Beckett v State of New South Wales

[2015] NSWSC 1017

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Summary available
• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	Beckett v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1017
Hearing dates:	28-31 July; 4-8, 12-15,18-22, 27–29 August; 27, 28,30,31 October; 3 -7, 10,11,13 November; 11,12,15,17 December 2014
Date of orders:	24 August 2015
Decision date:	24 August 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Harrison J
Decision:	(1)    Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,310,350 plus interest. (2)    Direct the parties within 7 days to provide me either with an agreed sum for interest on the verdict or in the absence of agreement written submissions not exceeding two pages setting out the amount (if any) for which the parties respectively contend. (3)    Order that unless either party makes an application within 7 days for a different order the defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.
Catchwords:	TORTS - malicious prosecution - whether prosecutor acted without reasonable and probable cause – where plaintiff’s convictions quashed and new trial ordered on counts 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 and verdict of acquittal ordered on count 9 – where nolle prosequi subsequently filed - where prosecutor had no personal knowledge of the facts underlying the charges - whether prosecutor did not honestly form the view that there were proper cases for prosecution or whether the prosecutor formed that view on an insufficient basis.   TORTS - malicious prosecution - whether prosecutor acted maliciously - whether the sole or dominant purpose of the prosecutor was other than the proper invocation of the criminal law.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Criminal Code (Qld) Evidence Act 1995 Firearms and Dangerous Weapons Act 1973 Justices Act 1902
Cases Cited:	A v New South Wales [2007] HCA 10; (2007) 230 CLR 500 Abbott v Refuge Assurance Company [1962] 1 QB 432 Adams v Kennedy & Ors [2000] NSWCA 152; (2000) 49 NSWLR 78 AW & Ors v State of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 543 Beckett v New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 1164 Beckett v New South Wales [2013] HCA 17; (2013) 248 CLR 432 Berry v British Transport Commission [1962] 1 QB 306 Bhattacharya v New South Wales [2003] NSWSC 261 Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 38; (1938) 60 CLR 336 Brown v Hawkes (1891) 2 QB 718 Cassell & Co Limited v Broome & Anor [1972] AC 1027 Coyle v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWCA 95 Dent v Standard Life Assurance Ltd (1904) 4 SR (NSW) 560 G v H [1994] HCA 48; 181 CLR 387 George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 Gilinski v McIver [1962] AC 726 Helton v Allen [1940] HCA 20; (1940) 63 CLR 691 Houda v State of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 1053 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2002] 2 AC 122 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Limited [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361 Lamb v Cotogno [1987] HCA 47; (1987)164 CLR 1 Lee v Kennedy [2000] NSWCA 153 Leibo v Buckman [1952] 2 All ER 1057 McDonald v Coles Myer Limited (trading as "K-mart Chatswood") [1995] NSWSC 67; (1995) AustTorts R 81-361 Molinara v Perre Bros Lock 4 Pty Ltd [2014] SASCFC 115 Morro, N & Ahadizad v Australian Capital Territory [2009] ACTSC 118; (2009) 4 ACTLR 78 Moses v State of New South Wales [2010] NSWDC 243 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170 Noye v Robbins & Anor [2007] WASC 98 Nye v The State of New South Wales [2003] NSWSC 1212; (2004) AustTorts R 81-725 Proulx v Quebec (Attorney General) [2001] 3 SCR 9 R v Roseanne Catt (1993) 68 A Crim R 189 Regina v Catt [2005] NSWCCA 279 Savile v Roberts (1698) 1 Ld Raym 374 Sharp v Biggs [1932] HCA 54; (1932) 48 CLR 81 Slaveski v Victoria [2010] VSC 441 Spautz v Butterworth & Anor [1996] NSWSC 614; (1996) 41 NSWLR 1 State of New South Wales v Delly [2007] NSWCA 303; (2007) AustTorts R 81-816 State of New South Wales v Hunt [2014] NSWCA 47, (2014) 86 NSWLR 226 State of New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57; (2006) 229 CLR 638 State of New South Wales v Koumdjiev [2005] NSWCA 247; (2005) 63 NSWLR 353 State of New South Wales & Or v Landini [2010] NSWCA 157 State of New South Wales v Riley [2003] NSWCA 208; (2003) 57 NSWLR 496 Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498 Triggell v Pheeney [1951] HCA 23; (1951) 82 CLR 497 Trobridge v Hardy [1955] HCA 68; (1955) 94 CLR 147 Walter v Alltools (1944) 61 TLR 39 XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 12; (1985) 155 CLR 448 Zreika v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWDC 67
Texts Cited:	Ancius Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, (Revised Ed, Book II)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Roseanne Beckett (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: P E Blacket SC, K Nomchong SC & N Broadbent (Plaintiff) J E Maconachie QC, P Saidi & A N Williams (Defendant)   Solicitors: Turner Freeman (Plaintiff) Lea Armstrong, Crown Solicitor (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2008/289411
Publication restriction:	Nil

*************

“If I have fully diagnosed the cause and nature of your condition, you are wasting away in pining and longing for your former good fortune. It is the loss of this which, as your imaginations works upon you, has so corrupted your mind. I know the many disguises of the monster, Fortune, and the extent to which she seduces with friendship the very people she is striving to cheat, until she overwhelms them with unbearable grief at the suddenness of her desertion. If you can recall to mind, her character, her methods, and the kind of favour she proffers, you will see that in her you did not have and did not lose anything of value. But I am sure it will require no hard work on my part to bring all this back to your memory. It used to be your way whenever she came near with her flattery to attack her with manly arguments and hound her with pronouncements taken from the oracle of my shrine. However, no sudden change of circumstances ever occurs without some upheaval in the mind; and that is why you, too, have deserted for a while your usual calm.”

Boethius, “The Consolation of Philosophy”, Revised Ed, Book II page 22

*************

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: The brief procedural history of this matter was concisely described by the High Court when Ms Beckett successfully challenged the proposition that a nolle prosequi did not relieve her of the obligation to prove her innocence: Beckett v New South Wales [2013] HCA 17; 248 CLR 432 . That summary was as follows:

"[19] The appellant was arrested by members of the New South Wales Police Force and charged with a number of offences against her husband. She was committed to stand trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. A bill of indictment charging the appellant with nine counts was found and she was arraigned upon it. The eighth count was preferred ex officio. At the conclusion of the appellant's trial on 11 September 1991 the jury returned verdicts of guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9, and on an alternative charge to the offence charged in count 5. A verdict of not guilty was returned respecting the offence charged in count 8.

[20] In October 1991, the appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twelve years and three months with a non-parole period of ten years and three months. She appealed unsuccessfully against her convictions and sentence to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal.

[21] In 2001, the appellant petitioned the Governor seeking a review of her convictions. The Attorney General referred the application to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeal remitted the determination of a number of factual questions to Acting Judge Davidson. Following the delivery of Davidson ADCJ's findings, on 17 August 2005 the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal in relation to counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 and quashed each conviction. The Court entered a verdict of acquittal on count 9. A new trial was ordered on counts 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. The appellant's appeal against her convictions for the offences charged in counts 3 and 4 was dismissed.

[22] On 22 September 2005, the Director directed that there be no further proceedings against the appellant on the outstanding charges that were the subject of the Court of Criminal Appeal's order for a new trial. On 26 September 2005, a document communicating the Director's determination was forwarded to the Registry of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

…

[23] On 15 August 2008, the appellant instituted proceedings against the respondent in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court claiming damages for malicious prosecution on the basis that the respondent was vicariously liable for the conduct of the police officers who instigated the prosecution.

[24] The respondent filed a notice of motion on 16 May 2011 seeking a separate determination in relation to two questions:

'A.   With respect to each of the counts 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 for which the plaintiff was tried:

Accepting that the proceedings terminated in favour of the plaintiff, to the extent that the plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution is based upon each of these counts, does the plaintiff need to prove her innocence in relation to each count to succeed?

B. With respect to count 9 for which the plaintiff was tried:

To the extent that plaintiff's the claim [sic] for malicious prosecution is based upon this count does the plaintiff need to prove her innocence of the charge?'

[25] The primary judge (Davies J) agreed to the separate determination of the two questions. His Honour said that the order quashing the appellant's convictions and directing a new trial on the specified counts meant that the issues 'raised by the indictment upon which those counts were tried will remain justiciable'. He held that the indictment on which the appellant had been tried was extant. His Honour concluded that the notification to the Registry of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Director's decision to take no further proceedings against the appellant was the equivalent of the entry of a nolle prosequi. He held that he was bound to apply the Davis exception. He answered the questions as follows:

'A. Yes.

B. No.'

[26] The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Beazley and McColl JJA and Tobias AJA) against the answer to question A and the respondent cross-appealed against the answer to question B. The Court of Appeal agreed with the primary judge that the direction under s 7(2)(b) of the DPP Act constituted the entry of a nolle prosequi. It followed that the primary judge had been right to conclude that the Davis exception applied. The appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.

[27] The appellant applied for special leave to appeal. On 5 October 2012, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ referred the application into an enlarged Full Court for hearing as on appeal…"

2. On 8 May 2013 French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Gageler JJ granted special leave and allowed the appeal, thereby removing the last of any legal or procedural impediments to the prosecution of her case. These reasons therefore deal with Ms Beckett’s substantive claim for damages for malicious prosecution. The hearing of that claim commenced before me on 28 July 2014. I reserved my decision on 17 December 2014 after a hearing occupying several broken periods totalling 37 days.

3. The principles appear to be well settled. They were authoritatively discussed by the High Court in A v New South Wales [2007] HCA 10; (2007) 230 CLR 500. The following passages are of importance:

“[57] There are three features of the present law to which attention should be drawn. First, because questions of malicious prosecution can arise only where the prosecution has ended in the plaintiff's favour, the paradigm case to consider is where the plaintiff has been acquitted of the offence charged. (It is convenient to leave aside what other circumstances suffice to show that the prosecution has ended in the plaintiff's favour, and focus on the paradigm case of acquittal.) That acquittal is not to be controverted. The hypothesis for a subsequent action for malicious prosecution arising from such a case is, therefore, that the plaintiff was not guilty of the offence charged. But that alone does not entitle the plaintiff to a remedy against the prosecutor.

[58] Secondly, the inquiry about reasonable and probable cause has two aspects. That is, to decide whether the prosecutor did not have reasonable and probable cause for commencing or maintaining the prosecution, the material available to the prosecutor must be assessed in two ways. What did the prosecutor make of it? What should the prosecutor have made of it? To ask only whether there was material available to the prosecutor which, assessed objectively, would have warranted commencement or maintenance of the prosecution would deny relief to the person acquitted of a crime prosecuted by a person who not only acted maliciously, but who is shown to have acted without forming the view that the material warranted prosecution of the offences. Conversely, to ask only what the prosecutor made of the material that he or she had available when deciding to commence or maintain the prosecution would favour the incompetent or careless prosecutor over the competent and careful.

[59] Thirdly, the action for malicious prosecution has a temporal dimension. To ask whether a prosecution was commenced or maintained without reasonable and probable cause directs attention to the state of affairs when the prosecution was commenced, or when the prosecutor (the defendant in the subsequent civil claim) is alleged to have maintained that prosecution. Moreover, it necessarily directs attention to what material the prosecutor had available for consideration when deciding whether to commence or maintain the prosecution, not whatever material may later have come to light.”

4. It will obviously be necessary to review these principles in the context of the wealth of factual material that has emerged since at least Ms Beckett’s arrest on 24 August 1989 and in some respects in the years leading up to that event.

The charges

5. Central to an understanding of these proceedings is an appreciation of the charges laid against Ms Beckett and the results of her several prosecutions. On 24 August 1989 Detective Thomas charged Ms Beckett with 14 separate Counts. On 17 October 1989 he laid a further two Counts. Ms Beckett therefore proceeded to committal on the following 16 charges:

1. That on 2 May 1988 at Taree, in the State of New South Wales, she did assault Barry Catt, and did then beat and otherwise ill-treat him, thereby then occasioning to him actual bodily harm (Count 1: “The Rock Incident").

2. That Ms Beckett, Peter Bridge and Shane Golds, between 1 May 1988 and 24 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales did conspire together amongst themselves, falsely to accuse Barry Catt of the crime of assault (Count 2: “The Perjury Count").

3. That between 1 January 1989 and 9 August 1989, at Swans Crossing via Kendall in the State of New South Wales she maliciously did wound Barry Catt (Count 3: “The Swan’s Crossing Incident").

4. That on 5 May 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales she did assault Barry Catt and did then beat and otherwise ill-treat him, thereby then occasioning to him actual bodily harm (Count 4: “The Cricket Bat/Eucalyptus Oil Incident").

5. That on or about 30 July 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales, she did maliciously cause to be taken by Barry Catt a certain poison lithium with intent to injure, aggrieve and annoy him (Count 5: “The Lithium Incident").

6. That on or about 28 July 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales she did solicit James Henry Morris to murder Barry Catt (Count 6: “Soliciting James Morris").

7. That between 1 July 1989 and 20 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales, she did solicit Vernon James Taylor to murder Barry Catt (Count 7: “Soliciting Vernon Taylor").

8. That between 1 May 1989 and 23 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales she did solicit Lesley O'Brien to murder Barry Catt (Count 8: “Encouraging Lesley O'Brien").

9. That on 24 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales she did have in her possession a pistol not being an antique pistol to wit a Hopkins and Allen .32 calibre revolver, she not being the holder of a pistol licence in respect of such pistol (Count 9: “Possession of a Pistol").

10. That on 24 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South she did have a firearm in her possession to wit, a .22 calibre Gevarm carbine she not being the holder of Shooters Licence in respect of that firearm.

11. That on 24 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales she did have in her possession a prohibited drug, to wit, cannabis leaf.

12. That on 24 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales she did have in her possession an item of equipment to wit, one bong, for use in the administration of a prohibited drug.

13. That between 14 August 1987 and 24 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales she did assault Barry Catt and did then beat and otherwise ill-treat him thereby then occasioning actual bodily harm.

14. That between 1 April 1989 and 21 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales she did assault Barry Catt and did then beat and otherwise ill-treat him thereby occasioning actual bodily harm.

15. That on 2 May 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales she did assault Mary Warwick and did then beat and otherwise ill-treat her.

16. That between 1 September 1986 and 30 July 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales she did maliciously cause to be taken by Barry Catt a certain poison, that is to say, lithium, with intent to injure, aggrieve and annoy him.

6. On 27 July 1990, following committal proceedings at the Taree Local Court, Ms Beckett was committed to stand trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on the following charges:

1. Count 1: Rock Incident: That Roseanne Catt on 2 May 1988 at Taree in the State of New South Wales maliciously did wound Barry Catt (s 35 Crimes Act).

2. Count 2: Perjury Count: That Roseanne Catt on 3 July 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales in the Local Court before Magistrate O'Keefe on an occasion when truth of the same was material did knowingly and willingly falsely swear in substance, as follows, that is to say, that she, Roseanne Catt, at no time struck Barry Catt with a rock: (s 327 Crimes Act).

3. Count 3: Swan's Crossing Incident: That Roseanne Catt between 2 March 1989 and 30 March 1989 at Swan's Crossing in the State of New South Wales maliciously did wound Barry Catt (s 35 Crimes Act).

4. Count 4: Cricket Bat/Eucalyptus Oil Incident: That Roseanne Catt on 5 May 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales did assault Barry Catt thereby occasioning to him actual bodily harm (s 59 Crimes Act).

5. Count 5: Lithium Incident: That Roseanne Catt between 1 May 1989 and 31 July 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales maliciously did cause to be taken by Barry Catt a noxious thing namely lithium and thereby did endanger the life of Barry Catt (s 39 Crimes Act).

6. Count 6: Soliciting James Morris: That Roseanne Catt on 28 July 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales did solicit James Morris to murder Barry Catt (s 26 Crimes Act).

7. Count 7: Soliciting Vernon Taylor: That Roseanne Catt between 15 July 1989 and 16 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales did solicit Vernon Taylor to murder Barry Catt (s 26 Crimes Act).

8. Count 8: Encouraging Lesley O'Brien: That Roseanne Catt on or about 24 June 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales did encourage Lesley O'Brien to murder Barry Catt (s 26 Crimes Act).

9. Count 9: Possession of a Pistol: That Roseanne Catt on or about 24 August 1989 at Taree in the State of New South Wales did have in her possession a pistol, namely a Hopkins and Alan .32 calibre revolver, she then not being a holder of a licence for such pistol (s 25(1) Firearms and Dangerous Weapons Act 1973).

7. The charges which are the subject of these proceedings are counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Ms Beckett was convicted of counts 3 and 4. She was acquitted of Count 8 at the trial but any claim for malicious prosecution in relation to that charge was statute barred at the time these proceedings were commenced.

Factual summary

8. The facts that give rise to and explain the remarkable events that are involved in this case, and the charges and prosecutions that they have spawned, are broad and deep. They have been the subject of judicial consideration on multiple occasions. That includes the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Roseanne Catt (1993) 68 A Crim R 189, an inquiry on remitter by the Court of Criminal Appeal under s 12(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 for Determination of Factual Issues to Davidson ADCJ in 2003 (“the Davidson Inquiry”) and a review of Ms Beckett’s conviction conducted by the Court of Criminal Appeal on Ms Beckett’s application petitioning the Governor for a review of her conviction pursuant to s 474B of the Crimes Act in Regina v Catt [2005] NSWCCA 279. There have been judgments of single judges of this Court and of the Court of Appeal, as well as the High Court of Australia on more than one occasion. These considerations have necessarily and helpfully produced hundreds of pages of material and information that is helpful for present purposes. That material obviates the need to some extent for me to revisit in this judgment the myriad background facts between the early 1980s and the present time in the way that might be required in other circumstances. I propose to proceed upon the basis that all that has been written by the courts in the past will be within the knowledge of the parties to this litigation and can be referred to by others in construing my reasons for judgment should the need arise. In particular, but without limitation, the judgment of McClellan CJ at CL in the Court of Criminal Appeal decision in 2005 is a very useful and helpful source of information that is central to my current deliberations.

9. A preliminary and necessarily incomplete recital of the factual framework is as follows.

10. In 1987 Ms Beckett married Barry Catt. She had two children from a previous marriage and Mr Catt had four children from his previous marriage. By 1989, all of Mr Catt's children resided with Ms Beckett in their home at 1 Cornwall Street, Taree. However, in that year the youngest child, Tony Catt, was sent to Queensland. Mr Catt and Ms Beckett were the owners and operators of a motor vehicle repair business known as Cattys Body Repairs located at 2-8 Cornwall St, Taree.

11. Mr Catt had a long history of mental illness and had been scheduled on several occasions. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was hospitalised on several occasions in 1987. He also had a history of erratic behaviour going back to 1983 and of domestic violence involving Ms Beckett. Mr Catt had been prescribed lithium and had been taking that medication since coming under the supervision of his psychiatrist Dr Sandfield. In addition, Mr Catt was taking Rivotril, although his prescription history from Owen's Pharmacy in Taree shows that only one bottle of Rivotril was ever dispensed to him from that pharmacy on 29 October 1987.

12. Prior to her marriage to Mr Catt, Ms Beckett had owned a delicatessen in Taree with her then partner Douglas Annetts. That delicatessen was severely damaged by fire in December 1983. Detective Thomas was the police officer who investigated the cause of the fire. He charged Ms Beckett with arson arising out of those events but the charges were ultimately no-billed. As a consequence of those events, Ms Beckett lodged a number of complaints with the NSW Police Force Internal Affairs unit and the Ombudsman, including in particular complaints against Detective Thomas. The investigation of those complaints extended until 1987.

13. On 2 May 1988, an altercation took place at Mary Warwick's house involving at least Ms Beckett and Mr Catt. Mary Warwick is Mr Catt’s sister. Ms Beckett alleged that in the course of the fracas Mr Catt assaulted her. Another version of the same incident suggests that Ms Beckett was the assailant. Ms Beckett’s son Peter Bridge and Shane Golds, an apprentice employed at Cattys Body Repairs, were present at the time, as well as Christopher Catt and Julie Catt. Ms Beckett maintained that Mary Warwick tried to hit Mr Golds with a rock, but he avoided the rock and it hit Mr Catt. Mr Catt laid a complaint at Taree police station which was investigated by Constables Brown, Miller and Dean, who took no action. Statements were also taken from Ms Beckett, Peter Bridge and Shane Golds.

14. On or about 8 May 1988, Ms Beckett obtained an AVO against Mr Catt. He moved out of the family home and took up residence in Cattys Body Repairs at 2-8 Cornwall Street, Taree. He was not living with Ms Beckett at the time of her arrest on 24 August 1989, and maintained that he had been out of the house since 23 May 1988.

15. On 12 March 1989 Ms Beckett and Mr Catt were involved in what came to be called the Swan’s Crossing incident. A few days later, Mr Catt had a conversation with a Dr Goddard, who was one of his customers. Dr Goddard said Mr Catt showed him his abdomen in the course of that conversation revealing a wound that he estimated was a few days old. No statement or information was given to the police by Mr Catt at that time in respect of the alleged incident but later, when Detective Thomas became involved in the investigation, Mr Catt alleged that Ms Beckett had stabbed him with an oyster knife while they were at Swan's Crossing.

16. On 6 May 1989, Ms Beckett called the police. She reported that the two Catt boys had gone across the road to Cattys Body Repairs to get some office supplies for a school project and that Mr Catt had grabbed and threatened them. Ms Beckett reported that when she arrived at the shop, Mr Catt threw a bottle of eucalyptus oil towards her and the children. On arrival, the police looked through the door and saw Mr Catt who was uninjured. After a short delay, Mr Catt opened the door. He had a small cut about his right eyebrow that was bleeding. Mr Catt was taken to Manning Base Hospital where he received three sutures. According to Constable Adam, Mr Catt was well affected by intoxicating liquor, unsteady on his feet, dishevelled and with slurred speech. A half-full bottle of beer was observed on the table. Mr Catt was arrested. His explanation for his demeanour was that he had been stunned from a blow by a cricket bat wielded by Ms Beckett. The police laid no charges against Ms Beckett and Mr Catt did not seek any.

17. Ms Beckett later commenced a private prosecution in Taree Local Court in relation to the assault that she alleged occurred on 2 May 1988. The hearing of those proceedings commenced on 3 July 1989. Mr Bridge, Mr Golds and two of the Catt children gave evidence in support of her case. The matter was stood over part-heard to September 1989. The proceedings were ultimately never concluded or finalised by judgment.

18. Earlier that same year, on 10 February 1989, Mr Catt was charged with a number of counts of the indecent and sexual assault of his four children based upon information from officers at the Taree section of the NSW Department of Family and Community Services. He was committed to stand trial on those charges commencing on 31 July 1989. Three of the Catt children remained living with Ms Beckett but the youngest child went to Queensland to live with relatives.

19. Detective Thomas knew Mr Catt prior to the investigation. They had had previous dealings concerning a speedboat.

20. Adrian Newell was a life long friend of Mr Catt. On or about 25 July 1989 he made a complaint to ICAC alleging a number of things, including favouritism on the part of the Taree police, that Ms Beckett had imposed upon the Attorney General to no bill the Taree arson charge, that she had an automatic rifle and a pistol "in her handbag", that she "split [Mr Catt's] head open with a rock", and had been involved in illicit drugs, including possibly cocaine. Mr Newell made no mention of lithium poisoning.

21. Marie Whalen had known Mr Catt for many years and in 1989 she also became acquainted with Ms Beckett. On 27 July 1989 Ms Whalen signed a statement that she had witnessed the sexual abuse of the Catt children by their father. The statement had been typed by Noel Jago and witnessed by Frank Farrer JP.

22. In late July 1989, Detective Thomas commenced an investigation into Ms Beckett. At that time he was a detective assigned to the Newcastle Regional Crime Squad. As at July 1989, no information or statements had been made to the police by Mr Catt in respect of any possible criminal activities concerning Ms Beckett.

23. In 1989 James Morris was an Aboriginal Liaison Officer attached to Taree police station. Mr Morris and his sister Sandra Ridgeway went to the Taree RSL Club on Friday 28 July 1989. Ms Beckett and her friend Lucy Parkinson (later Cooper) and several other women had also gone to the club on that night. By his own account Mr Morris had consumed five schooners of beer. That was confirmed by his sister. Ms Beckett was later charged with having solicited Mr Morris to kill Mr Catt during an approach to him that evening at the club. Neither Mr Morris nor Ms Ridgeway made any report to the police in respect of any alleged conversation with Ms Beckett. The first time that the conversation was reported to the police was on 25 August 1989.

24. Dr Sandfield was Mr Catt’s psychiatrist. He filled out a pathology request form listing Mr Catt as the patient and the date of collection as 30 July 1989. It is suggested in the clinical notes that Mr Catt might have been suffering from lithium toxicity plus or minus Clonazepam, possibly administered by a third party. The request related to the presence of lithium and Clonazepam and their possible concentrations within samples of orange juice and milk. On the same day it is alleged that Mr Newell had a meeting with Detective Thomas who was advised of a conversation with Dr Sandfield. Detective Thomas was told by Mr Newell that he intended to go to Mr Catt’s business premises and obtain samples of drinks kept in the refrigerator. Mr Newell alleged that he went to the repair shop and removed three containers containing orange juice and milk. Mr Newell took those containers to his home.

25. On Monday 31 July 1989, Detective Thomas went to Mr Newell's house and allegedly decanted juice and milk from each large container into sample containers that had been provided by Dr Sandfield. Mr Newell took the sample containers to Dr Sandfield who at some time sent them for testing at Royal Newcastle Hospital. Detective Thomas allegedly took the original containers and drove to Newcastle police station where he put them in the refrigerator in the physical evidence locker.

26. Ms Beckett commenced proceedings in the Family Court of Australia against Mr Catt. A hearing in the Family Court took place on 4 and 7 August 1989. No evidence was given by Mr Catt in those proceedings of any attempted poisoning by Ms Beckett, or the rock incident or the Swan's Crossing Incident.

27. On 3 August 1989 Ms Whalen obtained an apprehended violence order against Mr Catt.

28. On 7 August 1989 Dr Dickeson, a clinical chemist at Royal Newcastle Hospital, advised Dr Sandfield that he had tested one sample (orange juice) and had found that it contained lithium. Dr Dickeson did not perform any other tests.

29. On 10 August 1989 Detectives Thomas and Paget travelled to Newcastle and obtained the original containers of orange juice and milk from the police station. They then went to the Royal Newcastle Hospital and obtained the sample containers. Detectives Thomas and Paget then drove to Sydney and provided the containers to the Government Analytical Laboratories.

30. Vernon Taylor had known Mr Catt since they were teenagers. On 20 August 1989 Mr Newell, Mr Taylor and Detective Paget went to Mr Taylor's home. It is alleged that during that interview Mr Taylor said that earlier that month Ms Beckett had suggested to him that he "bump off" Mr Catt for $20,000.00. Mr Taylor did not report the matter to the police at the time of the alleged conversation.

31. Sometime after 20 August 1989 Mr Taylor visited Lucy Parkinson. Mr Taylor said that Detective Thomas had sent him and he invited Ms Parkinson to make a statement against Ms Beckett. No explanation was provided by Detective Thomas for this alleged use of a private citizen to make these inquiries on his behalf. Mr Taylor phoned Ms Parkinson on another occasion and visited her again making the same request. Ms Parkinson said that she was willing to make a statement but not "in [Mr Taylor's] favour”.

32. On 23 August 1989, Detectives Thomas and Paget went to Ms Whalen's house and conveyed her to an unoccupied house owned by Mr Newell at 27 Milligan Street, Chatham where they spent three and a half hours "interviewing" her and typing statements which she then signed. These included a statement explaining her withdrawal of the summons seeking an apprehended violence order against Mr Catt, a second statement alleging a conversation with Ms Beckett in which Ms Beckett said that she was going to go to Sydney to get a gun to protect herself, and a third statement withdrawing her prior statement about witnessing Mr Catt abusing his children.

33. Subsequent to the "interview", Ms Whalen told at least four people that she had been taken away by the police, that she had been terrified and that she had signed statements even though they were untrue. The people to whom Ms Whalen told this story included Chris Warne, a FACS officer, Greg Baggs, George Baird and a solicitor, Michael Jones. Mr Baggs and Mr Jones both made written records of what had been said to them by Ms Whalen shortly after their conversations with her. The conversations and the recording of them were independent of each other.

34. On 23 August 1989 Detective Thomas made an application for a search warrant to the Chamber Magistrate at Taree Local Court to search certain premises. The address was altered. Ms Beckett contends that the evidence strongly suggests that the alterations to the address on the application were made after they had been issued. Detectives Thomas and Paget maintained that the alteration was made prior to the execution of the warrant and that Detective Thomas somehow managed to tear the warrant and also create a hole, obliterating the street number on the warrant.

35. The search warrant was executed at Ms Beckett’s home and she was simultaneously arrested on 24 August 1989. In a pre-search briefing that morning at which a large number of police officers were present, Detective Thomas instructed them to look for firearms and documents which may assist in other matters which were being investigated.

36. The police descended upon the house at 1 Cowan Road, Taree at about 7.30 that morning. Ms Beckett, who was still in night attire, was immediately handcuffed on the instructions of Detective Thomas and a search commenced. Constable Cottee, the only female police officer in attendance, conveyed the Catt children to the police station. Estimates of how long Constable Cottee was away vary between half an hour to over an hour. Ms Beckett was then taken into the bedroom by Constable Cottee where she alleges she was strip searched. At all times Ms Beckett contends that the door was open. Constable Cottee was instructed by Detective Thomas to search the ensuite area adjacent to Ms Beckett’s bedroom. A .32 calibre Hopkins and Allen pistol was located by Constable Cottee in a drawer.

37. Ms Beckett was subsequently taken from the house to Taree police station. It was evident that the press had been alerted and she was filmed as she was escorted in handcuffs from her home to the police car.

38. Mr Jones had been acting for Ms Beckett in her matrimonial proceedings against Mr Catt. Mr Jones was at the Taree Local Court conducting a trial on that day and was told of Ms Beckett’s arrest. He was denied permission to be present during an interview with her that was being conducted by Detective Thomas. Detective Thomas threatened to arrest Mr Jones for the offence of hindering police.

39. Peter Bridge was also arrested by police and interviewed by Detectives Thomas and Paget. He alleges that he was threatened by them suggesting that if he did not tell the truth concerning the rock incident he would also be charged. Mr Bridge adhered to the account that he had given at the private prosecution and protested his innocence. He was charged by Detective Thomas who further threatened him that he would lose his apprenticeship and would be subject to close police attention unless he co-operated.

40. Ms Beckett was brought before the court on 25 August 1989 and was charged with the following:

1. Solicit to murder (2 counts).

2. Conspiracy falsely to accuse another of a crime.

3. Maliciously administer poison with intent to cause injury.

4. Malicious wounding.

5. Assault occasion actual bodily harm (3 counts).

6. Assault.

7. Possess prohibited drug (marijuana).

8. Possess equipment to administer prohibited drug (a bong).

9. Possess unlicensed pistol.

10. Possess firearms not being the holder of a shooter's licence.

41. Detective Thomas opposed bail and it was refused. On 30 August 1989 an application for bail was made to this Court and was refused. Ms Beckett remained in custody until 13 September 1989 when Allen J heard a further successful application for bail. Detective Thomas gave evidence that he had no detailed knowledge of the Family Court matters or sexual assault matters and claimed to bear Ms Beckett no personal animosity. He denied he was Mr Catt’s friend and claimed the allegations against Ms Beckett were made by an “independent person”. He said that he spoke to Mr Taylor following information given to him by Mr Newell.

42. Ms Beckett was rearrested for supposed breach of bail conditions in Dapto on 22 September 1989. George Baird was also briefly detained and interviewed for allegedly interfering with Crown witnesses on that day. Ms Beckett was released on 25 September 1989 following an urgent ex parte application for a writ of habeas corpus which was granted by Maxwell J. Ms Beckett remained on bail pending her committal which took place at Taree between 24 and 27 July 1990.

43. Ms Beckett says that on 28 July 1990, whilst she was in the women's cells at Taree police station, she was threatened by Detective Thomas. She experienced chest pain and was admitted to Manning Base Hospital where she remained for approximately three days.

44. On 12 October 1990 Wood CJ at CL sentenced Ms Whalen to five years imprisonment for the manslaughter of her husband on 30 October 1989. Ms Whalen had been charged with murder on 31 October 1989 but her plea to manslaughter was accepted by the Crown.

45. Mr Catt had been committed for trial on multiple charges of sexually abusing his four children following a two day committal hearing on 31 July 1989 and 1 August 1989. His nephew Robert Tisdell had also been committed. Mr Catt's trial was heard in this Court sitting at Taree commencing on 26 November 1990, six days after Detective Thomas submitted his written resignation from the police force. Detective Thomas attended Taree Supreme Court over several days during the trial and conferred with Mr Catt’s barrister and solicitor during that time. Detectives Thomas and Paget and Ms Whalen, amongst others, gave evidence for Mr Catt. Mr Newell gave evidence as to Ms Whalen's character on sentence. Mr Catt was acquitted on 11 December 1990.

46. Ms Beckett’s trial commenced before Mathews J on 7 May 1991. She was found guilty on 11 September 1991 of all counts except count 8 involving a charge that she encouraged Lesley O'Brien to murder Mr Catt. On 18 October 1991 Ms Beckett was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for the offences consisting of a non-parole period of 10 years and 3 months expiring on 10 December 2001.

41. On 10 June 1993 Ms Beckett’s appeal against her conviction and her sentence was dismissed.

42. On 6 August 2001 Ms Beckett was released on bail pending a review of her conviction by the Court of Criminal Appeal pursuant to s 474B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. On 17 August 2005, following the factual inquiry conducted by Davidson ADCJ pursuant to s 12(2) of the Act, the Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the appeal in relation to counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 and quashed each conviction. The Court entered a verdict of acquittal on count 9. The Court ordered a new trial in respect of counts 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. The Court dismissed the appeal in relation to counts 3 and 4.

43. On 26 February 2005 the Director of Public Prosecutions advised Ms Beckett that he did not wish to proceed further on the above charges. A nolle prosequi was filed later that year. These proceedings were commenced on 15 August 2008.

Evidence

50. Several witnesses were called to give evidence in these proceedings. Many of them are referred to in the course of these reasons in the context of the counts to which their evidence is particularly referable. Two witnesses, however, for reasons that will be obvious, warrant specific mention.

Ms Beckett’s evidence in these proceedings

51. Ms Beckett was born in 1946. She married Kevin Bridge in 1963. She has two children. She worked in several different occupations throughout her working life including hairdressing and the sale of cosmetics. She later formed a relationship with Douglas Annetts and they ultimately moved to Taree. She became involved in the local community there including the local chamber of commerce, the Manning Rescue Squad and the local council. She opened a delicatessen in Taree.

52. In the early morning hours of Christmas Day in 1983 Ms Beckett received a telephone call from Detective Thomas. He told her that her shop was on fire and that she should meet him there. Ms Beckett went to the shop and while standing in Victoria Street, Taree, Detective Thomas approached her and introduced himself. She said he was in an inebriated state at the time he did so.

53. The following day Ms Beckett went to the Taree police station at Detective Thomas' request. She said that he made her feel very uncomfortable at the time because he made suggestive remarks to her. She came back to the police station the following day with Mr Annetts. She saw Mr Thomas punch Mr Annetts in the chest. Ms Beckett subsequently made a statement to the police Internal Affairs Branch complaining about Detective Thomas' conduct at that time.

54. There was a coronial inquiry into the fire at the delicatessen. The day before the inquiry commenced, Detective Thomas went to Ms Beckett's home and charged her with arson. The charges were later no-billed. Ms Beckett complained about Detective Thomas to the Ombudsman. She alleged that he had sexually harassed her at the Taree police station. Ms Beckett said that Detective Thomas had telephoned her at home:

"Q. Do you remember what he said?

A. He said, 'I want you to come down here to the police station and grace' something to the effect of 'grace this place with your beauty' or making reference the place was drab or something 'and you come down here'. I felt threatened and intimidated. I was scared of this man, and I said I wasn't coming down to the police station. He said, 'If you don't, I will arrest you'. I hung up. I then rang Maurie Stack, who was a solicitor whom I had known, and was terrified and asked him what I should do and did I have to go down to the police station and how scared I was and Maurie Stack said to me, 'Don't you worry about it, you leave it with me'. A short time after that Peter Thomas phoned me back and was very angry at me, he was very angry and said that……

Q. Tell us what he said.

A. He said that I had caused now a problem between him and his mate Maurie Stack and he was not happy about it."

55. Detective Thomas later visited Ms Beckett at her home:

"Q. How long after this phone call was it?

A. I can't be sure but I can give a rough idea. As I say, I think it was all within close proximity, and I can recall him sitting in a lounge chair in my lounge room which overlooked the Manning River, and he said words to the effect that he could he asked me if I had a phone in my bedroom, and I said I did. He said, 'Whereabouts is it?' I said, 'Next to my bed'. He asked me to show him. I felt very uncomfortable. I couldn't see why I needed to do that.

He then made a very strange comment I thought. Looking out from my lounge room, he said, 'I could live here very comfortably.' And then he looked at me with a very strange look on his face and said something that I've never understood to this day, 'Your horse doesn't love you anymore'. I don't know what that meant. But he did scare me."

56. In due course the Ombudsman produced a report dealing with Ms Beckett's complaints against Detective Thomas.

57. Ms Beckett later met Barry Catt and they formed a relationship. They were married in August 1987. She became a proprietor with him of his smash repair business and began to work in that business. Their marriage ultimately came to the attention of the Family Court in ways that are referred to elsewhere in these reasons.

58. Ms Beckett and Mr Catt ceased cohabiting on 2 May 1988. Shortly thereafter she obtained an apprehended violence order against him. They continued to associate in the workplace.

59. Mr Catt had received psychiatric treatment before he married Ms Beckett but this was never revealed to her before the marriage. A short time after they were married, Mr Catt was admitted to hospital for psychiatric treatment following an altercation with his sons in the family home. Mr Catt was scheduled by Dr Richardson. He remained in hospital for some periods in August, September and October 1987. Mr Catt was discharged on 10 October 1987. His children were placed in temporary foster care.

60. Following Mr Catt's discharge from hospital, Ms Beckett discovered that he had been prescribed lithium. She used to pick up his scripts from the chemist. Mr Catt attended a doctor every two weeks to have his lithium levels checked.

61. Ms Beckett confirmed that she had been involved in what has come to be referred to as the rock incident. She gave the following evidence about it:

"Q.    I don't want to take a lot of time, there's an incident that is known as the rock incident?

A.    Yes.

Q.    That occurred on 2 May 1988 you have made statements and given evidence in relation to those events, have you not?

A.    Yes, I have.

Q.    On the day of the incident did you speak to a police officer named Brown?

A.    Yes, I did at Taree Police Station, yes.

Q.    And was that man known to you before this time or not?

A.    I don't have a memory of knowing him.

Q.    In any event, you gave an account of what had transpired to him, is that right?

A.    Yes, that is correct.

Q.    You had attended, I think, Dr Wallman for some medical treatment?

A.    By his request.

Q.    Whose request?

A.    By the police officer's request.

Q.    He advised you to

A.    To go across the road to Dr Wallman.

Q.    And did you do that?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Did you have any injuries?

A.    Yes, I had severe swelling and bruising to my face.

Q.    What was that caused by?

A.    Barry Catt repeatedly hitting me in the face with a closed fist.

Q.    You were at his sister's place, but where were you at the time that you were struck by Barry Catt?

A.    I was seated in my car. I had the car turned on ready to leave and he came along, parked parallel, and proceeded to pull the keys from the ignition and started hitting me."

62. Ms Beckett sought advice about this incident from Mr Hooke and later commenced civil proceedings for assault against Mr Catt in the Taree Local Court. She denied in evidence that she ever concocted a story about what happened in the course of the rock incident. She did not tell her son or Shane Golds what to say.

63. Mr Catt was admitted to the Northside Clinic between 8 and 17 June 1988. The civil proceedings commenced before Magistrate O'Keefe on 3 July 1989. The proceedings were adjourned for further hearing on 22 September 1989. (Ms Beckett was unable to attend court on that day as she was arrested by Detective Thomas for breach of her bail conditions).

64. Mr Catt had been charged with the sexual assault of his children on 10 February 1989. There was a committal hearing commencing on 31 July 1989 at which Ms Beckett gave evidence.

65. Ms Beckett gave evidence of her arrest on 24 August 1989. She was at home in her night attire on the morning when the police arrived. She was not shown a warrant by Detective Thomas when he arrived. She was handcuffed. She said that Detective Thomas then directed his female officer to take her into the bedroom and strip her naked. That was done in a way that "was visible by all that were there." The children were there at the time and became very distressed.

66. Ms Beckett said that prior to 24 August 1989 she had never owned a gun of any kind. She said this:

"Q.    Now in terms of the house we see a number of items on the floor in the photographs, did you remain sitting on that stool during most of the time when the search took place?

A.    Only when Peter Thomas dragged me to the bathroom.

Q.    When was that?

A.    After Joanne Cottee came back from taking the children away.

Q.    Yes.

A.    Then she said, ‘Look what I have found.’ He didn't go to look and he couldn't see from where I was sitting. He just grabbed me by the arm very brutally, he kept saying, he wanted to punch me with a closed fist and he dragged me to the door and said to me, ‘What have you got to say about that?’

Q.    Have you ever seen the pistol that you were shown before?

A.    No, I had not."

67. She was taken to the police station in Taree. She was not permitted to call her solicitor. Ms Beckett said that the media were in attendance outside her home with cameras as she was led from it by police to a waiting car in handcuffs and clothes chosen by Detective Thomas.

68. Mr Jones eventually arrived at the police station. He gave her advice about how to conduct herself if interviewed by the police. She was told not to answer any questions. Detective Thomas asked her to hold a pistol:

"Q.    Did you have a conversation with him about holding the gun?

A.    Yes.

Q.    What did he say?

A.    He asked me to take the gun and he said, 'Your eyes are better than mine, can you read that number that's on there?' And I didn't take it."

69. Ms Beckett was kept in custody at the Taree police station overnight. She was completely terrified. The media were there the next morning when she was taken before the court. She later became aware that her son Peter Bridge had also been arrested. Mr Jones made a bail application on her behalf.

70. One of her bail applications came before Allen J on 13 September 1989. Detective Thomas gave evidence on that occasion and was extensively cross-examined. A statement of facts was also tendered.

71. Ms Beckett gave evidence about what happened at the Taree RSL club on 28 July 1989. She went there with Lucy Parkinson and her own sister Joy McGregor. There was a very large crowd at the club when they arrived. Ms Beckett said that she did not know James Morris before she went that night, although she did know of his sister Sandra Ridgeway, as she was a former girlfriend of Mr Catt.

72. Ms Beckett said that she also met Errol Taylor at her home one day when he came to visit Mr Catt. This occurred on a day when Mr Catt said that Sharon Clare poisoned him and he collapsed on the lounge. Mr Taylor was present when this allegation was made. Mr Taylor used to visit them from time to time after she moved from 1 Cornwall Street Taree.

73. On 16 September 1989 Ms Beckett appeared at the Taree Local Court represented by Mr Jones. She later went to George Baird's house at Old Bar where she met Marie Whalen. When she returned to Dapto and reported to the police on 22 September 1989 as part of her bail conditions she was arrested. She was kept in the cells there until her successful bail application before Maxwell J on 25 September 1989.

74. On 27 July 1990 Ms Beckett was again locked up in the Taree police station. This followed a refusal to continue her bail following her committal to stand trial on that day. Ms Beckett said that Detective Thomas came to her cell on that Saturday morning:

"Q.   You were in the cells at the Taree Police Station?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Saturday afternoon?

A.    Yes.

Q.    What did you see or hear?

A.    Peter Thomas came to the cell door. He was holding onto the bars and he called my name and he told me what he was going to do to me.

Q.    What did he say?

A.    When they found me next morning

Q.    Just tell us, what did he say as best you can. I know it is difficult.

A.    He said he was going to do some physical harm to me and they wouldn't recognise me.

HIS HONOUR

Q.    Do you remember the words he used?

A.    I can't recall the exact words now."

75. Ms Beckett's own trial commenced on 7 May 1991 and concluded on 11 September 1991. She was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. While there she was bashed by a Maori woman and sustained severe bruising, black eyes and a leg injury. This happened more than once.

76. Ms Beckett was released from prison on bail on 6 August 2001 pending a hearing in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Her earliest date for release on parole fixed by Mathews J would have been 10 December 2001. The Davidson Inquiry commenced on 3 February 2003. His conclusions were published on 27 July 2004. Following a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal on 17 August 2005 Ms Beckett was advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 26 September 2005 that he did not intend to proceed further with counts 1, 2, 5, 6 or 7. She had been acquitted on count 9.

77. Ms Beckett agreed in cross-examination that she made many complaints about Detective Thomas over the years to Internal Affairs and the Ombudsman.

78. Ms Beckett denied that she was the source of Bill Ferguson's information that Mr Catt was sexually assaulting or abusing his children. She gave the following evidence:

"Q.    You knew, didn't you, Mrs Beckett in a community of the size of Taree in the mid-1980s that allegations of sexual abuse by a father against his own children would cause someone to become and treated as a pariah, you knew that didn't you?

A.    I have no idea what you are inferring.

Q.    You knew in 1988 and 1989 that in a town the size of Taree at that time, allegations that a man had sexually abused his four children, would cause that person to be reviled, you knew that didn't you?

A.    That was not a concern of mine. I didn't make this happen. I was unfortunate enough to come across it.

Q.    You knew?

A. What it caused for him, I have no idea. But obviously everyone knew anyway what he was. The whole town knew.

Q.   You knew that in a town the size of Taree in 1988 and 1989 that allegations that a man had sexually abused his four children would cause that person to be hated, you knew that?

A.    Did not cross my mind.

HIS HONOUR

Q.    I think you are missing the point, Ms Beckett. It is not a question of whether you said things with a view to that happening; it is a question of whether or not at the first level you recognised that allegations of that sort, if they became alive in the community, would have that effect. That is the only purpose of the question and the two preceding it. Did you know that is what would happen if those allegations became public?

A.    I would expect so."

79. Ms Beckett said that she had no recollection of sitting at her kitchen bench with Beverly Lyons in the way that appears to be depicted in a photograph that became exhibit LLL at her trial. She also said at her trial in evidence that she had not met Ms Lyons at the Taree RSL club and had never had a conversation or a meal with her there. Ms Beckett said in answer to questions asked in this Court that she could not say whether the photograph even depicted Ms Lyons. She said this as well:

"Q.   What I'm putting to you is that on your oath on your trial for very serious offences you acknowledged that the photograph presently in your hands, exhibit LLL, in the trial presided over by Justice Mathews contained the images of you and Mrs Bev Lyons, that's what you said, isn't it?

A.    I said, it appears. I've been shown photos of people that have been in a photo that weren't there, they were superimposed. Looking at that it appears that way, but I have no memory of it, I do not recognise this lady.

Q.    She had given evidence just a few days beforehand, hadn't she?

A.    I can't recall that either.

Q.    I've read to you 10 minutes ago questions put to you by Mr Power

A.    Yes.

Q.   …that you had seen her in the witness box?

A.    Yes.

Q.    The very lady held out as Bev Lyons?

A.    I don't have a memory of this woman, there were many."

80. Ms Beckett also said this:

"Q.    I want to put to you in about May 1987 you said to her 'I carry a gun now for my own protection'. Did you ever say that?

A.    No, I did not.

Q.    To Beverley Marie Lyons?

A.    No, I did not. I never had a gun, ever.

Q.    Did you ever say to Beverley Lyons, 'I am real glad now that I've got a gun because that frightens him off'?

A.    No, I did not.

Q.    I want to put to you that you said that on a telephone call at some time in 1987 which was had between that you made to Mrs Lyons?

A.    No.

Q.    Never made a telephone call to Mrs Lyons?

A.    I have never spoken to these people."

81. Ms Beckett was cross-examined extensively about photographs taken at her house on 24 August 1989 when she was arrested. She also said that Constable Cottee had been in the ensuite bathroom for five or ten minutes when she said "Look what I've got here" or words to that effect. Detective Thomas then grabbed Ms Beckett by her arm, dragged her up from the stool on which she was seated and said to her even before they got to the ensuite, "What have you got to say about this?"

82. Ms Beckett was asked why, when Mr Jones made submissions to the magistrate on 25 August 1989 on a bail application, he did not complain about any police mistreatment of her during the search of her premises or at the police station thereafter. Ms Beckett said that she simply had no memory one way or the other about that.

83. Ms Beckett was cross-examined about the rock incident. She agreed that she went to Mary Warwick's house and onto the veranda to speak to her about an allegation that Ms Warwick's son Robert Tisdell had made. She denied that she struck Ms Warwick in the face. She said this:

"Q.    Was there an argument between you and Barry Catt?

A.    I had started my car; I had put my seatbelt on. Barry Catt stopped this vehicle, got out of his that vehicle. Mary by that stage had come out of the door screaming out at Barry Catt. He came and put his hand in, pulled the keys out of the ignition and started punching me in the head.

Q.    Did he slap you across the face?

A.    No, he punched me repeatedly.

Q.    Did you yell out, 'Come on, Peter and Shane, get out.'

A.    No, I didn't.

Q.    Did you hit Barry Catt across the face?

A.    No.

Q.    Did Barry Catt hit you across the face once or twice?

A.    He punched me repeatedly with a closed fist.

Q.    Did Peter Bridge engage Barry Catt and did they throw punches at one another?

A.    From memory Peter and Shane got out of the car and went around to stop him from hitting me."

84. Ms Beckett denied that she picked up a rock or that she struck Mr Catt on the head with it. She went to the police station and reported what had happened. She denied that she said to Peter Bridge, Shane Golds or the Catt children, "If ever you are asked what happened tell them that it was Mary that hit Barry over the head with the rock and that I never went inside the screen door and got the keys."

85. Ms Beckett also denied that she saw James Morris at the Taree RSL club on 28 July 1989. She denied that she ever asked him to kill or injure her husband. She also denied that she spoke to him at the K-Mart store in early August 1989.

84. Ms Beckett denied that she asked Vernon Taylor in June or July 1989 to "bump off" her husband for $20,000 or in August 1989 if he knew where she could get a handgun.

85. Ms Beckett denied that she put lithium in Mr Catt's food and drink.

86. Ms Beckett also denied that she falsely represented to Mr Farrar JP that the woman who executed a document in front of him and which he witnessed was Marie Whalen.

Assessment

89. Despite the fact that these proceedings revolve around Ms Beckett, and despite the fact that she has made statements, written letters, lodged complaints and given evidence in several sets of proceedings in the Local Court and the Supreme Court, as well as in the Davidson Inquiry and ultimately in these proceedings before me, in which her credit was almost always central or in issue, the State has not contended that Ms Beckett’s truthfulness or reliability or credit are important now. Having regard to the issues joined in these proceedings, and the matters that Ms Beckett must prove to succeed, that fact is unremarkable. On one view, Ms Beckett need not have given evidence before me at all, although the requirement that she establish her loss and damage places that generalisation under a small cloud.

90. I have elsewhere in these reasons made some general comments about Ms Beckett and the predicaments that life has sent her way. For present purposes, however, I wish only to indicate that whatever view I may have formed about her reliability as a witness, or in any other respect, that impression has not, with one exception concerning what happened at her house during the execution of the search warrant, affected the conclusions that I have reached. Put a different way, none of my conclusions or findings in these proceedings on liability issues is predicated upon an absolute or comparative assessment of Ms Beckett’s credit or the need to make findings on credit that are favourable to her.

91. I am aware that many views about Ms Beckett have been expressed in judicial and extra-judicial contexts. I note that Smart AJ in Regina v Catt at [361] said this:

“[361] …The jury rejected her evidence. This is not surprising as much of her evidence was hard to accept and she emerged from the evidence given at the trial as highly manipulative and a manipulator of evidence. No subsequent tribunal was as well placed as the jury at her trial to assess her credibility. From her remarks on sentence the trial judge thought little of Mrs Catt’s credibility. It is important not to overstate the effect of Sgt Thomas’ regrettable conduct and to attribute to Mrs Catt a potential credibility which she does not have.”

92. For my purposes, apart from Ms Beckett’s accounts of her direct face to face dealings with Detective Thomas, her credibility or lack of it does not reliably or relevantly inform what was in the mind of Detective Thomas or what a reasonable prosecutor should have made of the material that was before him.

Detective Paget’s evidence in these proceedings

93. Detective Paget is a retired plain clothes detective who worked with Detective Thomas from time to time. He considered Detective Thomas to have been a very thorough investigator. He did not observe anything about him that was improper or unprofessional. He became aware that Ms Beckett made a number of allegations to the Ombudsman concerning Detective Thomas' work as a detective in Taree. He thought that the origin of those complaints was a suspicious fire at Roseanne's Deli in Taree.

94. Detective Paget assisted Detective Thomas to prosecute Ms Beckett. Patrick Power was the barrister appearing for the Crown. Detective Paget gave this evidence before me:

"Q.   During the course of the trial, did Mr Power tell you his view about the strength or otherwise of the case that he was presenting?

A.    He did.

Q.    What did he tell you?

A.    He believed that Mrs Catt was guilty."

95. Detective Paget was involved in taking statements from a number of witnesses who gave evidence against Ms Beckett at her trial. They included Vernon Taylor, James Morris, Sandra Ridgeway and Marie Whalen. Some of these statements were taken at Adrian Newell’s unoccupied premises in Milligan Street, Taree. He said he did not observe any pressure to have been placed on Ms Whalen to give her statement.

96. Detective Paget was asked about statements taken from James Morris and Sandra Ridgeway:

"Q.    Is that the statement you took from Mr Morris on 5 September 1989?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Did you believe what is contained in it to be true?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Would you look, please, at 1564.

A.    Yes.

Q.    Were you involved in the taking of that statement?

A.    I think I organised for Sandra Ridgeway to attend the police station but as - I didn't obtain the statement from her.

Q.    Did you see it after it had been obtained?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Did you read it?

A.    I would have, yes.

Q.    Having regard to its contents and other materials of which you were aware, did you form a view of the effect, if any, that it had upon the case that you were investigating?

A.    Yes.

Q.    What view did you form?

A.    That the allegation that she solicited James Morris to kill Barry Catt was corroborated by Sandra Ridgeway."

97. I asked Detective Paget about his impression of James Morris:

"Q.   Mr Morris was an honest and quiet type of chap, you thought?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Was he a big fellow?

A.    No. Obviously, he looked a fit young fellow and he was trained in Taekwondo, I believe, or something to that effect but a very humble person.

Q.    Was there anything obvious about him that made him look like somebody who would be willing to murder somebody if you asked him?

A.    No."

98. Detective Paget also interviewed Shane Golds as the following evidence reveals:

"Q.   Did you have any interaction with Mr Shane Golds during this individual into Roseanne Catt?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Was any threat made to him at any time?

A.    No.

Q.    Did you take statements from him from time to time?

A.    I know we interviewed and I probably did. I can't recall exactly but I most likely did.

Q.    Was any threat of any kind ever made to him in your presence?

A.    No.

Q.    Did you see him intimidated to change his story?

A.    No. He was quite willing.

Q.    When you spoke to him, did he appear to you to be telling the truth?

A.    Yes, he did."

99. Detective Paget was also involved in the search of Ms Beckett's premises on 24 August 1989.

100. Detective Paget was asked about the relationship between the number of complaints that Ms Beckett had made against or about Detective Thomas and his continuing role in the investigation:

"Q.    What I am suggesting to you, that it was obvious, in view of the number of complaints and the nature of the prior relationship that existed between Mrs Catt and Mr Thomas that it was undesirable for Mr Thomas to act as an investigator for her.

A.    Well, I don't know whether undesirable is the right word, but I was just concerned about the prospect of losing the trial down the track because of these past complaints that had been made by Mrs Catt to him - about him in the past, which they had done in previous trials, from my experience, and that's all I expressed to Sergeant Daffy. I said, ‘Look, that's all I'm thinking of’, I said, ‘I'm not worried about the committal, but the trial, we could lose it, because of these - the previous allegations and that’, even though they weren’t sustained."

101. He gave evidence about the lithium charge:

"Q.   If you'll assume that that is the case, sir, I suggest to you whatever the counts was based on lithium on either of the three versions that were proffered, I suggest to you that an essential ingredient of that charge would be establishing that Mr Catt was suffering from lithium toxicity caused by the administration of the substance by Mrs Catt. Do you agree with that?

A.    Yes.

Q.    You were aware that people who are prescribed lithium have to have their blood levels monitored to ensure that lithium toxicity does not occur. You knew that, didn't you, in 1989?

A.    I can't remember whether I knew it then or not. I'm not - I can't recall that but I would assume that they would have to have their blood tested.

Q.    And an important part of your fact finding inquiry was to determine what was Mr Catt's dose of lithium that he took, was it not, on a daily basis?

A.    Yes, it would have been.

Q.    You and Mr Thomas satisfied yourselves at the first interview with Mr Catt in August 1989 what dosage of lithium Mr Catt said he was taking on a daily basis, didn't you?

A.    Well, I don't recall. I wasn't present at the interview anyway but I did read the document later and …

Q.    Yes. So you knew the importance of it?

HIS HONOUR: Sorry. I think he was still…

BLACKET: Please go on if you have more to say.

A.    I was aware that there was a certain limit to the amount of lithium to be taken.

Q.    Sir, did you obtain any expert toxicological advice as to what the half-life of lithium was?

A.    I don't recall whether I did or not.

Q.    It would have been important to know what the rate of dispersal of lithium was in somebody's blood, would it not?

A.    It would and I - I don't reckon - I'm not sure now whether Dr Sandfield prepared a report in relation to that or not now.

Q.    Dr Sandfield was not an expert toxicologist. He was a psychiatrist, wasn't he?

A.    Yes."

102. He continued:

“HIS HONOUR In the course of your investigation, Mr Paget, did you make any inquiries of Dr Sandfield about whether or not those Lithium levels were high, low, ordinary, normal, abnormal, or anything?

A.    Well, we would have, your Honour. We would have but I can't recollect it today.

Q.    No, I appreciate that.

A.    Because we would have wanted to establish, okay, how much Lithium should he have had in a blood test, in his blood level and to work out whether it was excessive or otherwise.

Q.    Well, that's what we're talking about, I think.

BLACKET: Yes, and at no stage were you able to demonstrate there was any abnormality based on the materials that were provided to you by Dr Sandfield. Isn't that right?

A.    Well, I don't know. I can't answer that. If I knew now the - if it was 08, for example, if it was 02. It could be high if it was 08. It's normal to me now, but I don't know whether Dr Sandfield could take it anywhere to show that it was excessive. I can't remember.

Q.    I suggest to you that at no stage were you ever told Mr Catt's levels were excessive.

A.    I don't remember. I can't recall that.

Q.    Sir, whatever be the position about your knowledge now, the fact is that it was important to your investigation to establish that Ms Catt had access to Lithium, wasn't it?

A.    Yes. It would have been.

Q.    The principal reason that you went to Taree on 8 August 1989 was for the purposes of the lithium investigation, wasn't it?

A.    No, I think that was the first day that I met Adrian Newell and spent some time, quite some time with him. It wasn't about the - it was virtually I think him getting to know me, vice versa.

Q.    But what was the crime, sir, that you were investigating?

A.    Well, the poisoning. The overall alleged poisoning.

Q.    Which offence had you gone to Taree to investigate?

A.    The alleged poisoning of Barry Catt.

Q.    Nothing else at that stage?

A.    Not at that stage, no, until we interviewed Barry Catt and I don't recall what's in his interview with Thomas now on the Sunday, the seventh, whether he outlined any other further allegations but I've got no memory of it today. But certainly afterwards, on the ninth, I think we interviewed him, I got statements and he made other allegations which were then further investigated. But the initial one, yes, the poisoning.

Q.    At that stage, having spoken to Mr Newell, were you present with Detective Thomas when he suggested to Mr Newell that he might go to Barry Catt's smash repair business and obtain samples of milk?

A.    No. I believe that was done beforehand.

Q.    Before you arrived?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Did you know when you got to Taree that lithium had been discovered in the milk samples that had been sent to Newcastle?

A.    I'm not sure if I knew that day but I did become aware. Thomas told me that Adrian Newell had obtained some from some samples from Barry Catt's workshop and I think he took them to - I'm not sure now whether he took them to Sandfield or otherwise or - but that was prior to me being involved with Adrian Newell and whatnot.

Q.    Is this the position so far as you understand it that Mr Thomas told you that he had arranged for Mr Newell to obtain the samples from Barry Catt's premises and that he met him in Taree subsequently and decanted some parts of each of the samples taken. Mr Newell took smaller samples, provided them to Dr Sandfield and Mr Thomas brought the balance of the material back to Newcastle and retained it at the police station?

A.    Well, not at the police - I think I picked them up from the hospital but I don't know whether Thomas instructed Newell to get them or whether Adrian just got them on his own volition and then rang Thomas and told him, ‘I've got these.’ I'm not sure whether Thomas had instructed him to get them or whether Adrian got those samples of his own volition but he obviously rang Peter - they obviously spoke about it and Thomas probably told him what to do with them then. I don't know but that's what - all I was told.

Q.   In any event, by 10 August when you saw the industrial chemist at Newcastle Hospital, you were aware at that stage, on 10 August, that there was lithium in one of the samples?

A.   I can't recall that whether there was any in there then. All I can recall is them placing them in this foam container and taping it up and we took them to the Analytical Laboratories at Lidcombe."

103. Before the search of the premises Detective Paget had been told by Mr Catt that there was a semi-automatic rifle and a Derringer in the premises. He agreed that that was the only evidence he had that there were any weapons on the premises. He went on:

"Q.   There was no other person who had that information than Mr Catt, was there?

A.    I don't think so. I think Mr Catt alone, from memory.

Q.    Yes. And did you inquire how Mr Catt knew that?

A.    Yeah, he said he saw a pistol there. He said he'd seen Roseanne with a pistol.

Q.    I see. And were you aware that Mr Catt had been excluded from those premises since May 1988?

A.    I knew it was some time beforehand."

104. He was asked about lithium:

"Q.   All right. And it was your evidence at the trial that lithium was found in a bedroom in a drawer on the dressing table about one hour after the commencement of the search by you. Is that right?

A.    That's correct.

…

Q.    Now, that was a vital piece of evidence for you to have found, wasn't it?

A.    Yes.

Q.    This was your confirmation that Mrs Catt had in her possession Lithicarb or lithium tablets?

A.    Yes.

Q.    You didn't record it in the exhibit book later that day, did you?

A.    I'm sure he recorded the bottles in the exhibit book.

Q.    Sir, would you have a look at the exhibit book, which is plaintiff's tender bundle 2, page 594 through to 599.

A.    What was the page numbers again, sorry?

BLACKET: 594 to 599. Take your time sir, you let me know if you find it.

Q.    Do you see any reference there, sir?

A.    I'm still looking.

….

WITNESS: There doesn't appear to be.

…

Q.    And you didn't have any trouble writing up the gun and the rifle, did you?

A.    No. I think Cynthia wrote that up - probably - no, it was entered there.

Q.    Well, they were about the first things you wrote up?

A.    Yes.

Q.    A matter of tremendous significance to you, I suggest, was the fact that you'd got the lithium but yet you didn't write it up in the book.

A.    I would agree with that.

Q.    It was a shocking omission on your part, wasn't it?

A.    Yes."

105. The cross-examiner returned to the lithium issue and to Detective Paget's references to it in different settings:

"Q.    The evidence that you gave at both the committal and the trial that you found tablets in a black purse in the drawer in the main bedroom was a complete fabrication, sir, wasn't it?

A.    No, sir.

Q.    Do you accept that there is a complete inconsistency between what you told the internal affairs prior to the committal and what you said at the committal on this subject?

A.    Yes, I do.

Q.    And you repeated the lie, sir, at the trial, did you not, when you said again you searched the bedroom?

A.    I did not search the bedroom per se.

Q.    You didn't search it at all according to what you told

A.    No.

Q.    Inspector Chapman. You entered it.

A.    Yes, I did enter it.

Q.    And there's a distinction, sir, between entering a room and searching a room, isn't there?

A.    Yes, there is.

Q.    You were very clear to Inspector Chapman that you weren't searching it, but you had merely entered it, weren't you?

A.    Yes, I - that's what I've answered there.

Q.    Yes, and in your statement, the first statement that you made, you made no reference to finding Lithium, did you?

A.    No, sir."

106. At a point in the trial I sought clarification on a point concerning the cross-examination of Detective Paget about the Rivotril:

“HIS HONOUR: Mr Blacket, call me old fashioned, but it seems apparent at one level, from Mr Paget's evidence, that there was a dissimilarity between what he told Mr Chapman during his interview about the finding of either a black purse and/or the lithium, and the evidence that he gave both at the committal and the trial. I don't know whether or not you intend to return to it, and I don't know whether if you do you intend to ask him how he explains the difference, but he hasn't been asked to explain it and I would, for one, like to know the answer. I'm not suggesting you necessarily have to ask him that, but it's arguably at the centre of some of this case and it seems to have been passed over."

107. Detective Paget was later cross-examined as follows:

"Q.   Do you accept that there is an inconsistency between Mr Newell's evidence of finding the Rivotril and your evidence?

A.    I don't know if that's the same Rivotril as I found or he found. I don't know.

Q.    A prudent and sensible police officer finding an exhibit would have noted on the exhibit what was in the bottle, what the date of dispensing was on the label, and the origin of the dispenser, would they not?

A.    Well, I would have expected a bottle, a brown bottle containing tablets marked lithium or something but there's not.

Q.    Sir, when you find an item when conducting a search warrant that is vital to the prosecution, such as a gun or a knife or an object of some kind, you would normally write that up straightaway, wouldn't you?

A.    Yes.

Q.    If you were trying to prove poisoning by Roseanne Catt, the finding of the very substance that you thought might be being used in the house was a matter that any probationary constable, let alone a detective, would realise was significant. Isn't that so?

A.    Yes, I would agree with that.

Q.    And the fact that you didn't note it up, strongly suggests, sir, that you didn't find it as you have subsequently deposed and that you made it up?

A.    Well, it doesn't strongly suggest it.

Q.    It strongly suggests, sir, that you were determined to load up Mrs Catt with these pills with a view to bringing false charges against her that she was poisoning her husband?

A.    That's not true.

Q.    Because Mr Thomas and Mr Catt were very closely aligned, weren't they?

A.    No.

Q.    The only evidence that you had concerning lithium poisoning was Mr Catt's complaints, was it not?

A.    No.

Q.    As at 24 August, the only evidence you had was Mr Catt's complaints?

A.    Yeah, I don't know whether it - I can't recall now whether we had interviewed Barry - his workers - before then or after but I'm not sure now.

Q.    Assuming that you did interview one or two of his close associates, their information about whether or not this man was suffering from lithium toxicity, having regard to their occupations as panel beaters and motor mechanics, would have been, I suggest, of no value whatsoever.

Consideration - damages

797. It is necessary to make some general preliminary observations.

798. First, as will be apparent, it is not possible to know what would have been the life that Ms Beckett would have led if she had not faced any of the charges for which she was put on trial that are the subject of these proceedings. These reasons are by coincidence published on the twenty sixth anniversary of Ms Beckett’s arrest. The benefit of hindsight over such a long period does not improve the view of what might have been but for those events. It is in these circumstances unrealistic to approach the calculation of damages that are appropriate to compensate Ms Beckett for her losses on the assumption or in the expectation that arithmetical correctness or mathematical precision has much, if anything at all, to do with the final result. Some intellectual comfort can be found in factoring various apparently reliable integers into what passes for a calculation, but just as in sentencing there is not one proper sentence, so with minor exceptions is there never only one true or correct result in a damages calculation.

799. Secondly, but in a related sense, it is also slightly unrealistic to expect Ms Beckett to have available for production and use in these proceedings a full and precise collection of supporting documents or financial records proving or supporting her work history up until her trial. Clearly enough she bears the onus of proving her case in an acceptable way, and the State cannot be expected either to be liable for damages that Ms Beckett would like but has not proved, or to make concessions about things that are beyond the scope or reasonable assumption. In the final analysis, Ms Beckett was at all times leading up to 1991 a woman of considerable energy and independence. The prospect that she would have harnessed these qualities, even if only at the inferential rate of the average worker, cannot easily be disregarded.

800. Thirdly, the absence from these proceedings of witnesses to her economic achievements, in the form of customers, superiors, former work colleagues or friends is not particularly remarkable. Even before she became involved in criminal proceedings or was convicted and gaoled, Ms Beckett had an ability to put people with whom she came into contact off side, if she did not alienate them completely. The fact that there would not appear to be a queue of people waiting to assist her with this case, especially now, as the State emphasises in a different context, that she is a convicted criminal, is hardly surprising. Mr Caesar failed to materialise even on his account with evidence that might have secured Ms Beckett’s earlier release from gaol. The prospect that Ms Beckett could have located or encouraged customers of her Dapto salon to tell me about her perming and highlighting skills or anything of equal moment also seems rather remote.

801. Fourthly, I do not think it is correct to refer, as the State has chosen repeatedly to do, to the facts underpinning Counts 1, 3 and 4 as serious assaults or serious criminal offences. Ms Beckett was sentenced to a total term of 15 months for these three offences as well as a term of twelve months for the Count 9 pistol charge that was to be served wholly concurrently. Those sentences were imposed in the context of her assumed criminality for several other much more serious offences. Ms Beckett had no criminal record of any type when sentenced and was otherwise a person of good character. What might be the indicative separate sentences for Counts 3 and 4 alone are not easily discernible having regard to the simultaneously served sentences for Counts 1 and 9. There is in my view a very real prospect that non-custodial sentences for Counts 3 and 4 might have been imposed if considered alone. In considering whether or not Ms Beckett might have had a reputation capable of being damaged in any presently relevant sense, the prospect that she may have been dealt with by way of the imposition of a fine or a suspended sentence are matters of significance in my opinion.

802. Fifthly it is absolutely clear that Ms Beckett received a sentence of three years imprisonment for Count 2 that was served wholly independently of any other sentences. Between 11 December 1995 and 10 December 1998 Ms Beckett was incarcerated for no other offence by way of partial accumulation or aggregation. That fact clearly serves to mark out Mathews J’s view of the seriousness of that offence.

803. Sixthly, even though the Count 6 solicit James Morris to murder charge carried with it a potential sentence of life imprisonment at the time, Ms Beckett’s sentence of three years and six months for this Count was served wholly concurrently with the three years imposed for the Count 5 lithium charge and the first six months of the six years imposed for the Count 7 solicit Vernon Taylor to murder charge. If judges can be assumed to have indicated a view about the criminality of a particular offence by the discrete period of imprisonment imposed for it, then some indication of Mathews J’s view of the need for punishment for the Count 6 offence is clearly available in the circumstances.

Damages for non-economic loss

804. Ms Beckett was imprisoned for three years or what equates to 1,095 days between 11 December 1992 and 10 December 1995 for the Count 2 perjury offence. She was also imprisoned for three years and six months between 11 December 1995 and 10 June 1999 for the Count 6 solicit James Morris to murder charge, albeit concurrently for sentences imposed on other counts. It is trite to observe that, but for the first of those periods, all other things being equal, Ms Beckett would have been released three years earlier. That is a significant period in gaol in my opinion. It is not diminished in significance by the fact that Ms Beckett was otherwise in gaol for offences, some of which on my assessment have not rendered the State liable to her in damages. Loss of liberty and imprisonment in the correctional facilities of New South Wales is no picnic, despite the sentiment sometimes publicly echoed by proponents of longer sentences. One day wrongfully in gaol is one day too many.

805. Ms Beckett’s experiences in gaol have been described. I do not get a sense that her custodial experience was any better or any worse than the general prison population. For what it may be worth, Ms Beckett struck me as a woman whose ability to adapt to prison life would have been as good as might be expected for someone imprisoned for so long for the first time. However, I hasten to add that in my view it is irrelevant. The level of difference between the best and worst experience of any one in fulltime custody must by definition be far less than the difference between anyone in gaol and anyone free in society. My view about the quantum of damages necessary or sufficient to compensate a person for time spent in custody that should not have been imposed cannot be diminished or increased by reference to their particular experience.

806. I am also not attracted to the proposition that there should be some reduction in the amount of damages to be awarded with the passing of time in gaol in the sense that the first days are the worst and the last days are better, or that there is some kind of progressive linear diminution in or reduction of the significance of days in a sentence as they pass. Proponents of this view appear to do so in order to shield themselves from the comparative consequences of cases in which plaintiffs have been awarded large sums for hours or days wrongfully imprisoned, arguing that such damages should not indicate a reasonable hourly or daily rate or tariff where many years of wrongful imprisonment are in question. If a day in custody generates a calculable sum by way of damages for the losses associated with it, there can in my view, bearing in mind what the authorities say about the fundamental importance and significance of any loss of liberty, be no principled moral or legal basis for not applying that sum to every day that is lost.

807. Ms Beckett served her sentence for Count 6 concurrently with other sentences. The State has submitted that she has therefore lost nothing as a result of her imprisonment for three years and six months on this count. If there were any sound logic in this analysis, it could alternatively be argued that Ms Beckett has not served any time for Count 5, and only approximately half of her sentence for Count 7, because she was incarcerated for the Count 6 offence in any event.

808. In my opinion the proper approach is to value the loss of liberty for the Count 6 offence having regard to the fact that she served concurrent sentences for other offences but always remained liable for a term of imprisonment for the Count 6 offence if, for example, the Count 5 and 7 sentences had been set aside or varied, or the underpinning convictions had been quashed.

809. It is and remains erroneous in the calculation of damages to pose a hypothetical question about the price that an individual in the community might reasonably expect to demand as compensation before agreeing to undergo or be subject to the injury or loss in respect of which the calculation is being considered. One of the reasons for that is that it would lead to highly inflated and unreasonable awards of damages with attendant disruptive social consequences. The price that a reasonable but innocent man or woman might demand for an unprotected day in gaol would presumably be very high if it were calculable at all. A very much more modest approach ought to be taken and I propose to do so.

810. In my opinion Ms Beckett should be awarded the sum of $1,825,200 under this head of damages. That sum is made up of the sum of $1,314,000 for her deprivation of liberty on Count 2 during the three years of her incarceration between 11 December 1992 and 10 December 1995 and the sum of $511,200 for her deprivation of liberty on Count 6 during the three years and six months of her incarceration between 11 December 1995 and 10 June 1999. I have discounted the latter sum in order to take account of the concurrence of that sentence with those being served for Counts 5 and 7.

Aggravated damages

811. Ms Beckett was arrested following the execution of a search warrant in her home on 24 August 1989. She was at that time a woman with no previous convictions of any sort and was definitively a person of good character. She was handcuffed during the search of her premises even though her house was full of policemen and she was accompanied by at least one of them at all times. It is worthy of note that Ms Beckett is a woman of slight build and would not in my opinion have posed any realistic threat. There was in my opinion no need to handcuff her.

812. I do not accept that Ms Beckett was stripped naked or searched in that condition. Her evidence to that effect is in conflict with the evidence of Constable Cottee who I accept was truthful in her denials of the allegation made by Ms Beckett.

813. Ms Beckett was conveyed to a waiting police car. News may travel fast in small towns but covert police searches are never news unless someone in the media is tipped off. I have no doubt that the waiting media scrum that confronted Ms Beckett when she left her house on 24 August 1989 was the result of Detective Thomas having forewarned them of what was likely to occur. The presence of the media on later occasions was in all probability the inevitable consequence of the original arrest.

814. Ms Beckett was held in custody and her applications for bail were opposed. Whereas the State cannot be criticised for opposing bail in a proper case, it is difficult to imagine what the concerns of the police could have been. The fact that Ms Beckett was always ultimately successful in her bail applications clearly reflects the reality that she posed neither a threat of failing to appear nor of committing further offences. All of that notwithstanding, I have some difficulty with the proposition that the police could ever be liable for damages for opposing bail unless some super added characteristic of the opposition could be identified.

815. I have a different view of the revocation of Ms Beckett’s bail on the occasion that she was in Dapto. The intersection of that decision with her civil proceedings against Mr Catt raises considerable doubt in my mind that it was not intended to cause her the greatest amount of distress and inconvenience. It was also a trivial circumstance that should never have led to what occurred.

816. All of these things were distressing for Ms Beckett. They were unnecessary. Having regard to the partial success achieved by Ms Beckett in these proceedings, I consider that an award of aggravated damages of $100,000 is appropriate.

Exemplary damages

817. Detective Thomas remained in charge of the investigation and prosecution of Ms Beckett long after his partiality had been identified and commented upon by judges and police Internal Affairs investigators. Detective Thomas’ own written words demonstrated that he saw Ms Beckett as his nemesis and that it has adversely affected his career. This was, or should have been, apparent from as early as, and certainly by no later than, Ms Beckett’s complaints about him following the delicatessen fire in 1983. The fact that he was permitted to remain connected in any way with the charges preferred against Ms Beckett after that represents an egregious failure in policing and an institutional failure of remarkable proportions. The fact that the State has managed successfully to defend a substantial proportion of Ms Beckett’s claims in these proceedings ought not be permitted to disguise the fact that Detective Thomas’ determination to get square sullied his objectivity. I have no doubt that the events that confronted Ms Beckett on and after 24 August 1989 would not have occurred, or would have been significantly different, if Detective Thomas had been completely removed from any official involvement with Ms Beckett.

818. Consideration of an award of exemplary damages directs attention to the conduct of a defendant. I consider that Ms Beckett is entitled to the sum of $200,000 under this head.

819. I hasten to add that no part of those damages has been generated by the way in which the State conducted its defence of these proceedings. As my deliberations following a very long trial will bear witness, nothing in this case has been particularly easy, and the running of the trial has been a reflection of the highest standards of professional conduct on both sides throughout.

Damage to reputation

820. By reason of the conclusions to which I have come, Ms Beckett’s reputation for practical purposes is that of a woman whose convictions on Counts 3 and 4 still stand but whose convictions on Counts 1, 5, 7 and 9 have been quashed with either new trials ordered on the first three of those counts or in the case of Count 9 where a verdict of acquittal has been directed. Ms Beckett had no cause of action in respect of Counts 3 and 4 and her reputation as the result of what has happened on the other counts is not compensable by reason of my conclusion in these proceedings. The question remains as to whether her malicious prosecution on Counts 2 and 6 has added to the damage to her reputation or made it worse than it otherwise was following the non-compensable results of her experiences on Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9. In fairness to Ms Beckett, the Crown appears only to argue that her reputation as the result of Counts 3 and 4 is relevant, the implication being that her reputational damage, if any, flowing from the circumstances surrounding Counts 1, 5, 7 and 9 remains effectively unsettled and correspondingly inconclusive.

821. Drawing upon terms, but not the principles, more commonly found in the law of defamation, it may be argued that the damage to Ms Beckett’s reputation flowing from Counts 2 and 6 is either contextually insignificant or is otherwise swamped by the effect upon her of the counts upon which she was either convicted or unsuccessful before me. However, in my opinion there are at least two reasons why that is not so.

822. First, perjury is a very serious offence. Mathews J thought so and with good reason. None of the other counts was concerned with allegations of dishonesty or a disregard for the sanctity of the judicial process. Ms Beckett would be entitled to feel aggrieved by her wrongful prosecution upon a charge that would translate in the perception of the reasonable person in the community into intentionally telling lies to a judge.

823. Secondly, the probably never to be resolved question concerning Ms Beckett’s conviction on Count 7, and the heavily pregnant atmosphere of unfavourable suspicion that attends it, is highly likely to be ameliorated by success in these proceedings upon a Count charging that Ms Beckett solicited someone else to kill her husband. Put another way, the reputational damage to Ms Beckett from two similar charges, in circumstances where assumptions are often made on numerical rather than substantive grounds, is likely to be greater than the reputational damage from the circumstances surrounding Count 7 alone, having regard to my conclusions about Count 6. In the language of causation, Ms Beckett’s reputation would have been better but for her prosecution and conviction on Count 6.

824. The State argued that Ms Beckett had participated in a television programme that publicised her crimes and therefore had contributed to the publication of material inimical to her reputation. She argued that the programme was the result of her malicious prosecution by the State in the first place and that, in effect, she was entitled to utilise it to expose what she said was the truth and restore her reputation accordingly. It is highly doubtful that anyone exposed to this programme would have had more than a passing interest in what it portrayed, and even less likely that it would have been treated as a prime source of credible information. Ms Beckett has maintained her innocence at all times and her reputational damage is not increased even by misguided attempts to reduce it.

825. It is pretentious not to acknowledge that assessment of a proper sum to compensate Ms Beckett for the consequent loss and damage to her reputation is anything other than a wholly subjective and arbitrary exercise. Doing the best I can I consider that a proper sum is $120,000. Soliciting to murder is a serious charge. It carries a serious maximum penalty. Ms Beckett is entitled to be compensated for the damage caused to her by the malicious prosecution of Counts 2 and 6.

Past economic loss

826. Ms Beckett lost income as a result of her incarceration for the three year period she was imprisoned on Count 2 and notionally for the three years and six months for which she was imprisoned on Count 6. The detailed and expansive financial reports of Mr Thompson upon which she relies are predicated upon Ms Beckett’s success in recovering economic loss for the whole of her period of incarceration. In the light of my conclusions, Ms Beckett’s claims for past economic loss are necessarily less significant than Mr Thompson has calculated.

827. Mr Thompson prepared two reports dated 8 May 2014 and 18 July 2014. He was instructed to make calculations of claimed loss during certain specified periods. The only significant period is from 7 May 1991 to 22 April 2003. The only two periods during which Ms Beckett’s claim remains viable is between 11 December 1992 and 10 December 1995 and 11 December 1995 and 10 June 1999.

828. Schedule “A” to Mr Thompson’s first report sets out various calculations of income loss based upon the hypothetical work that Ms Beckett suggests she could have performed. Mr Thompson was not required for cross-examination and in my view his assumptions were realistically based. Ms Beckett was not cross-examined to suggest that the assumptions were unattainable. That was no more and no less than an appropriate forensic choice having regard to the overriding purpose and the imperative that litigation should be conducted having regard to the real issues in dispute.

826. Whatever else can be said about Ms Beckett, I do not think she could ever be described as a woman who lacked energy or motivation. The absence of records to confirm the extent of her participation in various forms of work does not lead to a conclusion that Ms Beckett did not work as she said she did. The fact that she was a self-employed shop proprietor in Taree in the early 1980s suggests a level of independence, ingenuity and determination. I consider that Ms Beckett would have been employed in some capacity doing work of the type that she had performed in the past, and that her responsibilities for the care of children would not have interfered with her ability to do so. It is apparent that her separation from Mr Catt following the 2 May 1988 events was likely to be permanent, as the Family Court materials to which I have been referred appear clearly to suggest. Even without that material, the prospect that the marriage could have survived the allegations of sexual abuse made by Ms Beckett is non-existent. The result of the position in which Ms Beckett was placed in the circumstances leads me confidently to assume that she would have been forced to work, and would have worked, full time in some occupation for which she was suited. I am not attracted to the argument that she could not have worked given her child care obligations and responsibilities as it is not borne out by the experiences of single parent households in Australia at the end of the second millennium.

827. I have carefully reviewed Mr Thompson’s calculations. In my view Ms Beckett would have had the capacity to earn something in the order of $400 net per week on average during her periods in detention between December 1992 and December 1995 and between December 1995 and June 1999. I am satisfied that she would have exploited her income earning capacity during the whole of both of those periods if she had not been incarcerated. With respect to the earlier period she would therefore have sustained an economic loss of $62,400. With respect to the second period Ms Beckett was serving her sentence on Count 6 concurrently with her sentences for Count 5 and Count 7 in part. Even though I am of the opinion that Ms Beckett is entitled to non-economic loss for this second period referable to Count 6, it is clear that she was in custody serving concurrent sentences on other counts during that time so that her claimed loss for this period was not caused by the State.

Legal fees incurred between August 1989 and June 1990

831. Ms Beckett made a claim for legal costs incurred during a short period when she retained private legal services. A schedule of those costs and invoices has been tendered. The total costs of $20,940.50 are modest even by the standards of the day.

832. Some of the costs relate to Family Court matters and are not compensable in these proceedings. Others presumably relate to counts upon which Ms Beckett has not succeeded before me.

833. Having regard to these matters it seems to me that I should allow $2,750 as a proportion of the costs notionally referable to Ms Beckett’s need for legal services with respect to her defence of Counts 2 and 6.

Loss of opportunity

834. Ms Beckett makes a claim for the loss of an opportunity to finalise a property settlement with Mr Catt characterised in practical terms as the loss of an opportunity to recover her investment in Cattys Body Repairs. I take this claim to proceed upon the basis that she had invested $100,000 in that business and would but for her incarceration have enjoyed a return on that investment in some unspecified way following orders for the distribution of property in the Family Court.

835. The difficulty with this claim is that it is wholly unsupported by any evidence upon which it could succeed. The business in question is referred to throughout the evidence in these proceedings. A significant allegation is that Ms Beckett was improperly seeking to wrest control of the business from Mr Catt and that her allegations of sexual misconduct for which he was tried and acquitted were at the heart of her attempts to sideline Mr Catt as her competitor. The value of the parties’ matrimonial property is otherwise unknown.

836. Be that as it may, I have no idea what the business was worth, whether it was profitable, whether it had a secure capital base or was vulnerable to financial or trade creditors. I do not know what its balance sheet and profit and loss statements revealed about its viability or its value as a going concern.

837. I have no choice but to dismiss this aspect of Ms Beckett’s claim.

Interest

838. Ms Beckett is entitled to interest. I will require the parties to agree upon the proper amount under this head of claim or to provide me with their respective contentions about it.

Final comments

839. One of the strands running through Ms Beckett’s case has been that Detective Thomas was a corrupt bully who intimidated witnesses with a view to getting them to give evidence or not as the case may be, or to change their story if it did not suit Detective Thomas’ aims or interests. Evidence before me included the testimony of Ms Beckett, her son Peter Bridge, Christa Bracamonte, Peter Caesar, Terrence Madden, Greg Baggs, Tracy Mairinger, Lucynne Cooper, George Baird, Dr Michael Richardson and others. Each of the people had a story to tell about Detective Thomas and the often extraordinary and overbearing methods he used when dealing with people. Detective Thomas clearly treated many people with an arrogant contempt that was intimidating and frightening for them. On some occasions Detective Thomas would interview people away from the police station and at Mr Newell’s vacant house.

840. I am satisfied on the preponderance of evidence that Detective Thomas acted in this way. I have no difficulty at all in accepting the evidence of the FACS officers, including Mr Madden and Mr Baggs, and Dr Richardson whose experience at the hands of Detective Thomas was simply remarkable. I also accept the evidence of Ms Bracamonte, particularly in the light of her recorded conversation with Detective Thomas. I am completely satisfied that Detective Thomas threatened and bullied Mr Bridge who was at the time a young man loyal to his mother but frighteningly confronted with the intimidating antics of Detective Thomas. I am less confident that I can place any reliance upon the evidence of Ms Mairinger, who I consider was unable to provide an accurate account of the events she alleges she witnessed.

841. Smart AJ in Regina v Catt at [361] described Detective Thomas’ behaviour as “regrettable”. I agree with that description, even if it is unduly favourable to him. In the end result I have formed my conclusions without proceeding to a finding that Detective Thomas’ behaviour was instrumental in the production or the fabrication of evidence that was not, or would not have been, otherwise available for use in the prosecution of Ms Beckett.

orders

842. I make the following orders:

1. Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,310,350 plus interest.

2. Direct the parties within 7 days to provide me either with an agreed sum for interest on the verdict or in the absence of agreement written submissions not exceeding two pages setting out the amount (if any) for which the parties respectively contend.

3. Order that unless either party makes an application within 7 days for a different order the defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

*************

Amendments

02 September 2015 - Paragraph 576 replaced

Decision last updated: 11 November 2015