwel­

ling

LA 8773 LA 9829

S/D. Silvester

37. 2.3.57 .. Room 2, Mezzanine Floor, above 1st Floor,

483 Collins-street, Melbourne. Office MB 1165 MB 3040 MB 3049 MB 3757 MB 3758

38. 13.3.57 .. 84 McConnell-street, Kensington. Dwel­

ling

FF 2630 FF 2825

39. 16.3.57 .. 3 Sheridan-grove, Caulfield. Dwelling .. XM 2231

XM 5347

40. 17.6.57 .. 414-416 Bay-street, Brighton. Bungalow XM 2851

XM 2852 XM 2853 XM 2171

41. 27.6.57 .. Drewery-place, Melbourne. Office .. FB 1163

FB 1164 • FB 2467 FB 1165 FB 1166

FB 2468 FB 1167 FB 1168 FB 2469 FB 1169 FB 2172 FB 2173 FB 2174 FB 2463 FB 2464 FB 2465 FB 2466

42. 27.8.57 .. Flat 12, 6 West Beach-road, St. Kilda.

Dwelling

LA 2250 LA 4213

43. 28.8.57 .. 28 Crimea-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling .. LA 3000

LA 1050 LA 4998 LA 2349

44. 21.9.57 .. 332 Wyndham-street, Shepparton. S hed.. S’ton 333 ,,

45. 28.9.57 .. 16 Davis-street, North Carlton. Dwelling FJ 2436

FJ 2386

46. 15.1.58 .. Room 7, 386 Flinders-lane, Melbourne.

Office

MB 4197 MB 4649 MB 5548 MB 5549

F .l 1389/63.— 7

90

47.

48. 49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66 .

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

D a t e . P l a c e a n d D e s c r i p t i o n .

T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r s . P o l i c e C o n c e r n e d .

1.2.58

15.2.58 22.2.58

Room 601, 6th Floor, 46 Elizabeth-street, Melbourne. Office Hunter-street, Macedon. Dwelling .. 9 Norman-avenue, South Yarra. Dwelling

8.3.58 .. 66 Barrow-street, Coburg. Dwelling

8.4.58

24.5.58

1.8.58

.. 241 The Boulevard, Port Melbourne.

Dwelling

.. Chapel Lodge, 16a Chapel-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling .. 325 Collins-street, Melbourne. Office ..

16.8.58 .. Flat 4, 201 Beaconsfield-parade, Middle Park. Dwelling 13.9.58 .. 217 Fitzroy-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling ..

3.12.58 5th Floor, 116 Queen-street, Melbourne.

Office

28.2.59

7.3.59

.. 410 Brunswick-street, Fitzroy. Disused bank vault .. 392 Richardson-street, Middle Park.

Dwelling

7.3.59 .. 42 Neerim-road, Caulfield. Dwelling

9 .3 . 5 9 .. 52 Collins-street, Melbourne. Office

9.3.59

11.3.59

Room 19, 386 Flinders-lane, Melbourne. Office 9 Dalgety-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling ..

14.3.59

21.3.59

1st Floor, 104 Wellington-parade. Dwel­ ling 139 High-street, Prahran. Office ..

7.5.59

30.5.59

5.6.59

20.6.59

4.7.59

19.3.60

9.4.60

9.4.60

21.11.56

Room 42, Palace Court, 343 Beaconsfield- parade, St. Kilda. Dwelling 1st Floor, 50-52 Market-street, Melbourne. Office 78 Jolimont-road, Jolimont, Flat 2. Dwel­

ling

Room 8, 128 Jolimont-road, Jolimont. Dwelling Rear 2 Gilbert-road, Preston. Office . .

376 High-street, Northcote. Shop ..

1st Floor, 186 Gertrude-street, Fitzroy. Dwelling Rear 761 Gilbert-road, Reservoir. Dwel­ ling

1st Floor, 363 Little Collins-street, Mel­ bourne. Office

7.12.56 1091 Hoddle-street, East Melbourne.

Dwelling

ME 6541 MF 6542 M’don 235 BJ 2626 BJ 2629 FM 3859

FM 4307 MJ 1351 MJ 1582

LA 4311 LA 4384 MB 1509 MB 1543

MB 1575 MB 1851 MB 1852 MB 1853 MB 1854

MB 4889 MX 4213 MX 6292 XJ 5601 XJ 5136 MU 4376 MU 2780 MU 3396 JA 6137 JA 5587 XJ 1869 X J 1860 XJ 3339 XJ 7134 LU 2696 UL 5366 MF 3609 MF 5657 MF 8376 MB 1515 MA 3388 XJ 4224 XJ 5495 JA 2722 JA 2507 LA 6611 LA 5825 XJ 4275 XJ 4811 MB 4571

MB 4573 MF 3107 MF 3108 63 8407 63 1657 JJ 1097 JJ 5320 JW 5135 JW 6628 JA 6321 JA 2546 JU 4328 JU 6221 JU 4533

MU 1556 MU 1573 MU 3312 MU 5474 JA 4344 JA 4866 JA 6882

S/D. Silvester

Sgt. McKay

27.3.57 88 Gellibrand-street, Colac. Office Colac 587

Colac 650 Colac 883 Colac 720

91 435

D a t e . P l a c e a n d D e s c r i p t i o n . T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r s .

76. 17.6.57 .. 619 Brunswick-street, Fitzroy. Dwelling .. JW 1757

JW 6713

77. 22.6.57 .. 425 Church-street, Richmond. Shop . . JB 4476

JB 4942

78. 13.7.57 .. 91 Lennox-street, Richmond. Dwelling .. JA 6100

JA 6640

79. 13.7.57 .. 7 Darlington-parade, Richmond. Dwelling JB 2687

JB 1471

80. 27.7.57 .. 11 Edna-grove, East Coburg. Dwelling .. FL 4265

FL 2326

81. 3.8.57 .. 248 Scotchmer-street, North Fitzroy. Dwel­

ling

JW 4063 JW 2062

82. 5.10.57 .. 1409 Burke-road, East Kew. Office .. WL 6149

WL 5843

83. 17.5.58 .. Flat 7,25 Rose-street, Armadale. Dwelling BY 4228

UY 1250

84. 9.8.58 .. Goldcraft Plating Works, 27-33 Alfred-

street, Montague. Factory

MX 1597 MX 1589 MX 4486

85. 28.2.59 .. Havelock-street, Beaufort. Dwelling .. B’fort 252

B’fort 259

86. 29.8.59 .. 22 P_oseberry-street, Hawthorn. Dwelling WB 3794

WB 4011

87. 2.12.61 .. 28 Crimea-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling .. LA 3151

LA 7230 LA 8322

88. 16.12.61 .. 48 Wilsons-road, Mornington. Dwelling.. M’ton 3149

89. 17.12.60 .. 217 Fitzroy-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling . . XJ 5601

XJ 5136

90. 12.12.59 .. 53 Westbury-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling .. LB 4342

LB 4225

91. 27.2.60 .. Room 1, 4th Floor, 116 Queen-street, Mel­

bourne. Office

MU 2189 MU 1082 MU 4524

92. 5.3.60 .. 157 Princes-street, Flemington. Office .. FF 2421

FF 1111 FF 2598 FF 2069

93. 2.1.61 .. F I3, 50 Walsh-street, South Yarra. Dwel­

ling

BM 3891 BM 3295

94. 20.5.61 .. 27 Hillside-crescent, Maribyrnong. Dwel­

ling

FU 2425 FU 8383

95. 7.10.61 .. 13a Albion-street, Elsternwick. Dwelling 91 4180

91 4187

96. 21.10.61 .. 231 Union-road, Ascot Vale. Shop . . FU 1191

FU 3933

97. 25.11.61 .. 231 Union-road, Ascot Vale. Shop .. FU 1191

FU 3933

98. 26.9.59 .. 15 McDonald-street, Mordialloc .. XY 1006

XY 3267

98a. 19.5.56 .. 16a Chapel-street, St. Kilda. Flat .. LA 4045

LA 1423 LA 1423 LA 4009 LA 1548

LA 1421 LA 3467 LA 5371 LA 1422 LA 1526 LA 3704 LA 3635 LA 1520

LA 5323 LA 3698 LA 1525 LA 1550 LA 3649 LA 1742 LA 1743 LA 3485 LA 5371 LA 3601

P o l i c e C o n c e r n e d .

Sgt. McKay

S/C. Taylor

S/D. Wood

Const. Herman

Sgt. Miller

92

98b.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

D a t e .

P l a c e a n d D e s c r i p t i o n .

29.3.56 .. 905 Havelock-street, Ballarat North. Out­ building

26.5.56 .. 125 Flinders-lane, Melbourne. Office ..

26.5.56 .. 110-112 King-street, Melbourne. Office ..

4.6.56 114 Bridge-road, Richmond. Office

27.10.56 7 Station-street, Malvern. Shop

5th Floor, 252 Swanston-street, Melbourne, Office

3rd Floor, Cromwell Buildings, 366 Bourke- street, Melbourne. Office

14.6.56 63 Market-street, Kensington. Office

T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r s .

LA 3467 LA 5372 LA 1746 LA 3643

LA 1512 LA 3485 LA 6833 LA 4367

LA 1579 LA 3417 LA 1511 LA 2570

LA 6834 LA 1547 LA 1742

LA 1743 LA 1513 LA 5372

LA 6832 LA 1546 LA 1741 LA 6831 793 856 3109

MF 6517 MF 6518 MF 6519 MF 6591 MF 6592 MF 6593 MF 6456 MF 6457 MF 6458 MB 1283 MB 2197 MB 2283 MB 2284 MB 5851 MB 5852 MB 2195 (2) MB 2196 (2) JA 5318 JA 5319 JA 5310 JA 4433 JA 5368 JA 5369 JA 5360

UY 3138 UY 3139 UY 4021

FB 3425 FB 3426 FB 1592 FB 2875 FB 2876 Two unmarked

phones MU 7111 MU 7112 MU 7113 MU 7114 MU 7115 MU 4321 MU 4422 FF 1381 FF 1382 FF 1383 FF 1384 FF 1385

FF 1386

P o l i c e C o n c e r n e d .

Sgt. Shuey

Sgt. Miller

93

437

D a t e . P l a c e a n d D e s c r i p t i o n . T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r s . P o l i c e C o n c e r n e d .

106. 16.6.56 .. 3rd Floor, 69 Hardware-street, Melbourne.

Office

MU 6300 MU 6303 MU 6304 MU 6305 MU 6306

MU 6307 MU 6308 MU 6309 MU 2211

Sgt. Miller

107. 27.6.56 .. 330 Nicholson-street, Fitzroy. Shop .. JA 4266

JA 5171 JA 5172 JA 5173 JA 5282 JA 5283 JA 5284

108. 27.6.56 .. 1st Floor, 2nd Floor, Commercial Bank

Building, 245 Elizabeth-street, Melbourne. Office

MU 2325 MU 3731 Two unmarked telephones

109. 27.6.56 .. 2nd Floor, 469 Little Collins-street, Mel­

bourne. Office

MY 1735 MY 1736 MY 1737 MY 1505

110. 28.6.56 .. 182 King-street, Melbourne. Office .. MU 8503

MU 8386 MU 8369

111. 28.6.56 .. Elmore Advertising Agency, 333 Latrobe-

street, Melbourne. Office

MU 3220 MU 8217 MU 9962 MU 3455

MU 8218 MU 9963 MU 4837 MU 8219 MU 9964

112. 30.6.56 .. 556 Flinders-street, Melbourne. Shop .. MB 5173

MB 5342 MB 5341 MB 5343

113. 6.7.56 .. 322 Little Lonsdale-street, Melbourne.

Garage room

MU 9576 MU 9577 MU 9578 MU 2975

114. 7.7.56 .. 78 Canberra-grove, Brighton. Dwelling .. XB 5164

XB 2786

115. 11.7.56 .. 675 Hawthorn-road, Brighton. Dwelling.. LW 5359

LW 5345

116. 14.7.56 .. 3rd Floor, R33, 361 Collins-street, Mel­

bourne. Office

MU 3853 MB 4282 MB 2638

99

117. 28.7.56 .. 1st Floor, 46 William-street, Melbourne.

Office

MB 4407 MB 4408 MB 4409

99

118. 28.7.56 .. Flat 4, 14 Garden-avenue, East Melbourne.

Dwelling

JA 3691 JA 3746 JA 4414

99

119. 3.8.56 .. 2nd Flat, 121 Leicester-street, Carlton.

Office

1

FJ 2346 FJ 5187 FJ 6115 FJ 5165

FJ 5188 FJ 6116 FJ 5166 FJ 5189

FJ 9030 FJ 5167 FJ 5353 FJ 9038

FJ 5180 FJ 5936 FJ.9039

94

D a t e . P l a c e a n d D e s c r i p t i o n . T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r s . P o l i c e C o n c e r n e d .

120. 4.8.56 .. 33 Tribe-street, South Melbourne. Dwel­

ling

MX 6140 MX 6149

Sgt. Miller

121. 4.8 .5 6 .. 2nd Floor, 259 Elizabeth-street, Melbourne.

Office

MU 6641 MU 6652 MU 6642 MU 6653 MU 1025 MU 6659

122. 4.8.56 .. 2nd Floor, 259 Elizabeth-street, Melbourne.

Dwelling

MU 5750 MU 5759

123. 8.8.56 .. 172 Queensberry-street, North Melbourne.

Warehouse

FY 3053 FY 3054 FY 3055 FY 1579

"

124. 11.8.56 .. 1 Daly-street, West Brunswick. Dwelling FW 1335

FW 2437

125. 18.8.56 .. 72 Holmes-street, Brunswick. Dwelling .. FM 5297

FM 5298 FM 5299

126. 22.8.56 .. Room 5, 8th Floor, 343 Little Collins-street,

Melbourne. Office

MU 4595 MU 5266 MU 5277 MU 7264 MU 7265

127. 23.8.56 .. 321 King-street, Melbourne. Office .. MU 5405

MU 5406 MU 6438 MU 6439 MU 7493 MU 7494 MU 9945 MU 9946

128. 24.8.56 .. 1st Floor, 438 Flinders-street, Melbourne.

Rooms

MB 5303 MB 5456 MB 5457 MB 5458 MB 5280 MB 5289 MB 3162 MB 3452 M B 3159

129. 24.8.56 .. 236 Latrobe-street, Melbourne. Warehouse FJ 5635

FJ 6121 FJ 6222 FJ 9271 FJ 9272 FJ 9273

130. 25.8.56 .. 116 Gertrude-street, Fitzroy. Shop .. JA 3188

JA 3189 JA 4870 JA 2514

'

131. 25.8.56 .. 1 High-street, Prahran. Out-building .. LA 3704

LA 3724 LA 3820 LA 4012 LA 3910 LA 4079

132. 25.8.56 .. 92 Hoddle-street, Abbotsford. Shop .. JA 2131

JA 2132 JA 5294 JA 5295

"

133. 4.9.56 .. Room 212, 2nd Floor, 325 Collins-street,

Melbourne. Office

MB 3301 MB 3302 MB 3303 MB 1938 MB 3304 MB 1186

134. 13.10.56 .. 46 Walbundry-avenue, North Balwyn.

Dwelling

WL 1296 ”

135. 20.10.56 .. 510 Victoria-parade, East Melbourne.

Dwelling

JA 6161 JA 6557 JA 6979

95 439

Date. Place and Description. ! Telephone Numbers. Police Concerned.

136. 27.10.56 .. 3 Buckley-street, Noble Park. Dwelling .. UJ 8051

UJ 9519

Sgt. Miller

137. 8.11.56 .. 66 Marshall-street, Flemington. Dwelling FF 2644

FF 3377 FF 1746

138. 20.6.59 .. 195 Gertrude-street, Fitzroy. Dwelling .. JA 1667

JA 5500

Det. 1/Const. McDonald

139. 9.2.57 .. 6 Martin-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling ..

(Items 140-216 appear on pages 9"

LU 6866 LU 6874

7-103.)

Sen./Det. Harding

217. 18.8.56 .. 6 Oulten-street, Caulfield. Dwelling .. LF 1120

LF 1129

S/D. Silvester

218. 15.8.56 .. 680 Sydney road, Brunswick. Dwelling .. FW 2289

FW 6484 FW 8225

’·

219. 22.8.56 .. Flat 4, 13 Park street, East Brunswick.

Dwelling

FW 5146 FW 5147 FW 5879

’’

220. 28.8.56 .. 378 Elizabeth-street, Melbourne. Office .. FJ 4614

FJ 4615 FJ 2552

221. 29.8.56 .. 1 Wellington-street, Prahran. Office .. LA 1241

LA 1242 LA 1243 LA 1244 LA 2069 LA 2457 LA 3095

222. 30.8.56 .. 70 Nepean-highway, Elsternwick. Shop

Dwelling

LF 5271 LF 5272

223. 1.9.56 .. 377 Park-street, South Melbourne. Bun­

galow

MX 2560 MX 2479

·’

224. 7.9.56 .. 266 Queens-parade, Clifton Hill. Dwelling JW 6451

JW 6452 JW 6453

225. 7.9.56 .. Room 35, 2nd Floor, 430 Bourke-street,

Melbourne. Office

MU 6504 MU 4010 MU 6501 MU 6502 MU 6503 MY 1458 MY 1459

226. 7.9.56 .. Room 3, 6th Floor, 17 Elizabeth-street,

Melbourne. Office

MB 4900 MB 4909 MB 4934 MB 4980

227. 12.9.56 .. 20 Barkly-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling .. LU 6848

LU 6849 LA 7519

228. 13.9.56 .. 58 Alexandra-street, South Yarra. Dwel­

ling

BM 3404 BM 3487

’·

229. 22.9.56 .. 54 Grosvenor-street, St. Kilda East. Dwel­

ling

LB 3711 LB 3712

230. 8.12.56 .. 54 Grosvenor-street, St. Kilda East. Dwel­

ling

LB 3711 LB 3712

*'

231. 17.11.56 .. 8 Rosamond-street, Balaclava. Dwelling.. XA 1768

XA 2671

232. 29.11.56 .. 1st Floor, 338 Hawthorn-road, Caulfield.

Office

LF 2061 LF 2068 LF 2072

LF 3987

233. 6.7.56 .. 17 Guildford-lane, Melbourne. Office .. MY 1817

MY 1818

S/C. Cook

MY 1819 MY 1858 MY 1859 MY 1860

MY 1810 MU 2520

96

D a t e . P l a c e a n d D e s c r i p t i o n . T e l e p h o n e N u m b e r s . P o l i c e C o n c e r n e d .

234. 18.7.56 .. Room 1, 6th Floor, 443 Little Collins-street,

MU 1235 MU 3712 MU 1703 MU 6947 S/C. Cook

235. 15.8.56 ..

Melbourne. Office

390 Lonsdale-street, Melbourne. Dwelling

MU 6948 MU 8221 MU 8222 MY 1268

236. 21.8.56 .. 1st Floor, 33 Guildford-lane, Melbourne.

MY 1269 MU 2610

237. 29.8.56 ..

Office 80 Douglas-parade, Williamstown. Factory MU 2615 ML 6585

238. 3.9.56 .. 125-127 Acland-street, St. Kilda. Dwelling

ML 6881 LA 9807

239. 5.9.56 ..

Room 14 .. .. .. ..

15 Kambea-grove, Caulfield. Dwelling ..

LA 9808 LA 9809 LA 6863 LA 9831 LA 9832 LA 9833 LA 6682 LA 6683 LA 6659 LA 6604 LF 1158

240. 24.9.56 .. 521 Elizabeth-street, Melbourne. Dwelling

LF 4231 LF 8244 LF 8373 LF 8673 FJ 2445

241. 7.4.58 .. 521 Elizabeth-street, Melbourne. Dwelling

FJ 4876 FJ 5987 FJ 2445

242. 26.9.56 .. 80 High-street, Westgarth. Dwelling ..

FJ 4876 FJ 5987 JW 4189

243. 20.11.56 .. 7 Pilley-street, East St. Kilda. Dwelling ..

JW 1771 LA 2730

244. 21.11.56 .. 275a Glenferrie-road, Malvern. Office ..

LA 2948 LA 3322 LA 6436 UY 2164

245. 8.12.56 .. 17 Howe-parade, South Melbourne. Dwel-

UY 4862 UY 5030 UY 5244 MX 6123

246. 31.12.55 ..

ling

106 Webster-street, Ballarat. Dwelling .. MX 6124 B’rat 4145 Sgt. Shuey

247. 11.7.56 .. 434 Flinders-street, Melbourne. Office ..

B'rat 917 B’rat 278 MB 1244 Sgt. Miller

248. 20.10.56 .. 4 Park-street, Northcote. Dwelling ..

MB 4977 MB 4978 MB 4979

MB 4980 JW 5544 S/D. Silvester

249. 10.5.58 .. 55 Flemington-road, North Melbourne.

JL 8888 FY 1304

250. 24.3.56 ..

Dwelling

49 Hunter-street, Malvern. Dwelling ..

FY 1895 FY 4038 FY 3322 FY 3323 UY 6307 Sgt. Miller

251. 26.6.62 .. 1113 Sydney-road, North Coburg. Shop..

UY 2565 FL 3305 Sgt. Habermann

252. 5.4.62 .. 484 North-road, Ormond. Dwelling . .

FL 3306 FL 3307 FL 3308 58 1935 Insp. Hill

253. 5.5.62 . . 35 Henty-street, Portland. Dwelling .. Sgt. Habermann

97 5 31

B.

P.M.G. technicians from time to time instal telephones in premises without me appropriate authority from their superiors to do so. It is alleged that in some of the matters set out under A (g) such unauthorized installation has taken place. Without examining the files of the Postmaster-General’s Department in connexion with the above-mentioned phones and their installation, particulars instancing such activity cannot be given. It is requested that the State of Victoria be permitted for the purposes only of this Commission to examine such files in order to present such particulars.

C.

When information or knowledge of interference or alteration of telephone services comes to the notice of employees of the Postmaster-General’s Department either at the date of installation of another phone in the same premises or at the date of servicing the phone or its connexions, investigation of the same is not carried out. (See Particulars under Paragraph “ D ”).

D.

Investigation officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department do not act upon the evidence which they have of alterations or interference with telephones or their installation and/or of the improper installation of multiple phones.

P articulars

In the case of each matter set out under 1. A (g) above, the policeman concerned communicated the detection of the multiple phone installation to the Postal Investigation Branch and generally to Mr. Spicer the Chief Postal Investigation Officer and it is alleged that no proper investigation of such multiple phones and the installation thereof was made.

D a t e . A d d r e s s . T e l e p h o n e . A l t e r a t i o n o r I n t e r f e r e n c e . P o l ic e .

140. 5.5.62 .. 114 Percy-street, Portland. . Portland 1026.. Two telephone points .. S/C. Norton

141. 17.5.58 .. 25 Rose-street, Armadale, and 23 Rose-street,

Armadale

BY 4225 . .

UY 1250 . .

Bells removed .. ..

Three telephone points rubber brackets attached

S/C. Taylor

142. 21.9.57 .. 332 Wyndham-street, Shep- parton Shepparton 333 Extension wire fitted from main building to shed

S/D. Silvester

143. 10.10.59.. 11 Rosella-street, Murrum- beena UM 3009 .. Extension to adjoining

building

S/C. Wood

144. 31.3.60 .. 65 Argo-street, South Yarra BM 5280 . . Extension to adjoining

building

145. 23.8.58 .. 70 Canterbury-street, Too- rak BJ 1473 .. Extension to another flat.. S/D. Silvester

146. 21.1.61 .. 290 Bambra-road, Caulfield LW 3072 . . Extension from 288 .. S/C. Cook

147. 18.11.61.. 34 Robinson-road, Brighton No. unknow n.. Extension to bungalow in yard

E.

From time to time telephonists, technicians and/or monitors employed by the Postmaster-General’s Department have actively assisted S.P. bookmakers by— (i) connecting calls to them in priority to other calls; (ii) connecting calls by them in priority to other calls;

(iii) blocking calls to them after police have entered the premises on which the bookmaker is operating; (iv) warning bookmakers of police activities in connexion with the detection of gaming activities; (v) diverting calls in circumstances where the normal departmental procedure laid down in connexion with the diversion of calls is not followed out;

(vi) connecting calls to one number when the caller asks for another number; (vii) neglecting to connect calls to numbers w'here a bookmaker was operating, well knowing that the caller was not giving the acknowledged code.

P articulars

D a t e . N a m e o f E x c h a n g e . A u t o m a t i c o r M a n u a l C i r c u m s t a n c e s . P o lic e .

148. 9.9.61 .. Ararat .. .. Manual No.

21403

(iii) Blocking calls .. Sgt. Habermann

149. 10.3.62 .. Colac .. .. .. Automatic .. (iii) Blocking calls .. Inspector Hill,

S/Cs. Cook and

Taylor

150. 2.6.62 .. Colac .. .. Automatic Nos.

3746, 2478 3237

(iii) Blocking calls .. S/Cs. Cook and Tay­

lor; Inspector Hill

98

D a t e . N a m e o f E x c h a n g e . A u t o m a t i c o r M a n u a l C i r c u m s t a n c e s . P o l ic e .

151. 15.12.56.. Colac .. .. .. Manual .. (iv) Warning Bookmakers Harding

152. 18.4.59 .. Wangaratta .. .. Manual .. (vi) Diversion of calls .. S/D. Silvester

153. 16.12.61.. Dromana .. .. Manual No. 79 (iii) Blocking calls .. S/C. Conway

154. 15.8.59 .. Queenscliff .. .. Manual No. at

36 Hesse-street (iii) Blocking calls .. S/C. Wright

155. 22.12.56.. Werribee .. .. Manual 385 .. (vi) Unauthorized diversion

of calls

Sgt. Hanlon

156. 9.3.62 .. Colac .. .. .. Automatic 3746 (iii) Blocking calls .. S/C. Taylor

157. 7.10.61 .. Ballarat .. .. Manual .. (vii) Neglecting to connect Constable McIntyre

158. 21.10.61.. Ballarat .. .. Manual .. (vii) Neglecting to connect „ „

159. 21.10.61.. Ballarat .. .. Manual 808 .. (viii) Neglecting to connect ” »

F.

Employees of the Postmaster General’s Department do not report or take steps to prevent the repetition of the commission of offences under Section 57 of the Posts and Telegraphs Act and/or the commission of offences under the Police Offences Act 1958, Part IV., s. 122.

(a) Telegrams are despatched regularly by tipsters in a form which leads irresistibly to the conclusion that Section 122 of the Police Offences Act 1958 is being broken and this conclusion should be reached by the employee despatching the same, and this information is not communicated to any responsible official.

(ό) If this information is communicated to a responsible official, no action is taken either to level charges or to prevent repetition thereof. Such improper practices are to be exemplified by reference to the following m atters:—

D a t e . P e r s o n . P l a c e . M a t t e r .

160. 6.11.59 .. .. Lionel Leslie Baker North Melbourne

Post Office

Despatch tipping information by telegram.

161. Early 1960 .. Clifford Henry

Bartlett

Flemington, Box 8.. Using the said Box for the purpose of a fraudulent tipping business.

162. Early Nov., 1959 .. William Mayne, a

Printer

Elizabeth street Post Office Printing and despatching large numbers of telegrams re a fraudulent tipping activity.

G.

Mr. Reefton Harry Adolphus Spicer, Chief Postal Investigation Officer of the Postmaster General’s Department in Victoria neglects and improperly refuses to take steps to assist and/or impedes the Police of Victoria in the apprehension, prevention and/or nullifying of the activities of persons in Victoria acting in a manner contrary to the Police Offences Act Part IV. and the Posts and Telegraphs Act Section 57.

P a r t i c u l a r s

( a ) On numerous occasions the said Spicer has refused to take steps in reference to or to cause steps to be taken in reference to— (i) the commission of offences against Section 122 of the Police Offences Act 1958; (ii) the commission of offences against Section 57 of the Posts and Telegraphs Act 1901, e.g.:—

D a t e . P o l i c e O ffic e r. I n s t a n c e C o n c e r n e d .

163. January, 1959 to

August, 1960

164. May, 1962 ..

S/C.[Silvester .. ..

Inspector H ill| .. ..

Circulars were shown on numerous occasions to Mr. Spicer with relevant box numbers set out. Letters subject to re-direction order addressed to Tom Cromwell and Wally Steele of Heidelberg and

Northcote respectively.

165. ( b) On Friday, 5th January, 1962, Senior Constable Cook communicated with Mr. Spicer and requested information concerning the subscribers to FJ 5304 and at least one other number XB 3761. Mr. Spicer promised to supply the information forthwith.

Later, on the 5th January, 1962, he provided the information required as to XB 3761, and the premises concerned were visited on the 6th January, 1962, and two offenders were detected, charged and convicted of using the premises for betting. The information as to FJ 5304 was not provided.

99 533

166. On the 12th January, 1962, Senior Constable Cook requested from Mr. Spicer details as to at least two more telephone numbers, two of which were 99 2492 and LA 5579. Particulars were supplied by Mr. Spicer on the same date, and the premises were visited on the 13th January, 1962. A conviction in relation to the premises relevant to LA5579 was obtained on the 27th February, 1962. In relation to the premises relevant to 99 2492, bets were received by the police over the telephone but no person was present when the premises were visited. As the required information was not forthcoming as to FJ 5304, Sgt. Habermann rang Mr. Spicer at his home and again requested the required particulars, detailing the circumstances

of his failure to provide the information despite request on 5th January, 1962. Mr. Spicer replied, “ I’ve got them written down in my book, but I can’t read my own writing. The name is not decipherable. The address is 606 Drummond street, Carlton.”

D a t e . P o l i c e O f f ic e r . I n s t a n c e C o n c e r n e d .

167. (c) 1956-57.. .. Inspector Healey .. .. Enquiries re telephone numbers from Mr. Spicer.

Mr. Spicer replied, “ You go back to where you got your information from ” ,

168. (d) Throughout 1959-60 Inspector Webb .. .. Delay in provision of the names of subscribers to

private boxes such as to nullify the value of the information.

H.

169. A P.M.G. employee has been dismissed because of trafficking in phones whilst an official in the Communications Branch between 1957 and 1958. (See Skerrett—Transcript of Royal Commission (Ofl-the-course betting), page 2877.).

J.

A P.M.G. employee has listened to private telephone conversations between trainers of horses and other persons and transmitted such information as was obtained to a starting-price bookmaker.

D a t e . P l a c e . N a m e o f E m p l o y e e . N a m e o f B o o k m a k e r S .P .

169a. Early in 1962 .. Newmarket .. “ Arthur ”—a relative of Dow with a Jack Dow

leg injury who lived at Avondale Heights

K.

Several P.M.G. employees have acted in concert to assist in the illegal activities of starting-price bookmakers, tipsters and/or press agents. In carrying out investigations in connexion with the detection of gaming offences Police have found in the possession of persons on premises or in such premises diaries bearing the telephone numbers of Postmaster-General’s employees and/or installations which numbers are not listed in the telephone directory and can only fairly be regarded as in their possession for improper purposes in which the Postmaster-General’s employees concurred, e.g.—

Number and Description. Approximate Date.

170. No. 1: “ Rohan Max (Phones) 1956-60

Private JW 6397 .. .. .. (Owner of diary not known).

FY 1399 1599 ”

171. No. 2: “ Max Rohan .. .. .. .. 19.4.58

JW 6397 .. ■ ■ . ■ (Owner of diary: Vic Hudson, 29 Green-street,

FJ 1599 ” .. ·· · ■ Burwood).

Further entry: “ Tim MU 3467 . . .. ..

WA 1299 ”

172. No. 3: “ LA 09. . . . · ■ · ■ 19.5.56.

JA 09.. .. ■ ■ ■ ■ (Owner of premises: Norman Edward Adderley,

JF 0 9 ” Chapel Lodge, 16a Chapel-street, St. Kilda)

Now of parts unknown.

173. No. 4: “ Phone Mr. Cameron and Mr. Stranges 15.8.56. Phone (Chief Mr. Edwards) Mr. Couban (Owner of premises: Antony Barca, 680 Sydney-(Phone) Cent 132 road, Brunswick).

Phone F 00 Bert Berton ” No. 5: “ Telephone R. Harris, 24 Howe-cres., 1959. South Melbourne LA 1199

17 4 LA 09 Bob Ruse or Mr. King (Owner: Thomas Findlayson, Flat 6, 6 Southey-street,

Mechanic LA 1299 ” S t . K i l d a ) .

100

L.

Postmaster-General’s employees have arranged telephone connexions in furtherance of the business of starting-price bookmakers and Press Agents and have attempted to conceal the fact that debts owing to the Postmaster-General’s Department in respect of such calls were due by the bookmaker, e.g.—

D a t e . N a m e o f B o o k m a k e r . P . M . G . E m p l o y e e s .

175. October, 1961 .. Jack Dow, Particulars unknown .. Coral Ferguson and McDougall

M.

Postmaster-General’s employees have— (a) either installed a telephone at one address when the name was properly issued to be installed at another address; or (b) have provided telephone connexions at one address when instructed to provide them at another address; or (c) have arranged that calls for one properly installed line be connected to an illegally installed line; or (i d) have provided false information to their superiors regarding the situation as to the installation of telephone

services; or

(e) removed telephones and/or connexions from premises in an unauthorized manner; (/) have altered existing services in an unauthorized manner, e.g.—

D a t e . P l a c e . T e l e p h o n e . P o l i c e .

176. 6.6.59 .. Flat 3, 78 Jolimont-street, Jolimont .. MF 3108 .. S/C. Silvester, I/C. Stevens

177. 10.10.59 .. 11 Rosella-street, M urrum beena.. .. UM 3009 ..

UM 4255 ..

S/C Wood

178. 27.8.60 .. 65 Argo-street, South Yarra .. .. BM 5280 ..

179. 23.8.58 .. Flat 14, 70 Canterbury-road, Toorak .. BJ 3919 ..

BJ 1473 ..

S/C. Silvester

180. 21.9.57 .. 332 Wyndham-street, Shepparton .. Shepparton 333 ”

181. 26.7.58 .. 548 City-road, South M elbourne.. .. MX 4423 ..

MX 4820 ..

S/C. Cook

182. 29.11.58 .. 4 and 6 Etna-street, G lenhuntly.. . . UL 4631 .. ”

183. 18.11.61 .. 34 Robinson-road, Brighton (Bungalow at rear) 184. 11.4.62 .. 88 Rutland-road, Box Hill (Bungalow at 89 4676 .. ”

rear) 88 3495 .. ”

185. 17.5.58 .. Flat 7, 25 Rose-street, Armadale.. .. UY 1250 .. S/C. Taylor

N.

Employees of the Postmaster-General’s Department have personally engaged in illegal betting activities— (a) using telephones which were installed without proper investigation or authority; and (b) have in the instances set out below been convicted on more than one occasion whilst remaining employees of the Department.

(i) Instances o f use by P.M.G. Employees o f Multiple Phones in Betting Activities

D a ,= . N a m e . P l a c e . T e l e p h o n e .

186. 25.10.58 .. James Peter Bennett, 2 Glebe-street, Flat 20, 176 Wellington-parade, JA 1717

Forest Hill East Melbourne JA 3535

187. 15.1.58 .. John Arthur Ronald Doig, 65 Walling- Room 7, 386 Flinders-lane, MB 5548

ford, Cheltenham Melbourne MB 5549

MB 4197 MB 4649

188. 9.3.59 .. John Arthur Ronald Doig, 65 Walling- Room 19, 386 Flinders lane, MA 3888

ford, Cheltenham Melbourne MB 1575

189. 20.6.59 .. Frederick William Goode, 5 Seaton-street, Room 8, 128 Jolimont road, 63 4807 Fairfield; Oliver Francis Grigg, 342 Somerville-road, Kingsville Jolimont 63 1657

90. 9.4.60 .. ! Frederick William Goode, 5 Station- 186 Gertrude-street, Fitzroy .. JA 6321

1 street, Fairfield

- 1

JA 2546

101 5 j 5

(ii) Instances o f (b) above.

J ohn R onald A rthur D oig, P.M.G. Mail Officer, 65 Wallingford-road, Cheltenham.

191. Convicted at Melbourne P.S. on 4.3.58 for using premises for betting and fined £20 or two months imprisonment. 192. Convicted at Melbourne P.S. on 30.4.59 for using premises for betting and fined £150 or three months imprisonment.

F rederick W illiam G oode, P.M.G. Technician, 5 Station-street, Fairfield.

193. Convicted at Carlton P.S. on 27.8.57 for Street Betting and fined £25 or two months imprisonment. 194. Convicted at Melbourne P.S. on 13.8.59 for using premises for betting and fined £75 or two months imprisonment. 195. Convicted at Fitzroy P.S. on 22.8.60 for communicating betting odds and fined £20 or twenty days imprisonment.

O liver F rancis G rigg, P.M.G. Employee, 142 Somerville-road, Kingsville.

196. Convicted at St. Kilda P.S. on 21.10.58 for using premises for betting and fined £60 or two months imprisonment. 197. Convicted at Melbourne P.S. on 13.8.59 for using premises for betting and fined £ 150 or three months imprisonment.

R onald C. H ough, P.M.G. Employee, 282 Warrigal-road, South Oakleigh.

198. Convicted at Heidelberg P.S. on 21.8.56 for using premises for betting and fined £50 or two months imprisonment. 199. Convicted at Oakleigh P.S. on 31.10.60 for using premises for betting and fined £200 or three months imprisonment.

K eith R obert Benjamin T rewavis, P.M.G. Employee, 94 Duke-street, Sunshine.

200. Convicted at St. Kilda P.S. on 13.6.58 for using premises for betting and fined £50 or one months imprisonment. 201. Convicted at Prahan P.S. on 27.1.59 for using premises for betting and fined £100 or three months imprisonment.

O.

Unauthorized alterations have been made by Postmaster-General’s employees in telephone connexions probably at the exchange or possibly at some point between the exchange and the telephone.

Particulars

202. (a) Senior Constable Silvester in investigating alleged betting activities being conducted, one Frederick William Goode of 5 Station-street, Fairfield, a P.M.G. technician has called Mr. Goode on the telephone and received an immediate reply. Senior Constable Silvester has then visited Mr. Goode’s home at the above address within two minutes of making the call. Mr. Goode was present in the garage at the back of the premises. Inside the house

the telephone was making from time to time a peculiar ringing noise. Upon the phone being lifted, no one spoke. The constable assisting Senior Constable then went to a phone box and rang Mr. Goode. The telephone again rang in a peculiar fashion. Senior Constable Silvester lifted the phone—no one spoke. The constable ringing

the number reported that there was an immediate reply to his call to Goode’s telephone number. This matter was reported to Mr. Spicer who stated that any interference at the exchange would have been removed by the time he was able to investigate the matter. Senior Constable Silvester believes that this incident took place either late in 1959 or early 1960.

203. (b) In or about July, 1957, an anonymous letter in the following form was sent to the Officer-in-Charge, Gaming Section, Russell-street, Police Depot, Melbourne:—

(C O P Y )

Officer in charge of Gaming Sect. St. Melbourne.

Dear Sir, On checking my phone failure I found that it was every Saturday that it failed. My many complaints showed me that I could ring out but could receive no calls. Then a rather rough type came and made me the offer of £10 for the use of my phone on race days. I was assured that the phone would not be used on my

number but that the exchange men would connect a new number on to my line. I could still ring out but no in calls as a clerk would be in attendance to take calls over new numbers which would all be connected to my phone. Failure to agree carried a veiled threat of trouble to myself. Queering the connections I was given some names

of others who are doing this.

MX 2513 101 Merton street, Albert Park J. Hall.

This number is disconnected and a new number used on race days no cost is charged for the calls as the wires are not connected at the exchange.

Finally I was Assured that the numbers and places are changed quickly so that no detection could be made.

P.

Mr. Spicer has from time to time between the 1st January, 1959, and July, 1960, improperly—

(i) refused or neglected to take action under, or (ii) neglected to take steps in connexion with the implementation of, or (iii) failed to report circumstances which would lead the Postmaster General’s Department to act under provisions of the Post Office Guide relating to Conditions of Supply of Private Boxes now contained

in Post Office Guide 1961, page 69.

P a r t i c u l a r s

204. Senior Constable Silvester has on several occasions between the said dates shown Mr. Spicer tipping Circulars specifying private boxes to which replies are to be made and requested him to take action in connexion therewith; but the said Spicer has refused or neglected to take any action thereon.

102 Q.

205. One McDougall, a P. M. G. employee, has been engaged in improperly disposing of records concerning charges and/or calls made by starting-price bookmakers and for others engaged in illegal betting activities and detected in such activity by the Postmaster-General’s Department.

R.

206. Up to 20.11.59, Mr. William Mayne used to hand tipping telegrams to the Post Office employee who accepted the same at the Post Office at Elizabeth-street, and arranged for the despatch of the same; this practice was carried on by Mayne at ar. hour when the said Post Office was not open in the normal manner in the carrying on of business.

S.

P. M. G. employees have conspired with an starting price bookmaker to arrange that calls made to a specified number, being a code number for the starting-price bookmaker, be connected to another number varying from week to week, so as to prevent detection of the starting-price bookmaker by gaming police.

P a r t ic u l a r s

D a te . Exchange . T e lephone C ode N um be r .

207. December, 1956, to Werribee .. .. .. .. Werribee 385

January, 1957

II. Particulars of F ailure to Co -operate

1. The general policy of the Postmaster-General’s Department at a higher level may be that it is not the Department’s job to exercise police functions. (See Skerrett—Transcript Royal Commission (Off-the-course Betting), page 2834.) 2. The general policy of the Department when it is implemented at a lower level is that P. M. G. employees should

not assist the police in any way even though they know that offences are being committed, (e.g., Skerrett— Transcript Royal Commission (above), page 2860.) 3. (i) It is either Departmental Policy not to permit the telephone number to which calls on a Manual Exchange are being diverted to be given by a telephonist to the Police upon their request for such information whilst engaged

on official business; or (ii) employees improperly refuse upon request by the Police to give such numbers to the Police upon official enquiry being so made. In either event the refusal to give such numbers illustrates a failure to co-operate.

4. Information concerning the names and addresses of lessees of post office boxes is not furnished speedily upon request being made for the same by the Police Commissioner, e.g.— D a te o f R eques t D a te o f In fo rm a tion

208. 23.10.59 .. .. .. .. .. ·· .. .. 11.4.60

209. 2.12.59 .. .. .. .. .. ·· ·· 15.12.59

5. The name and address of a subscriber having a specified telephone number is not supplied by the person in charge of a Telephone Exchange upon request so to do by a Police Officer in the execution of his duty in the investigation of betting offences.

6. No instruction is given to telephonists, monitors, supervisors or other persons working inside postal offices to the effect that if, in the carrying out of their day to day duties, it becomes apparent to them that illegal betting activities are being conducted and that postal or telegraphic facilities are being employed then they should—

(i) inform a superior officer; (ii) take any steps in relation to this matter.

7. In the event of any such knowledge as is referred to in paragraph 6 coming into the possession of employees of the Postmaster-General’s Department as the result of observation altogether independent of the contents of conversations or communications, no such knowledge is communicated to the Police.

8. No official notification implementing the agreement set out in the letter of the 8th September, 1960, from the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs to the Chief Commissioner of Police has been received by the Chief Commissioner.

9. Although it is suggested by Mr. Spicer: (i) that he, Mr. Frank Gilchrist and Mr. Grant Harvey were appointed pursuant to the said letter of the 8th September, 1960, as persons from whom the authorized Police representative should make inquiry as detailed in the letter; and (ii) that such appointment was verbally notified to Inspector Webb, yet as recently as 12th April, 1962, Inspector Hill made such a request of Mr. Gilchrist in the absence of Mr. Spicer and was informed that the said Gilchrist would relay the request to Mr. Spicer upon his return. Later the said Mr. Spicer rang Inspector Hill.

10. In the event of investigation by the Postmaster-General’s Department giving rise to suspicion by that Department that telephone services are being used for a purpose other than that for which the same were installed and contrary to Telephone Regulations no notification of this fact is conveyed by the Department to the Police Department.

103 537

11. Despite the fact that the Postmaster-General’s Department says that it does of its own accord make checks to determine whether telephone services are being used for illegal purposes (see Skerrett—Transcript, page 2797), on no occasion does the Department notify the Police: (i) that such investigations are being conducted;

(ii) as to the result of such investigations; or (iii) if a request is made for a check of a similar type.

12. Of the 403 phones at 58 different addresses referred to by Mr. Skerrett in his evidence before the Off-the-Course Betting Commission at page 2811, no information was forwarded by the Postmaster-General’s Department to the Police Department. Such information may have assisted police in the apprehension of persons engaged in betting offences. On the other hand the Police Department notify the Postmaster-General’s Department

on each occasion when:

(i) an offence involving the use of phones results in a conviction; (ii) multiple phones are found in premises; (iii) interference with telephone installations are discovered; (iv) use is made of boxes by tipsters using fictitious names or receiving mail whilst carrying on a fraudulent

business.

13. Despite the request of the Police Commissioner that the Postmaster-General’s Department notify the Police Department when reconnecting telephone services which have been cancelled following a conviction, this request has been refused.

P a r t i c u l a r s

210. See correspondence letter 15.4.57 Director of Posts and Telegraphs to Chief Commissioner of Police in reply to letter of 19.3.57 Chief Commissioner to Director of Posts and Telegraphs, and further letter dated 16th April, 1957 from the Chief Commissioner to Director of Posts and Telegraphs.

14. The Postmaster General’s Department has refused to cancel telephones on occasions when it has been proved that the telephone has been used in connexion with betting; but the case has been adjourned without conviction under Section 92 of the Justices Act 1958.

E x a m p l e s

Date. Court. Accused. Telephones. P.M.G. Letter Refusing.

211. 7.2.62 .. Sorrento .. S. V. Bryant .. Rye 2323 .. V.298/26/351 .. .. 15.3.62

212. 8.4.59 .. Oakleigh .. E. Aldersea .. UM 3884 .. V.298/26/140 .. .. 21.5.59

213. 7.12.59 .. Woodend .. Μ. E. Olden .. Woodend 234 .. No letter. Telephone message

214. 12.8.60 .. Richmond .. G. S. Carter .. JB 2488 ..

215. 15. In the Court of Petty Sessions at Mildura on 16.7.58, the Magistrate found the premises at 27 Pine-avenue, Mildura, was a common gaming house, but acquitted the occupier of having the care and management thereof. Postmaster-General refused by letter V.298/26/207 of 15th October, 1958, to cancel the telephone at the premises.

216. 16. On 5th March, 1960, Gaming Police entered an office at 115 Mt. Alexander-road, Flemington and found four telephones, FF 2421, FF 1111, FF 2598 and FF 2069. Christine Gleeson was convicted of using the premises for betting. The Postmaster-General’s Department by letter V.298/25/198, dated 5.12.60 refused to cancel more than one of the phones.

17. No proper steps are taken by the Postmaster-General’s Department to ascertain whether or not phones reconnected following disconnexion in connexion with a betting offence are again being used for carrying on an illegal business. P a r t i c u l a r s

See Regulation 62 (4) o f the Telephone Regulations.

18. The Postmaster-General’s Department does not enforce the provisions of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901­ 1950 and the Telephone Regulations and generally the provisions of the several acts and regulations relating to the business of the Department, nor does it take steps to ensure that its services are not used for purposes contrary to the Police Offences Act Part IV.—

(i) Regulation 8 of the Telephone Regulations is not involved when there is reasonable ground to believe that telephones are being used for purposes illegal under State or Commonwealth legislation.

(ii) Where additions or alterations in wires instruments or fitting are shown to exist and to be associated with the conduct of illegal betting activities, the Department does not automatically disconnect the service under Regulation 47 of Telephone Regulations.

(iii) When it is known that telephones are being consistently used for the purpose of carrying on illegal betting activities, no notification is given to the Victorian Police. (iv) The Postmaster-General’s Department turns a blind eye to the use of its services for illegal betting activities and/or makes its facilities more readily available for persons known to be engaged in such

activities especially tipsters and those engaged in printing and distributing tipsters’ information and in receiving payment for such information. (v) The general departmental policy to carry on the business of the Department for profit overrides, under the cloak of secrecy, the expressed desire to co-operate with the Victorian Police Force in suppressing

illegal betting activities whilst using departmental services.

104

PART 2

ADDITIONAL PARTICULARS SUBMITTED BY THE STATE OF VICTORIA

P a r t i c u l a r A (g)

.. .. LF2941 .. .. .. S/C Taylor

LF4912

.. .. 50-3138 .. . . .. ”

50-3139 50-6303 50-4021

P a r t i c u l a r E

27.3.57 .. Colac .. .. .. .. Manual (vi) Diversion of calls

2.6.62 .. Dromana .. .. .. .. Manual (iii) Blocking of calls S/C Conway

No. 79 '

P a r t i c u l a r G

S/D Wood .. .. .. .. On evidence of tipping circulars representations were

made to postal officials at Thornbury and Caulfield South Post Offices and enquires regarding re-direction of mail including money orders addressed to Kath Murphy and Eugene Barclay were referred to Mr. Spicer.

P a r t i c u l a r J

A P.M.G. technician at Orbost assisted S/C Hardy in gaming investigations by intercepting calls.

Police observations in the vicinity of the Dowling Forest Racecourse on 27th May, 1959, indicate that P.M.G. linemen were intercepting calls with a “ Buttinski ” to assist in the relay of prices information.

P a r t i c u l a r N

During the period 1954-1957 P.M.G. employees Alfred Sampson and Sidney Webb operated as Starting Price bookmakers at the St. Arnaud Post Office.

Oct. 1960 Aug. 1961

26.5.62 .. 15 Kambea-grove, Caulfield Dwelling 16.6.62 .. 7 Station-street, Malvern Shop

F ailure to Co-Operate

paragraph 2— At Miner’s Rest on 27th May, 1959, P.M.G. Investigators Gilchrist and Attwell and the Postmistress refused to inform police officers whether or not a suspect had made telephone calls from the Post Office.

paragraphs 6 and 7— Certain female telephonists employed at the Orbost Telephone Exchange knew of illegal betting activities by telephone and received gifts from Starting Price bookmakers.

105 5 39

SIXTH APPENDIX

Commercial Branch Organization—

Page.

C hart 1 Commercial Branch 1955 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 106

C hart 2 Commercial Branch 1962 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 107

Engineering D ivision O rganization—

C hart 3 Engineering Division 1962 .. .. .. .. .. . . . . .. 108

C hart 4 M etropolitan Branch .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . 1 0 9

C hart 5 Country Branch .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . 110

F. 11389/63.— 8

CHART 1

COMMERCIAL BRANCH ORGANIZATION

1955

Superintendent Telephone Branch

Assistant Superintendent Traffic

Senior Clerk

Directory and Public Facilities

Senior Clerk

Contracts and Broadcasting

Directory Section

( Clerk-in-Charge)

Public Facilities Section (Clerk-in-Charge)

Contracts Section (Clerk-in-Charge)

Priority Section

(Clerk-in-Charge)

Broadcasting Section (Clerk-in-Charge)

( A p p r o v e d p o s i t i o n s : 156)

COMMERCIAL BRANCH ORGANIZATION

1962

Assistant Director Telecommunications Division

CHART 2

Superintendent Telephone Service Branch

Superintendent Telegraph Service Branch

Superintendent Commercial Branch

Superintendent Development Branch

Assistant Superintendent Country and Broadcasting

Assistant Superintendent Directory, Records and Administration

Assistant Superintendent Metropolitan Installations

District Broadcasting Directory Public Records Staff"

Telephone Offices

Section Section Facilities

Section

and

Statistics Section

Section

Metropolitan Miscellaneous Private Groups 1-7 Section Wire

( A p p r o v e d P o s i t i o n s : 183)

Superintendent Radio Branch

CHART 3

ENGINEERING DIVISION

1962

A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r

M e t r o p o l i t a n B r a n c h C o u n t r y B r a n c h P l a n n i n g B r a n c h S e r v i c e s B r a n c h A d m i n i s t r a t i v e B r a n c h

w ?

1.1 1 ^ n

Έ

W e? 1 . 3

1 §

Q ΕΓ

M e t r o . D i s t r i c t W o r k s N o . 3

P r i m a r y W o r k s C a b l e s N o r t h

S o u t h

P r i m a r y W o r k s C o n d u i t s

C a b l e P r o t e c t i o n

to I4 21 “ 3

> z H

No. 1

to

No. 2 X a

No. 4 ---------- z I

o F

No. 5 ----------

>

No. 6 ---------- z H

No. 7 ----------

S u b s . I n s t a l l a t i o n

P.A.B.X. I n s t a l l a t i o n

No. 1

No. 2

% to

No 3

P a

No 1 £ 2 H 3

s 3

No. 2 ---------- z

No. 1

N o 2 - . . to

& Q S No 3 No 4

s 1

3

No. 5

ε I S

601

ENGINEERING DIVISION: METROPOLITAN BRANCH

L o n g l i n e

T r u n k

S e r v i c e

a n d

T e l e g r a p h s

CHART 5

EN G 1N B bR lN G DIVISION: COUNTRY BRANCH

E x e c u t i v e E n g i n e e r

E n g i n e e r

(Class 5)

S e c t i o n R e g i o n a l R e g i o n a l R e g i o n a l

(Engineer Class 4) W o r k s a n d W o r k s a n d W o r k s a n d a n d C o u n t r y

S e r v i c e s S e r v i c e s S e r v i c e s I n s t a l l a t i o n

( E a s t ) ( W e s t ) ( W e s t )

D i v i s i o n

(Engineer Class 3)

R a d i o

T e l e g r a m s

I l l 5 1 5

SEVENTH APPENDIX

P A G E

1. Directive of 14th June, 1950 .. .. .. .. .....................................................................................................................1 1 2

2 . Directive of 16th October, 1956 .. .. .. .. .................................................................113

3 . Directive of 14th July, 1960 ,, ,. ,. .. .................................................................114

112

14th June, 1950

Deputy Director. A l l S t a t e s

PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE SERVICES IN PRIVATE RESIDENCES OR VERY SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS

It is desired that all applications for the provision of telephone exchange services in, and the removal of existing services to, private residences or very small business establishments where a service is already installed should be investigated fully, and in any case where it is evident that the normal needs of the subscriber could be met by the existing service, the application should be allotted priority 4 (ii).

2. In order that the matter will be watched closely, the following procedure should be observed:—

(i) All applications for the provision of new exchange services in private residences or very small business establishments, or the removal of existing services to such premises, in the metropolitan area and in country districts shall include a clause as follows:—

“ A telephone service is —— ~ installed in the premises." already The applicant should cross out the reference which does not apply and initial the deletion.

Pending the printing of new supplies of the forms, this clause should be inserted in the agreement form (Tel. 33) and the application for removal form (Tel. 40) by means of a rubber stamp.

(ii) Officers in the Cable Records Section should bring under the notice of the officer in charge any cases which are noted where a service is required in a residence where a service is already installed. The Officer-in-Charge of the Cable Records Section should advise the Senior Clerk, Contract Section, Telephone Branch, of such cases.

(iii) Officers of the Lines Section, Engineering Branch, responsible for the provision of the line to applicants’ premises should bring under notice immediately any cases where a telephone order is received for the installation of an exchange service in a private residence or very small business establishment where such a facility is already installed, and the order does not bear a notation that the additional service is approved. The order should be returned from the Lines Installation Centre to the Telephone Order

Clerk immediately, with a suitable slip attached on which the relevant details will be indicated. This slip should be of coloured paper for easy identification, and the Telephone Order Clerk should advise the Senior Clerk, Contracts, in the Telephone Branch immediately such advice is received. The responsible Lines Officer concerned should also advise the Officer-in-Charge of the appropriate subscribers’ Installation Centre of the action taken, to ensure that the Technicians will not proceed with the installation of the service.

(iv) Technicians responsible for installing subscribers’ services should also bring under notice any cases where it is known that, or it is found that on proceeding to install an exchange service in a private residence or very small business establishment, such a facility is already connected. Action should be taken to return the telephone order as indicated in (iii).

(v) The installation of a service should not be commenced where it is found that it is required in premises other than the address shown on the order; the order should be returned as indicated in (iii).

(vi) In any case where the order is being returned for the reasons mentioned above, the Lines Officers or Technicians should not discuss with the applicant in any way the reasons for not proceeding with the installation.

(vii) Upon the return of the Telephone order to the Senior Clerk, Contract Section, each case shall be brought to the notice of the Assistant Superintendent (Commercial) who should arrange for a selected Telephone Branch officer to make full investigations.

(viii) Telephone orders covering approved cases for the installation of an additional exchange service in premises where such a facility is already installed should bear a suitable notation, i.e., “ Additional service approved.”

(ix) Where, after investigation of a case where the telephone orders have been returned, it is found that the installation of the service should be proceeded with, suitable advice should be forwarded to the Superintending Engineer by the Superintendent, Telephone Branch, either by issuing an amending order or by some suitable arrangement agreed upon by the Superintending Engineer or Superintendent, Telephone Branch.

3. Will you kindly arrange accordingly and advise this office in one month’s time of the results of the foregoing arrangements, please.

C. T. CHIPPINDALL, Director-General.

113

5 1 7

G .298/1/82.

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

C o m m o n w e a l t h o f A u s t r a l i a

Postmaster-General’s Department, Treasury Place, Melbourne, C.2.

16th October, 1956.

USE OF TELEPHONE SERVICES FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES

Police authorities in Melbourne have recently been carrying out a series of raids on premises in which, it was suspected, illegal betting was being conducted. Much publicity has been given in the Melbourne daily press to the raids, particularly where large groups of telephones were found in the premises.

2. In each case, the telephone services concerned were inspected promptly by officers of the Department after news of the raid became known and where the services had been altered or interfered with in any way by unauthorized persons, arrangements were made for such services to be disconnected following the mailing of a letter to the lessee advising him of the Department’s intention. Where the services had not been altered, or otherwise interfered with, they were permitted to remain undisturbed pending the outcome of any legal proceedings instituted by the Police. In a number of instances, the lessees requested the temporary disconnection or the cancellation of their services, and appropriate steps were taken by the Department to do so.

3. In view of the many outstanding applications for telephone service, the publicity which the cases received was most unfortunate from a public relations’ standpoint and emphasized the need to ensure, as far as possible, that— (i) telephone facilities are not provided where they would seem to be required for an illegal business; and (ii) that services which, it is apparent, are being used for illegal purposes are disconnected unless the lessees

can furnish evidence that the telephones are being used and are required for the conduct of a legitimate business activity.

4. Although observance of the instructions issued from this office on the 14th June, 1950, G.298/1/82, regarding the provision of additional services in private residences or very small business establishments may have minimized the risk of connections being made for illegal businesses, it is known that the majority of requests for service must be accepted at face value and that where misleading information is given the Department may be deceived. It follows, therefore, that the existing instructions should be strengthened to provide for Engineering Division field staff, who are most likely to detect cases of a doubtful nature, to report the following and you might please arrange accordingly:—

(a) Any case where groups or services are required to be terminated on handsets instead of switchboards in one room or suite of rooms; (b) Any case where single line services are provided in business premises in the same room but under various names; (c) Any case where there is reason to assume that the name of the subscribers shown on the Telephone Order

is fictitious and where the layout of the room in which the services are required suggests that they may not be used in the usual business manner; or (d) Any case where the listed business of the applicant as indicated on the Telephone Order appears to be fictitious.

5. It is known that the adoption of the instructions issued from this office in 1950 has been instrumental in Victoria in preventing the installation of additional services in a number of cases which could have proved embarrassing. In order to guard against services being installed for illegal business purposes in Victoria, all applications for two or more services in the one business or residence are referred to a senior officer for approval. This procedure which does not interfere with normal routine or involve any appreciable amount of work for the officer concerned has also been the means of preventing the installation of some services which obviously were required for use in illegal business activities. A copy of the instructions issued to officers of the Telecommunications Division, Victoria, is attached for your information.

6. In order to determine the action necessary and practicable to detect and deal with cases where telephone services have been subjected to unauthorized alteration and/or where they have been provided irregularly to meet other than legitimate needs, arrangements were made to investigate those recorded as being served by rotary groups. This not only gives a lead to the larger telephone installation which may be used for illegal business activities but the checks could be

undertaken without calling on the assistance of a great number of officers.

7. It would be appreciated, therefore, if you would arrange for groups each consisting of one selected technical officer and one officer of the Investigation Section to check services provided under rotary number conditions but not terminated on switchboards for any evidence of tampering with the telephones or lines and to report on the location of the instruments and general set-up of the telephone arrangements. Should the investigations show any such evidence, arrangements should be made immediately to disconnect all the services leased by the subscriber in the same premises after a letter notifying the subscriber of the intention to do so has been delivered to the address. The letter to the subscriber should agree precisely with the attached draft which has been approved by the Crown Law Authorities, and should be addressed in each instance to the organization or person shown in the Departmental records as being the lessee of the service or services. In cases where the Departmental officers cannot secure entrance to the premises, the services should be temporarily disconnected pending access being given by the subscriber. It may be that one team of officers will be

sufficient to conduct all investigations but this aspect is left to your discretion.

8. Where there is no evidence of unauthorized interference with the services, it is desirable that the officers inspecting premises provided with rotary telephone facilities should report on the following aspects:— (i) The number of lines installed, the location of the terminating instruments and their call numbers; (ii) The date of application for each line and the occupation shown in the application form and in the entry

in the telephone directory; (iii) The daily calling rate on each of the lines taken over a period of, say, one week;

114

(iv) The normal hours of business observed in the premises inspected; and (v) If readily available, the names of the persons actually using the services.

9. With this information and any additional details which the inspecting officers may be able to secure, it should be possible to determine what lines are actually necessary and also the nature of the steps to be taken in the event of false declarations or statements having been furnished. The Director-General desires, however, that no action be taken at present in these cases to disconnect or disturb services (unless, meanwhile, a request for disconnection has been received from the Police authorities following a conviction for conducting illegal activities), but that they be made the subject of regular reports to this office with appropriate recommendations. Details of any cases where services have been disconnected because of unauthorized interference should also be furnished, please.

10. In order to detect cases where Departmental officers may have acted irregularly in providing service it would seem that the only practicable way to initiate enquiries is to examine the relevant files of those services which the investigations mentioned in paragraph 7 suggest are being used for illegal purposes. Such an examination should help in establishing whether there are any suspicious circumstances, such as the service having been connected out of priority order or having received unduly expeditious handling through the routine stages normally followed in treating applications. Where it is considered that further enquiries should be made into the circumstances under which the services were provided, the matter would be pursued, of course, by the Investigation Section.

11. Attached for your information also is a copy of a statement which was prepared for the Postmaster-General’s information and use if he considered necessary, in replying to any enquiries made by the Press for information as to the Department’s policy in providing telephone services which Police investigations reveal are used for illegal betting. The statement was prepared following the publication of a feature article in Melbourne “ Truth ” of 8.9.56 in which a good

deal of unfavourable publicity was given the fact that, in premises raided by the Police, groups of telephones were found. The facts relating to each of the cases mentioned in the article are dealt with in the statement and will not necessarily be of any particular significance now. However, the treatment of the matter and the references to the Department’s policy and attitude may be of some assistance in dealing with any representations received from the Press in your State. It is not desired, however, that you should take the initiative in releasing to the Press information contained in the statement.

Yours sincerely, M . R . C . S t r a d w i c k

for the Director-General.

Director, Posts and Telegraphs, N.S.W., Vic., Q’ld.

G.298/1/132.

The Director, Posts and Telegraphs, ALL STATES

14th July, 1960

EXERCISE OF POWERS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE TELEPHONE REGULATIONS TO DISCONNECT OR REFUSE TO CONNECT TELEPHONE SERVICES

Since 1950, a number of instructions have been issued concerning the safeguards to be adopted to minimize the possibility of telephone services being used contrary to Commonwealth and State Laws. It has been decided that the time is opportune to consolidate all existing instructions in one memorandum and to cancel, amend or amplify these, where necessary, in order to ensure that a uniform procedure is adopted throughout the Commonwealth when dealing

with cases where a breach of the Telephone Regulations has been proved or is suspected.

2. It would be appreciated, therefore, if you would check your local office and field instructions to ensure that they comply with the following statement—

A. TELEPHONE REGULATIONS UNDER THE POST AND TELEGRAPH ACT W H ICH CONFER THE POW ERS ON THE DEPARTMENT

The Telephone Regulations concerned are—

1. Telephone Regulation 8— Power o f Department 8. (1) The Department may, at its discretion, refuse to comply with any application for a telephone or other like service or for the transfer of any such existing service or for the construction or use of any telephone line or service and it also reserves the right to withdraw, either totally or partially, any telephone or other like service at any time.

(2) Neither the Department not any of its officers shall be liable to any action, claim, or demand for compensation arising from the refusal to provide or authorize any telephone or other like service or from interruption of service through any cause whatever.

2. Telephone Regulation 47— Supply o f Apparatus 47. (1) Except where otherwise provided by these Regulations, all telephone lines, instruments and fittings in connexion with the telephone system shall be erected and supplied by the Department, and shall be its exclusive property, and no person except an employee of the Department provided with proper means of identification shall interfere with, or make any additions or alterations to, any wires, instruments, or fittings under the Department’s control.

(2) In the event of any such interference, the subscriber concerned shall be liable to have his service disconnected, and he may be required to defray the cost of any alterations or replacements rendered necessary.

115

5 19

3. Telephone Regulation 62— Illegal or Improper Use o f Telephone 62. (1) If any subscriber is convicted of carrying on any illegal business and the place where the illegal business is carried on is connected to an exchange, or if any person is convicted of carrying on any illegal business at or in any such place, the Department may, without waiting for the result of any appeal from such conviction, determine the agreement with the subscriber, remove the subscriber's name from the Telephone

Directory and remove all wires, instruments and other property of the Department used in connexion with the service.

(2) If such agreement is determined during any period in respect of which rental has been paid in advance, a proportionate part of the rental shall be returned to the subscriber.

(3) A subscriber shall, for the purposes of this Regulation, be deemed to have been convicted of carrying on an illegal business if he is convicted of any of the following offences— (a) Keeping any common gaming house, common betting house, common bawdy house or house of disorderly entertainment;

(b) Keeping, occupying or using any house or premises in contravention of the law of any State relating to gaming or wagering; or (c) Keeping or occupying any house or premises for the illicit sale of intoxicating liquors, or the illicit supply of intoxicating liquors in exchange for any valuable consideration.

(4) A person whose telephone service has been discontinued under this Regulation shall not be allowed to become a subscriber again within six months of the date of discontinuance and if, at any time after that person again becomes a subscriber, the Department has reasonable grounds to suppose that the subscriber is again carrying on an illegal business, the Department may forthwith determine the agreement and take

the further action described in Sub-Regulation (1) of this Regulation.

B. A c t i o n t o b e T a k e n U n d e r S p e c i f i c C i r c u m s t a n c e s i n R e s p e c t o f E x i s t i n g T e l e p h o n e S e r v i c e s

1. Co-operation with State Authorities in the Administration o f the State Laws dealing with Illegal Betting Upon the receipt of a request from a responsible Police Officer, who has been nominated by the Commissioner of Police in the State concerned to authorize such requests, information in respect of telephone services (silent lines or otherwise) shall be made available from the records held in the Commerical Branch of the Telecommunications Division on the definite understanding that such information will be regarded as confidential and used solely for the purpose of

detecting illegal practices. The request should be addressed to the Chief Investigation Officer of the Postmaster-General’s Department in the State concerned and the information required should be obtained from the Assistant Superintendent (Contracts) of the Commercial Branch. In this connection, the Commissioner of Police should be asked to nominate a small

number of Senior Police Officers (say, not more than four) from whom requests for this information will be accepted by the Department. Similarly, the Post Office personnel authorized to handle the requests should be kept to a small number and should not exceed four. The information normally provided by the Department will consist of the details of the names

and addresses of the telephone services, the numbers of which have been listed in the Police request and/or the details of the names of lessees and telephone service numbers at an address furnished by the Police. If any other information is requested, the Chief Investigation Officer shall refer the matter to the Assistant Director (Telecommunications), who shall indicate whether or not the additional information may be supplied.

2. Where the Police have secured Convictions under State or Commonwealth Laws for Offences enumerated in Telephone Regulation 62 Before telephone services are disconnected under this Regulation, advice must be received from the Police authorities that a conviction for an offence enumerated in this Regulation has been obtained and the Police authorities must make a specific request, in writing, for the telephone services at that address to be disconnected.

In some cases, the Police authorities may request disconnection of a lesser number of telephone services than are installed at that address. In these instances, all telephone services in the premises or in a suite of offices, as the case may be, may be disconnected, irrespective of whether all were enumerated in the Police request. In these instances where any doubt at all is held as to the extent of the premises concerned, the Assistant Director (Telecommunications) should arrange for an inspection to be made and, on the evidence available, give a decision as to the extent of the premises covered by the Police request.

A person whose telephone service has been disconnected under this Regulation shall not become a subscriber again within six months of the date of disconnexion, but may lodge an application for service at any time after the disconnection has been effected. Action in the Commercial Branch of the Telecommunications Division is NOT to be commenced in respect of the satisfaction of any such application until six months after the date of disconnection. After that date, if the necessary plant is available for the new service, it should be installed as soon as practicable. On the other hand, if

plant is not available, the date of provision of the new service after the six months’ period will depend on the number of unsatisfied prior applications, having regard to the priority order of such applications. In no circumstances should the original plant be reserved in order to satisfy a likely application for reconnection immediately the six months’ period has expired.

Cases arise from time to time where, following representations by the former subscriber for restoration of service, the Police Department withdraws its request for the discontinuance of the service and either asks for it to be reconnected or states that there is no objection to it being restored. In any case where a service has been disconnected in accordance with the approved practice under the provisions of Telephone Regulation 62, service should not be restored within the period of six months unless the Department is satisfied that there exists special circumstances justifying exceptional treatment. Where the circumstances appear to warrant consideration, the full details of the case, together with your comments and recommendation, should be submitted to the Director-General.

3. Where Inspection o f the Installation reveals Unauthorized Alterations and Additions to the Equipment The evidence of unauthorized alterations and additions to the apparatus of a telephone service may result from one of several sources, such as when noticed by a Technician in the normal course of his duties, Police investigations into the activities of the subscriber concerned or Departmental investigations. Unauthorized alterations and additions to a telephone service must be treated as a serious offence.

116

Where investigations show evidence of unauthorized alterations and additions to telephone installations, the circumstances should be reviewed by the Assistant Director (Telecommunications). Where the evidence indicates that the tampering with the telephone service has been deliberate, the service may be disconnected forthwith and consideration should be given to prosecution where such a course is justified. In other cases, the action normally taken should be to temporarily disconnect the service both ways and to issue telephone orders for the service to be restored to the set-up shown on the Departmental records. The service should remain disconnected until restored and the subscriber debited with costs of restoration. However, the decision on whether or not the service will be temporarily disconnected shall rest with the Assistant Director (Telecommunications).

C . A c t i o n t o b e T a k e n i n R e s p e c t o f A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r T e l e p h o n e S e r v i c e u n d e r C e r t a i n C i r c u m s t a n c e s

1. Telephone Services on Premises where two or more Exchange Lines are Requested The application form for a telephone service includes a clause under which the applicant is required to indicate whether a telephone service is or is not already installed in the premises.

Where an application is for the provision of other than the first line, such application shall be subject to special scrutiny in the Commercial Branch of the Telecommunications Division.

In those cases where the additional exchange lines are required by a reputable business organization, no special action is required.

All applications for initial services of more than one exchange line or for additional lines on existing services (whether for new installations or removals) shall be referred to the Superintendent, Commercial Branch, who, after a thorough investigation, shall approve or disapprove of the provision of the facilities requested in the application. In cases of a doubtful nature, the calling rate on the existing exchange line(s) should be used as a starting point for further investigation.

Where such investigations show that the normal needs of the subscriber could be met by the existing service, the application should be refused.

Where the provision of the initial service or the additional exchange lines is approved, the Superintendent, Commercial Branch, must initial the application form as authority for the application to be processed in the normal manner. Before a telephone order is issued for such a service, the Contract Clerk must check the file for the Superintendent’s approval and, if approved, should include the notation “ A L A ” (Additional Line(s) Approved) in the body of the order.

Further special measures are required in the Engineering Division to prevent the provision of multiple services in cases where an existing service has not been declared on the application form, where a fictitious name or title has been employed, or where an unauthorized removal has been sought. To detect such cases, the following procedures shall be observed :—

(i) Officers of the Subscribers’ Installation Sections responsible for providing exchange services at subscribers' premises must report, immediately, any cases where a telephone order is received for the installation of exchange line(s) or the indoor or outdoor removal to a private residence or very small business establishment where it is noticed in the course of their normal duties such a facility is already installed and the telephone order does not include the notation “ A L A ” .

(ii) Officers of the Lines and Subscribers’ Installation Sections must also bring to notice any error in street numbers or addresses shown on the telephone order.

Unless the occupant of the premises shown on the telephone order denies that be applied for the telephone facilities, the installation must be proceeded with and the order should be returned through the normal channels. The Engineering Officer carrying out the work shall report the details of the case to the Supervising Technician, who will advise his Divisional Engineer. The latter officer shall immediately advise the Superintendent, Commercial Branch, of the details.

On receipt of reports mentioned, the Superintendent, Commercial Branch, will arrange for the matter to be thoroughly investigated.

2. Installation o f Telephone Services in Unusual Locations Installation staffs of the Engineering Division are forbidden from installing telephone services in unusual locations without the authority of the responsible Divisional Engineer.

Detailed instructions covering the procedures to be adopted in such cases are contained in A.P.O. Engineering Instruction—Telephone Sub-station 1.0004. Where doubt exists regarding the suitability of the location requested by the applicant, the Divisional Engineer concerned should discuss the details of the request with the Superintendent, Commercial Branch.

3. Requests for Silent Lines Applications for silent lines, other than those services connecting either to the P.B.X. (for outward calls only) or direct to representatives of professional, commercial, business or industrial organizations of undoubted standing, must state the reason why silent line service is required and such reasons should be endorsed by the applicant on the application form. If the application is received through the post, the applicant should be written to in courteous terms and asked

to provide details of the reason for the request.

Each application for service in the metropolitan area and, where applicable, country districts controlled from Head Office, must be scrutinized by the Superintendent, Commercial Branch, before telephone orders are issued to provide the service. In the other country districts, the responsible District Telephone Officer shall undertake this scrutiny.

It would be impracticable to define the conditions under which silent line services should be provided but, as a general rule, requests from the following applicants should be granted:—

(a) In Official Premises Services leased by the Armed Forces, Commonwealth and State Government Departments or undertakings, Civil Defence organizations, Fire Brigades, Broadcasting Stations, Newspaper offices and public utilities.

117 521

(b) In Private Residences Services leased by or on behalf of Cabinet Members, Permanent Heads, Judges, Ministers of Religion, high ranking Defence and Government officers and other subscribers of undoubted standing. Services in the residences of other representatives of Departments and public utilities where the

account is being paid direct to the Post Office by the organization concerned.

All other requests must be considered on their individual merits and, where any doubt exists as to the bona tides of any applicant, a Statutory Declaration should be obtained from the applicant. The Superintendent, Commercial Branch, shall decide the action to be taken in all cases of doubt.

D. A c t i o n t o b e T a k e n w h e r e M i s c o n d u c t b y D e p a r t m e n t a l O f f i c e r s i s S u s p e c t e d o r A l l e g e d to h a v e t a k e n P l a c e

The only practical way to detect cases where Departmental officers may have acted irregularly in providing service is to examine the relevant files of the services on which alleged or suspected irregularities may have taken place.

Such an examination should establish whether there are any grounds supporting the contention of misconduct, such as a service being connected out of priority order or having received unduly expeditious handling through the routine stages normally followed in treating applications.

Where the Assistant Director (Telecommunications) considers that further inquiries should be made into the circumstances under which the services were provided, the matter should be pursued by the Investigation Section.

In those cases where it is established that there has been collusion between an intending subscriber and a member of the Post Office staff, the provisions of the Post and Telegraph Act, Commonwealth Public Service Act or any other relevant Act, should be enforced in the light of circumstances of each individual case.

E. A c t i o n w h i c h s h o u l d b e A v o i d e d

Observations must not be taken of conversations for the purpose of proving or disproving that a service is being used for the purposes for which it was installed.

The Department maintains the firm attitude that every subscriber is entitled to telephone conversations which are strictly confidential between the parties participating. Therefore, as the Department observes calls in order to obtain essential telephone traffic data, the importance of adherence to the instructions laid down should, from time to time, be impressed on the officers engaged on these duties. The Assistant Director (Telecommunications) may, in special cases,

have a telephone service placed under observation solely for the purpose of determining whether or not is is being used contrary to the Telephone Regulations, for example, in connection with an offence as outlined in Telephone Regulation 63 (1). Cases may arise, however, where a written request is made by the lessee of a telephone service for advice of the extent of the use of the service during specified times. Should the Assistant Director (Telecommunications) decide to

comply with such a request, the information given to the subscriber must be limited to the number of outward or inward calls from, or to, the service.

F . R e p l y t o t h e P r e s s a n d o t h e r I n q u i r i e s R e g a r d i n g t h e D e p a r t m e n t ’ s A t t i t u d e

It is not desirable, as a general rule, that the Post Office should take the initiative in releasing to the Press, information concerning action taken to enforce the observance of the Telephone Regulations.

However, inquiries are made from time to time by the Press for information as to the Department’s policy in providing telephone services which Police investigations reveal are used for illegal betting or in disconnecting telephone services under the Regulations.

Where specific cases are referred to, it is necessary to relate any statement to the facts of the particular instances, but it will be preferable, wherever possible, to keep the contents of any statements issued to the broad policy adopted by the Department.

The following paragraphs represent the type of statements which are considered to set out clearly the Department’s policy:— Telephones for Illegal Betting Starting Price Bookmakers have not been provided knowingly by the Department with the telephones

to be used for unlawful purposes. The truth is that, in the cases investigated by the Police, Departmental inquiries had shown that the telephones found on the premises were originally supplied at the request of persons who had completed the usual agreement form and had given a perfectly legitimate reason for requiring the service. Moreover, in most of the cases, the telephones

had been sought and provided over a number of years, the particular telephone directory entry relating to each of the services listing the lessee under a legitimate business heading.

It is not true to suggest that the Post Office does not co-operate with the Police Department in its enforcement of the laws of the State.

Where the Police Authorities secure a conviction on an illegal betting charge and request the Department to withdraw the telephone services, steps are taken immediately to comply with the Police request. Moreover, the Department acts on its own initiative where its inquiries disclose that telephone services have been interfered with in any way.

However, with applications in the metropolitan area of . . . approximating . . . a month,

it would be quite impracticable, even if it were desirable, to investigate the bona fides of each applicant or to inspect his service when connected to ensure that the telephone was being used for the purpose for which the application was made. Action of this nature could easily be regarded as interfering with the reasonable liberty of the individual and would certainly be inconsistent with

the Department’s own obligation to ensure privacy of communication.

Similarly, the Post Office could not entertain any suggestion that it should “ tap ” telephones for the purpose of ascertaining whether the business transacted on them was legitimate or otherwise. It has set its face over the years against any relaxation of this policy.

118

It would also be wrong to assume that all the telephones used for illegal purposes were provided in areas where applicants were awaiting service. Most of the cases investigated so far were within the city area and, in general, it was not this area in which Departmental plant was insufficient to meet demand. In the main, any shortage of cable and equipment was in suburban and country districts, and the Department was pressing on as rapidly as possible and the absolute limit of its resources were used in providing facilities in these districts.

The Department has a comprehensive priority system associated with the provision of telephone services and the strictest watch is kept on its operation to ensure that applicants are not advanced out of their proper turn. Repeated investigations have shown that the priority system is being followed generally.

D irector-General.

119 5 23

EIGHTH APPENDIX

Page.

1. Departmental Instructions of 27th June, 1950 .. .. .. ■· ■· ■· . . 1 2 0

2. Departmental Instructions of 6th July, 1950 .. .. ■ ■ ·â–  ·â–  ·· . . 1 2 0

3. Departmental Instructions of 30th August, 1955 .. .. .. ■ ■ -· ■■ . . 1 2 1

4. Departmental Instructions of October, 1955 .. .. .. · · ·· ■· *22

120

E.AS 8/10.

PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE SERVICES IN PRIVATE RESIDENCES OR VERY SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS An amended procedure is to be introduced in dealing with applications for telephone exchange services in, and the removal of existing services to, private residences or very small business establishments, to ensure that where a service already exists which will cater for the normal needs of the subscriber, the provision of an additional service will not be given a high priority. In such cases, the application for an additional service will be allotted a D2 priority.

In order that the matter will be watched closely, the following procedure is to be observed:— (i) The Telephone Branch will arrange for all Telephone Orders to bear a notation where an additional service is approved.

(ii) Where a telephone order is received for the installation of an exchange service in a private residence or very small business establishment where such a facility is already installed, and the order does not bear a notation that the additional service is approved, the Area Line Foreman should immediately return the order to the Telephone Order Clerk with a green slip attached on which the relative details will be entered. This slip should be made out in triplicate and distributed as follows—

(a) Original returned with the Telephone Order to the Telephone Order Clerk who will advise the the Senior Clerk, Contract Section, Telephone Branch (D.T.O. in case of Country Divisions). (b) Duplicate referred to the Officer-in-Charge of the appropriate subscribers Installation Centre to ensure that Technicians will not proceed with the installation of the service. (c) Triplicate retained by the Line Foreman.

(iii) In cases where the Telephone Order is not endorsed vide (i), technicians responsible for installing subscribers services should also bring under notice any cases where it is known that, or is found that on proceeding to instal an exchange service in a private residence or very small business establishment, such a facility is already connected. Action should be taken to return the order to the Telephone Order Clerk as indicated in (ii), using the same slip, a copy of which should be retained.

Civ) The installation of a service should not be commenced where it is found that it is required in premises other than that shown on the order; the order should be returned as indicated in (ii).

(v) In any case where the order is being returned for the reasons mentioned above, the Lines Officers or Technicians should not discuss with the applicant in any way the reasons for not proceeding with the installation.

(vi) Where, after investigation, it is found that the service should be proceeded with, suitable advice together with the Telephone Order will be forwarded to the Telephone Order Clerk from the Telephone Branch. The Telephone Order Clerk will, in turn, advise the Line Foreman and/or O.I.C., Sub. Installation Centre that work on the Telephone Order may proceed.

The procedure only applies where the additional services are noticed by members o f the staff in the normal course o f their duties, and they are not expected in any way to search premises for additional services. It is realized that in flats, subdivided houses, pairs, double fronted shops, &c., there may be some difficulty in determining whether there is already a service in existence and the matter must be largely one of discretion. Where, for instance, two separate flats or businesses are involved, no action is necessary, but where there is any doubt at all, the matter should be reported vide the procedure referred to above.

Please note for attention accordingly, and arrange for the procedure to be implemented forthwith.

W. E n g e m a n

for Superintending Engineer. 27.6.50.

Tel.50/1173.

PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE SERVICES IN PRIVATE RESIDENCES OR VERY SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS.

In accordance with instructions received from the Director-General, it will be necessary that all applications for the provision of telephone exchange services in, and the removal of existing services to, private residences or very small business establishments where a service is already installed should be investigated fully, and, in any case where it is evident that the normal needs of the subscriber could be met by the existing service, the applications should be allotted Priority 4 (ii), i.e. D.2.

2. In this connexion, a D.2 priority should be allotted for an additional line to a small business establishment where the average daily calling rate does not exceed 10 calls per day on the existing service. All applications for an extra line to a private residence should be allotted Priority D.2.

3. The procedure to be observed in regard to this matter is as follows:— (i) All applications for the provision of new exchange services in private residences or very small business establishments, or the removal of existing services to such establishments, shall include a clause reading:—

“ A telephone service is -,-n0t, installed in the premises ” . already The applicant will be required to cross out the reference which does not apply, and initial the deletion.

(ii) Rubber stamps have been obtained for making the insertion on the Forms Tel. 33 and Tel. 40, and will be forwarded under separate cover. (iii) All telephone orders issued for additional exchange lines (Priorities C.2 and D.2) must bear the stamped impression “ Additional service approved ” for the information of the Installation Staff, Engineering

Branch, as the priority sub-classification i.e. 1 or 2, will not appear on the order.

121 525

(iv) Officers of the Engineering Branch have been instructed to bring under notice any case where orders for a telephone service at a private residence or very small business establishment are received, and it is found that there is already an existing service in the premises and the orders are not stamped “ Additional service approved The Telephone Order Clerk will return a copy (Lines or Technician’s copy) of the order to the Senior Clerk (Contracts). These cases should be investigated by the Senior Contract

Clerk, and, if the calling rate on the existing service at a small business establishment is low, i.e. less than 10 per day, a D.2 priority should be allotted. In other cases the priority should be altered to C.2. The Officer in Charge, Priority Section, should then ascertain whether cable is, or is not, available under the amended priority rating and arrange for the Senior Contract Clerk to be advised.

(v) Where cable is available under the correct priority category C.2 or D.2, an advice in triplicate should be sent to the Telephone Order Clerk, as per the attached pro forma, indicating that the provision of the additional service is approved and may be proceeded with.

(vi) If cable is not available, orders should be issued withdrawing the previous orders for the provision of the service, which should not be provided until the Priority Section advises that cable is again available under the lower priority applicable. New orders should then be prepared and despatched in the usual way, bearing the stamped endorsement, “ Additional service approved ” , 4. Suitable instructions covering the procedure have been issued by the Superintending Engineer, a copy of which is attached for your information.

5. Special attention should be given to this important matter to ensure that additional services in residences and small business establishments are provided strictly under their correct priority category only.

E. HENDERSON Superintendent, Telephone Branch. 6.7.50.

T e l e p h o n e O r d e r C l e r k ,

E n g i n e e r i n g B r a n c h .

Telephone Branch, General Post Office, MELBOURNE, C.l.

Telephone Order N o........................................................................................................................

Required at.........................................................................................................................................

Applicant’s N am e:.............................................................................................................................

With reference to your advice of that action has been deferred on the above telephone order because * (i) A service already exists at the premises; * (ii) The service is required at an address other than that shown on the telephone orders;

please note that the provision of the service is approved and may now be proceeded with.

for Superintendent, Telephone Branch.

* Cross out which is n o t applicable.

Telephone Branch, General Post Office, Melbourne, C.L 30.8.55.

C l e r k - i n - C h a r g e : Priority Section Directory Section

Contracts Section Public Facilities Section

Broadcasting Section

S u b j e c t *

PROVISION OF TWO OR MORE TELEPHONE SERVICES IN THE ONE BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE As you are aware, an instruction was issued some time ago indicating the procedure that was to be adopted where two or more telephone services were required in small business establishments or residences. This instruction stated that the provision of such additional lines should be approved by the Priority Allotment Officer and the words “ Additional lines approved ” included in the body of the telephone order, when issued.

2. It is now intended to extend this practice and to nominate a Senior officer to approve such installations. Consequently, a new procedure is to be introduced on the Contracts and Priority Sections immediately, and the previous instruction and authority to the Priority Allotment Officer to approve such applications are cancelled.

3. Where an application is received for the installation of two or more telephone lines, (whether new installation or removal), the Priority Allotment Officer, after stamping each application “ Additional service approved ” will take the application to the delegated Senior officer who, after giving the request consideration, will initial the application form alongside the stamp impression. The application will then be returned to the Priority Allotment Officer for normal action.

4. After service has been offered and rental in advance lodged, the Contract Clerk will check the file to ensure that the provision of the group of lines or additional lines has been approved, and immediately after the type of equipment stated in the body of the telephone order, will add the letters “ A.L.A. ” (Additional lines approved, i.e., “ Plan 16 A.L.A.” &c.).

F .11389/63.— 9

122

5. Pending the introduction of the proposed Commercial Branch, the only officer who can approve the provision of such installations is the Superintendent, Telephone Branch, and applications for two or more lines or additional lines whether new installations or removals should be referred to him daily.

6. When cable pairs are allocated, applications that have been deferred for some time may be affected, and the papers would not have been submitted to the delegated officer for his approval. In these cases, the files should be given to the Clerk-in-Charge, Priority Section, or the Clerk-in-Charge, Contracts Section, for necessary attention. As far as possible, these cases should be detected by the Quotations Officer before the actual communication advising that service can be given is forwarded to the applicant.

7. The responsibility of ensuring that telephone orders are not issued when the additional lines have not been approved, rests entirely upon the Contract Clerk, and although precautions will be taken earlier to ensure that such cases are approved prior to the files reaching that officer, it is his duty to personally check all files where two or more lines are required, and to ensure that they have been initialled, indicating that approval for the installation has been given. I f

the authority does not appear on the file, telephone orders must not be issued under any circumstances. This instruction applies to all applications for two or more lines or the provision of additional lines, whether the applicant is a well established firm or organization or is unknown. This instruction is to be brought into operation immediately.

Senior Clerk, Contracts and Broadcasting.

VICTORIAN STATE ENGINEERING INSTRUCTIONS

P r o v i s i o n o f A d d i t i o n a l T e l e p h o n e S e r v i c e s i n P r i v a t e R e s i d e n c e s o r S m a l l B u s i n e s s E s t a b l i s h m e n t s —

F i l e E—AS8/10

1. Applications for service on paneldex cards for approved additional telephone services will be stamped ALA (“ Additional Line Approved ”), and endorsed with the initials of the Assistant Superintendent (Subscribers Services Commercial Branch).

2. Telephone orders for approved additional services will have the letters ALA typed after the type of equipment stated on the order, for example— Plan 16 ALA.

3. To ensure that additional telephone services (new lines) are not provided above the normal and legitimate needs of private subscribers and small business establishments, the following procedure will be observed in the Engineering Divisions:— 3.1 Cable Recorder

Should an application be received without the stamp and initials and the Cable Recorder find that there is one service, or more, already installed in the premises (even when listed under a different name), the application, together with a Form ENG.47 will be returned to the Assistant Superintendent (Subscribers Services) for further check. A duplicate copy of the Form ENG.47 will be retained for reference by the Cable Recorder.

3.2 Area Line Foreman Where a Telephone Order is received covering an additional service and it is not endorsed as in paragraph 2 the Area Line Foreman shall immediately return the order to the Telephone Order Clerk through the Divisional Office with Form ENG. 47 attached on which the relative details will be entered. This form

shall be made out in triplicate and distributed as follows:— 3.21 Original—returned with the Telephone Order to the Telephone Order Clerk who will advise the Senior Clerk, Commercial Branch (D.T.O. in the case of Country Divisions).

3.22 Duplicate—referred to the Officer-in-Charge of the appropriate Sub-station Installation Centre to ensure that Technicians will not proceed with installation of the service.

3.23 Triplicate—retained by Area Line Foreman.

3.3 Technical Staff Where an installing technician finds that a subscriber already has an existing service and the Telephone Order is not endorsed as in paragraph 2, the action shown in paragraph 3.2 shall be taken, except that the duplicate copy shall be forwarded to the Area Foreman and the triplicate retained by the Technician.

3.4 The installation of a service shall not be commenced where it is found that it is required in premises other than those shown on the order; the order should be returned as indicated above.

3.5 Where the order is being returned for the reasons mentioned, the Lines Officers or Technicians should not discuss with the applicant in any way the reasons for not proceeding with the installation.

3.6 Where, after investigation, it is found that the service should be proceeded with, suitable advice together with the Telephone Order will be forwarded to the Telephone Order Clerk from the Assistant Superintendent (Subscribers Services), Commercial Branch. The Telephone Order Clerk will, in turn, advise the Line Foreman through the Divisional Office and/or Officer-in-Charge, Subscribers Installation Centre, that the work on the Telephone Order may proceed.

4. This procedure applies only where existing services are noticed by members o f the staff in the normal course of their duties, and they are not expected in any way to search premises for additional services. It is realized that in many flats, sub-divided houses, pairs, double fronted shops, &c., there may be some difficulty in determining whether there is already a service in existence and the matter must be largely one of discretion. Where, for instance, two separate flats or businesses are involved no action is necessary, but where there is any doubt at all, the matter should be reported using the procedure outlined above.

P.M.G.’s DEPARTMENT Issue 1, October, 1955. Issue 2

123 527

NINTH APPENDIX

Departmental Instructions issued in relation to the installation of telephones in unusual locations

P a g e .

124

T e l e p h o n e E n g i n e e r i n g I n s t r u c t i o n s

Australian Post Office

124

SUBSTATION 1 0004.

SECTION 3, PART a—INSTALLATION OF SUBSCRIBERS’ EQUIPM ENT: SIMPLE SERVICES

4 . L o c a t i o n s , C h o i c e of.

4.1. General.—It is essential that the location of an instrument be carefully chosen, particularly in the case of automatic equipment. Good natural or artificial lighting is necessary both for satisfactory operation and inspection by maintenance staff. Equipment should not be installed where the subscriber, installation or maintenance mechanic, or the equipment itself, would be exposed to the risk of injury.

Installation Circular No. 4.

TELEPHONE APPARATUS IN UNUSUAL SITUATIONS (Amendment to Installation Circular No. 4.)

I. Paragraph 4.1. of Section 3, Part a, of Installation Circular No. 4 is cancelled and replaced by the following— 4.1. General.—It is essential that the location of an instrument be carefully chosen, particularly in the case of automatic equipment. Good natural or artificial lighting is necessary both for satisfactory operation and inspection by maintenance staff. Equipment should not be installed where the subscriber, installation or maintenance technician, or

the equipment itself, would be exposed to the risk of injury. Any case where a request is made by the subscriber for the location of the apparatus in an unusual situation, for example, in a bathroom or other obscure or minor room, should be brought under the notice of a responsible officer so that the matter may be referred to the Divisional Engineer before the installation is effected.

Issue 1, July, 1950.

TELEPHONE APPARATUS IN UNUSUAL SITUATIONS (Amendment to Installation Circular No. 4.)

1. Paragraph 4.1. of Section 3, Part a, of Installation Circular No. 4 is cancelled and replaced by the following— 4.1. General.—-It is essential that the location of an instrument be carefully chosen, particularly in the case of automatic equipment. Good natural or artificial lighting is necessary both for satisfactory operation and inspection by maintenance staff. Equipment should not be installed where the subscriber, installation or maintenance technician, or the equipment itself, would be exposed to the risk of injury.

Apparatus should not be installed in a bathroom, and any case where a request is made by the subscriber for the location of the apparatus in an unusual situation, for example, in an obscure or minor room, should be brought under the notice of a responsible officer so that the matter may be referred to the Divisional Engineer before the installation is effected.

Issue 2, November, 1951.

INSTALLATION OF SUBSTATION SERVICES: INSTALLING SIMPLE SERVICES

6 . U n u s u a l L o c a t i o n s .

Telephone instruments shall not be installed in unusual situations such as bathrooms or obscure locations in buildings. Where subscribers insist on having the telephone installed in what appears to the Technician to be an unusual location, the case shall be referred, through the Senior Technician, to the Divisional Engineer for a ruling before the installation is effected.

Issue 3, August, 1953.

INSTALLATION OF SUBSTATION SERVICES: INSTALLING SIMPLE SERVICES

6 . U n u s u a l L o c a t i o n s .

Telephone instruments shall not be installed in unusual situations such as bathrooms or obscure locations in buildings. Where subscribers insist on having the telephone installed in what appears to the Technician to be an unusual location, the case shall be referred, through! the Senior Technician, to the Divisional Engineer for a ruling before the installation is effected.

Issue 4, October, 1958.

125 529

TENTH APPENDIX

Page.

1. Letter dated 21st April, 1960, from Director-General to Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria .. .. 126

2. Letter dated 31st May, 1960, from Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria, to Director-General .. .. 126

3. Letter dated 24th June, 1960, from Director-General to Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria .. . . 127

4. Letter dated 29th June, 1960, from Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria, to Director-General .. .. 128

5. Letter dated 8th September, 1960, from Director-General to Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria.. .. 128

6. Letter dated 14th September, 1960, from Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria, to Director-General .. 129

7. Letter dated 30th September, 1960, from Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria, to Director-General .. 129

126

21st April, 1960.

Dear Commissioner, On Monday, the 4th April, when the Postmaster-General, the Honourable C. W. Davidson, was visiting Melbourne on official business, he received a deputation composed of Mr. Eugene Gorman, Q.C., and Inspector Webb and Senior Constable Sylvester of the Victoria Police.

The deputation asked the Postmaster-General to consider the possibility of extending along certain lines the scope of assistance rendered by the Victorian Administration of the Post Office to your Gaming Squad. In particular, as I understood the purpose of the request, the Minister was invited to consider the possibility of furnishing additional information on telephone services and Post Office private boxes leased by certain people.

Mr. Davidson asked that the request be submitted in writing over your own signature, if that is appropriate, and possibly after discussion with your legal authorities. I gathered the impression that this was also the view of Mr. Gorman who felt, after participating to some extent in the discussion, that any submission for assistance of the nature disclosed during our talks should be made in writing.

You may care to take this matter up with Inspector Webb if he has not already done so with you. With some knowledge of the Minister’s views and of traditional Post Office policy, 1 suggest that such a submission should be quite specific about the sort of additional assistance envisaged and should not overlook the likely effect of the proposed Victorian State legislation on “ off-course ” betting on the activities of the Gaming Squad.

With warmest regards, Yours sincerely, M. R. C. STRADWICK Director-General.

Major-General S. H. Porter, C.B.E., D.S.O., E.D., Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria, Police Headquarters, Russell-street, Melbourne, C.1,

Chief Commissioner’s Office, Police Headquarters, Melbourne, C .l.

31st May, 1960.

Mr, M. R. C. Stradwick, Director-General, Postmaster-General’s Department, Treasury Gardens,

Melbourne, C.2.

Dear Mr. Stradwick, In your letter of April 21st, you told me of the conference held on April 4th, when the Postmaster-General was visiting Melbourne and received a deputation composed of Mr. Eugene Gorman, Inspector Webb and Senior Constable Silvester.

You suggested that 1 should make an official submission about “ additional assistance ” which may be rendered by the Victorian Administration of the Post Office to the Gaming Squad, which is part of No. 4 Division under Inspector Webb.

It has taken some time to assemble all the facts which have led to proposals made on April 4th. I might say that I thoroughly agree with your request to have an official submission upon which to base your reply.

Broadly, the problem confronting the Victoria Police is the prevention of illegal gambling. Whether or not changes in legislation make off-course betting possible, it is considered there will continue to be a problem of enforcing the law relating to betting and, in particular, in eradicating illegal practices by book-makers.

It has been proved that illegal book-makers do a great deal of harm to the morale of the Police Force if they arc allowed to operate unchecked. They deliberately promote suspicion that Police are corruptible. I also believe that they promote suspicion that your own employees may be bribed into co-operation with them; but this has not the same deliberate promotion as occurs in relation to Police. I propose to leave out of discussion harm or otherwise to the community.

Some time ago, the Police Force began a campaign against illegal book-makers. Part of the campaign was the assembly of personnel with special aptitude and ability for tackling the problems; and the ordering of these personnel to overcome all obstacles in the way of law enforcement. Senior Constable Silvester is one of this group of personnel.

The group has now been merged into the Gaming Squad and has been able to gain information and circumvent obstacles with a remarkable degree of success. However, time plays an important part in their operations and it is felt that the co-operation of your own Department would not only ease the time factor in detecting offenders, but would also provide mutual benefits to your Department and Police.

127

It is realized, of course, that your co-operation must stop short of infringing policy relating to privacy of your subscribers who use telephones or Post Office boxes; but it appears that, without any infringement and without embarrassment to your Department, information concerning the names of subscribers who rent telephones or Post Office boxes could be made available for the purpose of shortening detection processes. In many cases, this would amount to avoiding embarrassment to all parties concerned in that Police could easily eliminate innocent subscribers from those

who are using public media of communication for illegal purposes. In prosecuting the latter, care could be taken not to take advantage of information other than that relating to the identity of the individual or individuals concerned.

Let me, at this stage, point out that detectives employ information from all sources, together with their own detection work. Information from sources other than your Department is sometimes unreliable; but. before discarding it, some action has to be taken. By relying more upon information from your Department, it will be possible to discard earlier faulty information from other sources. This in itself, is a very weighty factor in favour of close co-operation with your Department.

Of the outside information which is reliable, a great deal has proved fruitless simply because of the time taken in verifying it, either by receiving such verification from your Department or by other means. In recent months, members of the Gaming Branch, after many weeks of tedious inquiries and long hours of work, succeeded in apprehending two principal offenders in a “ tipping racket ” , The main offender, however, avoided detection, mainly because of delay in obtaining necessary verification from your Department. Your Officer-in-Charge of your Postal Investigation Branch was unable to give direct information to Gaming Branch officers without a written request from me. At the time in question, I was absent on a country trip and it was not until some time afterwards that I was able to make an official

request. Fourteen days later, the necessary information was obtained, but, by then, the offender had evaded the Gaming Branch. I believe that the intervening time was taken up with official procedure in your Department for the purpose of gaining permission to pass information to the Gaming Branch.

It would, therefore, appear that, should you agree to passing information of a certain type, an officer of your Department to whom the Officer-in-Charge of the Gaming Branch has access might be given authority to act on his own initiative in accordance with your policy.

The type of information required is likely to be of the following nature:— (a) Name and address of a subscriber when a telephone is being used for illegal betting or for communicating betting information. (b) Name and address of a person who is renting a Post Office box being used by illegal book-makers or

persons conducting “ tipping rackets ” ,

The Gaming Branch would also like co-operation extending beyond the above information. This may amount to (a) permission to examine and photograph telegrams used by tipsters, or (b) permission to examine exchange records in relation to traffic on certain telephones which appear to be continuously in use on Victorian race days.

The latter two items may cause you to feel that Police are asking for permission to pry into the affairs of people who are normal, law-abiding subscribers, as a result of either having formulated a hunch or having a desire to discover probable suspects. I, therefore, suggest that if you consider these two latter requests, there should be a requirement that Police have reasonable grounds for wanting verification of other evidence already in their possession. Again, for

the sake of overcoming the time factor, it would be to our mutual advantage if a nominated officer of your Department could be delegated with the power of decision.

I must apologize for the length of this submission. I assure you that it is based solely upon a sincere endeavour to rid the State of the type of offender under discussion and that it envisages co-operation with your Department in both a legal sense and in conformity with your policy.

531

Yours faithfully, S. H. PORTER

Chief Commissioner.

24th June, 1960.

Dear Commissioner, In view of the important nature of the matters raised in your personal etter of the 31st May, and the extent to which they involve fairly well defined Post Office policy, I am arranging for special attention to be given the proposals you have submitted.

As it may be some time before these studies are completed, perhaps you will accept this letter as an acknowledgment of your own with the assurance that I shall get in touch with you again as early as practicable.

Yours Sincerely, M. R. C. STRADW1CK Director-General.

Major-General S. H. Porter, C.B.E., D.S.O., E.D., Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria, Police Headquarters, Melbourne. C. 1.

128

Chief Commissioner’s Office, Police Headquarters, Melbourne. C.l.

29th June, 1960.

Mr. M. R. C. Stradwick, Director-General, Postmaster-General’s Department, Treasury Gardens,

Melbourne. C.2.

Dear Mr. Stradwick, I am grateful for your letter of June 24th in which you inform me that special attention is being given to the proposals submitted in my letter of May 31st.

I shall look forward to hearing the outcome in due course, and would be glad to supply any additional information which you may require in the interim.

Yours sincerely, S. H. PORTER Chief Commissione

8th September, 1960.

Dear Commissioner, Further to my letter of the 24th June, careful consideration has been given to the matters raised in your letter of the 31st May concerning co-operation by the Post Office in providing information which would assist the Police in the prevention of illegal gambling.

You will recall your proposal that the Post Office should furnish, on request from your officers, inforfnation as to the name and address of a subscriber when a telephone is being used for illegal betting or for communicating betting information. The Post Office is quite prepared to co-operate in this way on the definite understanding that such information will be regarded as confidential and used solely for the purpose of detecting illegal practices.

As you probably know, since I last wrote to you, officers of my Victorian State administration have been in touch with your officers with a view to making arrangements for information of this nature to be furnished quickly in response to a request. We now propose to authorize our Chief Investigation Officer and, say, not more than three other officers, to act in his absence, who would deal with requests from a like number of authorized members of your Force. The names of your authorized officers and their rank would need to be furnished in advance and any changes in authorized personnel notified as necessary. The information normally provided by the Department will consist of the details of the names and addresses of the telephone services, the numbers of which have been listed in the Police request and/or the details of the names of lessees and telephone service numbers at addresses furnished by the Police.

The type of further information which you indicated would be required was the name and address of a person who is renting a Post Office box being used by illegal bookmakers or persons conducting tipping rackets. The Post Office is agreeable to making such information available. Similar arrangements to those outlined in the foregoing will be made to facilitate the furnishing of such details promptly on requests from your authorized officers.

Concerning the question of co-operating to an extent further than either of the aspects mentioned previously, you raised the matter of examining or photographing telegrams used by tipsters. The action which it is possible for my Department to take in this regard is covered by Telegraph Regulation 70 which provides that a telegram may be produced for perusal or for copies to be taken by a person other than the sender or addressee on the authority of the Postmaster- General, the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs or a Director in certain circumstances. The Regulation specifies those from whom such a request may be accepted and the only member of a Police Force specified is a “ Chief Commissioner of Police ” , It would be necessary, therefore, in such instances for you personally to approach the Director, Posts and Telegraphs, Melbourne, who would then take whatever action considered appropriate in dealing with such a request.

The second aspect covered in relation to the matter of further co-operation was permission to examine exchange records of traffic on certain telephones which appear to be continuously in the use on Victorian race days. I am afraid it is not practicable to meet this request because the Department does not keep records of this nature.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. G. N. Smith, Director, Posts and Telegraphs, Melbourne, who is the Chief Officer of my Department in the State sphere in Victoria, and am requesting him to arrange for the matter to be followed up locally with your officers.

Yours sincerely, M. R. C. STRADWICK Director-General.

Major-General S. H. Porter, C.B.E., D.S.O., E.D., Chief Commissioner of Police, Victoria, Police Headquarters, Melbourne, Vic.

129 533

Chief Commissioner’s Office, Police Head-quarters, Melbourne. C.l.

14th September, 1960.

Mr. M. R. C. Stradwick, Director-General, Postmaster-General's Department, Treasury Place,

Melbourne. C.2.

Dear Mr. Stradwick,

Thank you very much for your letter of September 8th, in which you state the willingness of your Department to co-operate with Police in the prevention of illegal gambling.

The method of co-operation which you have set out is, I feel, most satisfactory.

I shall carefully consider a list of authorized members of the Force for handling information and making requests to your officers. When it is complete, I shall communicate with you further.

May I, at this stage, say how very much I appreciate the helpful approach which I personally have experienced on the part of your Officers, and assure you that any reciprocal help which this Force is able to give will be willingly forthcoming.

Yours faithfully, S. H. PORTER Chief Commissioner.

Chief Commissioner’s Office, Police Head-quarters, Melbourne. C.l.

30th September, 1960

Mr. M. R. C. Stradwick, Director-General, Postmaster-General’s Department, Treasury Place,

Melbourne. C.2.

Dear Mr. Stradwick, Further to your letter of 8th September and my reply of 14th September, I have pleasure in forwarding the names of four Officers of the Police Force who should be regarded as authorized to handle information and make requests to your Department in connexion with the prevention of illegal gambling.

The names of these Officers are as follows:—

Superintendent Η. V. Clugston Chief Inspector W. H. McMennemin Inspector H. W. Cook ..

Inspector J. T. Webb ..

Officer-in-Charge, Criminal Investigation Branch Deputy Officer-in-Charge, Criminal Investigation Branch Officer-in-Charge, Licensing Branch, 43 Little Bourke-street

Officer-in-Charge, Gaming Branch, 43 Little Bourke-street.

Should any alteration occur from time to time in the names of officers holding the positions mentioned, suitable advice will be sent to your Victorian administration.

Yours faithfully, S. H. PORTER Chief Commissioner.

131 535

ELEVENTH APPENDIX

1. Circular letter dated 30th January, 1943, from the Prime Minister to the Premier of Victoria

2. Letter dated 8th July, 1943, from the Premier of Tasmania to the Prime Minister ..

3. Letter dated 31st July, 1943, from the Prime Minister to the Premier of Tasmania .,

P a g e .

132

133

133

132

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Circular

Prime Minister, CANBERRA, A.C.T.

30th January, 1943.

My Dear Premier, Some little time ago, my Government took action to prohibit racing on the first Saturday in each month with the object of reducing the expenditure of manpower and money in what is regarded as a non-essential activity, at least in time of war, and of influencing the diversion of those resources from racing to war purposes or essential industries.

As a development of this action, the Government has been giving consideration to the question of the restriction of illegal betting. The Government has been advised that the State laws are comprehensive and adequate for the control of illegal betting but there is scope for closer co-operation between the Commonwealth and State authorities in that the State laws prohibiting starting price betting are being evaded through the use of Post Office services in the following

ways:— Postal Service .. .. Private letter boxes are used for illegal betting operatives and tipsters in order to conceal their true identity and the location of their premises.

T elegraph Service .. Despite the ban on telegrams relating to tipster or betting transactions, information regarding starting prices is being conveyed by messages worded in seemingly innocent terms.

T elephone Service .. Silent lines are rented by some persons mainly or entirely for the purpose of conducting starting price betting or tipster services.

Apart from ordinary services which may be occasionally used for placing or accepting bets, the telephone facilities installed in many clubs and hotels are being utilized to a considerable extent in this manner.

On Saturday afternoons, particularly, the trunk line service is used for conveying information or discussing matters regarding betting activities.

In accordance with the report submitted to me, I have issued instructions that the Postal Department shall co-operate with the State authorities in the following manner in order to assist them to deal effectively with the evils of illegal betting:—

(i) Private Box Services (a) Upon the receipt of a written request from the Police Department in the State concerned, accord to a responsible Police officer access to the records of private box services in any specified centre, on the definite understanding that the information extracted by him will be regarded

as confidential and used solely for the purpose of detecting illegal practices.

(b) Cancel a private box service where the Commissioner of Police in the State concerned certifies that the box is used in connexion with illegal tipping, race cards or betting practices.

(ii) Telephone Subscribers’ Services (a) Allow a responsible Police official to have access to the records of telephone services (silent lines or otherwise) under similar conditions to those proposed in regard to private box services.

(b) As at present, cancel a telephone service only where a written request is made by the Police Department consequent upon the subscriber or other person having been convicted of carrying on an illegal business at the place where the telephone is installed.

(c) Review the list of silent telephone services and terminate all such services, excepting where the subscriber furnishes a statutory declaration showing reason why such service is required and such reason to be adjudged by the Postmaster-General as being in the public interest.

(iii) Press Agencies Furnish the Police Department with details of private boxes and telephone services leased by or on behalf of Press Agencies, so that the activities of these organizations may be specially investigated.

(iv) F ixed T ime Line Calls (Trunk) Withdraw the Fixed Time trunk line call facility on Saturdays, excepting in respect of the Armed Forces, essential organizations or business, commercial, professional and industrial undertakings associated with the war effort.

It will be noted that the Postal Department will act on receipt of certain particulars from the Police Department and appropriate instructions are being issued to the Deputy-Director, Posts and Telegraphs, in each State. I should be glad if you would arrange for suitable advice to be conveyed to the Police authorities.

Yours faithfully,

JOHN CURTIN Prime Minister.

The Honourable, the Premier of Victoria, Melbourne.

133 5 3 7

Premier's Office, Hobart.

8th July, 1943.

Dear Sir, 1 refer to your circular letter of the 30th January last, on the question of the restriction of illegal betting.

There is a difference of opinion between the Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs and The Attorney-General as to the interpretation that should be placed on the word “ records ” appearing in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (ii) “ telephone subscribers’ services ", The Deputy Director states that “ records ” are meant to be contracts between the Department and subscribers,

but the Attorney-General’s view is that the word should be interpreted as “ nature of call ” , &c., for the various telephones under suspicion.

I would be obliged if an interpretation of the word 11 records ” could be furnished for the information of the Commissioner of Police.

The Right Honourable, The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, Canberra. A.C.T.

Yours faithfully, ROBERT COSGROVE Premier.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Prime Minister, Canberra. A.C.T.

31st July, 1943.

Dear Sir, With reference to your letter of 8th July, 1943, Post Office 27/1/43, regarding the interpretation that should be placed on the word “ records ” appearing in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (ii) “ telephone subscribers’ services ’’ in my letter of 30th January, 1 desire to inform you that the Commonwealth view is that the Postal Department should not

be required to observe telephone conversations for the purpose of ascertaining whether the persons concerned are contravening the laws. It is felt that this is not an appropriate function for a Postal administration to exercise and that it would strike at the very foundations on which all the Post Office communication services are based, viz., the secrecy and inviolability of the information which might be committed to the care of the Department for transmission by any of its

services by one member of the public to another.

It was not intended that details of telephone conversations or information showing the nature of calls should be made available to the Police authorities, the word “ records ” being used in relation to the subscribers’ telephone services and not to conversations originated or received over such services. These records cover the forms of contract (if any) and any relevant cards or registers.

In all the circumstances it is regretted that the Commonwealth cannot see its way to agree to the word “ records ” being interpreted as “ nature of call ” , &c., as suggested by your colleague the Attorney-General.

Yours faithfully, JOHN CURTIN Prime Minister.

The Honourable, the Premier of Tasmania, Hobart. Tas.

135

539

TWELFTH APPENDIX

P a g e .

Record of fixed time trunk line calls taken on 18th August, 1962.. . . .. .. . .. 136

136

SPECIAL RECORD OF FIXED TIM E CALLS TAKEN ON SATURDAY, 18th AUGUST, 1962, AT MAIN TRUNK EXCHANGES, MELBOURNE AND SYDNEY, AND AT 20 VICTORIAN COUNTRY CENTRES

M ain T runk E xchange, Melbourne

(1) Total fixed time calls .. .. .. .. .. .. 90 calls

(2) Total all trunk calls .. .. .. .. .. .. 10,447 calls

(3) Of the 90 fixed time calls made 24 were single calls from different subscribers. The

remaining 66 comprised— V.R.C.................................................... ................................. 48 calls

Sun News Pictorial .. .. .. .. .. 4 calls

One caller at Elizabeth-street Pay Section .. .. .. 4 calls

R.A.A.F. Laverton .. .. .. .. .. 3 calls

Bureau of Meteorology .. .. .. .. .. 3 calls

Age Newspaper .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 calls

3DB Broadcasting Station .. .. .. .. 2 calls

Main T runk Exchange, Sydney

(1) Total fixed time calls to Melbourne .. .. .. .. .. .. 46 calls

(2) Calls to other Victorian Centres .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Nil

(3) Total all calls to Melbourne .. .. .. .. .. 714 calls

(4) Of the 46 fixed time calls made to Melbourne 6 were single calls from different subscribers.

The remaining 40 comprised— C. G. Morrison, Glebe .. .. .. . · .. 19 calls

F. A. Prosser, Pitt-street .. .. .. .. .. 21 calls

20 Victorian Country Centres

(1) Total fixed time calls to Melbourne .. .. ■· ·· 4 calls

(2) To other Victorian centres .. .. .. · · · · 18 calls

(3) To interstate centres .. .. .. ■ ■ · · · ■ 2 calls

(4) The only subscriber who made more than one call was Colac 9061, Radio Station 3CS .. 14 calls

137

5 4 1

THIRTEENTH APPENDIX

1. Tipping circulars in the name “ Wally Steele ” . . . . ..

2. Tipping circular in the name “ Tommy Cromwell ” .. .. ..

3. Tipping circular in the name “ Kath Murphy ” ., .. ..

Page

138

142

145

F.l 1389/63 10

138

ONLY ADDRESS

439 WATERDALE ROAD WEST HEIDELBERG VICTORIA

3RD FEBRUARY

READ THIS ! !

In the three main English-speaking countries of the world—England, America and Australia—horse racing and gambling of all kinds is a by-word in the majority of homes. In England, S.P. Bookmakers, turf agents and tipsters are a household word; in America, the Pari-Mutuel Totalisator and the Daily Double are the household words; and in Australia, the Bookie and the “ tip ” , be it from the bloke next door, the chap at work or the local butcher, are the main topic of discussion on a race day in the biggest percentage of Australian homes, in the city or the small country town.

Some punters win, others lose, which all goes to make up the racing game. The winners are just plain lucky or they are in the “ know ” from some source, and the losers are those that would like to win but have not the slightest idea of how to go about it in a business like way and who also lack all balance and commonsense and are the rank and file who depend on the “ tip ” from the bloke down the street and the sporting pages of the newspaper. Where does that get them ? NOWHERE! ! Usually in debt.

I am led to understand from other persons connected with racing that YOU are interested or were in the Sport of Kings. If that is the case then I sincerely think that we could be of great help to each other.

But it depends upon YOU being able to treat our association as a business, keeping records of our business together on the record card which 1 shall send you and also a file of all racing articles, one of which will be sent to you each month, PLUS a copy of the 100 Racing Systems on my files. These articles are written by members of my staff including my trackmen.

The systems, in which many people are interested, are systems that have sold and are selling for the equivalent of £100 or more. I personally take no notice of systems, but many people do and read them with great interest.

T his is what I offer Y ou, and this is what it Costs (1) A telegram, paid for by me, each week. (2) The telegram contains the names of two horses in a private code. (3) A weekly newsletter. (4) A membership badge medallion to be worn when you visit a racecourse.

Once a M onth You R eceive (a) An article written by one of my staff on racing, which should be filed and referred to until its contents are known like the alphabet. (b) A copy of a Racing System, that has sold or is selling in U.S.A., England or Australia for £100 or more.

O nce a Y ear You R eceive * A free Caulfield-Melbourne Cup Selection. * The cost for all this is £104 a year. Just £2 2s. 6d. per week. * This is to be paid monthly at the beginning of each month (£8 10s.). * There are NO OTHER extras or charges of any description.

Now let’s look at this a little more closely.

All you have to outlay is the £2 2s. 6d. each week. All I want to do is to show you that under my direction, and operating EXACTLY as I direct, you can cover this cost each week and win a similar amount.

The way I look at it is this. If you make a business investment of 42s. 6d. each week and if you cover that cost and make the same amount you are doing very well. Think of the big business concerns; if they could outlay £1,000 and make a £1,000 for every £1,000 they outlay, they would be very happy. I cater for the small punter. There are big punters who are also clients of mine and who bet bigger. That is their concern. If you want to bet bigger, then do so and increase your stakes in proportion to those that I advise.

The weekly telegram that you receive nominates two horses. The average price of the horses sent over the year is 5/2. That means some are shorter and some are much longer; when it’s boiled down the average is just a fraction over 5/2. In 1961 it was 4/1 this was higher than usual as there was a 25/1 winner and several over double figures.

The horses are chosen from either Melbourne or Sydney, depending on the information we have on these horses On the first horse to race you invest only £2. NOW if the horse wins you DO NOT have a bet on the other horse HOWEVER, if it loses, then you invest £2 on the other horse on the telegram.

1 have provided this service for FOURTEEN YEARS. In all that time EVERY YEAR has covered the weekly cost of £2 2s. 6d. for my service and won a similar amount for each of my clients.

As I have explained, this is a service for the small punter. If you are a bigger punter and you can AFFORD to bet bigger then all you do is to increase the £2 bet to any multiple of 2. If you are a £10 better then you bet five times the amount; if you are a £20 better then you increase your bet by ten times, and so on.

You are provided with a card to keep a record of your transactions and you will find that this will prove to you that in me you will have found perhaps the answer to what you may have been searching for in racing.

Perhaps you have tried others, in the same business ? Perhaps you have been one of the many foolish persons who have fallen for phone calls from bogus jockeys and trainers ? Or maybe subscribed to a service that sent you nothing for your money, or then again to a service that sent you a string of odds-on favourites ? What ever it may have been, please let me advise you in future.

SATURDAY, 3 r d FEBRUARY

139 543

I ask every person that joins me NOT to have any other BET or join any other service whilst accepting my advice. It’s no good me showing you the winning path and then have you listen to some other persons that cause you to lose your money.

Forget newspaper tips, radio tips and disregard any letters you may receive from other persons once you join me.

MY WAY is the WINNING WAY. MY WAY is the GENUINE WAY.

MY WAY provides YOU with a BIG ORGANIZATION to assist you.

EVERY MONTH IS A W INNING MONTH.

There are certain reductions which may interest you.

If you pay for three months’ service (normally £25 10s.) you receive a 5 per cent discount—the service costing only £24 4s. 6d.

If you pay for six months’ service you receive 10 per cent, discount (nett cost £22. 10. 0).

One year’s service is £75, which is roughly a discount of 25 per cent. Many of my older clients do this as it saves more than 10s. per week.

My code lists are not sent out with my circulars, so that only those persons who become clients of mine receive a code. So it is essential that you reply immediately.

I invite new clients to join and start their service on days when 1 have a good thing going. In this case the date that 1 have something extra going off is on— SATURDAY, 3rd FEBRUARY

Your reply must reach me by return so I can rush a copy of my SECRET CODE CARD to you. This is very valuable. No other person can know the contents of your telegram other than yourself, and it also gives other special confidential information which is extremely beneficial to you.

My clients include business men, professional men, graziers, in fact men and women from all walks of life. Sensible people who have found in me perhaps the very person that you have hoped to meet all your life, the person that can advise you as a friend and business associate, just how to make a profit from racing and at the same time enjoy the Sport of Kings.

You must send your reply to reach me if possible by 30th January. It is essential you use the MEMBERSHIP FORM, even if you send your membership fee to me by telegram. Perhaps you are not aware that you can walk into any post office and send money by telegram. If you wish to do this just walk into your nearest post office and send your first month's fee by telegram today, but be sure to also mail the membership form.

I will conclude by saying that I sincerely hope that you will become one of my many satisfied clients.

Sincerest wishes for good luck, WALLY STEELE.

------(tear off here)------

MEMBERSHIP FORM

N ame............................................................................................................................................................................................

A ddress.....................................................................................................................................................................................

St a i r.....................................................................................................P hone N o. (if any).......................................

I, the above, enclose my cheque, cash (registered letter only). 1 agree to join your organization on the condition you provide the service you have outlined in your circular, and also on the understanding that I do not have to continue unless completely satisfied.

WALLY STEELE

of

439 WATERDALE ROAD WEST HEIDELBERG, VICTORIA

INVITES YOU TO READ FURTHER INTERESTING RACING NEWS

“ 1 USED TO SIT AND JUST WONDER, but NOW after joining your club 1 understand racing like never before. You have taught me the pitfalls and made my losing hobby into a profitable income,” writes a very satisfied member of my club. “ After becoming a club member, I have found what foolish bets I used to make on horses that were no value and

had little hope of winning. 1 was one of those stupid punters that thought racing systems could make me a fortune. If only I had written to you earlier. I tried 14 different systems and only now through betting on genuine stable information have I found out that there is no such thing as selecting horses by mathematical and mechanical methods. I was blinded by the bait of big profits and now see that a punter must be in the know and have inside information from a person like

yourself who has access to it.”

140

Another member who recently discovered that racing information, other than newspaper and radio tips, could be bought from professional agents like myself, writes: “ I’d heard of men like you and was warned not to have anything to do with turf agents by a cousin of mine who used to receive information. He told me all he ever got were favorites that lost. You have proved yourself and given me a new insight into racing by your great knowledge and monthly articles written by yourself and staff. Can’t thank you enough.”

LATEST NEWS—MORE WINNERS

10th February—Kilsherry won 5/2 on—Sydney Egoline won 4/1—Melbourne

D ear R eader,

I have now sent you two other letters and see that you have not as yet joined up. I repeat what I have said before. I have NO connexion with racing systems, in fact I say that sooner or later they will send any punter broke.

I give my members GENUINE INSIDE RACING INFORMATION. This costs just a mere 42s. 6d. per week, and a big reduction for 3, 6, and 12 months fees paid in advance, preferred by many business people.

I am not going to list all the results from last year, but once again here are the results so far this year:— 20th Jan. FREE & EASY—WON 12/1 (Sydney). No Melbourne selection. 27th Jan. PROOST—WON 9/2 (Sydney). 29th Jan. NIKALAPKO—WON 5/2 (backed from 10s, Melb.) 3rd Feb. No selections, Melbourne or Sydney.

As soon as you join you receive a Code Card with easy to understand code and useful hints for all racegoers, and a membership medallion.

Each week you receive a telegram, paid by me, naming two horses. One in Sydney and one in Melbourne. You are advised to invest two units on the first one. If it wins, no bet on the second. If it loses, two units on the second selection. This wins my members two units a week and covers also the cost of the weekly fee.

All you pay is a mere £8 10s. per month. I do not promise fantastic, impossible results just to get you to join. Others do! If you want idle unfulfilled promises join another agent, but in the end you will come to me like everyone else, BECAUSE with me YOU can WIN.

If there is any doubt about a day’s racing I make no selection for that State and sometimes no selection for both States. This does not cost you anything. It saves you money, but my office expenses go on. I still have the weekly overhead of trackmen and other staff and have to pay them. I do not mind this as I put my clients first.

YOU will find everything 1 say in all my letters true and correct. If you become a member for one month, you will then join for the rest of the year.

1 now ask you to become a member of my club. Commence your subscription on—

SATURDAY, 3rd MARCH, AT CAULFIELD

This is Caulfield Futurity Stakes day and the Merson Cooper Stakes too. You will then get the Newmarket Handicap day selection the next week, 10th March.

I have a horse “ set ” and prepared for 3rd March that will win. What a day to start off your membership with. A SURE W INNING DAY. What a nice introduction to your new friend and business partner, because that’s what we will be together. I’d venture to say that this is not only the best of good things but its track work has been exceptional and it would not be unreasonable to expect 5/1 on race day.

I HAVE CLEARLY INDICATED TO YOU MY KNOWLEDGE OF RACING. PUT YOURSELF IN MY HANDS.

(How to Join Up)

SEND YOUR MEMBERSHIP BY TELEGRAM TODAY

From any Post Office. Address it like this:— Steele, 439 Waterdale Road, West Heidelberg, Vic. “ Wiring £8 10s., Elizabeth Street P.O., Melbourne.”

OR FILL IN AND POST THIS COUPON TODAY Wally Steele, 439 Waterdale Road, West Heidelberg, Vic.,

Please find enclosed £8 10s. by cheque/cash (registered letter). Send Code Card and Medallion by return mail for one month, or £24 4s. 6d. for three months, £45 18s. for six months, or £75 for one year.

NAM E...................................................................................................................................................................................................

A D D RESS...........................................................................................................................................................................................

TOWN STATE.

141 5 4 5

WALLY STEELE ON THE ART OF PREDICTION

F ebruary H ints for A ll Punters

M an’s desire for a look into the future is as old as man himself. Always there have been those who claimed they could satisfy man’s desire to find out what was going to happen tomorrow. Astrology is thousands of years old and still going strong. The astrologers of ancient Babylon, Greece, Egypt and Arabia spent their lifetimes studying the stars so they could predict the future of those born under them.

Another popular predictor in ancient times was the “ national oracle ” , When the ruler of a country wanted to make war, or raise taxes, he would consult the oracle before making a decision. Prophets of all kinds have always had a strong appeal for those who were willing to believe. Fortunetellers, palmists, phrenologists, spiritualists and crystal gazers have all had their ardent followers.

Modern predictors have had a lot more success than their ancient counterparts. Guesswork has been replaced to a great extent by hard scientific fact. Jokes about the weatherman, for instance, are out of date today because the modern weather forecaster can predict the weather for the ensuing 24 or 36 hours with amazing accuracy. But there are times when the weatherman has to be a good guesser, too. Storms are especially hard to predict. They do not move at constant rates of travel in regular paths. There are always zones of uncertainty in front of, and to the sides of, any storm. When the weatherman predicts that a storm is headed for your city, he knows that it may change course and never get there but, obviously, it is his duty to issue the warning anyway.

Newspaper pollsters form another group of predictors who have adopted scientific methods, but even these require a certain amount of personal judgment at times. Big business firms no longer guess about their marketing problems. They find out what the consumer wants by using modern marketing research techniques. When their factories go into production, they know their product will be well received.

Sporting events, however, still seem to resist all the advances in the modern art of prediction. This remains the one field where the expert is most likely to have a red face when he tries to forecast results. It is only the Monday morning papers who are always right. Maybe it is just as well that sporting events are so often unpredictable. Who would be interested in watching any kind of contest if the result was known in advance ? Who ? Why nobody but us punters, that’s who!

At least we’d certainly like to know a little more about what was going to happen in a horse race than the professional handicappers are able to tell us. The average punter has a very low opinion of the professional handicappers who make the selections he reads in his daily newspaper or racing sheet. He knows in advance that the expert’s selections regularly show a loss and any

punter can do that well all by himself! The professional handicapper knows just about everything there is to know about selecting winners—much more than the ordinary punter—so why can’t he show a consistent profit ? Or at least a higher winning percentage ? Most handicappers do the best they can at what is admittedly an impossible job. When you consider that probably

half the races a selector handicaps are uhbetable to begin with, you can understand his problem. Quite often, the poor handicapper may not have the faintest idea which horse will win but still he is expected to make a first, second and third choice. Another large percentage of the races he handicaps are so closely contested that any one of three or four horses might win, without the result being considered an upset. The handicapper has a better chance of getting a winner in this

type of race but he is still guessing. When he does find a horse that stands out his second and third choices may be mere guesses. The whole idea of rating horses in each race one, two, three is unrealistic. In the handicapper’s own estimation, the top horse in one race might be no better than his second or third choice. In another race, he might consider his choice stands out. In still another race, it might be a pure guess. The punter has

no way of knowing how the handicapper actually feels about a particular selection. I don’t think the two-bob bettor pays too much attention to selections anyhow, except to see how often the horse he likes is mentioned, If it is picked too often, he will probably bet on another horse, because he is usually looking for something better than even money for his two bob. The average racing fan often has some pretty weird ideas about horseracing. He may be able to make a good living at his own job, buy a home, a car, and send his kids to college,

but when he goes to the races he is entering a world that is more or less foreign to him. But it is ridiculous to think that this mature adult cannot make a sensible decision once he has enough pertinent information. The matter of selecting winners is surrounded by so much hocus-pocus that most newcomers are skeptical of any information that is available to them. They have the preconceived notion that racing is an insider’s game and that any

reliable information is a closely guarded secret unavailable to outsiders. If they do not actually believe that racing is dishonest, they at least think the chances of an outsider’s winning are stricly a matter of luck. This idea is encouraged by the editorial policy of most newspapers. Newspapers take the position that it is impossible to beat the races (they can point to the fact that their own “ expert ’’ handicapper loses every year). But even if they admit that a few do beat the races consistently, they still feel that this is no reason to encourage betting by the vast majority who always lose. Their idea of not encouraging people to bet is to publish the selections of a half dozen different handicappers,

all of whom may regularly pick a different winner in half the races on the programme. But punters are hardy souls. They put up with things that would discourage other sports fans. They manage to go to the races in spite of adverse conditions and they go in greater numbers every year. What they need from newspapers is a little helpful information and fewer news stories. And better coverage by radio in line with the number of listeners who are interested.

Of course no one ever knows for certain which horse is going to win any particular race. But there are ways of making a selection that are more logical than others. Most of these ways take time, and the average racing fan does not care to take the time to make a through study. An efficient job of handicapping requires a continued day-after-day effort that is beyond the scope of the part-time punter.

The art of prediction with regard to horseracing means more than stabbing for a winner. It means the application of all available information and utilizing it to visualize what is likely to take place when ten or a dozen horses are turned loose. Most experienced punters do not make full use of the comments provided by the handicappers in the racing section of the local papers. Actually, the men who prepare these tips are experienced, race-wise, and are competing with one

another in the effort to turn in the best job. The novice race fan is much more likely to use the advices of these daily selectors than is the more seasoned punter. Actually, the comments make a good launching pad for the process of serious handicapping. Unfortunately, due to the space limitations on most newspaper racing pages, the comments of the handicapper are limited to a word or two to describe

142

the chances of each horse. Expressions like: “ should win ” , “ runner-up ” , “ could upset ” , &c., are about all the space he has to tell the punter what he thinks. The trouble with most of these selections is that the same trite descriptions of a horse’s chances are used in ever race—backable or otherwise. The punter never knows whether the selector thinks the horse that “ should win ” is a good bet or just one of several contenders. He never knows for sure whether “ could upset ” means a horse is coming into form, dropping in class, or just one of those in-and-outers that have a reputation for an occasional win. If the punter takes the time to compare past performance records with comments of the handicapper,

lie may arrive at a better understanding of what these comments really mean. At present a handicapper usually grades horses in a race something like this: Beau Tile—should win; Healthy Harry—runner-up; Busy B—could upset. This type of handicapping doesn’t give the punter much real information, but it is a start. By use of his past performances, the punter can develop his own picture of the race and may have something like this:

Beau Tie is a front-runner that has beaten this field before. Should do it again without much trouble. Healthy Harry starts slowly but has run second to Beau Tie twice, should be the runner-up. Busy B is inconsistent, but wins once in a while. This would make Beau Tie a reasonably sound bet with the opposition coming from Healthy Harry. The applied knowledge from the form of his past performances may bring a different kind of a picture. The punter after his analysis, might come up with this conclusion: Beau Tie is a front-runner that just managed to last enough to beat this field last time. Extra weight may make a difference today. Healthy Harry starts slowly and just missed catching

Beau Tie last time on a “ good ” track. Fast track will help today. Busy B has a little class and may be ready. Last race might have been a tune-up. This analysis makes it obvious that all three horses are contenders and that S.P. on the winner should be 2 to 1 or better. It does not nail down any one horse. Here is the last example: Beau Tie is a front-runner that stops. Healthy Harry starts slowly and never seems to get up in time. Busy B used to be a good one but present form is terrible. Advice: Save your money.

The three situations are all hypothetical. No actual races were given and the horses were imaginary. It was supposed that, in each case, the past performances were different. The point is that the punter, with a hint from a regularly-working expert, is a step ahead in making his analysis of a race, though it is possible that a study of the past performances will cause him to reject the opinions of the newspaper handicapper. Or he may help himself to a winner

because of the hints received. To make an intelligent study of a race, the case of every horse in it must be examined. Even if the punter does not care to bother with the opinion of the newspaper handicapper, he should make his analysis in the same form the newspaper man makes his. It might even be wise to write down a “ report to yourself” on the potential of at least the horses that seem to be contenders. By doing this, the punter is able to back off and view his own work in an objective manner.

Try it. The art of prediction is the art of working hard with the factors at hand in an effort to fix upon those factors which are likely to recur. By visualising the race as it is likely to be run, correct conclusions can be reached. The selections of certain handicappers can sometimes be used to confirm your own ideas about a horse’s chances, or to resolve some doubts you may have.

Dear Racing Fan, I think that this is the best way to start my letter to you. Please allow me, firstly, to introduce myself and tell you the reason that I write. I am a professional racing commission agent. I am writing to you as I have been given your name and address by Miss Joan Anderson, a public typist, who told me that she thought I should write and give you details of the service

I provide. So much for my introduction and the reason for writing—now, down to business. For the last 30 odd years I have been handling large S.P. commissions for connexions of Sydney and Melbourne racing stables. In the main, the horses are seldom tipped for even a place in the papers, or on the radio racing sessions, They are horses that have worked well in private track trials and ones that my own men have seen gallop after regular hours. I employ these men in both Melbourne and Sydney at all major training tracks. They frequently witness a gallop that is outstanding, missed by the touts and not reported in the papers. Apart from stable commissions these are the horses I RECOMMEND my clients to back. I back them myself at S.P. odds and cover my expenses by selling the information to people like yourself for a small fee.

Should you decide to become a client of mine after reading this letter, here are details of the service you will receive.

ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON you will receive a telegram from me in code. The telegram will contain the names of four horses—TWO in Melbourne and TWO in Sydney. Each week you will receive a regular letter from me discussing the previous week’s racing and other matters of racing interest.

The fee for this service is £6 10s. per month. For this you receive FOUR TELEGRAMS (one each week for a period of four weeks). The average price of the winners sent to clients is about 7/2. The winning average is one WINNER in every TWO BETS.

I could give you a long list of winners that would impress you: rather than that I have reproduced photostat copies of CERTIFIED TELEGRAMS from THE P.M.G. of a fairly recent telegram. You will notice that I have selected the name of a client from YOUR STATE to whom I sent this winning telegram. I recommend the following staking plan to my clients.

On the weekly telegram four horses are named. THE FIRST HORSE is my BEST BET FOR SYDNEY. The second horse is my second choice for Sydney. THE THIRD HORSE IS MY BEST BET FOR MELBOURNE and the fourth horse is my second choice for Melbourne.

1 suggest £4 on the best Sydney bet and £2 on the second; then £4 on the Best Melbourne Bet and £2 on the second Melbourne choice. This has proved more than successful for a long period and produces a good yearly profit. If an ADDITIONAL INCOME of £1,000 per year interest you, then REPLY TODAY. I am going to assume that this frank letter with the offer of GENUINE INFORMATION from STABLE SOURCES will interest you, therefore I am enclosing a copy of the code that my telegrams will be sent in.

SATURDAY

143

MELBOURNE a n d SYDNEY

5 4 7

5 t h MAY

I have been informed that I will be given a BIG S.P. COMMISSION to handle on this day. As a matter of fact there will be two—One in Melbourne and one in Sydney. From what I can gather at this stage of writing to you, the horses could be in the vicinity of 8 or 10/1.

This would be a great day for you to commence your first days business with me, therefore I suggest you reply at once. You can do this by filling in the enclosed form on this page OR SEND YOUR FEE BY TELEGRAM to make certain I receive it in time. I would not like you to miss this SUPER SPECIAL LONG SHOT WINNING DAY.

I f sending your fee of £6 10s. by telegram do it this way. Just go to your nearest Post Office and wire—CROMWELL, 13 Christmas-street, Croxton, Victoria. “ Wired £6 10s. Melbourne G.P.O.” (Sign your name).

IF POSTING— Tommy Cromwell, 13 Christmas St., Croxton, Vic.

Please find enclosed my cheque/money order or CASH by REGISTERED LETTER for £6 10s. I promise to keep all information secret and confidential. I understand this is the full and only payment for your services; I also understand that I am under no obligation to continue taking further service from you unless I am entirely satisfied with the results.

NAME ADDRESS STATE Phone No.

CROMWELL RACING SERVICE

13 CHRISTMAS STREET, CROXTON, VICTORIA

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA T .G . 58

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Our Reference; No. 434 Certified copy of Telegram transmitted subject to Post and Telegraph Act and Regulations, Addressed to MRS. B. GIBSON No. of words 18/15 WESTBURY TAS Time lodged 1 PM

Time sent 1 37 PM

V Z Z B E G N Y S Y B J R E

G E R A G Y N Q N Y V

X U N A E B L N Y

P R A G N Η E

TOM

From ..........................................................

I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a Telegram accepted at C.T.O. MELBOURNE on 16.2,1962 and that 4/6 was paid for its transmission, Date of issue of copy 2.3.1962 .........................................................

Superintendent, Telegraph Service Branch

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

POSTMASTER-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT

t .o . 58

Our Reference: No. 435 Certified copy of Telegram transmitted subject to Post and Telegraph Act and Regulations.

Addressed to W. MASON No. of words 15/12

WA Time lodged 1 PM

Time sent 1 44 PM

V Z Z B E G N Y S Y B J R E

G E R A G Y N Q N Y V

X U N A E B L N Y

P R A G N Η E

TOM

From..........................................................

I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a Telegram accepted at C.T.O. MELBOURNE on 16 FEB. 1962, and that 3/9 was paid for its transmission.

Date of issue of copy 2.3.1962 .........................................................

Superintendent, Telegraph Service Branch.

144

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA T .G . 58

p o s t m a s t e r - g e n e r a l ’s DEPARTMENT

Our Reference: No. 436 Certified copy of Telegram transmitted subject to Post and Telegraph Act and Regulations.

Addressed to JOE COLLOCOTT No. of words 17/14 HUGHENDEN Q Time lodged 1 PM Time sent 1 50 PM

V Z Z B E G N Y S Y B J R E

G E R A G Y N Q N Y V

X U N A E B L N Y

P R A G N Η E

I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a Telegram accepted at C.T.O. MELBOURNE on 16.2.1962, and that 4/3 was paid for its transmission.

Date of issue of copy, 2.3.1962

Superintendent, Telegraph Service Branch.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA T .G . 58

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Our Reference: No. 437 Certified copy of Telegram transmitted subject to Post and Telegraph Act and Regulations.

Addressed to HART No. of words 17/14

CROOKWELL NSW Time lodged 1 PM Time sent 2 11 PM

V Z Z B E G N Y S Y B J R E

G E R A G Y N Q N Y V

X U N A E B L N Y

P R A G N Η E

TOM

From..............................................................................

I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a Telegram accepted at C.T.O. MELBOURNE on 16.2.1962, and that 4/3 was paid for its transmission.

Date of issue of copy 2.3.1962

Superintendent Telegraph Service Branch

Here is the proof I offer you. This is the proof that will convince you that my ability to give my clients winners is more than true. The proof that no other agent can give. Proof of winners before the race—not after. FOUR WINNERS ON THE ONE TELEGRAM.

The most genuine stable information and the inside on private track trials on offer in Australia today. Old clients are invited to join again. New clients are advised that Cromwell Racing Services are outstanding for fair dealing. A matter of importance for new clients to consider is that we do not use a Box Number at some Post Office. Cromwell Racing Services is not a mushroom concern, but has given twenty-five years of valuable racing information services to its clients. An outstanding record of high average of winners at top prices. FULL ADDRESSES ON TELEGRAMS HAVE BEEN DELETED TO PROTECT CLIENTS’ PRIVACY.

Here is a copy of my current Code that my Telegrams are sent in:— M L K J I H G F E D C B A All you do is read the opposite letter.

Z Y X W V U T S R Q P O N LORD in Code is YBEQ

Just check with the above certified copies of telegrams from the Postmaster-General’s Department. Undeniable proof of the fact that I did indeed send my clients in all States four winners from four selections. Not the first time I’ve done it and it will not be the last. There are many occasions too numerous to mention when my clients have received two and three winners in the one day from four selections. THE FOUR HORSES WERE—IMMORTAL FLOWER WON 9/2: TRENT LAD WON 7/2: ALY KHAN WON 11/8: ROYAL CENTAUR WON 4/7.

145 5 4 9

NEW CLIENTS AND ALSO REGULAR CLIENTS

25 Speight Street, Thornbury, Vic.

Dear Client,

I address this letter to new clients and am also sending it to my regular clients who I ask to pass it along to a friend who may be interested.

Firstly, the above picture was taken with my late husband, with a horse that he sent to his clients and which won at top odds, and very easily at that. You may or may not have done business with my husband in the past. Arthur had many clients and was perhaps the keenest judge in the game as well as the best known. His successes grew to almost unbelievable heights after our marriage. Former clients will remember that my two sisters are all married into racing families, so what

with two of the boys being jockeys, although they seldom do business on their own mounts they are always in a position to know what is doing, in the race they are riding in, the day BEFORE.

Perhaps it may be strange for you to do business with a woman but my connexions are equally as good, if not better than, many other agents who are all men.

Many of the top horses gallop on our private track, brought there by their trainers who are quite unaware that I have any interest in making money from the game, other than fees for use of the track and spelling at the farm.

I am now in a position to advise you that I definitely know of a horse that has been set for a race on February 4th. This is one of those horses that have been patiently trialled and proved here right under my very own eye and have also been ridden by one of my brothers-in-law.

This horse has had its programme planned with the greatest care. It has already had a run or two and needs one more before it will be backed.

It will be backed and will win on Saturday, 4th February.

I am prepared to sell this information to you on the terms that my husband used when he was alive. If you are an old client you will remember that I used to do all his secretarial work, typing, &c.

This is what I offer you and what it will cost you—

I offer you a service that is second to none. Sending you horses that have actually been ridden by my OWN RELATIONS.

You may take my service on a optional manner as follows: You may invest £2 on the horse I send you at Starting Price—you send me the winnings on the Monday after the race. These wires are paid by you when you receive them.

OR

You can pay for FOUR telegrams in advance which will cost you only £5. I pay for the cost of these telegrams when I send them.

That’s all I can tell you now. The horse will win and I hope that you will then, from that date, become one of my regular clients for many years to come. Please send the slip at the bottom of this letter to me by return mail and i will post you a copy of a simple code I use. All telegrams are sent in code to keep my business, and yours, private.

Best wishes for a Happy and Lucky New Year.

Yours sincerely, (Mrs.) Kath Murphy. * 2 5

Mrs. Kath Murphy, 25 Speight St., THORNBURY, Vic.

I have decided to take your racing service on the following terms.

I will invest £2 for you at Starting Price and send you the winnings by the first mail on Monday.

OR

I enclose my cheque OR Cash by registered letter, for the sum of £5 to cover FOUR TELES.

NAME ADDRESS STATE

147 5 5 1

FOURTEENTH APPENDIX

P a g e .

List of private boxes used for the purpose of tipping . , .. .. .. .. . . ,, 148

148

LIST OF PRIVATE BOXES USED FOR TIPPING ACTIVITIES

1. Box 45, Port Melbourne .. .. . . . . .. A. Driscoll

2. Box 42, Caulfield East .. .. .. .. .. Fisher and others including J. O. Noall

Masters and Madigan and Buchanan

3. Box 35, Flemington .. .. .. Combine

J. O. Noall Clifford James Henry Bartlett Cliff Henry

4. Box 19, Balaclava .. .. .. Combine

J. O. Noall H. Dewhurst C. Henry

5. Box 13, Mordialloc .. .. .. Dewhurst

Combine J. O. Noall

6. Box 66, South Yarra .. .. .. Combine

J. O. Noall Dowling Walter Newman

7. Box 45, North Essendon . . .. . . . . .. Exeter

(Noall)

8. Box 1884 (1874?) r, G.P.O., Melbourne .. C. Lynch

Exeter (Noall)

9. Box 10, Glenhuntly .. .. .. .. .. Holder, Hill

Kingsley

10. Box 60, Ringwood .. .. . . . . .. S. Dalfort

11. Box 48, Randwick.. .. .. . . . . .. H. Duncan

12. Box 92, Caringbah, New South Wales . . . . . . H. Duncan

13. Box 29, Balaclava .. .. . . . . . . K. Rothman

14. Box 35a, G.P.O., Melbourne .. . . . . . . R. Dillon

15. Box 422c, G.P.O., Melbourne .. . . . . . . A. Wise

16. Box 71, Caulfield South . . .. . . . . . . J. Hilton

17. Box 3, Caulfield South .. .. . . C. Ray Barton

Eugene Barcley (Green Ribbon)

18. Box 90, Caulfield South .. .. . . · · . . Kingsley

19. Box 31, Flemington .. .. • * · · .. George Breasley

20. Box 30, Canterbury . .. . . C. Ray Barton

Ribbon Ray Green Ribbon

21. Box 34, Balaclava .. .. . . .. . . J. Buckley

(Kadarchi)

22. Box 15, Balaclava .. .. .. H. Dewhurst

Noall C. Shaw

23. Box 1101, Elizabeth-street Post Office . . . . .. Malcolm Saunders

24. Box 5 1 8 2 a a , Elizabeth-street Post Office . . · . .. Clifford

Dowling Sam Wilson

25. Box 401c, Elizabeth-street Post Office and Box 1992s .. .. Raymond Turner now Clifford Marsden Dowling

26. Box 7 9 8 f , Elizabeth-street Post Office .. Raymond Turner

Dowling

27. Box 42, Elsternwick .. .. . . Bill Holder

28. Box 1 5 7 6 p , G.P.O. .. .. .. Kevin Trumble

29. Box 29, Flemington .. .. .. Ted Howell

30. Box 8, Flemington .. .. .. Clifford

Henry Bartlett

149

553

FIFTEENTH APPENDIX

Directive of 29th December, 1960

Page.

150

150

G.298/16/166. 29th December, 1960.

The Director, Posts and Telegraphs,

A l l S t a t e s

DIVULGING OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PRIVATE BOX HOLDERS

The procedure regarding co-operation with the Police in administration of the State Law dealing with illegal betting so far as telephone services are concerned, was consolidated in a memorandum from this office, G.298/1/132 of the 14th July, 1960.

2. In regard to private box services, the policy of giving information to Police Authorities stems from a special War-time review of the extent to which this Department could co-operate with the State Authorities in their Administration of the State Laws dealing with illegal betting. In 1943, it was decided that the following procedure should be followed in connexion with requests from Police Authorities for information concerning the names and addresses of private box holders—

“ (a) Upon the receipt of a written request from the Police Department in the State concerned, afford to a responsible Police Officer access to the records of private box services in any specified centre, on the definite understanding that the information extracted by him will be regarded as confidential and used solely for the purposes of detecting illegal practices.

“ ( b ) Cancel a private box service where the Commissioner of Police in the State concerned certifies that the box is used in connexion with illegal tipping, race cards or betting practices.”.

3. Recently, the Chief Commissioner of Police in Victoria requested that, in order to facilitate the provision of such information quickly, the Postmaster-General’s Department should authorize one of its officers, to whom the officer in charge of the Gaming Branch would have access to act on his own initiative in accordance with policy. Difficulties were mentioned which arose recently during the absence of the Chief Commissioner in the country when he was unable to make an official request for information required by the Gaming Branch and, as a result, the offender involved avoided detection.

4. With reference to the furnishing of information in respect of private box holders, it is desired to introduce a similar procedure to that outlined for existing telephone services in this office memorandum (G.298/1/132) of the 14th July, 1960, under the heading “ Co-operation with State Authorities in the Administration of the State Laws dealing with Illegal Betting ”,

5. In Victoria, it is the practice now for the Chief Investigation Officer or his deputy to secure the relevant information from the Assistant Superintendent (Administration), Mail Exchange Branch or Post Offices Branch, as appropriate, and to refer requests for information beyond the scope of names and addresses of box holders to the Assistant Director, Postal and Transport Services.

6. It is desirable that a similar procedure should be introduced in all States, if possible. In those States where such positions as mentioned in the preceding paragraph do not exist perhaps you would kindly make arrangements for an appropriate officer to handle such requests.

7. The Police Authorities should be asked to nominate a small number of senior police officers from whom requests for this information will be accepted by the Department. The information normally provided by the Department should consist of details regarding the names and addresses of private box holders, the number of which should be listed in the request from the police, or the private box number in respect of a person named to hold a private box at a particular office. If any other information is requested the Chief Investigation Officer should refer the request to the Assistant Director (Postal and Transport Services) who shall indicate whether or not the additional information may be supplied.

8. Perhaps you would kindly arrange accordingly, please.

for Director-General

Printed and Published for the G overnment of the Commonwealth or A ustralia by A. J. Arthur , Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra.

555