Flanagan, John & Anor v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Ors Howard, Robert Charles v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police & Ors Grollo, Bruno v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
[1995] FCA 909
•15 Oct 1995
IN THE FEDERAL COURT )
VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 612 of 1995
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN:JOHN FLANAGAN and ANGELA DIANNE FLANAGAN
Applicants
AND:COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
First Respondent
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Second Respondent
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent
No VG 613 of 1995
BETWEEN:ROBERT CHARLES HOWARD
Applicant
AND:COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
First Respondent
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Second Respondent
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent
No VG 747 of 1995
BETWEEN:BRUNO GROLLO
Applicant
AND:COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
First Respondent
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Second Respondent
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent
CORAM: RYAN J
PLACE: MELBOURNE
DATE: 15 OCTOBER 1995
REASONS FOR RULING ON APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY
THE COURT ORDERS:
That the respondents produce for inspection by the applicants paragraph 27 of the document dated 13 June 1993.
That costs of the notice of motion dated 24 October 1995 be reserved.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in O 36 of the Rules of the Federal Court of Australia
IN THE FEDERAL COURT )
VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 612 of 1995
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN:JOHN FLANAGAN and ANGELA DIANNE FLANAGAN
Applicants
AND:COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
First Respondent
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Second Respondent
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent
No VG 613 of 1995
BETWEEN:ROBERT CHARLES HOWARD
Applicant
AND:COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
First Respondent
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Second Respondent
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent
No VG 747 of 1995
BETWEEN:BRUNO GROLLO
Applicant
AND:COMMISSIONER OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
First Respondent
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Second Respondent
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Third Respondent
CORAM: RYAN J
PLACE: MELBOURNE
DATE: 15 OCTOBER 1995
REASONS FOR RULING ON APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY
RYAN J: By motion on notice dated 24 October 1995 each applicant seeks:
An Order that the First Respondent provide further and better discovery of the whole of the document described as Australian Federal Police Minute of Operation Poker Enquiry Team from Detective Sergeant McDermott dated 13 June 1993 re Review of Enquiry as at June 1993.
An Order that the Applicant be entitled to inspect the abovementioned document."
Part of the document dated 13 June 1993 was discovered by the first respondent on 17 August 1995 in the proceedings numbered VG 612 of 1995. That part is in evidence before the Full Court which commenced the substantive trial of this application on 9 October 1995. That trial has been adjourned part-heard to 27 November 1995. The part of the document of 13 June 1993 which is in evidence before the Full Court is in these terms:
This is the second Briefing Paper written directly to members of the investigation team.
In some ways, although the matters under investigation have not changed since the first review paper in January 1993, circumstances have compelled a change in the way we approach the investigation itself. There is little point in adhering to an investigation plan when everything but the plan has changed during the six month period.
I acknowledge the difficulties encountered by the operation during that time; because most investigation avenues have been obstructed by the suspects, there has been a tendency for the enquiry to turn in on itself.
However, if you analyse what has occurred since search warrant execution, although they have delayed the operation, the suspects have not been able to stop the investigation. The credit for this belongs as much to the DPP as it does to the AFP but admittedly, the enquiry team has played an important role in this process.
The investigation itself has always been on solid ground and the facts uncovered to date can only have strengthened the case for the prosecution. We know where the evidence is and the only real problem left is to obtain access to core documents or key witnesses. This can only be a question of time. Time to complete the investigation is no longer the major consideration in operation planning.
As far as the effect on the operation of an ATO decision to issue assessments, for your purposes, it is sufficient to know that the investigation will remain focused on the $59m profit figure. The operation will continue in the belief that ATO will issue comprehensive assessments to fully support their complaint. As long as the enquiry team believes that the suspects have committed the offences, members will take all reasonable actions required to compile a Brief of Evidence and lay charges.
I know it is difficult to keep up with the amount of reading required to stay in touch with the investigation. I am also aware that verbal briefings sometime fail to get sufficient information across to individual members. Hopefully, this paper will go some of the way in giving you an overview of the operation.
The operation and team members will continue to attract a measure of criticism, both internally and externally. Accept this as an acknowledgment that our presence is being noticed. Be satisfied that at least one principal suspect is sufficiently worried by our enquiries to risk further criminal activity to defeat the investigation.
Discussion (A) - Enquiry concept
It will be fairly obvious that the operation is going to some lengths to document the investigation. Over 400 pages of running sheet entries, 100 pages of 'COPS' entries and numerous reports are testimony to the importance placed on recording all aspects of the investigation. Some of this information is not directly related to the investigation and more properly falls under the category of 'intelligence'. It is unusual to find a fraud investigation with such an emphasis on information gathering, mainly because fraud offences (and this includes Operation Poker) are normally anchored in physical, paper based exhibits.
The reason for recording every facet of the operation is equally obvious, the investigation was commenced with a degree of healthy `suspicion' built into the operation structure. I was directed to ensure that the AFP Operation Poker investigation maintained a high level of integrity. It was perceived that the main threat to the success of the operation was not from a lack of evidence but the power and influence which the Grollo Group could bring to bear against the investigation.
I interpreted this direction to equate to keeping all information out in the open and constantly updating the Division on all aspects of the operation. This approach has absorbed a lot of resources but it is a fall sale should the operation eventually terminate without achieving investigation aims.
The only exception to this rule has been my interaction with the associated investigation, Operation Retrieve. You will have seen me make several references to this investigation as the `highly protected' matter. You have been given a basic understanding of this investigation and should be aware of the need for continuing security about Operation Retrieve. It should be sufficient to say to you that this operation is showing positive results at the present time and may greatly assist Operation Poker if it succeeds."
By its affidavit of documents sworn 17 August 1995 in proceedings numbered VG 612 of 1995, the first respondent described as follows the document set out above:
"96. Copy Minute June 1993 AFP internal Extract of Minute
(McDermott to
Operation Poker team)"
By the amended statement of claim in VG 612 of 1995, the applicants have alleged that an application for a telephone interception warrant which was issued on 2 June 1993 was made on behalf of the Australian Federal Police ("the AFP") for the purpose of what has been called "the corruption investigation" by way of distinguishing it from what has been called, in the same pleading, "the tax fraud investigation". The latter investigation has been described in para 9 of the amended statement of claim as:
"an investigation by the AFP into the offences allegedly involving Bruno Grollo of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth contrary to section 86(1)(e) and section 86A of the Crimes Act 1914 and defrauding the Commonwealth contrary to section 29D of that Act (the fax fraud investigation)."
It is common ground that the AFP has assigned to the corruption investigation the code name "Operation Retrieve" and to the tax fraud investigation the code name "Operation Poker". Paragraph 16 of the amended statement of claim is in these terms:
"The purpose alternatively, the dominant and/or substantial purpose alternatively, a purpose for which the warrant applicant was made was to assist in connection with the corruption investigation."
It is said by Mr Merkel QC in support of the application for further discovery that para 16 requires the Court to examine all the circumstances, as at June 1993, of both Operation Poker and Operation Retrieve to see what inferences can be drawn as to purpose or dominant or substantial purpose. I do not agree that the issue is as wide-ranging as that. The inquiry required by the pleading is into the purpose for which the warrant application was made. Relevant to that enquiry will be any material tending to support the inference that a purpose of making the warrant application was to assist with Operation Retrieve or tending to negative the inference that a purpose of the application for the warrant was to assist with Operation Poker.
There is also an allegation in para 20 of the amended statement of claim of non-disclosure to the eligible Judge who issued the warrant, of facts and matters "which were or may be material to the exercise of his discretion to issue the warrant". Particulars of that allegation are:
"At the time the warrant application was made the applicant for the warrant did not inform the Judge:
(a)that the or a purpose for which the warrant application was made was to assist in connection with the corruption investigation which did not involve a class 1 or a class 2 offence.
(b)that the deponent of the Affidavit and the Informant referred to therein did not have any or sufficient knowledge of the tax fraud investigation to justify the matters set out in the Affidavit;
(c)that the applicant for the warrant and in particular the deponent and Informant referred to in the Affidavit:
(i)were involved in the corruption investigation;
(ii)were not involved in the tax fraud investigation.
(d)that it was intended by the applicant for the warrant that information obtained by intercepting communications to or from the telephone service would be used to assist in connection with the corruption investigation;
(e)that John Flanagan was the subject and/or target of the investigation in respect of which the warrant application was made and was not involved in or being investigated in connection with the tax fraud investigation;
(f)that the AFP had established separate investigation teams for the corruption and tax fraud investigations and:
i)the warrant application was prepared, conducted and made by the corruption investigation team;
ii)intercepts pursuant to the warrant were intended to be used by the corruption investigation team as part of that investigation.
(g)that all prior applications for the exercise of statutory power in relation to the corruption investigation had been made solely in reliance upon corruption and not tax fraud offences."
In para 24 of the amended statement of claim it is alleged that the information supplied to the eligible Judge in the form of an affidavit by John William Draffin, an Acting Commander of the AFP, was not reasonably capable of satisfying the Judge of certain matters required by s 46 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 ("the Act"). The applicant provided, amongst others, the following and better particulars of that allegation:
"(a)The affidavit of John William Draffin sworn 1 June 1993 did not contain any or any sufficient information:
i)relating to or reporting on the progress that had been made in the tax fraud investigation;
ii)relating to the intention of the AFP to charge, among others, Bruno Grollo with conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth;
iii)relating to the need and the basis for any need for any further information to justify charges in relation to the tax fraud investigation;
iv)which would enable the judge to conclude that the charges identified in the affidavit had a foundation in fact;
...
ix)to the effect that the informant referred to in the affidavit was not involved in the tax fraud investigation and had no direct knowledge of the subject matter of the investigation and in particular, the matters attributed to her in the affidavit;
...
(b)The affidavit did not purport to address and/or did not address in any or any sufficient particularity the following matters:
...
iii)to what extent the information derived from the interception would be likely to assist in connection with the investigation of the offence or offences;
iv)to what extent methods of investigating the offence or offences that do not involve so intercepting communications have been used by, or are available to, the AFP;
...
vii)the stage that had been reached in the tax fraud investigation where charges were able and intended to be laid and that no further information was required or necessary to do so."
Paragraph 4 of the respondents' defence to the amended statement of claim contains the following substantive allegation:
"The conduct investigated in the corruption investigation is particularised in the indictment filed against Bruno Grollo, Robert John Howard and John Flanagan in the County Court at Melbourne and is described in the Affidavit of John William Draffin sworn on 1 June 1993 in support of the application for the warrant referred to in paragraph 7 of the Amended Statement of Claim, a copy of which affidavit may be inspected by arrangement with the First and Second Respondents' solicitors ("the Affidavit in Support"). A copy of the indictment is in the possession of the First Applicant or may be inspected by arrangement with the First and Second Respondents' solicitors. That conduct amounted to an attempt to pervert and hinder the tax fraud investigation. The nature of the conduct investigated in the tax fraud investigation is particularised in the charges arising out of it laid against Bruno Grollo, Rino Grollo and Bruce Dowding in the Magistrates' Court at Melbourne and is described (so far as it was then known) in the Affidavit in Support. Copies of the charges may be inspected by arrangement with the First and Second Respondents' solicitors. Those charges allege that Bruno Grollo was a party to a conspiracy which commenced on 1 June 1981 and continued until 26 April 1994. The nature of the conduct investigated gives rise to an inference that the motive of the First Applicant for engaging in that conduct was to pervert and hinder the tax fraud investigation, and the AFP (by its officer John William Draffin) and the First and Second Respondents believed and continue to believe that the motive of the First Applicant was to pervert and hinder that investigation."
By way of response to paras 16 and 20 of the amended statement of claim, it is pleaded in the defence:
"16.As to paragraph 16:
(a)They deny that the sole purpose for which the warrant application was made was to assist in connection with the corruption investigation.
(b)They admit that a purpose for which the warrant application was made was to assist in connection with the corruption investigation.
(c)They say that a substantial purpose or alternatively the substantial purpose for which the warrant application was made was to assist in connection with the tax fraud investigation in the manner described in the Affidavit in Support.
PARTICULARS
The acts, facts, matters and circumstances upon which the First and Second Respondents rely to contend that a substantial purpose or the substantial purpose for which the warrant application was made was to assist in connection with the tax fraud investigation are:
(i)That the corruption investigation arose out of and formed part of the tax fraud investigation, as alleged in paragraph 4 hereof.
(ii)That the warrant application would have been made even if no prosecution or other legal proceedings relating directly and specifically to the corruption offences had been contemplated.
(iii)That the warrant application was made for the purpose of obtaining information of the nature described in paragraph 29 of the Affidavit in Support.
(iv)That the state of mind of the relevant members of the AFP, being Acting Assistant Commissioner Hadgkiss and Acting Commander Draffin, was that the conduct that was the subject of the corruption investigation ought to be investigated for, inter alia, the purpose of obtaining information of the nature described in paragraph 29 of the Affidavit in Support.
(v)That by reason of the tendency of the conduct referred to in the Affidavit in Support to hinder, delay, obstruct and pervert the tax fraud investigation, the AFP was bound to investigate that conduct to assist in or in connection with that investigation.
(d)Save as aforesaid, they deny each and every allegation in paragraph 16.
...
As to paragraph 20:-
(a)They admit that the applicant for the warrant did not inform the eligible Judge in terms that a purpose for which the warrant application was made was to assist in connection with the corruption investigation and did not inform the eligible Judge in terms that the corruption investigation did not involve a Class 1 or Class 2 offence, but they say that the fact that information obtained pursuant to the warrant was likely to assist in connection with the corruption investigation was obvious from the Affidavit in Support. They say further that the fact that it was a purpose of the AFP to use the warrant in connection with the corruption investigation was (except insofar as the corruption investigation formed part of the tax fraud investigation) not a matter material to the exercise by the eligible Judge of his discretion to issue the warrant, and that the AFP disclosed to the eligible Judge all matters material to the exercise of his discretion to issue the warrant.
...
(e)They deny that John Flanagan was the only subject and/or target of the corruption investigation and say that Bruno Grollo was at all material times also a subject and/or target of that investigation and that both John Flanagan and Bruno Grollo were involved in and were being investigated in connection with the tax fraud investigation."
The material in the remaining, undiscovered, part of the briefing paper of 13 June 1993 has been described in an affidavit sworn 26 October 1995 by Ms Armour, the solicitor for the first and second respondents. It is unnecessary to refer to that description in detail because, with the acquiescence of the respondents, I have examined the whole document for myself. However, Ms Armour's affidavit provides a useful point of reference for consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the applicants, particularly by Mr Heliotis of Counsel for the applicant, Grollo, contending for the relevance of the undiscovered passages.
Before examining each group of those paragraphs which the applicants claim to be entitled to inspect, it is convenient to set out my understanding of the principles to be applied on a contested application of this kind. In the first place, it does not follow from a concession that part of the document dealing with a single, general, subject-matter is relevant, that the rest of the document is relevant. The test of relevance is laid down by O 15 r 2 of the Rules of this Court which obliges a party to file and serve:
"(a)A list in accordance with rule 6, of documents relating to any matter in question between him and the party giving the notice of discovery."
A document can be said to relate to a matter in issue if it would advance a party's own case or damage that of his adversary, or lead to a train of inquiry which would have either of those effects; Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341 at 345. The test as so formulated is sometimes described as the Peruvian Guano test being derived from Compagnie Financiere Commerciale Du Pacifique v The Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55 where Brett LJ said, at 63:
"It seems to me that every document relates to the matters in question in the action, which not only would be evidence upon any issue, but also which, it is reasonable to suppose, contains information which may - not which must - either directly or indirectly enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary. I have put in the words "either directly or indirectly," because, as it seems to me, a document can properly be said to contain information which may enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary, if it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of inquiry, which may have either of these two consequences: the question upon a summons for a further affidavit is whether the party issuing it can shew, from one of the sources mentioned in Jones v Monte Video Gas Co 5 QBD 556, that the party swearing the first affidavit has not set out all the documents falling within the definition which I have mentioned and being in his possession or control."
In GE Capital Corporate Finance Group Ltd v Bankers Trust Co and others [1995] 2 All ER 993, Hoffmann LJ, at 997 rejected a submission that the test for whether part of a document could be withheld was not whether that part was relevant (in the Peruvian Guano sense) but whether it dealt with a "separate subject matter" so that it was, in effect, two separate documents on one piece of paper. His Lordship continued:
"This would, in my view, be contrary to all previous authority which has consistently applied the same Peruvian Guano test to a covered-up part of the document as to the whole.
...
In my view, the test for whether on discovery part of a document can be withheld on grounds of irrelevance is simply whether that part is irrelevant. The test for whether part can be withheld on grounds of privilege is simply whether that part is privileged. There is no additional requirement that the part must deal with an entirely different subject matter from the rest.
The Peruvian Guano test must be applied to the information contained in the covered-up part of the document, regardless of its physical or grammatical relationship to the rest. Relevant and irrelevant information may, as in this case, be contained in the same sentence. Provided that the irrelevant part can be covered without destroying the sense of the rest or making it misleading, a party is permitted to do so. In Jones v Andrews (1888) 58 LT 601 an application to require a party to uncover parts of sentences of which the rest had been disclosed was, on the facts, unsuccessful (cf Carew v White (1842) 5 Beav 172, 49 ER 542).
The fact that the blanked-out part deals with the same subject matter as the part admitted to be relevant may mean that the former is also likely to be relevant. On the other hand it may not. The link between the two pieces of information which makes it appropriate to say that the subject matter is the same may be irrelevant to any issue in the action. Thus the memorandum from which I have quoted deals in one sense with the same subject matter, viz GE deals which have gone wrong. But given the restrictions on the use of similar fact evidence, this is not enough to entail the relevance of the other transaction."
To similar effect, Leggatt LJ observed, at 998:
"In the disputed documents the plaintiffs had blanked out the name, amount or other confidential details of transactions unrelated to the Magnet management buy-out, with which the plaintiffs were concerned. The judge made several references to these details as being `at least potentially relevant'. That is not the test. The test is whether it is not unreasonable to suppose that the passages blanked out do contain information which may, either directly or indirectly, enable Messrs Arthur Andersen either to advance their own case or to damage the plaintiffs' case."
Paragraphs 13 - 17
These paragraphs are set out under the heading "Structure of the Enquiry". They are partly historical and partly descriptive of the investigative approach which the writer considers should be taken in the future. Mr Heliotis suggested that they were made relevant by certain admissions made by Mr Hadgkiss in cross-examination before the Full Court that the AFP had received legal advice to the effect that it would be necessary, if the AFP were to prove its case in respect of the tax fraud investigation, to compel by subpoena the attendance at the committal hearing of a large number of witnesses. I accept that the pleadings make relevant documentary material bearing on the question of whether, before 2 June 1993, the AFP believed that it had sufficient evidence on which to lay charges for offences disclosed by the tax fraud investigation. However, I do not regard the evidence of Mr Hadgkiss as making relevant, in the appropriate sense, the subject document.
Paragraph 18
This paragraph bears the sub-heading "Privilege and the validity of the search warrants". It has been accurately described by Ms Armour. It contains some expressions of view by the writer about information required to procure the issue of search warrants and the accuracy of that information, as well as a recital of the difficulties encountered as a result of injunctions obtained restraining access by the AFP to material gathered on the execution of search warrants. However, after a close reading of para 18, I cannot see that it is capable of advancing the case of the applicants or damaging the case of the respondents or leading to a train of inquiry which would have either of those effects.
Paragraph 19
This paragraph has also been accurately described by Ms Armour as far as it is possible to do so without revealing its contents. It has not been the subject of specific submissions on behalf of the applicants, and I am satisfied on a close examination of its contents against the background of the pleadings, that it does not contain any matter which is relevant in the requisite sense to any issue raised by the application presently before the Full Court.
Paragraph 20
This paragraph encapsulates the view formed by the writer of evidence obtainable from an identified group of witnesses and the utility of that evidence in relation to the tax fraud investigation. In my view, it is not even arguably relevant to any issue raised by the present litigation.
Paragraphs 21-25
These paragraphs are set out under the sub-heading "Concept of the offences under investigation" and embody the writer's hypotheses, some of them highly coloured, as to the motive for the commission of the presumptive offences under investigation by Operation Poker. They involve certain assumptions as to accounting techniques and estimates of the cost of completing the Rialto Towers which have been adopted by the Grollo Group, but, even on the most elastic view of the issues presently before the Court, I cannot regard them as relevant to any of those issues.
Paragraphs 26-30
These paragraphs are prefaced by the sub-heading "Investigation strategy". I regard para 27 as relevant to the issue of whether the AFP had, by June 1993, sufficient evidence with which to charge the suspect with the offences under investigation by Operation Poker. The remaining paragraphs are completely prospective in character, containing no reference to the fruits of any telephone interception warrant or the purposes underlying the application therefor. Even if I were wrong in this analysis of paras 26 and 28-30, I would uphold the submission of the AFP that those paragraphs are protected from production on the ground of public interest immunity.
Paragraphs 31-36
These paragraphs contain instruction of a mechanical kind under the heading "Document handling and use of the computer data base". They are again prospective in character and, I consider, entirely irrelevant to any issue discernible on the face of the present pleadings.
Paragraphs 37-39
These paragraphs are entirely administrative in character, apparently intended to identify areas in which, in the writer's opinion, members of the Operation Poker team "may still lack sufficient understanding". I am unable to perceive that they have any relevance to the issues in the subject litigation.
Paragraph 40
This paragraph has been accurately described by Ms Armour. It embodies only the writer's understanding of the alternative basis on which tax assessments might be issued in respect of the Rialto project and how those assessments might be viewed by the Federal Court on appeal. It contains nothing which I can discern of relevance to the present action.
Paragraph 41
This paragraph is prefaced by the sub-heading "Purpose of the investigation - what the operation seeks to prove". With that addition, an accurate appreciation of it can be obtained from Ms Armour's description. It makes no reference to the corruption investigation or the use of information obtained, or to be obtained, by means of any telephone inception warrant. I therefore uphold the submission that it is not relevant in the requisite sense to any issue raised by the present pleadings.
Paragraph 42
This paragraph contains advice to team members required to undertake "interviews where the witness refuses to co-operate with the investigation". It illustrates the problem by reference to difficulties encountered in the past but, in my view, none of its sub-paragraphs is relevant to any issue which is at present substantively before this Court.
Paragraphs 43-50
As indicated by Ms Armour, these paras are generally hortatory in character. They are completely devoid of any reference to specific factual matters and, I believe, are incapable of assisting, either directly or by initiating a train of inquiry, in advancing the case of the applicants or damaging that of the respondents.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I have concluded that of the paragraphs numbered 13 to 40 inclusive of the document dated 13 June 1993 only paragraph 27 should be produced for inspection by the applicants. There will be an order accordingly and I shall reserve the costs of all parties of each motion on notice dated 24 October 1995.
I certify that this and the preceding sixteen (16) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his Honour Justice Ryan
Associate:
Date:
VG 612 of 1995
Counsel for the applicants: Mr R Merkel QC
with Mr J Judd
Solicitors for the applicants: Michael Brereton & Company
Counsel for first and second
respondents: Mr M Weinberg QC
with Mr R Brett
Solicitor for the first and
second respondents: Director of Public Prosecutions
VG 613 of 1995
Counsel for the applicant: Mr J Beach
Solicitors for the applicant: Galbally Fraser & Rolfe
Counsel for first and second
respondents: Mr M Weinberg QC
with Mr R Brett
Solicitor for the first and
second respondents: Director of Public Prosecutions
VG 747 of 1995
Counsel for the applicant: Mr C Heliotis
with Mr J Judd
Solicitors for the applicant: Arnold Bloch Leibler
Counsel for first and second
respondents: Mr M Weinberg QC
with Mr R Brett
Solicitor for the first and
second respondents: Director of Public Prosecutions
Hearing dates: 25 and 27 October 1995
Date of judgment: 15 November 1995
0