Director of Public Prosecutions v Zegers
[2023] VCC 75
•2 February 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 22-01412
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| KAREL ZEGERS |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE WILMOTH |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 23 January 2023 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 2 February 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Zegers |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 75 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal Law - sentence
Catchwords: Pleaded guilty to 2 charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and one charge perjury – offending between November 2017 and March 2018 to deceive Supreme Court re defamation action - early plea of guilty – Defamation damages award extra-curial punishment 4 year delay - remorse
Sentence: 12 month non-conviction CCO 20 hours community work
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr S. Tamburro | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Ms K. Temperley | Teak Legal |
HER HONOUR:
1Karel Zegers, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice and one charge of perjury. The details of the offending are set out in the amended summary of prosecution opening dated 9 January 2023, which is Exhibit A and will be appended to these sentencing remarks. Accordingly, it is not necessary for me to repeat those details but to refer to them in brief form.
2For many years you were a member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and you were an office holder from time to time in the Victorian branch. You had become increasingly concerned in recent years about certain things happening in the club and you had sought to bring them to light by notifying the broader membership by email.
3These emails had addresses associated with several websites. You sent them anonymously, fearing threats of a type you had already received in veiled form, when you had tried to raise these matters more directly under your own name.
4In 2015 members of the board of directors of the Association commenced defamation proceedings against you.
5The websites had been set up by Peter Erkens-Goss who was subpoenaed by the plaintiffs. Emails between you and Erkens-Goss disclosed that you suggested both of you tell lies about any involvement when responding to the subpoena. Erkens-Goss did that and stated that another person owned the websites. He was therefore excused from giving evidence in the proceeding in the Supreme Court. This is Charge 1, attempting to pervert the course of justice.
6Charge 2, a further charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice, was your deletion of emails from your computer, which would have disclosed your discussions with Erkens-Goss about lying. When the trial judge queried the lack of forensic examination of your computer, an expert was engaged, and the deleted emails were identified.
7You were called to give evidence in the defamation case and during
cross-examination you lied when you denied being involved in the creation of the website or the writing of the emails. After the expert's report became available you changed your evidence and admitted in court that you had lied. That is Charge 3, perjury.8You said you wanted to come clean and you apologised to the court, but maintained that what you had said in the emails was true.
9The offending took place between November 2017 and March 2018. You were interviewed by the police on 10 December 2020 and charged in May 2022. At the committal mention in August 2022 you indicated that you would plead guilty to the three charges and the plea date was obtained.
10It was conceded by the parties that there are no comparable cases for guidance as to an appropriate sentence. Its seriousness lies in the decision to deceive the court and to execute the plan, albeit an unsophisticated plan, and the charges are serious examples of the offences. You involved another person, Mr Erkens-Goss, and persuaded him to lie.
11On the other hand, no intimidation or threat of violence was directed towards him and the court was ultimately not deceived. Your actions were not motivated by chance of financial gain.
12You were found liable for defamation and were ordered to pay $810,000 in damages plus legal costs, the second highest verdict in a Victorian defamation action. The research you did then indicated that most sums awarded to plaintiffs did not exceed $75,000.
13The maximum penalty for Charges 1 and 2 is 25 years' imprisonment, and 15 years for Charge 3, which indicate the seriousness of the charges. The authorities dealing with these charges involve widely disparate cases and so individual circumstances need to be the chief guide in sentencing.
14That is not to ignore the importance of general deterrence in such cases. The offending has the potential to undermine our system of justice generally and the authority and significance of the courts in particular. Such offences should not go unpunished and punishment should be, in part, a reinforcement of the priority of honesty and integrity in the legal system.
15Your personal background and circumstances are of course highly pertinent and they operate to diminish somewhat your suitability as a vehicle for general deterrence.
16You are now aged 78. You were born in the Netherlands and came to Australia in 1982 at the age of 38. You became an Australian citizen in 1985. You were a trained motor mechanic by trade and you gained further qualifications here. You are now retired and receiving a Centrelink pension, reduced by reason of a Dutch part-pension.
17You were married for 48 years but the legal proceedings brought the marriage to an end. Your ex-wife is supportive of you and you are presently living in a caravan on her property. Most of your income goes to pay debts, including a bank loan to cover your legal costs. It also includes a debt to your ex-wife of $210,000.
18You were declared bankrupt and so cannot be a director of your business, which has not generated any income for about three years. You hope to be able to resume work in the business, and I understand a conviction is likely to impede that possibility, as it would prevent you from conducting roadworthy testing. This is work that you are otherwise able to do, having regained your licence following bankruptcy and in consideration of your health problems, which can be taken account of in that work.
19You have mobility issues relating to your hip and elbow caused by worn joints and a nerve problem respectively. Your GP has confirmed that you suffer a number of medical conditions, including ischemic heart disease, hypertension and osteoarthritis.
20Although you have not been diagnosed with depression, you have been deeply emotionally affected by the court proceedings and feel shame, disappointment and guilt, especially as your wife, now your ex-wife, has been affected. You have also lost friends and acquaintances and severed your connection with the club, after many years.
21Several factors mitigate against a severe sentence. You have never been in trouble with the law before and you are otherwise a person of good character. You pleaded guilty very early, indicating your plea even before the charges were filed.
22Your plea of guilty means that you are entitled to a discount on your sentence because of its utility in avoiding a trial and that is of particular importance still at the moment, when the court has a large backlog of trials because of the Covid pandemic over the last two or three years.
23You have paid a high price for the defamation and that should be regarded as extra-curial punishment in a sense, and I take that into account in a limited way. The damages awarded forms part of the financial burden you now face.
24The four year delay which occurred between the offending and the sentence is very considerable, meaning that you had the uncertainty of the result hanging over your head for a long time, and that has caused you to be very anxious. I take that delay into account.
25You have no prior convictions and there has been no further offending during the four-year delay.
26I have read references provided by your former wife, Petronella Zegers, and Alan Stoops, a friend and fellow board member of the Sporting Shooters Association. Both writers describe you as having been well intentioned in your actions regarding the Association, but misguided. Mr Stoops described it as a single error of judgment, rather than a character flaw. Ms Zegers described her shock on hearing about the Supreme Court case and the very serious financial ramifications which have followed, including the risk of losing her home.
27Sadly, your daughter Astrid was seriously injured in a car accident several years ago and she now lives with multiple neurological issues. Ms Zegers cared for Astrid's autistic daughter for two years when Astrid was unable to. She stated:
Due to the financial situation our quality of life has deteriorated significantly. Because of both of our debts we cannot enjoy our retirement as we planned and worked so hard for.
28As your counsel submitted, the offending was very specific as to context and it is unlikely to occur again. Your good prospects for rehabilitation and the deterrence already discernible combine to reduce the need for specific deterrence as a component in your sentence.
29The sentencing submission made on your behalf was for an adjourned undertaking of some length. The prosecution position was in agreement with all the relevant matters relating to your circumstances, but that a Community Correction Order was appropriate. I arranged for an assessment with a view to obtaining information as to suitable community work being available, given your health problems. I was informed that assessments are not performed where conditions other than community work are not in consideration, as in your case.
30This is an unusual sentencing exercise. Whilst your age and health problems might suggest community work is not appropriate, you are keen to pursue your chosen work doing roadworthy tests, which does not involve physical exertion, but does require you to not have a criminal conviction. Part of your motivation to work arises from the huge debts you have incurred through the defamation case and the consequent breakdown of your marriage.
31To some extent, discernible extra-curial punishment has already been inflicted upon you. I do intend to impose a Community Correction Order, as I said earlier, based in part on the fact that further punishment will lie in the threat of being resentenced, if you were to breach the CCO.
32That CCO will commence today and will last for 12 months. I will not record a conviction for the reason that I have explained. I am informed that a Community Correction Order is not valid without a condition, in addition to the core conditions. Therefore, there will only be a nominal requirement for you to perform unpaid community work which I shall fix at 20 hours. You will have the whole year to do that, and I am reassured by what Ms Temperley has told me about the Bendigo Corrections Office being confident that work can be found for you.
33In reaching the decision about the very nominal number of hours I have taken into account your health problems, which are a consequence of your age.
34Now Mr Tamburro, I do not propose to make an order under s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, given the CCO that is imposed.
35MR TAMBURRO: No, Your Honour, that is appropriate.
36HER HONOUR: There is no obligation on me to do so, so I will not do that.
37MR TAMBURRO: Yes, Your Honour.
38HER HONOUR: But is there anything else I have neglected or omitted?
39MR TAMBURRO: Not from me, Your Honour, no.
40HER HONOUR: No.
41MS TEMPERLEY: Nothing, Your Honour, thank you.
42HER HONOUR: Another question for you. We assumed that the appropriate Corrections office would be Coolaroo
43MS TEMPERLEY: He is in a suburb Morang, Bendigo would be the closest Corrections office. Thank you.
44HER HONOUR: Mr Zegers, the result of this is that you will have 48 hours from today to report to the Bendigo Correction Office. So strictly speaking it will be Monday 4 o'clock. Thank you, Mr Zegers. So you go along and you sign on within the next 48 hours and everything will be explained to you then. Just take a seat now and as soon as this Order is ready, I will ask you to sign it and Ms Temperley can explain anything to you. Yes.
45OFFENDER: Does it mean I have until Monday night to make an appointment with Corrections?
46HER HONOUR: You do not need to make an appointment, just go along.
47OFFENDER: Okay.
48HER HONOUR: When you go home to Bendigo today, do you? All right, so you can go there any time after the rest of today, or tomorrow or Monday.
49OFFENDER: Okay.
50HER HONOUR: As long as you are there by 4 o'clock on Monday.
51MS TEMPERLEY: As the court pleases.
52HER HONOUR: Ms Temperley, did you want to tender the medical report that you have got?
53MS TEMPERLEY: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
‑ ‑ ‑
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
–v–
KAREL ZEGERS
AMENDED SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION OPENING FOR PLEA
Date of document: 9 January 2023
Offender
1. The offender is Karel Cornelis Steradis ZEGERS1.
Background
2. On or around 19 June 2015, members of the Board of Directors of the Sporting
Shooters Association of Australia Victoria (SSAAV) commenced defamation
proceedings against Mr ZEGERS in the Supreme Court of Victoria2.
3. The defamation proceeding related to a series of defamatory emails sent by an
“anonymous” author (the Emails).
1 Mr Zegers’ date of birth is 18 November 1944 and he was 73 years old on the dates of his offending.
2 Exhibit 1, Court Book – SCI 2015 03158, Document no. 1, Writ and Statement of Claim.
Page 2 of 12
4. Mr ZEGERS was the person who sent the Emails.
5. Mr ZEGERS was found liable in the defamation proceedings.
6. Mr ZEGERS was also referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions3.
Charge 1 – Attempt to pervert the course of justice (providing false information to the
court)
Subpoena to Peter ERKENS-GOSS
7. The Emails were sent from email addresses associated with the websites
shootersvictoria.com, victorianshooters.com, straightshootersau.com4 (the Websites).
8. The plaintiffs in the defamation proceeding investigated the Websites, found they
were set up by Peter ERKENS-GOSS and subpoenaed Mr ERKENS-GOSS.
Discussions between Mr ZEGERS and Mr ERKENS-GOSS5
9. On 30 November 2017, Mr ZEGERS sent the following email to Mr ERKENS-GOSS:
Yeez this is not good. Can you hold them off? Can you deny you got anything to do
with it? Can they proof that you or I are involved?
10. On 13 December 2017, Mr ZEGERS sent the following email to Mr ERKENS-GOSS:
I just wonder how they got your name. Is that going to be problematic? Can they
physically find you and prove you set-up the site? Can you handle/ ignore it? As you
told me before, my name does not appear anywhere. When asked shall we say we
don’t know each other?
11. On 15 December 2017, Mr ZEGERS sent the following email to Mr ERKENS-GOSS:
Let me look at the subpoena. What do you think you can do to hold them off? Or deny
you got nothing to do with it, for instance, someone used/ stole your identity.
12. On 18 December 2017, Mr ERKENS-GOSS sent the following email to Mr ZEGERS:
You want me to lie?
3 Moroney v Zegers [2018] VSC 446, [61].
4 Moroney v Zegers [2018] VSC 446, [28].
5 Exhibit 4, Expert Report – Balit, Appendix G; Moroney v Zegers [2018] VSC 446, [46(o)].
Page 3 of 12
13. On 18 December 2017, Mr ZEGERS responded to Mr ERKENS-GOSS as follows:
They have been lying all the time, so even though it may seem reprehensible, we may
have to a bit of that as well... I have an appointment with a lawyer this Thursday
afternoon...What I want to know from him is what we can get away with regarding the
subpoena.... We/ you may have to deny some things. For arguments sake, we don’t
know each other. How would they prove we do? I told no-one, ever! We will beat the
bastards, that’s what they are.
14. On 25 December 2017, Mr ZEGERS sent an email to Mr ERKENS-GOSS, which
stated in part:
…
About the reply to the Subpoena seems to be as follows.
It is a long document, unfortunately necessary.
You MUST reply to it by the due date.
The best way is to reply “just” in time, as it makes it harder for the opposition to
“pull more rabbits out of the hat”.
…
The Court strongly frowns on people who do not respond, reason being a subpoena is
in effect a Court Order.
…
The lawyer’s advice is to reply more or less as how you proposed. But try to add more
“evidence” preferably without saying too much. It shows then that you are
“complying” with the order.
…
I propose that you email me everything you intend to send in your response(s) and I
will show them to the lawyer to check them over to make sure they are OK.
Page 4 of 12
15. On 4 January 2018, Mr ERKENS-GOSS sent an email to Mr ZEGERS, which stated
in part:
Hi Pete,
Please find below the amended reply to the Subpoena.
If you decide to change it, please advise so I can have the lawyer look at it again.
…
16. The email of 4 January 2018 then went on to set out a draft response to the subpoena
to Mr ERKENS-GOSS.
Mr ERKENS-GOSS’ response to subpoena to give evidence
17. On or around 11 January 2018, Mr ERKENS-GOSS responded to the subpoena with a
document that was in substantially the same form as the draft that was shown to the
Accused by email on 4 January 2018.6
18. The response to subpoena claimed that the offending websites were owned by a
person named ‘Steven’, operating an email address by the name of ‘stevek64’. The
response went on to claim that:
a. the owner of the offending websites won them as part of an online
competition; and
b. the competition was automated and Mr ERKENS-GOSS had no interaction
with the owner of the offending websites.
19. On the basis of this response, the plaintiffs in the defamation proceeding excused Mr
ERKENS-GOSS from giving evidence in the proceeding, and tendered the document
that he had produced as an exhibit7.
20. The subpoena response from Mr ERKENS-GOSS dated 11 January 2018 was false
and misleading in that it:
a. falsely stated that someone other than Mr ZEGERS owned the offending
websites; and
b. falsely stated that Mr ERKENS-GOSS had not interacted with the person that
owned the offending websites.
6 Moroney v Zegers [2018] VSC 446, [29].
7 Moroney v Zegers [2018] VSC 446, [28].
Page 5 of 12
21. The subpoena response therefore had a tendency to pervert the course of justice in that
it would have misled the Court as to the author of the defamatory imputations.
Charge 2 – Attempt to pervert the course of justice (concealing evidence)
Deletion and recovery of incriminating emails
22. On 1 March 2018, the third day of the defamation trial, the presiding Judge asked the
parties why no step had been taken to forensically examine Mr ZEGERS’ computer8.
23. On or around 2 March 2018, 320 emails between Mr ZEGERS and Mr ERKENSGOSS
were deleted from Mr ZEGERS’ computer9. Those emails included the emails
set out above at paragraphs 9 to 16.
24. On 5 March 2018, the plaintiffs’ lawyers engaged Leanne BALIT, Manager and
Digital Forensic Examiner at Klein & Co, to examine Mr ZEGERS computer for the
purpose of the defamation proceeding10. Ms BALIT took possession of Mr ZEGERS’
computer for the purpose of examination.
25. On 14 March 2018, Ms BALIT produced her expert report to the Supreme Court as
part of the defamation proceeding, which identified the deletion of the emails between
Mr ZEGERS and Mr ERKENS-GOSS.
26. The deletion of emails had the tendency to pervert the course of justice in that it
would have denied the Court evidence regarding the author of the defamatory
imputations.
Charge 3 – Perjury
27. On 5 March 2018, Mr ZEGERS was called to give evidence in the defamation
proceedings.
28. Mr ZEGERS was affirmed and examined.
29. Mr ZEGERS then gave the following evidence under cross examination11:
I’m going to suggest to you that you knew because you were involved in the creation
of the website?---No, that’s not true12.
…
8 Moroney v Zegers [2018] VSC 446, [30].
9 Exhibit 4, Expert Report – Balit, [65].
10 Exhibit 4, Expert Report – Balit. The questions asked of Ms Balit are set out at Moroney v Zegers [2018] VSC
446, [33].
11 The answers of Mr Zegers are in bold font.
12 Transcript of hearing, 5 March 2018, page 597, lines 27-29.
Page 6 of 12
In this email the word propaganda is used twice and I suggest to you that that’s
indicative that you wrote it?---No, I didn’t.
And in this email the word information is in inverted commas?---M’mm.
Twice?---I don’t know. I didn’t write it.
I suggest to you that you did write this email?---No, I didn’t write it, sir. Absolutely
not.13
…
And unbelievable is spelt with exactly the same mistake, with a u-n and then a hyphen
believable, as in the material that you have admitted to have written?---Yes.
That’s correct, isn’t it?---I can see that, yes.
I suggest to you that that’s indicative that you wrote that email?---I did not.14
- - - of a colon, followed by caps. I put to you that you wrote this email?---No, I did
not.15
…
I am putting to you that you know who is behind victorianshooters.com?---No, I
don’t.16
30. On 6 March 2018, the cross-examination of Mr ZEGERS continued and Mr ZEGERS
gave the following relevant evidence:
…No – as I said, I deny that I wrote those emails that you refer to…
I’m referring to the emails that the plaintiffs sue on in this case?---The plaintiff –
sorry?
I’m referring to the emails that the plaintiffs sue on in this case?---Like, all the emails
you’re referring to?
Yes?---No, I didn’t.
I’m going to ask the court to infer that you also sent the emails to people, at least one
13 Transcript of hearing, 5 March 2018, page 599, lines 1-9.
14 Transcript of hearing, 5 March 2018, page 605, lines 2-7.
15 Transcript of hearing, 5 March 2018, page 611, lines 19-20.
16 Transcript of hearing, 5 March 2018, page 630, lines 11-12.
Page 7 of 12
person, if not more, who were not members of the SSAAV. What do you say to that?---
My answer is the same. I did not send the emails. I was not involved in these emails.
And I’m going to submit to the court that given the similarities between what you
admit to having written and the emails that the plaintiffs sue on, it is unbelievable that
you did not write the emails. What do you say to that?---I reiterate, I did not write the
emails that you refer to.17
31. The evidence given by Mr ZEGERS on 5 and 6 March 2018 was false in that:
a. Mr ZEGERS falsely denied being involved in the creation of the website
victorianshooters.com.
b. Mr ZEGERS falsely denied being involved in writing the Emails.
32. The false evidence was material to the defamation proceeding because it misled the
Court regarding the author of the defamatory imputations.
Further evidence of Mr ZEGERS
33. On 20 March 2018, after the receipt of Ms BALIT’s expert report, Mr ZEGERS
requested to make a statement to the Court.
34. Mr ZEGERS was affirmed and gave the following evidence:
MR ZEGERS: Your Honour, I apologise. I want to admit that when I gave evidence,
I made false statements to the court about my involvement with the website
victorianshooter.com and emails sent from that site.
HIS HONOUR: Just a minute. Before you say anything further - - -?---I’m aware of
the ramifications, Your Honour.
You have received advice?---Yes, I have.
Yes. Well, perhaps I should just make it clear that there is a prospect that in making
the statement that you are about to make, you may incriminate yourself into the
possible commission of an offence, and that you have a right to not to incriminate
yourself, and you don’t have to make a statement if you don’t want to. Do you
understand that you have that right?---I have, Your Honour, and - - -
And you have taken advice from a lawyer, have you, about doing this?---Yes, yes, I
have. Yes, I have, but I’ve come to the conclusion that I should come clean, and
stop lying.
17 Transcript of hearing, 6 March 2018, page 652, lines 16 to page 653 line 8.
Page 8 of 12
Yes, very well?---The website was setup by me, and I sent the emails. The reason
that I went anonymous was that I was bullied and threatened when I had an earlier
website. I’m sorry about telling the court lies. I made no profit financially, publicitywise
or any other personal advantage. I just wanted the membership of the SSAAV
to be properly informed and have the right to query – have them have the right to
query the Board when needed. No-one else knew that I ran the website or wrote the
emails.
Record of interview
35. Mr ZEGERS was interviewed (by appointment) on 10 December 202018.
36. Mr ZEGERS made the following comments during his interview:
a. Agreed that he was a member of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia in
Victoria (SSAAV) at “various times in the past” and that he had been Vice President
and President (Q18).
b. Agreed there was a civil hearing in the Supreme Court in which he was a defendant
(Q23).
c. Agreed it was a defamation proceeding in relation to eight emails that were sent
from different websites (Q25, 45)19.
d. Agreed he was “at loggerheads” with the SSAAV board (Q31 -32).
e. “I was accused of stealing the database with emails of the membership. That was
proven during the – the court case to be untrue. In fact, I believe a false affidavit
was – was presented to the court by an employee [David Croft] who also used to
be a board member but a long, long time before. And he was pressurised, as he
was an employee, he was pressurised to make the affidavit, but in court that was
more or less rescinded” (Q36, 37).
f. Agreed that, during the course of the defamation proceedings, he denied sending
the emails (Q51).
g. He had never been part of a trial or a court hearing before [the defamation
proceeding] (Q53).
h. He was affirmed when he gave evidence in the defamation proceeding [Q54].
i. He decided to “come clean” (Q62).
j. “I said to the judge, you know, ‘I lied to you that I never produced these emails.
But what I said in the emails was the truth, as I saw it at the time” (Q63).
18 p.17, para 5, statement of Senior Constable Matthew Makin dated 15 November 2021, depositions.
19 Specifically, 6 emails from [email protected], 1 email from [email protected] and 1
email from [email protected] (Q46).
Page 9 of 12
k. Agreed that he entered the witness box in the defamation proceedings, took the
affirmation and was asked separate questions from the plaintiff’s counsel (Q66).
l. Agreed Counsel asked him “did you have any or do you have any involvement with
victorianshooters.com” and that he replied “No, I don’t” (Q67).
m. Agreed that, during the defamation proceedings, he basically denied being involved
with the web site and sending the defamatory emails whilst he was affirmed (Q90
– 92).
n. Agreed the turning point in the defamation proceedings was on the 2nd of March
2018 when the judge asked about his computer and whether it should be forensically
examined and a forensic computer analyst had been tasked to investigate his
computer (Q93).
o. Agreed that a report of the analysis of his computer was provided to the Court
presiding over the defamation proceedings and that on 20 March 2018, he entered
the witness box, was affirmed and said ‘your honour, I apologise, I’ve wanted to
admit that when I gave evidence, I made false statements to the Court about my
involvement with … victorianshooter.com’ (Q104).
p. He was feeling “on the back foot” and a “bit defensive” and that’s why he gave false
information at the time (Q119).
q. He “came clean” because he was “found out” and was advised by his lawyers to
invoke his rights against self-incrimination (Q121). But he thought, “that’s rubbish”
and “came clean” (Q122).
r. What he wrote in the Emails was not a lie (Q125).
s. Peter ERKENS-GOSS set up the website for him (Q152).
t. He emailed Peter ERKENS-GOSS asking him to make it look like he wasn’t
involved (Q195) basically asking him to make up a “cover-up story” (Q195). He
made the request by email from his personal email [email protected]
(Q198).
u. He deleted 30 or 40 incriminating emails to Peter ERKENS-GOSS and possibly a
friend who rewrote his writings (Q250, 246 – 248).
v. He believed the other side lied a few times as well (Q337) but that doesn’t entitle
him to be a liar (Q338).
37. In his statement dated 15 November 2021, Senior Constable Matthew MAKIN (the
officer who interviewed Mr ZEGERS) comments “ZEGERS presented as a gentleman
and was at all times cooperative”20.
20 p.18, para 15, statement of Senior Constable Matthew MAKIN dated 15 November 2021, depositions.
Page 10 of 12
Timing of guilty plea
38. On 31 July 2022, Mr ZEGERS gave an indication to the Crown (through his lawyers)
that he would plead guilty.
39. Mr ZEGERS then formally pleaded guilty at the Melbourne Magistrates Court on 8
August 2022.
40. The prosecution concede Mr ZEGERS has pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable
opportunity.
Jonathon McCarthy
Principal Solicitor Advocate
Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria
2 March 2018
- - -