Copley v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [1992] QSC 268

() TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS State Reporting Bureau, 4th F1oor, The Law Courts, George Street, BRlSBANE. 0. 4000 Tel. (07) 227.4360 (Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director. State Reporting Bureau.) SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION DOWSETT J No 3107 of 1989 REGINALD JOHN COPLEY and QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD BRISBANE· .. DATE 30/7/92 JUDGMENT ·---~ REVISED C:CP~i.:S i'?·~,t.t;:;D ~ State Rt;x)rti:<g fkr::,::;u l Date £" I !?. ;J... ~ =-=~ Plaintiff Defendant 1 -- 1 of 56 -- .. ---------------- HIS HONOUR: In this action there will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $54,250. I publish my reasons. In the circumstances, in light of the offers, or, in particular, the offer made on 10 September 1990, I will order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the action taxed on a solicitor and client basis .as 10 prescribed by Order 26 Rule 9 Subrule (1);. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the costs should be taxed on a basis appropriate to judgments in the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the fact that the amount recovered is within the jurisdiction of the District Court. The basis for this is.that it is said that it would ·_ .have been embarrassing for Mr Copley to sue in the District court, as he practises in that jurisdiction on a regular basis. I find it difficult to accept that assertion at face value. The District Court is a very large Court. There are Judges based away· from Brisbane .• Although it is likely that a number 0 30 of Judges would have found it embarrassing to entertain the () action, 'that does not lead me to the conclusion that it would have been embarrassing for all of them to do so. Indeed, Mr Copley also practises in this Court and as I recall, at the time I was asked to take the case, inquiries were made as to whether it would be embarrassing. I think the problem was the same in either Court. x~, will: there£ore 1 order +:.ha:t:.· the taxation be upon the basis appropriate to a judgment for that sum recovered in the District Court. I certify for 2 counsel. JUDGMENT 2 400 50 60 -- 2 of 56 -- / IN THE SUPRDIB COQRT or OtJIINSLNm ( ( .. Ho. 3107 of 1989 BETWEIN: REGOOI.p J<1tR COPLEY Plaintiff a6]2: OUEINSLANP IJEWSPAPERS m. LTI), Defendant JUI)QIElft" - powsm J I Delivered the Thirtieth day of July, 1992 Counsel: I.D~F. Callinan Q.C. with him A.R. Philp for the Plaintiff C. E .It. Hampson QI C. with him D .It. Boddi ce for the Defendant Solicitors: Gilshenan I Luton, Solicitors for the Plaintiff Thynne & Macartney, Solicitors for the Defendant Hearing Dates: 17th-20th, 23rd, 24th and 25th March, 1992. -- 3 of 56 -- (/ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND BETWEEN: AND· --· No. 3107 of 1989 REGINALD JOHN COPLEY Plaintiff QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY. LTD. Defendant JUDGMENT - OOWSETT J. Delivered the Thirtieth day of July, 1992 During the week commencing Monday, 13th March, 1989 a football carnival was conducted in Toowoomba under the auspices of the Queensland Police Force. Allegations of misbehaviour were made against police officers participating in the carnival, which allegations were reported in the Courier-Mail and the Sunday Mail, newspapers published by the defendant, shortly after the alleged misconduct. The allegations were mainly of violence, indecent conduct and damage to property. Nine police officers were charged with criminal offences as a result of an investigation into those allegations conducted by a barrister in private practice, Mr. C.J. carrigan. The Director of Prosecutions assumed responsibility for the prosecutions and instructed the plaintiff, a barrister of many years standing, to appear on his behalf. The plaintiff accordingly appeared at the Magistrates' Court in Toowoomba on a number of occasions. The last such trial was of charges against a police officer named Scott which took place on 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th July, 1989. The plaintiff had previously appeared during the months -- 4 of 56 -- 2 of May and July, 1989 in prosecutions against police officers named Stafford, Denman and Donnelly. Exhibit 35 provides a helpful diary of events as reported in the press from the first accusations in March until the article of 1st September, 1989 which is the subject of these proceedings. Those reports deal with the Carrigan Inquiry and. then with the issue of summonses to five police officers, which was reported on 4th April. Subsequently, there were reports of further charges. On 12th April, there was a report that an officer had been acquitted of a charge laid against him after a civilian had confessed his responsibility for that offence. The article recorded that four other police officers were remanded including Denman, Donnelly, Stafford and Parish. On 12th April, under the heading, "Police protect mates - inquiry", the Courier-Mail reported that Carrigan had criticised senior police officers for protecting their colleagues, saying that, "It is apparent the brotherhood of the police force is alive and well". The article reported that eleven police officers and one civilian were facing 17 charges arising from the events at Toowoornba. The following day, . it was reported that Mr. Carrigan had recommended that senior officers who failed to act against junior officers for misconduct be themselves charged. Police officers able to assist in the prosecutions were urged to contact Superintendent Walker. On 3rd May, the Courier-Mail reported that an electrician called Cronan had pleaded guilty to one offence of indecent behaviour in connection with the incidents in Toowoornba. On · 25th May, that newspaper reported the proceedings against 0 0 0 G -- 5 of 56 -- (_\1 (. l/ 3 Stafford, who was charged with non-payment of an hotel bill. The report alleged that he claimed to have forgotten about the bill, believing that it was to be paid by the football club in question. On the following day, the newspaper reported the dismissal of that charge and the observation by the Magistrate that:- "One wonders if he'd been an ordinary citizen and not a police officer whether these charges would have proceeded." On 6th June, the newspaper reported that a policeman named Sheehan was making representations to the effect that charges against him should be dropped. On 14th June, the newspaper reported that charges against police officers, Dyett and Parrish had been withdrawn:- "because of 'the alteration in instructions from the witness'. The other reason is the need for caution which must be exercised by the court when reliance is placed on the identification of persons accused of committing offences." This quotation was apparently from submissions made by Inspector Crawford, a senior police officer with legal qualifications, who appeared for the prosecution. He also instructed the plaintiff in various prosecutions in which he appeared and gave evidence before me. On 22nd June, the Courier-Mail reported a statement, allegedly by defence solicitors that, "Charges arising from the alleged police football rampage in Toowoomba in March might not have been dismissed if the inquiry had made a more vigorous investigation ... ". One of the solicitors was reported as describing the investigation as "a witch-hunt". It was asserted that of eight police charged, five cases had been dismissed and -- 6 of 56 -- 4 charges against three others were then outstanding. There was a reported suggestion by one of the solicitors, Mr. Potts, that, "It is almost as if the police are treating their fellow officers in a way they would not dare treat the public .•• ". This, in context, was obviously an assertion that police officers were being treated more harshly than would be members of the public. The second solicitor, Mr. Orchard said that, "the inquiry did not have the vigour to gain the results the public expected." The article recorded that the only successful prosecution to date had been that against Cronan, the electrician. On 6th July, the newspaper reported the appearance of Denman 0 on charges of obscene language and indecent behaviour, stating 0 that two Crown witnesses had failed positively to identify Denman and also reporting evidence from witnesses Brosnan and Kuhn. On 7th July, the newspaper reported, "Constable cleared on language count", recording the dismissal of those charges. On 12th July, the Courier-Mail reported the acquittal of Donnelly and Denman of charges relating to failure to pay hotel bills. The article recorded that seven police officers had been cleared of any part in "the alleged rampage". On 13th July, that newspaper reported the proceedings against Scott and in particular, Scott's denial of any assault. On 14th July, Scott was acquitted, although I do not believe that was reported in the defendant's newspapers at the time. On 20th August, the Sunday Mail reported the discontinuation of proceedings against one police officer for indecent behaviour. The article otherwise reported:- 0 0 -- 7 of 56 -- (_) 5 "The case of the circumcised cop and others like it have cost the Queensland taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past few months. It will go down in legal folklore as one of the more colourful of prosecutions of eight police so far arising from the alleged football team rampage in various hotels at Toowoomba last March. They were summoned after an investigation into the allegations headed by Brisbane barrister, Mr. Chris Carrigan. All the prosecutions against police have failed. A civilian who pleaded guilty to indecent behaviour and fined $80 was the only result." The case then recorded circumstances of the "Case of the Circumcised Cop" (which was the case discontinued) and then () described the drinking activities of the principal prosecution witness on the night in question. There was also a report of legal criticism of the prosecutions, including a reference to Mr. Potts' earlier comments. It was said that Mr. Carrigan had refused to comment further. On 29th August, charges against Sheehan were withdrawn, ( ) apparently because the witnesses were the same as the witnesses ( / against Scott, and the evidence of those witnesses had not been favourably received in Scott's trial. On 1st September, the article the subject of present proceedings appeared. On 3rd September, in the Sunday Mail editorial column, the matter was also mentioned. The article of 1st September is annexed to this judgment. The paragraphs have been numbered for reference purposes. It is part of ex. 35. I should point out certain aspects of the article and its layout. The most prominent aspect is the heading "Code of silence". Prominently featured under the headline is a photograph of the Lake Hotel with the caption, "The Lake Hotel -- 8 of 56 -- 6 in Toowoomba where it was alleged police exposed themselves, abused ·bar staff and damaged fittings". To the left of the photograph is a short paragraph as follows:- "This week charges were withdrawn against a police officer for his alleged involvement in a drunken spree at Toowoomba in March. In total, nine police were charged, but none was convicted. Joe Budd visited Toowoomba to investigate the rampage which, it would seem, never happened." To the right of the photograph is a reproduction of the front page of an earlier edition of the Sunday-Mail with the caption:- "MARCH . . . allegations of police rampaging through pubs, motels and restaurants made headlines in the Sunday Mail. But many witnesses decided not to testify at subsequent court hearings." Another featured aspect of the article is an extract from a statement by the former Police Minister, Russell Cooper as follows:- "Had there been police co-operation there is no reason why the true culpri't::s responsible for the misconduct could not have been found and sufficient evidence produced to obtain convictions." ' ... 0 0 Finally there are two other photographs on the page, one of O Peter Rogers, the licensee of the Lake Hotel. The caption to his photograph is:- "PETER Rogers... dismayed that no police have been convicted." The other picture is of Cathy Campbell, one of the witnesses at the trial against Scott, with the caption:- "CATHY Campbell .•. 'I felt like I was on trial'." The headline, the featured paragraphs and the photographs were inserted by a sub-editor after the journalist, Budd had written the article. These aspects of the publication highlight the fact of allegations against police officers in connection 0 -- 9 of 56 -- I ' 7 with conduct at the hotel and elsewhere, that there had been charges and that none of those charges had been successful. Reasons for this as revealed by the "highlights" were a code of silence within the police force and the refusal by witnesses to testify at subsequent hearings. Miss Campbell's complaint that she felt as if she were on trial was a possible explanation for witnesses not wishing to testify. The story commences by recording the "relatively clear-cut" ( : initial complaint that, "at least 50 police officers rampaged ( c/ through pubs, motels and restaurants, assaulting people and destroying property", and continues:- "Given the climate of the Fitzgerald Enquiry at the time, people spoke out immediately, forcing an embarrassed State Government to launch an inquiry by Brisbane barrister Chris Carrigan Q.C .. Numerous witnesses operate, in many responsible while incidents. willingly came forward to eo- cases identifying the officers detailing a shocking series of Following the inquiry 1 5 charges were laid against nine police officers. All nine have now been dealt with. Not one has been convicted. Only one person - a civilian - has been successfully prosecuted. Now, five months later, an investigation by the Courier-Mail points to a cover-up by police stretching from Toowoomba to Rockhampton and across the State. It also raises doubts about the effectiveness of the legal processes in establishing what really happened." (See paragraphs 1-6.) A statement by the former Police Minister, Mr. Cooper follows, dealing with his efforts to investigate the allegations, including the featured statement mentioned above about absence of police co-operation. The article then continues:- "Cooper's disturbing revelations have been compounded by allegations of police harassment against people who -- 10 of 56 -- 8 went to the media and the Carrigan inquiry to detail the behaviour of police officers in Toowoomba. Many of the witnesses who co-operated with the Carrigan inquiry decided not to testify at the subsequent court hearings, forcing the breakdown of those cases. They still refuse to speak. 'What it came down to was that we were let down by these people' , a high ranking public servant associated with the inquiry said. 'We had cases but couldn't put them before the court'. Some of those who went from the Carrigan inquiry to the witness box at the Toowoomba Magistrates Court now regret it because of the lasting effects on their lives. 'This has ruined my life,' said hotel duty manager Cathy Campbell. 'If anyone could have told me that this was the way it was going to turn out, then I think I just would have turned a blind eye at the time. '" (See paragraphs 7-16.) There is then an account of steps taken within the police force to deal with alleged subsequent discrimination against Rogers, who claimed that police were discriminating against him in his attempts to establish a nightclub in Rockhampton. Rogers is reported as saying:- "The police have made it fairly obvious that they will make it difficult for the people involved and they want everyone to shut their mouth •... I'm sure I'll get another spate of trouble for speaking now but I 'm not going to shut my mouth as long as this continues. I've had enough and it's time it was cleared up." The article then continues:- "Like the other Toowoomba publicans, motel owners and their employees, Rogers and his staff have largely kept silent during the steady procession of police officers through the courts. 'People have to live in this town, ' said Dennis 0' Sulli van, another of Rogers ' duty managers . ' I think it's obvious why no one wants to speak out about it'." (See paragraphs 17-23.) .) . 0 0 0 0 \ I I I j f., I -- 11 of 56 -- 9 There is then a reference to a statement by another publican and to various allegations of misconduct, and then the article records allegations by campbell, 0' Sullivan and Rogers as to events at the Lake Hotel on the Monday night of the carnival, followed by allegations of misconduct at another hotel on that night and further allegations of misconduct at the Lake Hotel on the Wednesday night. Relevantly for present purposes, the report records an alleged incident in which a "bouncer" told police ( \ officers that they could not be served alcohol if they were on c ( /' duty and then continues:- "During the following melee, several hotel staff were attacked. Told by hotel management not to retaliate against police officers, they were virtually defenceless during the heated brawl. Brisbane detective David Scott was later found not guilty of common assault and assault causing bodily harm against hotel bouncer Dudley Eastell who suffered head injuries. · The Toowoomba Magistrates Court was told an argument broke out between Eastell and Scott when the latter was asked to pay a cover charge. A number of police officers had pinned Eastell to a wall. Scott told the court he had barely pushed Eastell. Last Tuesday, charges of common assault, obscene language and threatening to plant drugs at the Lake Hotel against the second. Brisbane detective, Peter James Sheehan were dropped. The prosecutor, Inspector Cliff Crawford, told the Toowoomba Magistrates Court he had been instructed 'tooffer no evidence and asked the complaints to be withdrawn. ' Crawford did warn Sheehan's lawyers that 'the matterhad not been finalised' and said charges of misconduct under the Police Act would be laid against the detective. " (See paragraphs 43-48.} The article then reports certain statements by Rogers, that charges were laid against Lake Hotel staff, including Eastell and -- 12 of 56 -- 10 that one charge had been dismissed. Rogers is reported· as saying:- "I 've been involved in hotels for the last seven years and never had an assault charge laid against my staff, but since March, three of my blokes have been hit with assault charges," Rogers said. "One of those cases just put to rest. dragged out again. coincidence." goes back six months when it was Now, a month ago, it has been I find that too much of a (See paragraphs 51-53.} A discussion of Rogers' difficulties in Rockhampton follows, including statements by Rogers and by the Chairman of the Licensing Commission. The article then continues:- "Besides his allegations of police harassment Rogers is dismayed no successful prosecutions have been brought against police for the March incidents following his initial complaints to the media. 'It's pretty amazing, isn't it?' he said. 'What are they trying to say - that nothing happened back in March? I can tell you, that isn't the case, not by a long shot. 'The whole business has been a complete whitewash, a gross injustice and I find it just incredible. 'They're saying that these witnesses didn't see anything. If I did some of the things all these witnesses have said that police did, I would be put in jail or at least prosecuted.' He claimed Cathy Campbell, Denis O'Sullivan and Dudley Eastell were dealt with roughly by prosecutor John Copley at the trial of David Scott when they were called to the witness stand. Campbell and O'Sullivan also were to be the key witnesses at Detective Peter Sheehan's trial. However the charges against Sheehan were dropped on the basis of Scott' s acquittal. The prosecutor in Sheehan' s case, Inspector Cliff Crawford, said the credibility of the witnesses at Scott's trial had been questioned and "we have no evidence against Sheehan in this court". ' . ,, 0 0 0 0 ~I -- 13 of 56 -- • ( ( (_/ 11 Campbell and O'Sullivan said that were badgered and screamed at by Copley during Scott's trial. At one point, the trial was briefly adjourned after Campbellbroke down in the witness stand. ' I felt like I was on trial." she said. "He constantly screamed at me and got really angry with me. The defence lawyer treated me much less harshly than he (Copley) did. 'They made me feel like I was just trying to get a police officer for something. I 1 m not trying todiscredit the police, but I just think if someone does something, then they should be prosecuted. 'Now I just feel like, "What 1 s the use of it?" I won't even sign my statements any more because our statements won't do anything.' Dennis O'Sullivan told The Courier-Mail he left the courtroom with the overwhelming feeling no one wouldbe convicted for what happened in Toowoomba last March. 'We were just made out to be idiots,' he said. 'I thought for a while that it would be better just to shut up and forget about it all, but what if everyone thought like that?' Copley, a telephone comments Campbell. Brisbane barrister, did not return several calls from The Courier-Mail seeking his on the claims made by O'Sullivan and The lack of prosecutions has been blamed - from a number of sectors - on the failure of the Carrigan inquiry to successfully identify the police officers involved. While Carrigan ran the inquiry and interviewed witnesses, the investigations were carried out by senior police. The Fitzgerald Report, handed down a few months later, pointed out the inadequacies ofpolice investigating police. Two cases were dismissed after it was revealed the officers had been wrongly identified. Two others charged officers weren't even interviewed by police assisting the investigation and their cases were dismissed for lack of evidence." (See paragraphs 63-79.) -- 14 of 56 -- 12 The article then refers to the Carrigan inquiry and to Carrigan' s complaints about lack of police co-operation and . concludes:- "Despite repeated claims the inquiry was inadequate, Carrigan has since washed his hands of the affair and refuses to peak to the media." (See paragraphs 80-84.) The article is, in some respects disjointed, combining a number of disparate ideas and points of view. Accounts of alleged misconduct in March are interspersed with reports of court proceedings and of interviews with various people in a way which tends to confuse the reader. It is possible to isolate the 0 following themes:- 0 1. That witnesses who were at least prima facie reliable alleged serious acts of misconduct against various police officers; 2. That charges were laid against police officers, but none of those charges resulted in a conviction; 3. A charge against a civilian arising out of the same incidents was successful; 4. One reason for the failure of the prosecutions was the police code of silence; 5. Another reason was the refusal of some witnesses to give evidence; 6. Persons who spoke out have been discriminated against and/or harassed by police; 7. Some witnesses who gave evidence were badly treated in court; 0 0 -- 15 of 56 -- ( (· \ ( 8. 13 The investigation of the allegations was defective because it was conducted by police officers; 9. Witnesses who were mistreated in court subsequently declined to give evidence in other proceedings. By para. 12 of the amended statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges that the words used in respect of him meant and were understood to mean that he:- (a) was involved in a conspiracy to cover up illegal police activities; (b) did not honesty or properly perform his duties; (c) had acted in an oppressive and improper manner towards certain prosecution witnesses; (d) had behaved unprofessionally; (e) was seeking to evade or was evading legitimate and appropriate inquiries by the defendant; (f) failed to exercise self-control in the performance of his professional duties. There can be no doubt that the imputations pleaded in paras. (c), (d) and (f) are made out on the face of the article. The C/ allegations that the plaintiff "dealt ... roughly" with Campbell, 0' Sullivan and Eastell, that he "badgered and screamed at" them, that "he constantly screamed at me and got really angry with me", depict conduct appropriately described as oppressive, improper and unprofessional and as evidencing a failure to exercise self- control in the performance of a barrister's function. As to the imputation alleged in para. (e), I am unable to conclude that the article bears that meaning on its face. It is common practice for journalists to record the fact that they have -- 16 of 56 -- 14 offered a person against whom allegations are made an opportunity to respond and that such person has declined to take advantage of that offer. This article goes no further than that. As to the assertions that the words mean that the plaintiff, "was involved in a conspiracy to cover up illegal police activities", and, "did not honestly or properly perform his duties", I must proceed with some care. The real thrust of these allegations is that the article implies that the plaintiff acted as he allegedly did with the aim of frustrating or impeding Scott's prosecution and possibly others, thus assisting police to escape punishment and conceal their misconduct. The allegation of conspiracy implies that there is an imputation that he so acted in company with others. Any lawyer associated with the criminal courts would be sceptical about such allegations against a barrister. Barristers in private practice do not, as a matter of common experience establish close connections with police officers. Indeed, the tendency is quite the reverse. However I must read the article with a view to determining what meaning it would communicate to a lay reader, not to a barrister. Such a reader would probably not approach the article with the conviction that a barrister and a police officer are more likely to be at odds with each other than in close contact. With this caveat in mind, I turn to consider these alleged imputations. The article clearly distinguishes between a police cover-up and, "the effectiveness of the legal processes in establishing what really happened", suggesting that the allegation of conspiracy did not include the conduct of legal proceedings. However the article also suggests that the police used harassment 0 0 0 0 -- 17 of 56 -- 15 to deter people from persisting in complaints. Paragraphs 12-16 are critical in this ·respect. In the context of the prior allegations of police non-cooperation, those paragraphs suggest firstly, police harassment against witnesses who went to the Carrigan inquiry; secondly, that people who co-operated with the Carrigan inquiry subsequently decided not to testify; thirdly that this led to the failure of prosecutions; and fourthly, that those who did give evidence lived to regret it. The ( . juxtaposition of the allegations of harassment of witnesses, that some witnesses failed to give evidence, and that some witnesses regretted having given evidence at trials implies that harassment was used to deter witnesses and that the subsequent court cases resulted in punishment for those who were not deterred. This conclusion is strongly reinforced later in the article when Campbell 1 s reasons for her unhappiness are disclosed. They relate exclusively to the plaintiff 1 s conduct of the case in ( which she gave evidence. (See paragraphs 71-73.) Paragraphs 63-70 also reinforce this view. The passage refers to Rogers being dismayed at the absence of any successful prosecutions of police. He expresses the view that this is "pretty amazing" and suggests that people are pretending that nothing happened. He describes this as, "a complete whitewash, a gross injustice," which he finds, "just incredible". He says that, "they 1 re saying that these witnesses didn 1 t see anything", and then refers to Campbell, 0 1 Sullivan and Eastell being dealt with roughly by Copley. The article makes the point that Campbell and O'Sullivan were to be witnesses against Sheehan and that the case against Sheehan was dropped because of their -- 18 of 56 -- 16 performance at Scott 1 s trial. The article then goes on to suggest ·that they were badly treated at Scott 1 s trial, clearly implying that any deficiencies in their performance at that trial were caused by Copley 1 s treatment of them. By implication, the prosecutions of Ross and Sheehan failed because of that conduct. The expression, "They made me feel like I was just trying to get a police officer for something", clearly implies that such was the effect of Copley 1 s conduct. There is no express assertion that he intended his conduct to have that effect, but the allegations are of willed acts on his part, of constant screaming, of being angry with the witness. 0 1 Sulli van says, "We were just made out to be idiots". Although he does not identify Copley as being responsible, in the context of the reports of Rogers and Campbell 1 s remarks, it is clear that his statement also should be taken as referring to Copley. This is particularly so as Campbell has said that defence counsel, "treated me much less harshly than he (Copley) did." 0' Sulli van's overwhelming feeling that nobody would be convicted is also a reinforcement of the theme that all associated with the prosecutions were trying to bring about that result. (See paragraphs 70-75.) Although the allegations might be taken as meaning that Copley merely lost his temper, in context it is much more likely that a reader would take them as meaning that he deliberately dealt harshly with the witnesses because they were making allegations against police officers and that he intended to prevent a conviction. This would be sufficient to make out the imputation contained in para. (b) - that Copley had not h,enestly 0 0 0 0 -- 19 of 56 -- t, ( c ( 17 or properly performed his duties. Such an imputation is a serious reflection upon him, both personally and professionally. The allegation of conspiracy probably adds little to the seriousness of the imputation of dishonesty but in the end, I am also satisfied that a reader would take the article as implying participation by Copley in some sort of conspiracy with the police. The word "conspiracy" is not used in a technical way. It means simply that there is in the article an allegation of a covert agreement to frustrate the prosecutions, to which agreement Copley was a party. The allegations of misconduct by him,, in conjunction with paragraphs 12-16 suggest that witnesses were discouraged from giving evidence and that those witnesses who gave evidence were subsequently made to regret it. The paragraphs relating to COpley' s conduct pick up the earlier idea of punishment and in that context, the article carries the imputation of a concerted and integrated effort by unidentified persons, including Copley. Rogers' rhetorical question, "What are they trying to say ... " is also redolent of conspiracy as is 0' Sullivan' s "overwhelming feeling". Copley' s conduct, by itself, would be unlikely to lead to all prosecutions being frustrated. The suspicion that nobody would be convicted implies that people associated with the investigation and subsequent prosecutions were acting in concert to frustrate the process. The defendant did not seek to justify, although it called evidence from both Campbell and O'Sullivan. Before commenting upon t.heir evidence, I should say that the official tape recording of proceedings in the Magistrates' Court was tendered in evidence. There is nothing in the tape to support the -- 20 of 56 -- 18 assertion that the plaintiff at any time screamed at Campbell, O' Sullivan or Eastell. There are undoubtedly moments when a certain tension discloses itself in his tone of voice. However there was nothing improper in any aspect of his conduct, nor was there anything to which a witness could reasonably take exception, save perhaps for those occasional incidents of tension. I would not expect a witness to be other than mildly uncomfortable as a result of them. I base that opinion upon my experience in watching witnesses in that position over many years. 0 A number of witnesses before me, including the plaintiff, Crawford and Herbert (counsel for Scott) said that the principal 0 cause of difficulty between Campbell and the plaintiff was that she was unable to answer his questions in the way that he expected. She also said this. Probably, this was partly because one of the statements provided to Copley did not accurately reflect her recollection of rel~vant incidents and in particular, her capacity to identify the defendant Scott. This was not Campbell' s fault, although she probably also departed 0 from a version in a signed statement. Obviously, there would be Q tension between counsel and witness in that situation, counsel expecting clear and important evidence and the witness being unable to provide the answers sought. O'Sullivan and Campbell's evidence before me dealt firstly with their recollections of proceedings in the Magistrates' Court at Toowoomba and their reactions to what took place and secondly, with their recollections of the interview between them and Budd upon which the article of 1st September was based. I do not wish < ! -- 21 of 56 -- (' 19 to judge them harshly as witnesses because too much has been asked of them already by both the legal system and the newspapers. Nonetheless it is necessary that I say something about their evidence, and some aspects of my comments may be thought to be critical. Neither was a particularly impressive witness, although in view of the history of the matter, that is not surprising. O'Sullivan said that he found the plaintiff abrupt in his questioning and that he interrupted on a number of occasions. He found Mr. Herbert' s questions, "easier to answer", attributing ( this to the tone in which the questions were asked. He said also that, "As I was leaving the court I was upset, nervous, I felt like I had a rough time, felt like I had been yelled at a couple of times. I was just generally upset and generally disappointed. I thought under easier circumstances I might have been able to probably give my evidence better." He said that Mr. Copley had ( raised his voice and ·seemed a little angry at times. His main complaint was not that Copley yelled at him, but rather that he was abrupt. He said that he "felt" as if he had been yelled at, whatever that means. He said that he was nervous whilst giving his evidence and that his nervousness got worse as the case went on. As to his conversation with Budd (which was in the presence of Campbell), he said that he recalled saying that he thought he was treated roughly by Copley, that he was yelled at and generally had an uncomfortable time in court. He said that Campbell said she would never go through it again. He said that he told Budd:- -- 22 of 56 -- 20 "I said to him I was disappointed about the outcome of the whole thing and because of all the people that :I knew that went to it and we were only going there to tell the truth. I felt we seemed like a mob of idiots. We've gone to tell what we saw. There was no sort of action taken on anybody. I felt that people that committed those offences should have been prosecuted." He also said that:- "I would have said to him ( Budd) - I did say to him that if I had known the outcome of it, I probably wouldn't have gone and done that, but I didn't think that was a good way to think either. 11 I accept that he said to Budd words to the effect of paragraphs 74 and 75. The tape recording of 0' Sulli van's evidence-in-chief at Toowoomba indicates a barrister trying very hard to get as much out of a witness as possible. It is doubtful if O'Sullivan had ,ever committed himself to more than he told Copley in evidence. It may be that the latter had false expectations as a result of deficiencies in the proofs of evidence supplied to him. There was nothing in Mr. Copley ' s conduct of the case which would suggest that he was ridiculing the witness, much less punishing him for giving evidence. He was trying to lead from O'Sullivan 0 0 0 .such evidence as was available concerning the events in question. C Opinions may differ as to the way in which he went about doing it, but nobody, lawyer or otherwise could conclude that he was trying to do anything other than his job. In fact, his treatment of O'Sullivan was obviously designed to advance the prosecution case "against the odds" rather than to sabotage it or any other case. Mr. O'Sullivan was obviously uncomfortable. No doubt he perceived that Mr. C'opley was not satisfied with his answers, and ' -- 23 of 56 -- 21 given his natural nervousness, his discomfort was increased. Nonetheless, his perception that Copley yelled or screamed at him is simply incorrect. From the tapes, it is also difficult to justify his preference for the questioning style of Mr. Herbert over that of Mr. Copley. Mr. Herbert effectively suggested that he was drunk and that he was in error in some of his evidence - perfectly proper suggestions in the circumstances, but one would have ( thought such suggestions much more likely to upset a witness than the dogged persistence of Mr. Copley. ( ( The tape recording of Campbell's evidence also reveals the plaintiff trying very hard to extract evidence from the witness. She appears to have departed fairly seriously from a previous tape-recorded account, a transcript of which she had signed. Mr. Copley certainly thought so. At one stage, he contemplated asking that she be declared hostile. On a number of occasions, he became fairly tense with her, but his performance was that of a man keeping himself under control rather than that of a man losing control. No doubt the witness would have realized that he was other than pleased with her performance, but there was no legitimate cause for complaint. It may be that both witnesses suffered a little from inadequate preparation in the sense that Mr. Copley did not speak to either of them prior to the hearing. It may have helped had he done so, but that is not to criticise him for failing to do so. In any event, I am satisfied that there was nothing in the conduct of the examination of either witness by the plaintiff which would justify the complaints made about him in the article, -- 24 of 56 -- 22 other than the assertion that he became angry with Campbell. Mr. Copley cut Campbell short in her answers on a number of occasions, but that was to avoid hearsay and was quite appropriate in the circumstances. There was certainly nothing in Mr. Copley's conduct to suggest that he was ridiculing either witness or doing anything other than trying to lead evidence from them. I am also satisfied that proceedings were not interrupted because Miss Campbell became upset. However I accept that she was upset to some degree. c=) In her evidence, she referred to the assertion that the trial had ruined her life. She said:- "To a point, it had. I moved out - I ended up moving out of the town. It just seemed that everywhere I went and everywhere I go it is the main topic that people would pick up for about the next three or four months. That's all anybody ever wanted to talk about and it was just an embarrassment." The article suggests that what had ruined her life was Copley's conduct of the trial, or so I infer. It is not clear c=) what she said to Budd about this. She was asked (at p. 332) if c=) she had given him the explanation set out above. She replied:- "Yes. I told him how I felt in the court room, how I felt· we had been badgered and dealt with fairly roughly. We were confused, questions and things like that, and that's almost about it." It may be that she told him that the reason for her upset was public reaction rather than what happened in court, but that is not clear. It would be a matter of some importance if Budd chose to omit that explanation, leaving. the plaintiff's alleged misconduct as the only apparent reason for Campbell's life being ruined, but I am unable to be confident about what she may have said to him. c -- 25 of 56 -- ( \ 23 It is difficult to know with certainty to what extent the article reflects information provided to Budd by Campbell. As I have said she was an unsatisfactory and highly suggestible witness. In the end, I conclude that the observations made in the article substantially reflect the allegations made by her to Budd, although it may be that there were other allegations made and omitted from the article. The tape recording of the witness, Eastell also shows no support for the allegations against Copley. There are a few occasions on which he sounds slightly irritated with the witness, but nothing more than that. It is necessary that I say something about the evidence of Mr. Budd. The issue of Budd's credibility and indeed, the resolution of this case as a whole have been embarrassed and complicated by the fact that in the course of his cross-examination, Mr. Budd declined to reveal the identity of the governmental source referred to in paragraph 14 of the article. In evidence Budd claimed that other information was also derived from that source. C . The importance of the identity of the source arises in this way. As I have found, the publication carries the imputation that the plaintiff's conduct towards the principal prosecution witnesses was such as to deter witnesses from giving evidence, was intended to have that effect and was part of a broader conspiracy to conceal police misconduct. In the ·course of his cross-examination, Mr. Budd indicated that he had not intended to make such an imputation against Mr. Copley. He said at one stage that the reference to the unnamed source and his view that -- 26 of 56 -- ~- --- --~--~~--~~~- ----~-------- 24 the witnesses had disappointed the prosecution was inserted to reflect other information available to Mr. Budd attributing the failure of the prosecution to the witnesses rather than to Mr. Copley' s conduct or that of the police. Budd reported allegations from Campbell and O' Sullivan to the effect that they had been badly treated by Copley and an allegation from Campbell in particular to the effect that, "They made me feel like I was just trying to get a police officer for something", in a context which carried the abovementioned imputations. If Budd was aware c=) that there was an informed view that the witnesses had simply failed to come up to expectations, and that this was the reason for the failure of the prosecutions, then he should have realised the dangers of reporting their allegations without further investigation. It would be a real possibility that their perceived discomfort was a result of their own conduct as witnesses. The identity and status of the source of information would indicate the degree of reliance which should have been placed upon it and the degree of prominence it should receive in the story. Thus the identity of the source would have been a matter of some importance in this case on the issue of good faith. It was certainly a matter which the defence was entitled to probe. The canons of journalistic ethics have therefore been used to prevent a citizen from fully litigating a claim for defamation against a newspaper. I do not dispute that there are cogent, although not (to me) persuasive arguments in favour of the law adopting a stance similar to that demanded by this rule. However I cannot accept that a professional organisation is entitled to c=) c=) 0 -- 27 of 56 -- 25 impinge upon the civil rights of a citizen who is not a member of that organization. ·I cannot infer from his refusal to name the source that there was no source, nor may I fairly draw inferences otherwise adverse to Budd or the defendant. In effect, the plaintiff is compelled to accept the assertion that there was such a source. There were some aspects of Mr. Budd's evidence which caused concern. Firstly, it seems likely that Campbell' s comment that, (\ "They made me feel like I was just trying to get a police officer ( ( / for something. I' m not trying to discredit the police ... " were prompted by Budd' s questioning. At p. 195 of the record he said:- "I asked them - I wanted to try and assert (sic) where they were coming from, if you know what I mean. Did they have any grudge against the police and they indicated that they weren't trying to discredit the police." Similarly on p. 196 he said:- "Cathy Campbell came in and she said, 'I'm not trying to discredit the police. I just think that anybody who did this should be prosecuted.' ... "Look, I don't really care if they prosecute this guy or not." This version is consistent with notes made by Budd at the time. It is also to some extent consistent with Campbell's own account of her conversation with Budd at p. 322 where she said:- "I said that I felt like I was trying to get the police or blame somebody for something that they hadn't done and that's how I felt and I just explained that to Joe." This is somewhat different from the quotation in paragraph 72 of the article, and the difference is not insignificant. These other versions do not expressly link the plaintiff's -- 28 of 56 -- -------- -------- 26 conduct with her feelings. It is true that when prompted by defence counsel, both 0' Sulli van and Campbell gave versions substantially in accordance with that in the article, but that is less persuasive than would be accounts given without such prompting. Budd's own suggestion that be had (quite properly) raised the issue of prejudice against the police makes it more difficult to accept that Campbell attributed her feelings to Copley's conduct in what she told Budd. A second area of concern surrounds the answers to c=) interrogatories relating to paragraph 76 of the article_. The evidence revealed that Mr. Budd made attempts to contact Mr. Copley prior to publication of the article. He telephoned Copley's chambers in Brisbane to discover that he was then in Roma. As much appears from the affidavit of Barbara Gaye Sehnoun, (ex. 32) who then worked for Mr. Copley. She remembered such a telephone call in about August, 1989. She was asked about _this matter shortly after publication of the article, and her recollection was that she told the caller that Copley was in Roma and gave the telephone number. c=) c=) Copley received a message from Budd whilst he was in Roma. c=) See ex. 12. Thus Mr. Budd certainly made two telephone calls in an attempt to contact the plaintiff prior to publication. Of course, the publication alleged that Mr. Copley, "Did not return several telephone calls from the Courier-Mail seeking his comments ... ". Obviously, he did not respond to the first telephone call to his Brisbane chambers because he was not there. The plaintiff interrogated as to these telephone calls. See ex. 5. The defendant responded by answers dated 4th June, 1991, -- 29 of 56 -- c 27 alleging that Budd made one telephone call on or about Wednesday, 30th August, 1989 to the number, 221 2092. The deponent (A.W. Kirk) said that Budd could not recall who answered the telephone on that occasion and that the substance of the call was, "an endeavour by the reporter to have the plaintiff comment upon the dropping of the charges against Detective Peter James Sheehan." A particular difficulty with this answer is that the plaintiff's telephone number had been changed on or about 31st July, 1989 to 236 3636. From that date, and for up to six months thereafter, there was a recorded message for persons dialling 221 2092, directing them to check the number in the directory or call directory assistance. (See ex. 17.) Shortly prior to the trial, the defendant delivered further answers to interrogatories indicating that Mr. Budd had made a number of telephone calls, adopting the telephone number 236 3636 as the number first contacted, and indicating that on that occasion, he was told that ( Copley was in Roma. The deponent attested to two other telephone calls to Roma (076 221 1300) and four other telephone calls to the Brisbane number, 236 3636. The Roma telephone number was the telephone number of Messrs. McCauley and Hurley, Solicitors who were instructing Mr. Copley in that centre. The evidence indicated that at the relevant time, the only partner in that firm was Mr. Craswell. He was also the only man in the office. The amended answers to interrogatories assert that when Mr. Budd telephoned that number on the first occasion, he was connected to a Mr. McCauley. There was no Mr. McCauley in the office at the time. The former partner of that name died many years ago. Mr. Craswell recalled -- 30 of 56 -- 28 receiving a telephone call from Mr. Budd on either Wednesday, 23rd or Thursday, 24th August. As a result, he passed· the message, ex. 12 to Mr. Copley. This does not correspond with the date alleged in the further answers to interrogatories (21st or 22nd August). I am satisfied that in the event of a telephone call to Mr. Copley at the offices of Messrs. McCauley and Hurley, the call would either have been passed to Mr. Craswell, if he were •' in the office or a message taken. I am satisfied that only one c=) call was made, that received by Mr. Craswell, the message in relation to which was passed on to Mr. Copley. I am also satisfied to accept Mr. Craswell's evidence that this was c=) received on either the Wednesday or Thursday, probably the Thursday. As to the subsequent telephone conversations said to have been made to the Brisbane number, I conclude that it is more probable than not that had such telephone calls occurred, some note of them would have been made for reference to Mr. Copley. I reject the evidence that such calls were made. 0 In coming to this conclusion, I have considered Mr. Budd's evidence on the subject, the answers to interrogatories and the ~~ direct evidence from Mr. Copley, his secretary and Mr. Craswell. I have also considered the explanations given by Mr. Spence, the solicitor for the defendant and Mr. Evans, a senior employee of the defendant. Mr. Spence said that he drafted an answer in the form of ex. 6, describing only one telephone call. He intended that the draft be reviewed by the defendant and checked with Budd. He expected that a similar answer would be generated, amended as necessary, for each telephone call recalled by Budd. I J I I j -- 31 of 56 -- () 29 I have great difficulty in accepting that explanation at face value. It would be a-pointless exercise for·a solicitor simpiy to invent answers to interrogatories. Accepting that Mr. Spence drafted that answer, I think it more probable than not that it accurately reflected the state of his instructions at the time, although he probably doubted their completeness. Mr. Evans, the editorial manager of the defendant was Mr. Spence' s point of contact with it. He asserted that he received the draft answer from Spence and assumed that it was based upon instructions from Budd. When he indicated to Mr. Spence that the answer seemed to be in order, Mr. Spence took that to mean that Evans had consulted with Budd. Only later, when Budd was spoken to (presumably in preparation for trial) was it realized that there had been multiple telephone conversations. This version reflects adversely upon both the defendant and its solicitors in their attitudes towards interrogatories. It is difficult to accept that a reputable newspaper company and a reputable firm of solicitors would, between them be so careless about answering interrogatories on oath. ( 1 It may be that the defendant and its solicitors found themselves without adequate instructions and did the best they could with what was available to them. Such a course of conduct was inappropriate. If there were difficulties in obtaining instructions from Budd in order to answer the interrogatories, the proper course was to say so. This may have had long term tactical disadvantages, but that is not to the point. None of this reflects adversely on Budd. What may do so is the conflict between his oral evidence as to the telephone calls (and the -- 32 of 56 -- 30 further answers, which I assume are based on his instructions) and the accounts of Craswell, ·sehnoun and Copley. Whilst the error as to the telephone number in the first answer may be attributable to the reconstruction exercise by Mr. Spence to which I have referred, the error in date (of which I am satisfied) which occurs in the second set of answers suggests reconstruction by Budd. The issue of the telephone calls was more significant at the trial than it is now. I have found that the statement in the publication concerning the telephone calls is not capable of bearing a defamatory imputation. However at the trial, this assertion was still alive. One would have expected greater care in dealing with it and a higher degree of frankness in sworn answers to interrogatories. In the end, the only inference adverse to Budd which I draw from these incidents is that there has been a degree of reconstruction in the answers to interrogatories and his evidence as to the telephone calls. I prefer the other witnesses as to the time and number of such calls. At p. 196, Budd said that Campbell told him that she was treated less harshly by the defence in Scott's case. She also said that during the trial, the defence counsel and the defendant laughed constantly while she was giving evidence. In a way, this incident seems inconsistent with her perception that the defence treated her better than did Copley, although I suppose her preference may have related to the way in which defence counsel asked questions. The more important aspect of this matter is that it offers a further explanation of her feelings after giving 0 0 0 0 -- 33 of 56 -- (' 31 evidence. One can readily imagine that a witness might be greatly upset if· she thought that defence counsel or anybody .else was laughing at her evidence. That would certainly be conduct calculated to bring about the result which both she and O' Sullivan described to Budd as, in effect "looking like an idiot". See p. 192 and p. 195. Out of fairness to Mr. Herbert, I should say that it is more probable that any pleasure he demonstrated related to the fact that her evidence was generally perceived to be favourable to the defence rather than to any desire to ridicule the witness. However this aspect of the case, like some others, is a timely reminder to lawyers, in particular judges and barristers that witnesses may not always understand the devices used by the legal profession in court to relieve day-to-day tensions and the boredom of routine. The allegation concerning defence counsel did not find a place in the article. Its omission probably ( resulted in a greater emphasis upon Copley' s conduct and its relationship to the witnesses' feelings than was attributable to that conduct in the story related to Budd. A further aspect of concern is Mr. Budd's enquiries of a journalist, Brad Spanner who was employed by the Toowoomba Chronicle. Mr. Spanner had reported the trial, and Mr. Budd understandably checked with him to verify the accounts given by Campbell and O'Sullivan. The actual question posed is not clear from the evidence, but Spanner apparently responded that, "Mr. Copley did get very stroppy with the defence witnesses, that he also got angry with his own witnesses. Brad Spanner said it -- 34 of 56 -- /, I 32 looked as if he was going to have a heart attack - that was his term. That was basically the substance of it." Although it is not immediately clear to the casual reader, this account is not consistent with that in the article. The article asserted that Copley "constantly screamed at" the prosecution witnesses whereas Spanner 1 s response to whatever Budd 1 s question may have been was that Copley did, "get very stroppy with the defence witnesses," but also, "got angry with his own witnesses. " His anger with the prosecution witnesses could hardly be attributable to the base motives imputed by the article if he had demonstrated similar anger towards defence witnesses. At. least as likely an explanation in those circumstances would be that his own disposition at the time or his court room style was the reason for his conduct. Again, the failure to report this aspect of the information available to Budd concentrated attention upon Copley 1 s treatment of the prosecution witnesses, inviting inferences as to the reasons for such conduct. Budd 1 s justification for adopting this course was that / c=) c=) c=) whilst he had independent confirmation from different sources. as c=) to the allegation that Copley mistreated Campbell and 0 1 Sullivan (that confirmation being from Campbell, O'Sullivan and Spanner), he had no confirmation of the allegation that Copley became angry with the defence witnesses (that evidence coming only from Spanner). Underlying this seemed to be a general belief that he should only publish statements in circumstances in which he had verified those statements by reference to more than one source. Whilst that is an appropriately judicious approach for a r ' -- 35 of 56 -- 1 (' C! 33 journalist to take, it may not in itself be sufficient to satisfy the requirement for good faith. One source may be obviously more reliable than others. Surrounding circumstances may indirectly corroborate a particular allegation which cannot be directly corroborated, or such circumstances may have the contrary effect of casting doubt upon allegations made by two people who aight be said to have corroborated each other. Whilst it is in no sense incumbent upon a journalist to report every aspect of a story if he considers that some aspects are irrelevant to his major theme or unreliable, nonetheless deletion of an aspect may contain inherent dangers. In the present case, omission of part of Spanner's statement suggests that Mr. Budd was to some extent pre-occupied with the allegations concerning the treatment of Campbell and O'Sullivan. The suggestion that Copley similarly treated witnesses on the defence side did not fit neatly into Budd's theme and so was C ignored. In the course of cross-examination, Mr. Budd was asked on a number of occasions by Mr. Callinan whether or not he thought ( . . / it likely that a Magistrate would allow counsel to conduct himself towards a witness in the way described in the article. Mr. Budd generally declined to offer an opinion as to how a Magistrate might behave. I was inclined to think him rather evasive in this respect. Whilst a journalist lacking particular experience in the Courts might not wish to commit himself one way or the other, I would have expected rather more constructive replies than those given. To say that, "I 'm not a party to Magistrates' thinking", is to state the obvious. He adopted a -- 36 of 56 -- 34 similar approach when asked about issues of confidential! ty involving secretaries to barristers. He was being cross-examined about the desirability of sending a fax to Mr. Copley, communicating the content of the proposed story and was asked:- "You would reasonably expect secretary would be trainedconfidentiality, wouldn't you." To which he replied:- that a barrister's in the need for "I don't know any barristers' secretaries, Mr. Callinan." He was then asked:- "It is not a very difficult thing to imagine though, is it, that barristers' secretaries would require such discretion. You'd expect that wouldn't you? You wouldn't expect that?" To which he replied:- "I don't know either way, I really don't." These answers also display undue coyness. In cross-examination, Mr. Budd asserted that the intention of the article was, "to go over what happened in March and what happened to the people since March". He said that the allegation / 0 0 0 of a police cover-up was not the principal thrust of the article, although it was part of it. I find it very difficult to accept O that Mr. Budd honestly held that view. Accepting that he was not responsible for the headline or for the various features on the page, nonetheless the introductory paragraphs 1-6 clearly indicate that a principal aspect of the story is to be the so- called "cover-up". The story subsequently lives up to· that expectation. Mr. Budd's assertions to the contrary was somewhat disingenuous. -- 37 of 56 -- 35 In the course of evidence, Mr. Budd conceded that he was aware that his government source attributed the failure of the prosecutions to the disappointing performances of the witnesses. He also knew of the assertion made by Crawford as to the reasons for dropping the charges against Sheehan, again the performance of the witnesses in the case against Scott. It seems that Mr. Budd had seen the article in the Toowoomba Chronicle of 30th August, 1989 (ex. 30) prior to the subject article going to ( press. I asked him at p. 281:- ( "One of the things I was wondering about, Mr. Budd, perhaps you are going to come to that Mr. Callinan - just say so if you are - when the senior public servant said to you that the witnesses had let themdown, when you saw that in the light of exhibit 30, the report as to why those proceedings were going on, did it occur to you at that stage that maybe it wasn't all one way and that maybe there had been something wrong with the witnesses?" He replied:- "Yes, when I saw the exhibit but that paragraph is also there for that very reason to. The government is saying they had trouble with the witnesses." I should say that the passage, "why those proceedings were going on," should probably be, "why those proceedings weren't l_ / going on." The case was conducted on the basis that ex. 30 (also part of ex. 35) was seen by Mr. Budd prior to publication of the subject article. His assertion that paragraph 14 was an attempt to provide a balanced report of different explanations for the failure of the prosecutions is not really convincing. As I have previously observed, the article suggests that the reason the witnesses failed to provide evidence sufficient to support convictions was the conduct of the police and others, including the present -- 38 of 56 -- 36 plaintiff. Mr. Budd was aware that the real thrust of his source's opinion was that the witnesses had disappointed the prosecution. In those circumstances, one might expect that he would have been put on notice of the risks inherent in publication or alternatively, that he would have made it clear that there was an assertion that the witnesses may have failed for other reasons. The article did not do so. Of course, a witness who performs badly may do so because counsel has failed in his conduct of the case. Thus the view that the witnesses had not performed well did not necessarily exclude Copley from responsibility for the poor performances. Nonetheless, such an allegation at least raises the possibility of the witnesses failing through their own shortcomings and so changes the emphasis of the article. Finally, I should make reference to certain passages in Budd's evidence in which Mr. Callinan put to him matters of some importance. At p. 285 this passage appears:- "Well, did you think yourself that Mr. Copley was part of a whitewash? Excuse me, Mr. Callinan?" "Did you think Mr. Copley was part of a police whitewash? No, I didn't Mr. Callinan." "Why didn't you say that in the article? Why didn't you make it clear that Mr. Copley wasn't part of any police whitewash? It is my impression that that is clear in it, Mr. Callinan. You say your article is clear or makes it clear that Mr. Copley wasn't part of any police whitewash? I think - believe that to be true. Did you think Mr. Copley might be trying to help the accused police out by being harsher on his own witnesses; much more harsh than defence counsel? -- No sir. / 0 0 0 0 -- 39 of 56 -- ( '· c ( 37 Do you agree as a journalist that the article is open to that construction? No, I fail to get that impression. Let me take you to it? -- I can only go on my own judgment. You see, if you go to the fifth column where you are quoting Rogers, do you see that just beside Rogers' photograph, do you see that you are quoting; after referring to the absence of successful prosecutions you quote Rogers as saying, 'the whole business hasbeen a complete whitewash, gross injustice.' Do you see that? -- Yes. I find it just incredible that you believed Rogers when he told you that; when he told you that? -- Yes. You believed every word and line of what he told you was correct about that didn't you? -- I believed him. And then in the next column you refer to Mr. Copley, you say that, 'Campbell and O'Sullivan said that were badgered and screamed at by Copley during Scott 1 s trial. At one point the trial was briefly adjourned after Campbell broke down in the witness box.'Doesn't that suggest to you that the association of that with the earlier matter, including the matter to which I have referred gives the impression that Mr. Copley was involved in the whitewash, which (?), you believe on Mr. Rogers' word to have taken place? No, I don't believe that to be the case Mr. Callinan." After further cross-examination about whether or not a Magistrate would allow counsel to shout at a witness, he was asked:- "But, Mr. Budd didn't it strike you as a very unlikely thing to have happened? -- Yes, it did." At p. 287 this passage appears:- "You see, look at what else you have quoted Cathy Campbell as saying, 'They made me feel like I was trying to get a police officer for something. 1 Who was the 1 they 1 to whom she was referring; who were 'they 1 ? It must include Mr. Copley, mustn' t it, because he is named in the immediately preceding sentence? You agree with me don' t you? include Mr. Copley? That they must -- 40 of 56 -- ·-~--.~~- 38 Yes? No I don't. Look at it? Look at it? "The defence lawyer treated me much less harshly than he did. They made me feel like I was just trying to get a police officer" - must refer to Copley? Not necessarily. To whom were you referring? quote. I didn' t say the To whom did you think Cathy Campbell was referring? -- I think you will have to ask Cathy Campbell. No. You are quoting; you corroborated her; you interrogated her; she was your principal source. I'm asking you: to whom did you think she was referring? -- I can't recall now, sir. You see, you deliberately chose that order of phrasing didn't you - sorry - you were prepared to accept it; you were prepared to print immediately after the reference to Mr. Copley as the defence, immediately after the reference to Mr. Copley, and you have inserted his name in brackets, and immediately after that you have said, 'They made me feel like I was just trying to get a police officer.' Let me be clear about this Mr. Budd - I am giving you an opportunity to deal with this - I am suggesting that no person of even the most moderate intelligence could read that as anything but including a reference to Mr. Copley? I disagree with you Sir. I suggest that that is totally false and you know it to be false? --I disagree·with you. His Honour: Mr. Budd, you must have had some perception of who was contemplated as included when you wrote the article surely? -- You Honour, at the time I am sure I did but now it escapes me. Well, in the context of the article, who else could it be? I could make an assumption, Your Honour, an assumption from reading it now, but I can't be specific. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Budd was being unduly evasive in his answers to these questions. It is also impossible to avoid the conclusion that the references in question were references to, amongst others, Mr. Copley. It is difficult to imagine that Mr. Budd, either at the time he wrote the story or in evidence, could have had any other understanding. 0 0 0 0 I -- 41 of 56 -- ( ', 39 Finally, it is necessary that I record one other aspect of the cross-examination of Mr. Budd. He agreed that since leaving the employ of Queensland Newspapers, he had unlawfully used a Telecom PIN number to make international calls at the expense of the defendant, without appropriate authority. I should say that this appears to have been a matter of some substance from the defendant 1 s point of v.iew because they pursued him for the money. (See p. 377.) He also admitted that he had sold goods to parties, which goods he held on hire-purchase or lease. He said that he didn 1 t think anybody had suffered loss as a result of his ( conduct, and that if they had, he would compensate them. These matters may have some bearing upon his credit, although I would be reluctant to place any great weight upon them in the absence of more detailed accounts of what was involved. In the end, I find myself with doubts about Budd 1 s credibility. The evasiveness demonstrated above and his overall demeanour as a witness were not satisfactory. His persistent denial of the possibility that the article made incorrect and defamatory allegations against Copley also supports this view. Mr. Scott Jones, the Features Editor of the Courier-Mail at the time of the publication, said that he did not believe that Mr. Copley was part of a police cover-up, but rather a victim of it in the sense that his frustration at the trial was produced by the way in which matters had been previously handled. It is somewhat difficult to attribute this meaning to the article. There is no sympathy shown for Copley and again, there is the fact that no reference is made to his anger at defence witnesses. The article does not fairly bear that meaning. -- 42 of 56 -- 40 The defendant relies upon pleas of qualified protection and fair comment. Firstly, it is alleged that the publication was in good faith, in the course of, or for the purpose of, the discussion of some subject of public interest, namely the investigation and prosecution of offences allegedly committed by police. See s. 377(8) of the Criminal Code. Secondly, it is submitted that the article was published in good faith for the purpose of giving information to readers with respect to a subject as to which those readers had such an 0 interest as to make the defendant's conduct in making the Thirdly, it is submitted that the article comprised fair 0 publication reasonable. Sees. 377(5). comment respecting the merits of the trials of certain police officers including Scott or respecting the conduct of the plaintiff as counsel in the prosecution of Scott. Sees. 375(4). Turning first to the defence under s. 377 ( 8), Mr. Jones said that his purpose in commissioning and publishing the article was 0· to satisfy an interest in what had happened following the initial allegations of misconduct. He said that he also wished to investigate what appeared to be a lack of co-operation by the Q police in the investigation of the incident, to determine whether the incident had happened and whether people still adhered to their original allegations. He put it in another way by saying that he wanted to deliver a finding on what had allegedly happened. He said that the public had displayed an interest in the matter by writing letters to the editor, and he considered that the public was interested in receiving information as to why nothing seemed to have happened in the matter and why it looked { i I ·I l \ J I I -- 43 of 56 -- 41 as though it were going to "die". The defence puts it slightly more widely, alleging that the discussion was of, "the investigation and prosecution of offences allegedly committed by certain police officers during a police football carnival in Toowoomba. " The publication of the statements concerning Copley in the context of the article was clearly in the course of, or for the purpose of the discussion of the investigation and prosecution ( of offences allegedly committed by police officers during the (! carnival. Even apart from the actual evidence of interest, there could be no doubt that such a matter was of great public interest and that public discussion of it was for the public benefit. It is difficult to imagine a clearer case. I am satisfied that the publication therefore was on an occasion of qualified protection pursuant to subs. (8). Questions then arise as to whether the publication (insofar as it concerns Copley) was made in good ( faith and whether any comment was fair. Good faith is to be determined having regard to the criteria prescribed in the final paragraph of s. 377 as follows:- "For the purposes of this section, a publication is said to be made in good faith if the matter published is relevant to the matters the existence of which may excuse the publication in good faith of defamatory matters; if the manner and extent of the publication does not exceed what is reasonably sufficient for the occasion; and if the person by whom it is made is not actuated by ill-will to the person defamed, or by any other improper motive, and does not believe the defamatory matter to be untrue." The onus of establishing absence of good faith is upon the plaintiff. As to the first aspect, there can be little doubt that in discussing the investigation and prosecution of the offences, the conduct of the prosecution was relevant to such -- 44 of 56 -- -- ~~~ ~------- 42 discussion and for the public benefit. As to the second aspect, assuming the allegations to be otherwise in good faith, there was nothing excessive about the way in which they were reported. Thirdly, there was no evidence (apart from the publication) to suggest that Budd or anybody else associated with it was actuated by ill-will towards Copley. This does not exclude the possibility of some other improper motive, but it is better to deal with that matter under the question of belief as to untruth. As to the imputations alleged in sub-paras 12(a) and 12(b) 0 of the statement of claim, I do not accept that Budd did not intend to so implicate Copley. There would be no other justification for the inclusion of the allegations about Copley' s conduct, given the context set by the first sixteen paragraphs. Jones advanced the theory that Copley was depicted as a victim. I have dealt with that suggestion. It is untenable. It is clear that Budd did not believe that Copley was involved in a cover-up or whitewash. He said that he though that he had made that clear in the article. (See p. · 285. ) He also conceded at p. 286, after considerable cross-examination both at that point and earlier, that ·he thought it very unlikely that a barrister would be permitted to so behave. He had the benefit of knowing that the prosecution against Sheehan had been discontinued because of doubts about the credibility of the relevant witnesses raised in the Scott trial. His unnamed source had told him, in effect that the witnesses had disappointed the prosecution. He also knew from Spanner that Copley had demonstrated annoyance with defence witnesses as well as with prosecution witnesses. 0 0 0 -- 45 of 56 -- c ( 43 In all of those circumstances, I conclude that Budd knew that it was untrue to suggest that Copley was a party to an attempt to cover-up police misconduct or frustrate or impede the prosecutions. Such an allegation is obviously a very serious one. The mechanism by which Copley was said to have done it was, as Mr. Budd conceded a very unlikely thing to have happened. Two sources of information (the unnamed source and the prosecutor in the Sheehan case) suggested that the witnesses had not performed up to expectations. Further, to the extent that there was anything unusual about the way in which the witnesses performed, the article itself advanced other good reasons for that, namely the exertion of pressure by the police and an absence of enthusiasm in police investigations. There was no factual basis for the imputation against Copley. Even the assertions of Campbell and O'Sullivan were, to the extent that they attributed intention to Copley, merely their own opinions, based on facts ( they allegedly had observed. I am satisfied that Budd knew that the allegations made by Campbell and O'Sullivan, to the extent that they, in context implied involvement by Copley in a cover-up, were untrue. As to the question of fair comment, it is probably not necessary to consider that matter as the absence of good faith deprives the defendant of the benefit of this defence in any event. Much of the article as it affected Copley comprised indirect comment by Budd or reported comments by Rogers, Campbell or O'Sullivan. Those comments were in the form of inferences from other facts. The most obvious examples are the statement by Rogers that Copley dealt roughly with Campbell, 0' Sullivan and -- 46 of 56 -- 44 Eastell, the comments by Campbell that, "I felt I was on trial" and, "the defence lawyer treated me much less harshly than he (Copley) did", that, "They made me feel like I was just trying to get a police officer for something", and the comments by 0 • Sulli van that he left the courtroom with the overwhelming feeling that no one would be convicted and that "We were just made out to be idiots." These statements all took the form of allegations of fact but were, in varying degrees really inferences from other facts. As I understand it, they therefore 0 comprised comment. Taken by themselves, I doubt that any of these comments could be characterised as being unfair if the publication were otherwise in good faith. However, when taken 0 in the context of the article as a whole, they led to the imputations to which I have referred. Those imputations were themselves comments and were unfair simply because no factual basis existed for them, as Budd knew. For that reason, too a defence under this sub-section is not available. As to the imputations alleged in sub-paras. 12 (c), (d) and 0 (f), Budd had reason to believe that the relevant conduct had occurred in the sense that there were allegations by Campbell and 0 O'Sullivan, corroborated to some extent by Spanner. I could not conclude that he knew such allegation and the associated imputations to be untrue, although they in fact were. To the extent that they comprised comment, such comment was fair. Those imputations are protected by s. 377(8). For similar reasons, I am also satisfied that the publication was on an occasion of qualified protection for the purposes of s. 377(5). However, also for similar reasons, I I! I I! '.I . -- 47 of 56 -- ( ( 45 conclude that there was an absence of good faith as to the imputations alleged in sub-paras. 12 (a) and (b). This defence is also not available. It is not necessary to consider its application to the other imputations. Turning to s. 375(4), the publication in question is the imputation that Copley intended to conceal police misconduct and frustrate or impede prosecutions and/or conspired to do so. I have already concluded that Budd knew that such allegations were untrue. He conceded almost as much. Upon the facts as understood by Budd at the time, there was no justification for such comment. In those circumstances, the comment cannot be fair. As to whether it was a comment respecting the merits of any case, I have some doubts. The article discussed the facts of the Scott case, although not in such a way as to make it clear that it was doing so. The account in paragraphs 41-43 related to the incident, although the article did not say so. The Scott ( trial was referred to in paragraph 44, but was not linked to the earlier allegations. The comments as to the way in which Copley ( / ' / conducted the case did not go to the merits of the case. In any event, the article clearly was a comment upon the conduct of Copley as counsel in the case and to that extent, the sub-section would apply. As I have found that the comment was not fair, I need not take the matter further. I turn to the question of damages. Having regard to my previous findings, these must be the damages attributable to the imputations that the plaintiff was involved in a conspiracy to conceal illegal police activity and that he did not honestly or properly perform his duties as a barrister in that he tried to -- 48 of 56 -- 46 conceal police misconduct and frustrate or impede prosecutions. The allegation of conspiracy does not add very much to the other imputation. The real gravamen of the imputations was that Copley used his position as a barrister to discourage witnesses from giving evidence and to frustrate the successful prosecution of Scott and perhaps, some other persons. It is obvious that a barrister is obliged to do all that is proper and within his power to represent the interests of those for whom he appears. Although prosecuting counsel is not expected to obtain a c=) conviction at any cost, he is expected to present the prosecution case fairly. It would certainly be a serious breach of his professional duty to do anything designed to undermine the c=) prosecution. It would be an abuse of his position as counsel to mistreat witnesses in order to deter them from giving evidence in that trial or in any other trial. Instructing solicitors and clients could have no confidence in a barrister who was known to have sought to subvert his own case. c=) One has no difficulty in accepting that Mr. Copley was greatly upset by the allegations made against him and that he was embarrassed in his dealings with others in light of the c=) allegations. I should say, though that in view of the high esteem which he enjoys in the profession, as revealed by the various witnesses called on his behalf, it is unlikely that those close to him would find their opinions of him seriously affected by the publication. Of course, as is so often the case, the real concern is in connection with the more remote and less apparent damage to the opinions of him held by other people. f-~ ~---~---------- i Ii I Ii ! l I -- 49 of 56 -- 47 I accept the general proposition advanced for the plaintiff that one must take into account the whole of the defendant's conduct, up to and including its reporting of the trial. I have no serious criticism of that reporting in general. It is in my experience not unusual for journalists to identify as important for their purposes, parts of a case which are legally insignificant. That is simply a result of the fact that very few journalists have legal qualifications. It also reflects the fact ( that what is of public interest may not necessarily be the same ( as what is of legal interest. Although I may have reported some aspects of this case differently from the way in which the defendant did, that does not lead me to believe that the award of damages in the present case should be increased in recognition of any defect in that reporting. The reporting concentrated upon the allegations of harsh treatment of witnesses and to a great extent, lacked the context which has led me to uphold the ( allegations of defamatory imputations. ( ' '-- / The other dominant feature in the reporting was, as one might expect, my dealing with Budd for contempt. Although the reporting of the trial has probably re-opened old wounds as far as the plaintiff is concerned, there was nothing seriously unfair about the way in which the trial was reported, at least insofar as concerns the plaintiff. The fact that the matter inevitably has been refreshed in Copley' s mind by the trial and by its being reported will, of course be reflected in the·award. There has been no apology in this case. Indeed, Mr. Budd in particular was most determined that there be no such apology until it was demonstrated to his satisfaction that his story was, I i -- 50 of 56 -- -----------~-------- 48 in some respect wrong. It follows from my findings that Budd (and inferentially, the defendant) knew· that the story unfairly defamed the plaintiff. It is quite likely that Budd focused more clearly upon the positions of Campbell and O'Sullivan than he did upon that of Copley. He was more concerned to report the allegations made against Copley and the alleged effects on Campbell, 0' Sulli van and the prosecution process than he was with the effect of his allegations upon Copley, although he knew that r Copley, whatever he may have done, had not deliberately done anything to frustrate the prosecutions. 0 I think also that part of the problem was that the story was a difficult assignment. It involved the reporting of facts at a number of different levels the original events, the allegations about them, allegations to the Carrigan inquiry, evidence at the hearing and subsequent complaints to Budd. As well as this, there were a number of different themes - the outcome of the Fitzgerald Inquiry, its expected effects upon the police force, the failure of those expectations as evidenced by 0 0 the alleged misconduct, the further failure of those expectations reflected in the absence of co-operation in the investigation and 0 the conduct of the trials, in particular Scott's trial. The article tried to do far too much. I am not presuming to offer journalistic advice. I am rather suggesting that Budd probably experienced difficulties in handling all of this material. As a result, it is likely that he did not fully realize the seriousness of the allegations he was making against Copley, although I have no doubt that he knew he was reporting an allegation that Copley was part of the cover-up. -- 51 of 56 -- ( 49 In assessing damages, I have found some assistance in the approach adopted by Higgins J. in Bainton v. John Fairfax & Sons Limited & Anor. (unreported - judgment delivered 14th November, 1991) in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr. Bainton Q.C. is a senior member of the New South Wales Bar and in that case, complained that he had been defamed in a newspaper article which alleged that he was guilty of dishonesty and other misconduct in connection with his professional duties. Of course, with no disrespect to the plaintiff, Mr. Bainton is undoubtedly one of the most prominent members of the Australian ( '! Bar. On the other hand, it might be that his reputation would therefore be more impervious to attack in a major metropolitan ( ~. ' newspaper than would the plaintiff's. No attempt was made to make out any actual financial loss flowing from the defamation. I keep in mind the observations of Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone L.C. in Broome v. Cassell & Co. (1972) A.C. 1027 at p. 1071:- "In actions of defamation and in any other actions where damages for loss of reputation are involved, the principle of restitution in integrum has necessarily an even more highly subjective element. Such actions involve a money award which may put the plaintiff in a purely financial sense in a much stronger position than he was before the wrong. Not merely can he recover the estimated sum of his past and future losses, but, in case the libel, driven underground,emerges from its lurking place at some future date, he must be able to point to a sum awarded by a jury sufficient to convince a bystander of the baselessness of the charge. As Windeyer J. well said in Uren v. John Fairfax & Sons. Pty. Ltd. 117 C.L.R. 115, 150: 'It seems to me that, properly speaking, a man defamed does not get compensation for his damaged reputation. He gets damages because he was injured in his reputation, that is simply because he was publicly defamed. For this reason, compensation by damages operates in two ways - as a vindication of the plaintiff to the public and -- 52 of 56 -- 50 as consolation to him for a wrong done. Compensation is here a solatium rather than a monetary recompense for harm measurable in money.' This is why it is not necessarily fair to compare awards of damages in this field with damages for personal injuries. Quite obviously, the award must include factors for injuries to the feelings, the anxiety and uncertainty undergone in the litigation, the absence of apology, or the reaffirmation of the truth of the matter complained of, or the malice of the defendant. The bad conduct of the plaintiff himself may also enter into the matter, where he has provoked the libel, or where perhaps he has libel the defendant in reply. What is awarded is thus a figure which cannot be arrived at by any purely objective computation. This is what is meant when the damages in defamation are described as being 'at large'." As to the question of exemplary damages I am not minded to award any in this case. As I have said, I suspect quite strongly that Mr. Budd lost control of the story and did not fully appreciate the seriousness of the allegations he was making, probably because of his concentration upon the position of Campbell and O'Sullivan. I do not think an award of exemplary damages would be justified. In all the circumstances, I consider that an appropriate award by way of compensatory and aggravated damages would be the sum of $50,000. In view of the fluctuation of interest rates in recent times, the issue of interest has become unduly difficult. I have considered the decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Australian Consolidated Press v. Driscoll [1988] Aust. Torts Reports 67, 645 and the decision of the High Court in M.B.P (S.A.) Pty. Ltd. v. Gogic (1990) 171 C.L.R. 657. Having regard to those cases, interest and inflation rates over the last three years and the fact that most of the damage was probably suffered shortly after the publication, I will allow interest at 0 0 0 0 i i ~j -- 53 of 56 -- /' ( \\..._ _______ / 51 three per cent from the date of issue of the writ. That is a period of two and five-sixth years. I calculat"e the interest at $4,250. There will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $54,250. I will hear submissions as to costs. -- 54 of 56 -- 0 0 lueol lqnOII .... r 'I 11) lu.~ .• JOj •o If I. !J 1 )) 0":.16 ·.~•:'' 'ol.l·lr.t• ,:Id •:»< o•B Ill .., If I ... )19 "I ~) .. ••:>g s .l alfl ;asn .pa ~·!If 'a .. -- 55 of 56 -- .. £~ l~ .v. k e~~ ~ ---~ o6' 'i · ,. . • • , • • ' : • • • •• : • • - · . 0 • ~ l. • • • . • FEATURES ................. ~T;H;E;C;O;U;R;IE;R;·M;A;I;;L-~ -· -J • •. • ••• . ': ·· ·< • •·' .' ... . ;:·. - ~ ( · ~ · : .. ' . ~ - ~ • 0 sttence Thl1 week charge1 were withdrawn against a police officer for his alleged Involvement In a drunken spree at Toowoomba In March. In total, nine police were charged, but none was convicted. Joe Budd vi!'' ~ • Toowoomba to In ~ ··ate the rampage whl "' would seem, ne\a i happened. MARCH ••• allecallon1 of pollct rampaRinc lhrfluch pubs, motels and rnlaul'llntlllla4t htadllnn In Tht Sunday Mall. But many wllnHMI dtcldt4 not A' t..>CifB; :~ ·: , · , '•t"~· totntlfyatsubHqutntcourthurinp. '· > L .. ' ' ' . ~~-;3 .. • ,. . ' '~~~- •.r , he ""1'""'"1· 1t seemed •• ~ 1 -~ • .:..._ Scon'alrial. AI one polnl,lhe &rl· 7 R While Carria~n ran &he inquiry rclat. ·• ;: ly clcar·CUI. A aroup or ... •- .. : .: "'--. at ..... brioOy adjourned eher llhd inlo,iewod wilneues. Jhe in · police otrlccn repor1cdl)' had • • Cantpbell broke down In 1he wh· veulaatlons were earrled ou1 by dishonorcd the force while on a neu slud. seniot police. The Filzacrald Re· three-day drinkina 1pree in 1 :·1 f.clt like I was on trial," she port, ha~ded down a re:- months T oowoomba durina I he Police satd. He conslon&lyscrea~ed al l~ter, pot~led out !he !""d:J~•- Comminioner's Trophy ru&by me end JOl really anary wtlh me. e~nofpohcelnvesl• . aal!n& po tee. 1 · I' M h . . 64 . . The defence lowycr treated me 79wocasesweredum1sseda(ler cacuc ~rmva In arc . ' phySicall)' ouacked . Under '"'!rue- ...... prelly amozma ..... , il?" much leu harshly thAn he (Cop- ,, was revealed lhe omcon ho~ Quo11".l. a nary locals, ••w•r.per Had there 11ons from manaaemcnl, he dtdn'l bo "'Id. "Whal ar~ 1hey trylnal c ley) did. been wronaly Identified. Two and lciC'fiS~ rcpor~s ~lated I alal liahl back . . uy - lhu nolhtnJ happened 72 "Thel made me feellikc .l was other charaed officen wcren ' l lea SI SO poltce offtccrs rampi.Jed b 1 . <?• Tuesday ntahl, anolher 2S·30 bjck .I n, March? I can toll you , . jull lrytnato ael a police ~liccr pen inte,iewed bf polite usisl · lhrouah pub~. motels and reSiau· een po ICe 34 pohce relurned 10 lhe lake . Again, lhal tin I lhe ease, nol by a lonfi for somelbina. I'm nol lf)'inJ 10 tnJ lhe lnvestiaalton end lheir nnu. usauhtn& people and desJroy· _ lhey abused bar slaff and other pa- shot. · . · . discredil lha police, bul 1 Jull ea .. were diamiuad for lack of in& J'<OPC"Y · . . coo e at' 0 Irons. Olhen urlnalod I~ beer alana 6t; "The whole buslnns haa bMn 11 thlnl<If someone doea somtlhlna, evldtnoc. . • . Gi. vcA I he eh~··· oflhe FtllJCrald p r I n ~nd \m~shed lhem •samll I he walls :=o~plelc whhewa~h.,. ·~011 I~ · lhcn I hey should be proacculed. .Q{) Durina his lnquif)', Carrigan !ftiiU"Y. • , lhe ··~·people spoke OUI • or I he dtsco. JUSIICC and I rind 11 JUil tncredl · 73 "Now I jusl feel like, 'What's '1tilc"iewed 6-C Wtlncsscs. includ· tmmcdta _ lely,fO<ttnaanembsrras~ there IS no Rogen wu awake~ed 11 I.JOam bl~: . . . the use of 11?' I won'& even sian inapolicc.Howcver,lnhisrcporl, Sl• r ,r w~mcnt lo la~nch an '!'"' 35 by sl2ff. When he ~rnved at I he pub, 66 The~ re. uytnJiha~ lhese wt . l· my llalemenuany more because he complained about the lack or qu,. Bmbanc barusler Chm h th aboul a dozen pohce were &rouped nC$1etdtdn lseeanylhtng.lfldul our Slalcmenls won'l do any· cooperation JIYCn 10 the i~l'tsli· Cat ~ ., •• .•·. QC. reason w y e around • man who had objecled lo some or Ihe lhinas all these wil - lhinu ." JIIIOn by pohcc. 4 t ~omcrous •ilnusn willlnaly hisairlfriend belna tilled a 'slul''. nC$1CI hove so id &he police dld,l'•l Ot!nnls O'Sulllven 1old The 81 A scnlor officer In charae or came forward to coopcn1e, in many trUe CU 1 pr'ltS Inside &he disco, a police officer be r.ul in jail oral leu1 prosecul· 74couricr·Mail he left &he court· one or the police f001ball &cants cosn iden1ifyin-' Ihe ofT'ICCrs mpon· _ 36 had kicked a hole in a wall and olhcrs eel.' roont wilh 1he overwhclmina (eel· rcportod 10 Carriaan lhal he "can sible while delatlinaa shoekincserics f had allcmpled 10 rip a lclcpbonc 67. lie claimed Calhy Campbell, ina no one would be convicted for orrer no information thal could or incidenu. respons I' bIe or .from iu mounlinss. Others paraded Dennis O 'Sullivan and DudleJI whal happened In Toowoomba aaill In eslablishlna:hc ider.lity Follo:wina I he inqilif)' IS charan _ around the dance Ooor wi1b their E.u1ell were dealt with rouahl )• lasl March. of any penon reaponalble for uy •er• " •aalnsl nine police oflkcra. th • d t penll<:lexpoted. by prooccutor John Copley al lho 75 wwe were Just made oul 10 be allcfed orrc-w. Ali , a•c IIOW beu dull with. e miSCOn uc 37 Roscrs turned o(( lhe sound sy•· lrial or Dovid Scoll when lhc y tdiol>." he lAid . "I lhouahl for. B?w lillp!'Arenllhebroth.rhood No•' • as be~n . convicled . Only one lem and closed Jhe pub aboul 30 mt~· PETER Rogtn • , • dlsmeycd llu!t were called lo Ihe wilness stand . whilo : thal il would be bellcr jusl iil' 1~ polt~e force .is ~live . ~nd per.... .. a CtYihan- has been SUC! · cou Id not have UltS early. He and other Sllff ... d no police hare been con• le led. 68 Campbcll end O'Sullivan also tO shul up and forael aboul hall, well, Carnaan wrolc tn hll re- ccufull, pr<X«ulftl. I hey were obused roundly by &he de· were 10 be I he key wilne"es al bul~>hal if everyone lhouahl like pori, which is expected 10 be No,. . li•e months laler. an invetli· partinc police oHicers. cd 4S minules until o(liccrs arri•cd . Delectlve l'eter Shechan's 1rial. lha&'!" la bled in Stall Parliamenl Iller aatiof! by The C011rier·Mail poinlslo been found and JB "Some of I he polico were really The Toowoombo officers, efur 6 Q.. However, lht chltltl a&ain ~ l 76 Cnpley, a BrlslNtne barrllltr, &his yelr. a c:oocr -up by pollcc.slrclchlna from nice." Campbcll said. "They apo· speok i n& with police in the disco. ~hechan were dropped on &he be· did nol rellarn several telephone B~wl find il inconceivable 1ha1 no foowoomba to Rockhtmp1on and suff'\Ci 0 nt loai•ed for &he olher auys' INthavior &hen 1old 1he 111ff I here wu nothina sis or Scou·a acq_uil~al . The pr o- calh . from The Courier· Mall ieniot policeman has any kno,.J- ~'(r-'ff .·.~ J..•.w . ,\' z.J:.rrM(t doubll l\.11 1 L VJtl.'br.') 'tWi't 1u\\} ~-" _Jilt} ~\I~ 'I.!% I'll \\t\p . l!fU!6f itr Slttt/ritr'l aft, ltr. · ormhif¥' rhi· c11111MtftU'on~~ • C<IJI::;tcl1t.oltt'llbl-."''flrtil"'IY"' eboul I he etrcelivcncu of I he leJal 39 Some &wo doun police then wont !:JU A her lhc Wednesday ni&hl, Roa· spec&or Cliff Crawford. said th:t clalntl medt lly O'Sullln~and partnliy, tvtn of any lodirecl proca•cs in tllaltlithinawhal raally evJ'dence fur&hor up Ru1hvon S&reu lo &he ora uld he hired 10 u1ra ueurilr credibility or &he whnesns a l Campbell 1 klnd,ofwhalllaai!Mropi41Jno- hai'Pf nod . -.:. Shamrock Holfl, a no& her llla·nlahl 11arr In prepenllon for Thuroday . He Scoll's trial had been qucnloned 77 Tht lack 'of proucollo .-.lltflooisJoOJhtn lit Toowoombe." Even former roHcc Minimr R•t· d d pub popular with youn1 people- et· told local police or these arnnce· and "we have no evidence aaalnn • 'been blamed- from a number of oq, Dapill repealed clainu the in· sell Cooper huedmilled IS much . pro uce to pecially collece uudcnll - in mcnll and no off-duly police from Sheehan in lhil court". seclon- on lht failure or lhe qulry weslnadcquale, Carrlaan In a m·paae response aivcn 10 The _ Toowoomba. !he fool ball carnival wen I 10 1he Lake Cempbcll and O'Sullinn said Carr l ~an Inquiry 10 aucccufully hu siMC wuhed ~b hand& or the Coutier-Msil invnli&llion while he 0 bta'l n The publican, Brian f?ulh, ejecled llo1~l on Thu~sd• . Y ni&hl . 7q hey were badacrcd a.n d iden11fy the police ofOcen In- affelr and rduseslo speak 1o the "11 alill in oflicc, Cooper revealed 40 them and banned pohce from the 51 S•.n•e lhe tncodenu were mnde acreamftl al by Copley duun .1 vol•cd. media. senior police had conlinuftl 10 invot· , , Shamrock (or lhe fCII of lhe wuk af· "J>Ubloe, unul ,l chsracs - unrclllcd r - ---------------------- Ji~alc I he Toowoomba a(feir over lhe COn VICtl 0 n s ' ler I hey bep~ uunalina on &he car· 10 Ihe lhree nt~hu In March- have pau r; · ,e monlhs wilhoul unur&hina pels and abustns sllff and palrons. been laid ea11nll 1hrc:e lake Hold '"7. f~rlher charics . 41 On Wedncsdey ni&hl, another 111ff. Dudley Eu1cll. the bouncer 'E•ety in&ervicw that hu been larae aroup of P:"liee erri•ed al lhe who. claimed he was allodcd ~y De · conducled since Carriaen hu ceased For mu roliec Minister, Lake. Afler ukina what I he cover tecltve Scoll, wu acqutlled tn I he 10 aupcrintondtnl the lnvenlaulon Ruucll Cooptr price wu, many refused lo~y ·~·SI on!r, f111 heard lo dolO. hu rnuhod in 1 denial of miocond .. l and aocordlnJ 10 Dennls O 'Sulhvan, 5? I ve been Involved In . hole Is for or knowledaclhereof." he said. bars.ed p~sl door slaff . lhelaslscvcn ye•.•• end.nevcr had en " I am satisfied that misconducl of 0 Sulhvan said two Brisbane de· uuuh charae latd aa11n11 my sllf[, lOquile an offensive kind did occur In 42 lcc&ives were admhtod free a(Jer lell· bul since March , 1hree of my blokes Too-oombo. I adopted all reuonable lna him Ihey .were on duly . When have been. hil ,.ilh enault choraes," mcasur~s. includina some innovative I his conlinucs. I've had enouJh and bolh wenlslra•aht lo the bar and or· Roaers utd. ~net . 10 lrylo unconr the culprlls. it's lime 11 was cleared up." dercd a beer and e rum and cola, I hey "Ono of lh~e ea1~1 aoes beck six "llad there btu police coopcra-22 like the other Toowoomba publl- were approaehod by a bouncer and 53nonlhl when tt was JUl.' pul lo resl . ' l1ion 1herc is r.o reason why 1he lruc cans, motelowncnandlhcitemploy- Joldlheycouldn'lbese,edalcohollf Now, a monlh .•ao. tl has been culprils rnponsible for the miscon- ces. Roacrs and his 11aff have laraely they were on duly. ' draued oul, e~atn. I .~nd lhal loo du ~ • could not have been found end kept silent durinf the steady proccs:, . : . much ~fa ~!"~'de , nc~. _ ~· ' t_' • -: =•idcnc.: p;odooc<d W ~,;,_ •iUil or police Oilicefl lhruuah lhe -~ · ~ in I ne SOIICIIOr I ICIICrl lO Ked· f:::.., '.;.. «; 1ions." courl• . -"'fftond and Cooper, Rofers nys he '\. ,~ :: , r's •lsl•rblna rfvola1i0111 2 '1 "People have 10 llvtln lhlsJown," ha• bee~ lhe .subject. o vicious ru· 1., t ff; tn compounded by allea•· -bid Ocnnls O'Sulli•an, another of mon; h11 buSinesses 1n Toowoomba ., •· r ,( police harass~nenl aaainsl Ro~ers' duty m ....... . M' think ll's ~nd Roekhamplon have been I he aub- I. who wcniiO I he media and the obvtouo why no one wan11 10 speak JCCI of u~du_e police allcnllon and .an inquiry 10 de1ail1hc behiY· oul aboul h." su~.den cotnc•dences. .. police ofrtcen inl oowoombl . 24 Nc•crlheleu. the 1ffalr has re · . T~e. rumo~s are everywh~re. he n~ or I he • ·it nu••• who CUO• m•intd • hol lopie in Toowoombl, 5~atd. I m lrytn&lO ""~ • nt&hlclu.b :d • ithlhe Carriaan inquiry de· bul mosl of lhoH conlaeled by The tn Roekhampton. and I ve f.OI h.•••· not 10 lctlih 111hcsubsequcn1 Courier· Mail wcro adamnl abo~l neu people eomtnJ up and saytna. hearinrs . lorcina I he brnk· not wanlinalo suffer aaaln lhcconsc· 'Gee, they're afler you . of I hose n•es. They SI ill refuse qucnces of talkinJ 10 the media. = "Someone came lo see me lo Iell :ak. Publican Brian Death 111d he saw -"ffie a pollco ofOcer had &old I hem Vhll il came do• ·n 10 was 1ha1 2~iulc use in brlnaina the story back 10 !hey were aoina lo 1titeh n•e up. 11 • tie lel do• ·n by these people,". lhe surface bcca~IC lhc firll •avc or JUII &ol lo be loo much an~ I ~cnt 10 - ra~kina public scrva111 associal- publicity failed 10 brlna those respo11· ace l~e Rockh~~plo~ pohcc tnspcc· •i th the inquiry ••id . ''We had sible for the rampasc 10 jullice. CATIIY Campbcll • "I fell like ( IO< wtlh my ~oi!CtlOC:.' t bul couldn'l pul &hem before 2 r., "I I' sa bit oh joke In my opinion," was on t;lai." 51 The Couner·M11I ~~~ c.onli~mcd :ourl ." '1lc said. "Youauys (lhc medta) proa- Rogers wenl lo Ihe pohce wtlh htsao-•mc of 1hose who went ftom the ti1u1ed the 11ory al the 1ime and look43 Durin&lhe followina melee, sever· Iichor and his claims of a campaian i3an inquir)' 10 I he "'ilncSI box ..·ha I happened - nobody (police) al hotel sleff were allacked . Told by of rumon were supponed by a nu m· >c Toowoom~e MaJillralcs ,. . .. r,roaecutcd and nolhlna was hol~l man~Jemenl not 10 relalia_le ber or local busines_smen. . 1 now rcarel tl because of the done. · aJOinsl pohce ofliccrs. they were VIr· 58 Rosers aho belt eves poltce have •• dfecls on Iheir lives. 2 z These were people who. in March, Jually defenceless durin& lhe healed 11ymied his applic~lion fore liquo! li· nis hu ruined my life." uid ho- compl•ined o( police rdusinf 10 pay brawl. cence in Roekhompton. The appltca· 11y manlfer Cathy Campbcll. fur their drinkland meals, o urinal· 44 Brisbane de&eclive Oavid Scon lion has been before lhc Liccnsina t)Onc could have told me lh~l in, . s.,. · carinJ and as11uhina hotel w•slolerfound noiJuihyofcommon I Commission for lhe pasl nine n the •ay il was aoina 10 turn ~~~rr and b) · s~anclcrs. •~uuh ~nd asuuh causina bodily monlhs. oen I think I jusl •ould have 2 R There were claims lhal off-duly harm osoinu hold bouncer Dudley 59 "I firmly believe lhe police arc 1 blind c) ·c al I he lime." '1"'1ice officers hnd c~uscd thousands Eo11ell. who suffered head injuries. lryin~ lo Slop m,- licrnco applica- nr l'olicc Commissioner Ron of dollars' damarc 10 11101cl rooms, 4 "- The Toowoomba Maaislralcs lion.' he said . "They've certainly >nd hu appoin1ed a senior bcddinz and furniture and defaced 'Court "" 1old an ar,umenl broke made il cleor by their actions thal •mplon police ofrtecr 10 moni· ··11• ~nd no ..· erpoll "'ilh faeces and OUl bciiO 'een EasJcll and Scoll ..·hen I hey don' I wanllhe opplicalion 10 JO ., ltcatmcnl of Campbell'l urine . Jhe lallcr was asked lo pay a cover _throufh ." >~~blican Peter Roacrs. . One of !he worst-hi& places wu 1he chnrJc. A number of police oflicers W Licensin~ Commission chairmon .d look 1ha1 aclion af1cr a ~.~. ll01cl. a small pub al the bol· hod pinned Eos1cll 10 a wall. Scoll John McKnouhy ~aid RoEers' appli- ·or Roaen aix weeks aao tom end of Rulhven Street . Sand· told the cour& he had merely pushed cation h•d . b.en dcloyed bccau!c ol to his office ancllo Coo- • ·ichcd between a walerbcd 11ore and EaJJcll. Jwo obJ<:<:Itons lod,cd by local hcen· complainina of police • pluntbinJ shop. I he lake has a 46 Lall Tuesday. chor1•• of common . !cc.<. The Licensin~ Courl judge ud· , Rockhamplon where front public bar. bul ill main fealure uuuh,obscenelansuate ond thrcal· JOUr~cd I he h~ouna on Aucust I " inr. 10 establish a is 1he llrfe, darkly·lil disco al the enin& 10 plonl druts Dllhe Lake H<>- 6-""ndonf • detiSton. ' reRr . &cl aJoinstlhesecond nrisbonc de lee· !1. "The period or nine mon1h1 is unu· ' nol called 10 ICS· Accordin~ 10 Calhy Campbclland li¥C . Pclcr Jamcs Sheehan. 101·erc suol," Mr ~~c~nouhy uid . "Dui be· ~~, ' 1n inquir)' or iR Jlbcnnis O'Sullh·an. a croup of polite dropped . eo use ~f obJtClt~ns from some of lhc ' (/>• '• licensee of spenl lhrec nirhll- front Mond•y. Jhc proscculllr, lnspeclor Cliff olhc~ locensccs tn &he area _. lhc pro· ,~, llo1cl, ••• lhr ~l.tch I)- drin~inr ~t I he L~ke 4~"wford. 1uld I he Too,. · oomba ccedtnps h••e1akcn somelunc . '''oncdia in t.hrch durinj! 1hc foutball c•rni•ol. :\l•~islr•Jes Cour& he h•d been in· 62 "There wos no deloy . ~s !•r u we <ed lhrouah his Tht)' s:..id about )0 police "ere 11 struc\cd "lo offer no evidence and were concerned . The ObJCCIIOns were 3lchc h111cl on the Monda)' ni~hl. ask the complain111o be withdrawn". p~rsu~d ~ilh some vi,or and the If" 1dC il r~irlr ob- 37 Well - behaved 11 first, they soon 48 cru .. ·ford did nrn Shcchan'slaw• pltcalt~ lllclf was fo••Jhl very llrCn• akc i1 diflic•h 'llef•" ,.,.uinf obscene no1c1 10 the yer lhol "lhe maller h•d nol been fi . .c;:~ousl)' . and 11tcr .. ani le male uarr and makin1 obscene naliscd" •nd so id c~~r1u or miscon· r:--ncsides his allcra~ion~ of police -•h. 4 Roe· SllfiC!llliutts to female patrons. duel under I he rohcc /\cl would be 1 harassment. Ro,en .•s diSmayed no •ail . 33 One police offteer uposcd himself 4 ~id •J•i~ulhe delcc&ive. I sueecufwl prosecu110ns have been other •pale of 1111 1hc duce floor 10 applousc from llold nlaff uid when &hey le le· . brouJhl aF•in•l f'O'ice for the March •• bul l'n•IIOI hi• m•••~ - A bo•or•cer allcmpJed 10 phoued Toowoomba police for help lncidcnls folk•w•na his lnilial com· 11h a• lc"'f as ci :cl ~···cral of 1hc police and wu on Wedtle,d··y. Morch IS. they wail· pluinl' IO I he medi1 . Compare . our quality· and Give himfoshioiJ for FA Our new exciting summer stocks have aniveclr many are exclusive to our :stores.So now there'• even more · reason this Fc1then Day to shop at Tom Browns••••• , the S.tore for every Dad! t.ac\utWt ~ '', en" ¥1:11 ;; tJ l?ht·' ;itli :ll;it1l·1;it-' 'ChiN ' collared to.nilllwls ""h PO< •tl EAt....,. Qb' l..atJol• Ml'l- Dr.-.1 _ _..-- · Now la....,... Olloe>eo Oroot .. lvo Polr!Colton· --d"'"""'" .,.._.....,.. ..,.,_...,. $ 24 •95 Now!~~! .laMM ~~1~5- O•w nee~ 1lyfe1• 0Yet .. 1ed hi· Ptoon ''""""' coloun o1 boltlo. ... ..,. ~Juovundy . bloclolnd .. _ ""h -·· Jooo·1:11aso'. $29.95 &lnoo dHigna in- olll)lft N........,Ae . IS $29.9 -o-'·1 .. -··-...- _ .. -.-.'-" ____ ... .......... .19.95 -- 56 of 56 --