R v Sidaros (No 5) - [2020] ACTSC 354

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sidaros (No 5)
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 354
Hearing Dates:	30 November, 1 – 4, 7 – 10 December 2020
Decision Date:	23 December 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [654]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE – Attempted murder – intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – attempted arson with intent to endanger life – aggravated burglary – arson – act endangering life – dishonestly ride in motor vehicle without consent – accused is a member of the Comanchero outlaw motorcycle gang – complainant is a former member – issue of identity of the offender – strong circumstantial case – not guilty of attempted murder – guilty on all other counts
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 12, 19, 27(3)(d), 117 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 45A, 311, 312, 318(2), 404 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 38, 136, 165(1)(e) Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), ss 49(5), 68 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), s 181(1)(b), Dictionary Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 189 Supreme Court Act 1993 (ACT), ss 68B, 68C
Cases Cited:	Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645
Parties:	The Queen (Crown)
Axel Sidaros (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel
T Hickey (Crown)
M Thangaraj SC and S Pararajasingham (Accused)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 312 of 2018 SCC 313 of 2018
MOSSOP J:
Introduction

1. The accused, Axel Sidaros, faces seven counts on an indictment dated 7 August 2020. The charges arise out of an incident that occurred on 28 June 2018 when four persons entered a residential property where they committed acts of arson and firearms were discharged. The offences the accused is alleged to have committed are as follows:

(a) count 1: attempted murder of Peter Zdravkovic contrary to s 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and s 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);
(b) count 2: intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Peter Zdravkovic contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act;
(c) count 3: attempted arson with intent to endanger life contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act and s 44 of the Criminal Code;
(d) count 4: aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code;
(e) count 5: arson contrary to s 404 of the Criminal Code;
(f) count 6: act endangering life contrary to s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act; and
(g) count 7: dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code.
2. Counts 1 to 6 are alleged to be offences of joint commission under s 45A of the Criminal Code.
3. The accused has also been charged with a transfer charge of failing to properly store ammunition contrary to s 181(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). He entered a plea of guilty to this charge after judgment was reserved.

Crown case

4. On 28 June 2018 four people were captured on CCTV entering the residential property of Peter Zdravkovic. Three came in from the rear of the property. In accordance with the order in which they appeared they were identified as offender 1, offender 2, and offender 3. They came to the rear of the house. The carport of the house was opened and another offender driving a vehicle (offender 4) arrived with containers full of petrol. There was an exchange of fire at the rear of the house during which shots were fired by two of the intruders (offender 1 and offender 2) at Mr Zdravkovic, and Mr Zdravkovic fired at least two shots at the intruders. As a result of the shots fired by the intruders Mr Zdravkovic lost a finger. Having doused three cars on the property with petrol, the intruders set fire to them before escaping in the vehicle. Mr Zdravkovic fired shots at them from the front of his house as they escaped. The Crown case is that the accused was offender 2.

Election

5. As a result of amendments to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency period, an election could be made for a trial by
judge alone in these proceedings, notwithstanding that murder is an “excluded offence”:
s 68B(3A)(b). The charge of attempted murder by joint commission is within the
definition of “excluded offence” because the reference to the offence of murder includes

a reference to attempted murder: Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s 189. An election for trial
by judge alone was filed on 17 August 2020.

Directions

6. Under s 68C(2) of the Supreme Court Act I am obliged to set out:

(a) the principles of law applied; and
(b) the findings of fact which I make.
7. I am also obliged to take into account any warning or direction to be given, or comment to be made, that would have been made to a jury in the proceedings had the matter been tried before a jury: s 68C(3).

General principles

8.       In this part of my reasons I set out the general directions and warnings that I would have given to a jury. The elements of the offences and my findings in relation to them are set out later in these reasons.
9.       The Crown bears the onus or burden of proving the guilt of the accused. The Crown has asserted that the accused has committed criminal offences, therefore the Crown must prove that the accused committed those offences. The accused does not have to prove that he did not commit those offences.
10.     The level or standard of proof required in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be found to be guilty of the offences unless the evidence, which I accept, satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.
11.     The accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the offences with which he is charged, unless, and until, the evidence which I accept satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. If the evidence which I accept satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt, then he loses the presumption of innocence and the appropriate verdict is guilty. If, however, the evidence which I accept fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt, then he remains presumed to be innocent and the appropriate verdict is not guilty.
12.     As I am the judge of the facts, as well as the judge of the law, I must bring an open and unbiased mind to evidentiary material. I must view that material coldly, clinically and dispassionately, and I must not let emotion enter into the decision-making process, because both the Crown and the accused are entitled to my verdict free of partiality or prejudice, favour or ill will.
13.     I must determine whether each of the witnesses is a reliable witness. That is, whether the witness has an accurate memory of the events about which the witness has given evidence and whether the witness is truthfully conveying that recollection to the court.
14.     I must determine the relevant facts according to the evidentiary material, considered logically and rationally, without acting capriciously or irrationally.
15.     I may use my common sense, my individual experience and wisdom, in assessing the evidence given by the witnesses.
16.     I am not required by any rule of law, logic or common sense to accept a witness wholly or reject a witness wholly. I can accept everything that a witness has said if I consider all of it worthy of acceptance. I can reject everything that a witness has said if I consider none of it worthy of acceptance. I can accept that part of what a witness said I consider worthy of acceptance and reject the rest of what that witness said as I consider it unworthy of acceptance. I must determine the weight to be given to those parts of the evidence which I accept.
17.     In a criminal trial the Crown must prove the essential elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown does not have to prove everything about which evidence has been given beyond reasonable doubt.

Audiovisual evidence

18. In this trial evidence was given by audiovisual link and with a support person present. That is a usual practice in the ACT. I must not draw any adverse inference against the accused and the evidence should not be given any greater or lesser weight because the evidence was given in that way: Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) ss 49(5), 68.

Evidence from the accused

19. In this case the accused did not give evidence on oath or affirmation. He was not obliged to do so. The onus at all times lies upon the Crown. At all times the burden lies upon the Crown to prove each element of each offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Separate charges

20. Each of the charges against the accused must be considered separately. There may be a logical reason for a verdict of guilty or not guilty on one or more of the charges and a different verdict on other charges. If I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt in relation to one of the charges as a result of my assessment of the evidence of a particular witness, I must consider what effect, if any, the doubts that I have about the evidence on that charge has in relation to the other charges.

Circumstantial case

The Crown’s case against the accused is largely circumstantial. Except for certain
admissions relied upon by the Crown, there is no direct evidence that the accused was the person involved in the commission of these offences and identified by the Crown as
“offender 2”. The Crown must prove that, in light of all the circumstances established by
the evidence, there is no explanation reasonably available on the evidence other than the guilt of the accused. This requires that an alternative explanation rest upon something more than mere conjecture. I must look at the evidence holistically, rather than adopting a piecemeal approach.

Complaint evidence

22. In relation to evidence of complaints made by Mr Zdravkovic to the police after the event, if I accept that the complaints were made and that the evidence is consistent with the evidence of Mr Zdravkovic, then I can use that evidence in two ways:

(a)

First, I can use evidence of what was said in the complaint as some evidence that the incident did occur as the complainant said. The law says that I may, because of the circumstances in which the complaint was made, be entitled to use what was said in that complaint as some evidence of the truth of what the complainant alleged against a person. I must consider whether I draw that conclusion in this particular case and so treat the complaint as evidence of the alleged incident by the complainant. If I do use it as some evidence of the incident that is the subject of the relevant count, then I must determine what weight to give it.

(b)

Second, whether I do use the evidence of complaint in that way or not, the fact that the complainant raised the allegation against the accused at the time and in the manner that he did may lead me to accept the evidence he gave. In other words, it makes his evidence more believable than if he had not raised the allegation as he did. If I use the evidence in that way, I must determine what weight the evidence should be given.
I must, however, bear in mind that the fact that a person says something on more than one occasion does not mean that what is said is necessarily true or accurate. A false or inaccurate statement does not become more reliable just because it is repeated on one or more occasions.

Expert evidence

23.     In this case, Dr Amanda Van Diemen, Clive Roberts, Gita Lala, Scott Rees and Anthony Macken were called as expert witnesses. An expert witness is a person who has
specialised knowledge based on that person’s training, study or experience. A witness

with such specialised knowledge may express an opinion on matters within his or her
particular area of expertise. The value of any expert opinion is dependent on:

(a) the reliability and accuracy of the material which the expert used to reach his or her opinion; and
(b) the degree to which the expert analysed the material upon which the opinion was based, and the skill and experience brought to bear in formulating the opinion given.
24.     Experts can differ in the level and degree of their experience, training and study, yet each can still be an expert qualified to give an opinion, where that opinion is based on that
witness’s specialised knowledge.
25.     The evidence of Dr Van Diemen was admitted to provide me with evidence of the extent
and seriousness of Mr Zdravkovic’s injuries. The purpose of Ms Lala’s evidence was to
provide an explanation and summary of the results of DNA testing carried out on various
items found at the crime scene. Mr Robert’s evidence was given by reference to a report
he prepared in relation to firearms involved in the incident. This included evidence about the nature of firearm damage at the crime scene, a comparison of cartridge cases test fired from a shotgun registered to the accused with cartridge cases found at the scene
and information about cartridges found inside the accused’s shotgun when police
executed a search warrant on his premises. Mr Rees’ evidence was admitted to provide an explanation of data extracted from the accused’s phone, which was seized by police.
The evidence of Mr Macken was led in order to provide information about the nature and operations of outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMCGs), including the Comanchero motorcycle
gang, and opinions about the accused’s position within the Comancheros.
26.     I must consider the extent to which the opinions expressed by the various experts may be applied in the particular circumstances of this case. I am not obliged to act upon the
expert evidence, particularly if the facts upon which the expert’s opinion is based do not
accord with the facts as I find them to be. I am also, to a degree, entitled to take into account my common sense and my own experiences if they are relevant to the issue upon which the expert evidence relates.
27.     There was no real challenge to the reliability of the expert opinions expressed by Dr Van Diemen, Ms Lala, Mr Roberts, Mr Rees or Mr Macken. Therefore, if I am to reject that evidence then there must be some good reason for doing so. I must, however, carefully bear in mind any limitations on the scope of their opinions relevant to the issues that I have to decide and the evidence that was elicited from them in cross-examination.

Prison informer

I am required to give a direction about the reliability of a witness’, AB, evidence because
he is a prison informer: Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 165(1)(e). The experience of courts over the years has demonstrated that the evidence of such witnesses is potentially unreliable. This could be for a variety of reasons. For example, the witness is likely to be of bad character, the evidence is easily concocted, the witness is likely to have been motivated to concoct such evidence and there is usually no way an accused can meet such evidence except by his own denial. Because of this, it is necessary to scrutinise the evidence of the witness in question with great care.

29. In this case, the witness in question received several benefits for giving evidence against the accused. First, the police did not oppose a bail application he made and bail was granted. Second, he was provided with evidence of the assistance given to police which was taken into account on his sentence.

Good character

In this case there was evidence of the accused’s good character. The accused adduced
evidence that he has no previous convictions for offences of violence or dishonesty. I am entitled to take this evidence into account on the question of whether the Crown has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I am also entitled to rely on this evidence to support the credibility of the accused, including his denials of involvement to police.

Joint commission

31. The accused have been charged with counts 1 to 6 by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code. I will address the requirements of s 45A in the context of the elements of the offences.

Self-defence

32. The accused has raised self-defence in respect of counts 1, 2 and 6 on the indictment. Once raised by evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the actions of the accused were in self-defence, the onus is on the Crown to exclude self-defence beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 136 limitation

33. Exhibit 40 sets out an unredacted text message conversation between a Soni Uluvalu and the accused. During the course of the trial I made a ruling under s 136 of the
Evidence Act that the message from Soni, “u got full patch bro but we need to clean up all this flops all serb is friends” was limited to non-hearsay purposes. That is, the evidence
cannot be relied upon to prove that at 24 July 2018 (the date of the message) the accused was in fact a fully patched member of the Comancheros. While it is not available to prove the truth of the statement, it is available as evidence that the message was communicated to the accused and hence informed his state of mind at the time.

Evidence

Tayysha Senthavysouk

34.     Ms Senthavysouk is Mr Zdravkovic’s partner. They have a child together who was three

years old at the time of the incident. They had been living at 20 Carter Crescent, Calwell
for a few years.
35.     On 28 June 2018 she had cleaned up after dinner and had a shower. She had gone to bed in her pyjamas and was lying under the covers watching videos on her phone. She slept on the window side of the bed. which is the side furthest away from the bedroom door. Mr Zdravkovic got in the shower. He had completed his shower and turned the shower off. The door to the bedroom and the door to the bathroom were open. A few minutes after he got out of the shower, Ms Senthavysouk heard a big banging sound and the sound of glass smashing. She did not see Mr Zdravkovic, but he told her to get down in a raised voice or yelling. She thought that he was somewhere near the bathroom. She thought the noise came from out the back. She could not remember how many gunshots there were. She got off the bed and hid down the side of the bed, between the bed and the front wall of the house. Her head was at the pillow end of the bed.
36.     When the noise stopped she got up and went to their child, A, who was crying, and comforted him. Mr Zdravkovic came in. He showed her his finger, which was bleeding.
She said there was “blood everywhere”. He said he had been shot. He was still naked.
He asked her to call the ambulance and she did.
37.     She observed that the glass had been shattered, that there were bullet holes in the building and the monitor used to view the images from the CCTV cameras was smashed. There was a smell of petrol and she saw that there was a fire outside where the cars were.
38.     Following the incident the police had come over and shown her the CCTV video of the incident on a laptop.
39.     She explained that the carport door was opened using a remote control, although if you were inside the carport there is a button on the electric motor which you could push. It was too high for her to reach. She thought there was also a cord that you could pull. She was asked about the various photographs of the interior and exterior of the house in Exhibit 2 and identified areas of damage that had not been present prior to the incident.
40.     She could not recall whether the police or the fire brigade arrived first. Mr Zdravkovic was outside the house, hosing down the cars. Those cars were her BMW, his Mercedes and a ute belonging to one of his friends.
41.     Police established a crime scene. That meant that she was excluded from the house although she was escorted inside when she needed to go to the toilet. She stayed there

all night, out the front of the house. Mr Zdravkovic’s mother called her and told her that their house had been shot up. A went to Mr Zdravkovic’s parents’ house. Mr Zdravkovic
was treated by ambulance paramedics and taken to hospital.
42.     She said that there had been threats prior to this incident a few months previously. A friend of hers, HD, had taken a screenshot of a Snapchat which said something like
“Peter Zdravkovic you and your crew have 24 hours to hand over your bikes, colours,
AMG, otherwise the hit squad is going to show up to your families.”
43.     The reference to “colours” was a reference to club colours because Mr Zdravkovic was
a member of the Comanchero OMCG. HD was aware of the identity of the person who had posted the Snapchat. That person was Roger Palavi, a person who Ms Senthavysouk understood was an associate of the motorcycle gang. That communication occurred after Mr Zdravkovic had ceased to be a member of the motorcycle gang. She spoke to him about it and he said not to worry and that it was club business.
44.     She was asked about what you could hear from the patio, outside the house. If the glass sliding door was closed, she did not know whether you could hear when someone was having a shower. You could not hear somebody listening to a video on a mobile phone inside the house.
45.     She explained that Mr Zdravkovic had put a sheet of metal across most of the bedroom window, shown in photographs 15 and 16 of Exhibit 2. Mr Zdravkovic put up the sheet of metal before the Snapchat was received. She thought he put it up because of safety concerns arising from the issues between him and the club.
46.     She gave evidence that Mr Zdravkovic was president of the Comancheros in Canberra.
The position is also known as the “commander”. Mr Zdravkovic left the Comancheros
probably a few months before the June incident. When he left the Comancheros he told
her that “Soni” had taken over as president.”
47.     In cross-examination she was asked about previous incidents and fears that she or Mr Zdravkovic had for their safety.
48.     There was an incident on 17 March 2018 when intruders entered the premises and a
gun was fired in a way that led to a bullet grazing Mr Zdravkovic’s head.
49.     On 3 June 2018 Mr Zdravkovic received a warning from police about his life being in danger. On 4 June police stopped a member of the Comancheros, Alex Miller, carrying a firearm. The police told Ms Senthavysouk and Mr Zdravkovic that they had potentially stopped an attempted murder.
50.     In response to the Snapchat story, Mr Zdravkovic asked Ms Senthavysouk to speak to HD and asked her to reply to the Snapchat. Mr Zdravkovic told Ms Senthavysouk things to tell HD to say in response.
51.     She denied knowledge of Mr Zdravkovic keeping a gun, notwithstanding that police found a case for the gun in the main bedroom after the incident.
52.     She agreed that the sheet metal on the window was there to protect them from the Comancheros.
53.     She agreed that there was a wall made of concrete and some form of infill panels over 2 m high at the front of the house next to the driveway.
54.     She agreed that there were CCTV cameras and the feed from those four cameras was displayed upon a monitor in the house.
55.     She agreed that there had been an incident when she had gone to talk to a neighbour about a car that had stopped out the front of her house. Although Ms Senthavysouk was concerned enough to go and visit the neighbours, it turned out they had just stopped to adjust their seatbelts in the car.
56.     She agreed that Mr Zdravkovic would check the locks, doors, windows and the garage door every night before he went to bed. She denied that he would shoot to kill any intruder.
57.     She was then asked a lot of questions about what she could see or hear while in the bedroom watching videos. The cross-examination was designed to support the proposition that residents inside the house would have had some notice of the presence of the intruders prior to the shooting starting. She denied that she could hear the people walking outside on the concrete at the back of the house. She denied that the turning on of the light in the carport, that was shown in the video, was something that could be seen from within the house. She described it as a small light and said she could guarantee that you could not see that light being turned on from within the house. She denied that you could hear the garage roller door opening if the doors to the house were all shut.
58.     She accepted that she had told police that she saw Mr Zdravkovic quickly look at the CCTV monitor after he got out of the shower and before the shooting started. She said she did not know if he immediately got his gun after looking at the CCTV monitor because, by this point, she was on the ground next to the bed.
59.     She agreed that she had seen the CCTV footage before she signed her witness statement on 6 August 2018. (That is distinct from the tape-recorded conversation that she had with police shortly after the incident on 29 June.)
60.     She denied hearing the car pull up in the driveway. She denied seeing the red glow of the reversing lights. She pointed to the fact that she was watching videos out loud on her phone at the time. She denied that she would be able to hear someone pouring liquid on the driveway from inside the house.
61.     She was asked about a portion of the video which shows the fat intruder (offender 4) picking up something to the left of the sliding door and putting it down just outside the door. She did not know what this was. She did not think that the loud bang she heard was this item being dropped near the sliding door.
62.     She agreed that she answered a question at the earlier trial in a way that indicated that the shots sounded like they were coming from inside the house. She agreed that it was only after she watched the CCTV footage that she thought the shots came from outside.
63.     At times during her evidence, particularly in relation to her son and during the course of cross-examination, Ms Senthavysouk became upset. At one point she needed a break during her evidence. She seemed to be honestly attempting to tell the truth.
64.     She agreed that she met Mr Zdravkovic through her father and that when she met him he was the commander of the ACT chapter of the Comanchero OMCG.
65.     She was taken through the recorded conversation she had with police on 29 June 2018. She said that when Mr Zdravkovic came back in the front door he was yelling and that he was wearing nothing. She said that he did not have a weapon.
66.     In cross-examination she said that she only knew that he had a weapon after she had viewed the CCTV.
67.    After the shooting stopped, she heard the front door slam and assumed that Mr Zdravkovic had run out the front of the house. It was only when he returned and talked to her that she realised he had come back inside. Prior to that he had not checked on her or A. She could see that he was bleeding and that there was a problem with his finger. She denied that he had a gun in his hand. She denied that she heard him fire a shot out the front of the house.
68.     She could not recall talking to a police officer, Constable Stevens, in the presence of Mr Zdravkovic. She could not recall hearing a conversation between Mr Zdravkovic and a police officer about CCTV or the type of gun that had been fired at his finger.
69.     She did not think that Mr Zdravkovic was present when she participated in a digitally recorded conversation with a police officer. She agreed that she told the officer that there were no firearms that she knew of in the premises. Subsequently she knew that Mr Zdravkovic had used a weapon because she had watched the CCTV. She could not remember if this fact was included in her subsequent police statements.
70.     She was then asked about text messages with HD. She agreed that she sent messages to HD which she asked HD to then send on to Mr Palavi, the person whose Snapchat
account posted the “hit squad” story about Mr Zdravkovic. She agreed that
Mr Zdravkovic would tell her what to say and she would then tell HD. She was shown some of the text messages including a message that she relayed from Mr Zdravkovic.
71.     She agreed that she knew a number of Comancheros. She agreed that she had recognised somebody in the CCTV footage and thought that it was a person called
“Millsy”. She did not know “Millsy’s” full name. She said Alex Miller was not “Millsy” and
that Chris Millington was a different person.
72.     In re-examination she gave evidence that the two statements made on 6 August 2018 (that is, after she had viewed the CCTV footage) related to the Snapchat messages and
an earlier incident on 17 March 2018 referred to as the “Skyfire incident”.
73.     She said that she did not know what the item was that appeared to be picked up from the left of the glass sliding door by one of the intruders and put down at the door. She had no recollection of a vacuum cleaner being outside.
74.     She was not able to give precise evidence about the time between the loud noises that
she heard, although she said they were “pretty close together”.
75.     She was asked about various answers that she gave during the course of her digitally recorded conversation with police. (They were at questions and answers 59-64, 185-201 and 379-415.) She said that the answers that she gave were her best recollection at the time of that interview. (This version of events was relevant to the answer that she gave at transcript pages 33.22, 58 and 67 about whether or not the first noises that she heard came from inside the house, that is, whether Mr Zdravkovic shooting outwards came before the shots came from outside.)

LQ
76.	LQ lived with her husband at 22 Carter Crescent, the house adjoining that of Mr Zdravkovic and Ms Senthavysouk. She knew Mr Zdravkovic, Ms Senthavysouk and that they had a son called A. Her evidence was that six or seven years before 2018 Mr Zdravkovic had done up the house and moved in.
77.	She was familiar with the BMW and the Mercedes that were kept at the house. She was also familiar with the motorbike. On one occasion she had seen Mr Zdravkovic wearing his Comanchero jacket while riding the motorbike.
78.	On the night of 28 June she was asleep in bed. She was woken by noises which she thought were fireworks at about 10:45pm. She said to her husband, K, that something
was going on next door. She then saw flames from Mr Zdravkovic’s garage coming
towards her house. Soon after a policeman arrived at the door and said that they should leave the house. She grabbed her dog and stood out front of the house with K for a couple of hours.
79.	When she heard the noises she immediately thought that they were fireworks as she had not heard gunshots before. She could not identify any difference in the loudness of the noises that she heard. She was not clear about the time between each of the noises.
She said that there were five or six such noises, describing this as a “rough guess”.
80.	She spoke to K and then saw the flames through the dining room doors. She heard
Mr Zdravkovic yell “Get the fire brigade. Get the fire brigade.” It was not very long before police arrived at LQ’s house.
81.	At 7:30am the next morning police came to her front door asking to investigate a bullet that may have penetrated their fence. They ultimately recovered the bullet in the wall of the bedroom and forensic members were in the house all that day.
82.	In cross-examination she agreed that she had seen a CCTV camera on the garage of
20 Carter Crescent and was “pretty sure” that there was one out the front of the house,
although she could not recall exactly.
83.	She gave evidence that there was an occasion when Mr Zdravkovic’s partner had come
to see her. That followed an occasion where she and her husband were going out in the car. Her husband got the car, started to drive down the street and pulled up in front of 20 Carter Crescent for her to get in. When she got in she needed to move the seat in
the car and hence the car remained outside Ms Senthavysouk’s house.
84.	Ms Senthavysouk had told LQ that she had been winding back camera footage and saw the vehicle and asked why they had stopped outside the house. LQ gave an explanation. Ms Senthavysouk questioned her in a curious and not unfriendly way. LQ was taken aback. At the time she prepared her statement for police in July 2018, she thought this incident with the car happened a few months prior to 28 June 2018.
85.	She had a very vague recollection of hearing males yelling and what sounded like a starting gun being fired about 12 or 18 months prior to the incident in this case.
86.	On the Saturday after the 28 June 2018 incident, after police had left, a white car had parked on the street. A man she believed to be Samoan got out of the car and walked to the left of her house, towards 20 Carter Crescent. The car was there for a few days and then police came and took it away.
87.	There were three Samoan men who she saw going to Mr Zdravkovic’s house often. They
would often stand with Mr Zdravkovic across the road and have drinks. She was not sure whether the man from the white car was one of those men.
SM
88.	As at 28 June 2018, SM was living at 30 Carter Crescent. He had lived there for many years. When looking out from his house, 20 Carter Crescent was to the left and [address] was to the right. On the evening of 28 June he was in his bedroom watching TV and reading a book. The bedroom had a sliding door and a balcony. He heard several rapid cracks and then opened the sliding door. He half stepped out. He heard voices yelling.
Then he heard some loud bangs which he described as “booms”. He then saw orange
light as if there was a fire. He said there were 10 to 12 cracks in a row. He initially thought they were fireworks but then they went on for too long and that led him to look outside to see what it was. So far as the booms were concerned, there were two booms and they occurred after the cracks. He thought that there was a gap of 10 to 20 seconds between the cracks and the booms. The direction that these noises came from was from the left of his balcony, in the direction of 20 Carter Crescent.
89.	He then saw a silver four-wheel-drive drive slowly up the street from the left. Two men ran after it. It was going a little bit faster than walking pace. The two men got in, one
into the rear door on the drivers’ side and one into the other side of the vehicle. He could not recall whether the vehicle’s headlights were on. He stepped back into his bedroom
as he did not want to be seen. He then looked to the right and saw that the vehicle had stopped up the street, in front of [address]. There were then several cracks in rapid succession. He noticed that the vehicle had a spare wheel on the back and it reminded him of a Toyota Prado.
90.	His wife and two daughters had been downstairs. They came upstairs and they all stood on the balcony.
91.	The next morning police attended the house but he was at work. He contacted police after he saw reports of the incident on the Canberra Times website. He gave his statement on 25 July 2018.
92.	There was no cross-examination.

Constable Gordon Brown

93.     Constable Brown is a federal agent based in Adelaide. As at June 2018 he worked at the Tuggeranong police station. He was doing an afternoon shift which went from 2pm until midnight. He was in a police vehicle with Constable Craig Walker and received a radio transmission at about 10:45pm indicating that shots had been fired at 20 Carter Crescent in Calwell. The vehicle travelled with lights and sirens on to the address and arrive there at 10:49pm. He observed that there were two cars in the garage and there was a male in running shorts using a garden hose to attempt to put out fires on the vehicles.
94.     The fire brigade was waiting for the police to clear the scene. He approached the male
and went inside to remove the male’s partner and child. The male was very angry because his “missus” and kid were in the house. He yelled and swore at the police saying
that they could have prevented what occurred. He observed that the male’s left hand

was covered in blood and was missing the tip of his middle finger. The male held that
hand away from his body and had the hose in the other hand.
95.     The officer was focused on ensuring that the house was clear and safe. He went in the front door and into a family room and saw broken glass, the TV turned over and shotgun
marks on the walls. The male’s partner was holding a child in the family room, in front
of the main bedroom. The male followed Constable Brown inside the house. On the
way out, the male mentioned that he thought “Tooks” and “Soni” were responsible for what happened and said words to the effect of “It’s not going to be good”. He also
mentioned that they drove away in a silver four-wheel-drive vehicle. The officer asked him what happened and he said they came in and shot up the place and tried to kill him. He said he ran out the front door and chased them up the street.
96.     Constable Brown handed over the site to Senior Constable Jacob Tapscott no more than 10 minutes after Constable Brown had arrived. Police had by that stage established a crime scene and the area was cordoned off with tape. Constable Brown was the crime scene guard. The man, the woman and the child were inside the tape but not allowed inside the house.
97.     The following night from 9pm he was again the crime scene guard and kept a crime scene log of who entered the area.
98.     In cross-examination counsel drew attention to the fact that the officer’s statement referred to Mr Zdravkovic having said that it was “Tooks” and ”Soni”, that there was a four-wheel-drive and Mr Zdravkovic’s statement that “It’s not going to be good” but there
was no other conversation between Mr Zdravkovic and Constable Brown referred to in his notes. He agreed that the reference in his evidence-in-chief to Mr Zdravkovic saying that they had tried to kill him was not in his statement and he did not mention that when he gave evidence at the earlier trial in 2019.
99.     He also agreed that the reference to Mr Zdravkovic chasing them up the street was not in his statement. He clarified that he meant that he chased them out of the house and onto the street.

HD
100.	HD knew Ms Senthavysouk through a mutual friend, Bec. As at June 2018 she had known Ms Senthavysouk for about a year.
101.	On 31 December 2017 (New Year’s Eve) she was out in civic and met someone who
she understood was called “William”. She had a conversation with him and exchanged
Snapchat names. She subsequently received Snapchats from him. She explained the basic operation of Snapchat.
102.	She later saw a Snapchat story posted to William’s account. It included “…peter
zdravkovic you and your crew got 24hrs to hand over everything bikes, your AMG,
colours everythingor else the HITSQUAD gonna show up to your family’s ..” Because
the story was threatening, she took a screenshot of the Snapchat and then called Bec, who told her to send it to a phone number. She did not know whose phone number that was. Because she knew that Ms Senthavysouk was in a relationship with Mr Zdravkovic, she was concerned.
103.	She later became aware that the person who had been introduced as “William” was
called Roger Palavi. She is not sure how she became aware of his other name. It may have been through Ms Senthavysouk or Bec.
104.	She spoke to Ms Senthavysouk on Facebook messenger about the Snapchat but she could not recall the details of the conversation.
105.	Police subsequently contacted her and asked for the image. She gave police a statement and the image. The details on the phone indicated that the Snapchat story had been screenshotted by HD on 19 March 2018. She also showed police her Facebook messenger account. This included the communications between her and Ms Senthavysouk that were in Exhibit 4. Initially she had blocked William, but then she was instructed to send messages to him so she unblocked him, sent him the messages and then blocked him again.
106.	In cross-examination she said that she could not recall William being with other males at the time that she met him. She agreed with what she had said in a statement on 11 December 2018, that William appeared of Tongan background, he was sitting with a
group of males and she spoke to him for about 10 minutes. She agreed that Mr Palavi’s
Instagram profile picture showed him with another Tongan man.
107.	She was unable to say how many people would have seen the 19 March 2018 Snapchat image. When she spoke to Ms Senthavysouk in person about it, Ms Senthavysouk gave her the idea was that there was a war between Mr Zdravkovic and the Tongans in the Comancheros. That was all she was told by Ms Senthavysouk and the conversation just occurred in passing.
108.	She described her relationship with Ms Senthavysouk as being friendly but not close. When she socialised with her, Bec was also there. She initially spoke to Bec about the Snapchat post because she was better friends with her than with Ms Senthavysouk.
109.	She was asked about whether she was concerned about sending messages to William because she knew he was associated with the Comancheros. She said that if she did not want to do it she would not have, but she agreed that she did not want anything
“blowing back” on her.
110.	So far as the messages she sent to William were concerned, she understood that Ms Senthavysouk was getting the content from Mr Zdravkovic.
111.	She formed the view that William was a “wannabe” because he posted about
Comanchero things every day.

Senior Constable Damien Clark

112.   Senior Constable Clark was based at the Tuggeranong police station on 28 June 2018. He was the acting Sergeant that evening. He heard of the incident at about 11pm. He attended the premises with Senior Constable Kate McDonough and also Senior Constable Alan Duong. On the left of the house he saw two cars in the garage that appeared to be burnt. He saw a concrete truck parked out the front. He also saw a black Commodore parked up the back. He saw a male roaming around the area with blood coming from his hand. There were other police there. The fire brigade had attended and the fires had been extinguished.
113.  He did not know Mr Zdravkovic previously. As the highest-ranking officer present, he took charge of the scene. He got a handover from Detective Sergeant Chris Ball. Sergeant Matthew Lewis was there as well.
114.   At some point he spoke to Mr Zdravkovic. Mr Zdravkovic initially stated that his son was
in his bedroom playing. His “missus” was in the bedroom playing on her phone and he
was in the shower when he heard a loud bang. He came out to investigate what the noise was and saw two males, or what he believed to be males, standing at the back door and they were shooting at him. He chased them out of the premises through the back door and saw that his cars were on fire. The males had run off. He went back inside to check on his missus and his boy. When giving this description he was polite. He was wearing a white T-shirt and black tracksuit pants. He had a large amount of blood coming from his hand.
115.  In relation to his hand, when the officer had initially arrived Mr Zdravkovic had been shouting out to someone outside the cordoned off area while holding his hand up in the
air saying that they had shot his finger off: “they shot my fucking finger off”.
116.  While in the early stages Mr Zdravkovic had been very loud and behaving with a lot of bravado, by the time he spoke to Senior Constable Clark he was polite and cooperative. Senior Constable Clark asked Mr Zdravkovic if he recognised any of the two males.
Mr Zdravkovic said one of them was “Tooks” and the other one “may have been Soni”.
That was based on their physical appearance as they used to be friends as part of the
Comanchero OMCG. Mr Zdravkovic described Tooks as “a fat cunt”.
117.  At some stage he suggested Mr Zdravkovic get his hand seen to. Mr Zdravkovic went to get treatment from the ambulance for a brief time and then came back. Mr Zdravkovic remained at the scene until closer to 2am when he left to go to hospital.
118.  A crime scene had been established around the premises after it was handed over to police by the ACT Fire Brigade. That was at 12:03am.
119.   Senior Constable Clark asked Mr Zdravkovic for permission to go into the house and he gave that permission. The purpose was to conduct a forensic examination of the scene as well as to obtain evidence in relation to what was going on.
120.   The officer became aware that there was CCTV set up around the house and he asked Mr Zdravkovic about that. He had a conversation with him and Mr Zdravkovic stated that he wanted to take the CCTV footage and review it first and then he would provide it to police. The officer advised him that that was not possible and Mr Zdravkovic stated that he had the capacity to delete the CCTV remotely if he could not review it. The officer said that police had enacted the emergency crime scene powers in relation to the scene and that they had obtained a search warrant in relation to discharging a firearm into the premises and that he could not take the footage until it had been reviewed and processed by police. Mr Zdravkovic then backed down and let them have it.
121.  Senior Constable Clark had observed the CCTV monitor and box that had been damaged by gunfire. When standing beside the TV, Mr Zdravkovic look at the walls and
the televisions and said “I know exactly what fucking gun did that and what bullets they
used”. Mr Zdravkovic said that he had left the Comanchero OMCG and that there was
an ongoing feud between himself and his two former friends, Tooks and Soni. He said that last week he had got some Snapchats, the first was Soni and Tooks holding a gun, the second was three large bullets, the third was a picture of Roger [Palavi] holding two
guns across his chest. Mr Zdravkovic’s phone was later seized.
122.   After this conversation Senior Constable Clark went back outside and made notes of the conversation in his notebook.
123.  At about 1:39am he was outside again, having a conversation with Detective Sergeant Chris Ball, and Mr Zdravkovic approached him a second time. Mr Zdravkovic said that
he wanted to have a conversation in private. Mr Zdravkovic then said “I didn’t tell you everything. I’m worried about what the footage is going to show.” The officer asked him
what really happened and Mr Zdravkovic replied “I knew they were trying to kill me so I
had a gun. They shot three times and then I shot one back and they ran outside and I
chased them”. He said that he did not think that he hit them. He was asked where the
gun was and said “I got rid of it”. The officer asked him where and he said “I’m not going
to say”. He then asked Mr Zdravkovic what happened next and Mr Zdravkovic said “I
went back inside to check on my missus and boy. I can’t believe this – I can’t believe
they did this shit when – with them here. Then they go up and shoot my parents house. They’re nearly 80 years old for fuck’s sake”. At that time Senior Constable Clark was aware of the shooting at [address] and that it was where Mr Zdravkovic’s parents lived.
At the time of this conversation with Mr Zdravkovic, Mr Zdravkovic was very quiet,
wanting “a secretive kind of conversation”. The conversation occurred in the foyer area
adjoining the lounge room and kitchen.

124. After this conversation he made notes immediately in his notebook.

125. The officer became aware that police later recovered a .27 calibre rifle.
126. He had another conversation with Mr Zdravkovic subsequently. In relation to the incident
the officer said to Mr Zdravkovic “it was pretty fucked”. Mr Zdravkovic said it was just
because he had left the club and he did not want the shit anymore in his life. He said he would not delete the CCTV footage but police had to let him watch it. During the conversation he showed the officer an image of a newsreader on his phone and the image contained a threat to him to get out of Canberra. (This appears to be the image in Exhibit 8.) During the conversation Mr Zdravkovic was continually saying that they were trying to kill him but they almost got his boy. The officer described him as having
“basically teared up” and was “wiping tears away from the bottom of his eyes”. The
conversation ended when Mr Zdravkovic began to feel dizzy, like he wanted to vomit and lost a lot of colour, and at that point he went off to the ambulance. He was then taken to hospital.

127. The CCTV footage was not played that night.

128.  Senior Constable Clark was cross-examined. He agreed that the first time that Mr Zdravkovic said what happened, he did not mention having a gun or using it. That conversation occurred at about 11:20pm.
129.  The second conversation occurred at about 12:30am. That was the discussion about the CCTV footage. There had not been any discussion of the CCTV footage prior to that. Mr Zdravkovic made it clear he wanted to watch the footage before the police. He threatened to delete it. The officer advised him that he had engaged emergency crime scene powers and that a search warrant would be obtained in relation to discharging a firearm into the premises. The position was that the warrant would be obtained rather than had already been obtained. He agreed that he would not have said that there were emergency crime scene powers if he did not have them. He agreed that he did not note
the emergency crime scene powers in his notebook. He was asked why and said “There
was a lot going on, your Honour. I can’t answer that question.” He agreed that it was
something that he should have noted. He thought that maybe Detective Sergeant Ball had mentioned activating the emergency crime scene powers but that the scene had not been provided to police at that time. It was handed over by ACT Fire Brigade at 12:03am. The mere fact of handover was not enough to give police emergency crime scene powers. Senior Constable Clark did not record any police officer informing him that emergency crime scene powers had been activated. Senior counsel referred to seeing a note that they had been enacted at 2:15am. The officer agreed that they would not be activated twice. He was asked to see if he could find any note that suggests emergency crime scene powers were enacted and to let the Crown know. He agreed that it was mandatory for emergency crime scene powers to be recorded somewhere, and who did it, and for what reason and at what time. He was not aware of such a record. He denied
the proposition that “you just use[d] that as an excuse – dishonestly … to get Zdravkovic
to not delete the footage”.
130.   He agreed that he told Mr Zdravkovic that discharging a firearm into the premises was a potentially serious charge and the police were obviously going to look at the CCTV material. He agreed with the proposition that after Mr Zdravkovic was told about the emergency crime scene powers he became more forthcoming.

He agreed that in the final conversation with Mr Zdravkovic, Mr Zdravkovic said “yeah, I
will [get patched up], but am I going to get charged with having a gun? They were going
to kill me and I was just protecting my family”.

132.  He was questioned about a paragraph of his statement referring to Mr Zdravkovic’s
description of what happened, which failed to include the fact that Mr Zdravkovic had told him that when he chased the intruders out the front of the house he had fired another round. The officer said he had inadvertently left that out. He denied being aware at the time that he prepared the statement that a cartridge from the gun had been found at the front of the house. He said that he was not involved in any discussion about whether or not police should charge Mr Zdravkovic for using the gun at the premises.
133.   He was asked about some redactions in his notes, one of which related to departing the scene and going to a different location. He agreed that after Mr Zdravkovic had told him
that he would not tell where the gun was the officer had said “it’s pretty fucked. It’s not
about you anymore Pete. They could have killed your son”. He agreed that this was a
deliberate use of language on his part to try to get Mr Zdravkovic to be more open.
134.  In re-examination he indicated that after his involvement that evening the only other involvement that he had was speaking to Mr Zdravkovic about providing a statement prior to the previous trial. There was some additional evidence-in-chief adduced that Mr Zdravkovic had told the officer that it was not the first time they had tried to kill him and pointed to a graze on the side of his head. He showed the officer a short video containing CCTV footage which depicted a number of hooded persons out the front of his house and a larger male standing across the road on the nature strip. It was at that point that Mr Zdravkovic indicated that there was a feud with the current Comanchero OMCG members about him leaving and they were trying to kill him. He said they had tried to shoot him in the head. Mr Zdravkovic said the bullet had grazed the side of his head and there were two spent cartridges sitting beside the fence.
135.  The images of the man with the firearms across his chest was something that was spoken about but Mr Zdravkovic did not show the officer the images.

Dr Amanda Van Diemen

136.  Dr Van Diemen is a staff specialist in forensic medicine at the Canberra Hospital. She has a Bachelor of Medicine, a Bachelor of Surgery, a Bachelor of Engineering, a Masters of Forensic Medicine and she is a fellow of the Faculty of Clinical Forensic Medicine within the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. She has worked at the Canberra Hospital for 16 years. She was asked to review the ambulance, medical and nursing health records for Mr Zdravkovic from the Canberra Hospital from 29 June until 2 July 2018.
137.  The ambulance records show that he was assessed at 1:35am on 29 June 2018. He had earlier been assessed by another crew and provided with pain relief and wound care. The terms of his initial complaint were recorded as were the initial observations of his injuries.
138.  He was triaged at Canberra Hospital at 2:07am. He was triaged as a category two patient. That is a person who has a potentially life-threatening or limb-threatening injury with the potential to deteriorate and they need to be seen within 10 minutes. He was found to have a left middle finger comminuted fracture with amputation at the level of the middle phalanx. He also had a left ring finger laceration, and an extensor tendon laceration on his left index finger. He had an injury to his distal fat pad and two glass foreign bodies in his right foot. There were x-rays of his left hand and right foot consistent with this.
139.   Hospital staff contacted police to see if they could retrieve the part of the finger that had been shot off. The conclusion was reached that it was not possible to reattach that part of the finger.
140.  He underwent repair of those injuries under general anaesthetic. This involved surgical exploration of his left index finger, middle finger and left ring finger and the terminalisation of the left middle finger. It also involved an extensor tendon repair to the left ring finger and removing the two foreign bodies from his right foot.

141. He was discharged on 2 July 2018.

142. In summary, Mr Zdravkovic’s injuries included:

(a) a left middle finger comminuted fracture and amputation at the level of the middle phalanx;
(b) a left ring finger laceration and extensor tendon laceration;
(c) a left index finger distal fat pad injury; and
(d) two glass foreign bodies in his right foot.

The doctor’s report identified some of the possible future consequences of these injuries.

144. In cross-examination she was asked about some clinical notes from a plastics registrar
from 29 June 2018 at 3:10am. The notes said: “bikie. Gunshots. Had broken glass.
Ran through to get away. Bilateral feet glass [foreign bodies]. Guarded historian. Police
officer present.” The doctor said it was not clear whether that history was obtained from

the patient or some other person. She agreed that it was probably the case that that
information had, at some point, come from the patient.

145. There was no re-examination.

Senior Constable Jacob Tapscott

146.   Senior Constable Tapscott was based at the Tuggeranong police station. He was on the evening shift on 28 June 2018. He received a radio transmission about the incident and went from Tuggeranong police station with Detective Sergeant Ball to the address.
147.  They arrived at the scene around 10:50pm. When they arrived the carport was ablaze and firefighters were trying to put it out. The resident of the premises and other people were in the street. The resident (Mr Zdravkovic) was shouting abuse at police officers. Detective Sergeant Ball tried to speak to him but he continued to shout at police. Senior
Constable Tapscott observed blood coming from Mr Zdravkovic’s left hand. An
ambulance had arrived at about the same time as Senior Constable Tapscott. Paramedics attempted to provide assistance to Mr Zdravkovic but he refused. There was a lady with a young child in the street as well as other police officers present. Detective Sergeant Ball attempted to speak to him again. The resident walked inside and Senior Constable Tapscott followed him.
148.   He had a short conversation with Detective Sergeant Ball about the need to declare the premises a crime scene. He followed Mr Zdravkovic into the house to get him to leave. Mr Zdravkovic said that if police had done their job properly then this would not have happened. He also said it was his house and he would go inside if he wanted to. The officer saw that the house was full of smoke and firefighters were inside. The back glass sliding door was shattered. There was a smear of blood on the tiles. There were hundreds of little holes in the walls and doorframe.
149.  Senior Constable Tapscott said to Mr Zdravkovic that he needed to declare a crime
scene. Mr Zdravkovic said “You can fuck your crime scene” and stormed outside into
the street. He attempted to speak with Mr Zdravkovic again but was met with similar
abuse. He then declared a crime scene without Mr Zdravkovic’s consent. He told
Detective Sergeant Ball that he had declared a crime scene. The declaration of the crime scene occurred at 10:57pm and was documented.
150.  Mr Zdravkovic went back inside again into the bedroom and Senior Constable Tapscott followed him. Mr Zdravkovic got some tracksuit pants and a jumper. He said to Senior
Constable Tapscott that “If I wanted to destroy evidence, don’t you think I would have
already done that?”. He also gestured and said “That’s where I was standing when they
got me”. He gestured towards the middle door shown in Exhibit 2, photograph 5, which
is the door to the master bedroom.
151.  Senior Constable Tapscott then left the house. Other police had put crime scene tape on the street. He started a crime scene log and remained at the scene until the end of the shift.
152.  In cross-examination he was asked about the distinction between crime scene powers and emergency crime scene powers, but the line of questioning was not pursued.

Detective Sergeant Paul Reynolds

153.  Mr Reynolds was a Constable at the time and is currently a Detective Sergeant at the Gungahlin police station. He participated in the execution of search warrant on 12 July 2018 of premises on Anketell Street, Greenway associated with the person known as
“Tooks”. Nothing of interest was located.
154.  He also participated in a search on 26 July 2018 at the Sidaros family residence. He described the process undertaken during a search. He said that he searched the
accused’s bedroom and found and seized a pair of boots and a tin of ammunition. He

also located various items of OMCG clothing which were photographed but not seized.
A replica firearm was also found but not by him.
155.  The boots were seized because he examined them and believed that there were potentially very small shards of glass on them.
156.   A pair of gloves and a handwritten note were located and seized by other officers.
157.  After the boots and the ammunition were seized he also searched a room beneath the stairs which contained a gun safe. It had been opened although he could not recall how. In that gun safe an Adler shotgun was located. It was cleared by a forensic armourer to ensure there were no bullets left in the chamber. It was then bagged.
158.   On 1 August 2018 a search was undertaken of items in the possession of Roger Palavi. It was executed at the Jolimont Centre. Mr Palavi was identified as having links to the Comancheros. He was arrested during the search but was released from arrest at the end of it. Nothing of interest was located.
159.  In cross-examination the officer said that he was subsequently informed that under forensic examination no glass was found on the boots that he had seized.

Peter Zdravkovic

160. Mr Zdravkovic gave evidence that he was a concreter. On the evening in question he had a shower and got out. He went into the bedroom to get dressed. He heard a big
bang. He said he looked outside and saw “four monkeys standing there with guns”. He

said that he grabbed his gun and started shooting back. He said his son had got up and was walking out of his bedroom and he threw him into the bedroom before opening fire on the attackers. He did not recognise the attackers. They started shooting before he got his gun. He said that his gun was more under, rather than beside, the bed in the bedroom. He said that his partner had been in bed watching videos on a phone.
161.   When his son came out of his bedroom, he went to grab him with one hand. In the other hand he had his gun and it was then that the bullet struck his finger and took off the top of it.
162.  He described the position where this occurred as being between the mirror shown in photograph 5 of Exhibit 2 and the door to the master bedroom. The effect of his evidence was that it was closer to the mirror.
163.  He did not know how many shots he fired. He did not know how long the incident went
for. He said that the attackers “started to run like little girls”. He ran out the back door
but when he saw the fire he put the gun down (I understood this to be in the sense of lowering it rather than putting it on the ground). He then ran to the front of the house and fired two shots. He then went back inside and put on shorts. He spoke to Ms Senthavysouk and told her not to worry about it. He hosed down the vehicles. He
described himself as feeling “normal”. In the balance of his examination-in-chief he was
generally keen to point out that he did not talk to police. He did not say that he disclosed anything to police, rather, suggesting that police disclosed what they had thought occurred to him.
164.   He could not recall discussing CCTV or the declaration of the crime scene with the police. He denied telling police who he thought was responsible, saying that the police told him who they thought had done it. He denied any other incidents.
165.   In response to a question from senior counsel for the accused, he agreed that he felt that
if armed intruders came to his house with guns they would not leave alive saying: “I’d fucking blow their head off”. He said that it was the police who told him that Tooks and
Soni were involved.
166.  Leave was given to counsel for the Crown to cross-examine him. He was asked about
the photographs in Exhibit 11. He said that they were other people’s colours that he had
burnt. He agreed that he put captions on the photographs. He was shown Exhibit 12 which was a series of photographs with captions. He said that the messages in the
photographs were for everybody that was “talking shit” about him.
167.   He said that he left the club in the beginning of 2018.
168.  He denied speaking to police about an incident in which a bullet grazed his head. He was asked about the conversation that he had with Detective Senior Constable Clark. He could not recall aspects of that conversation. He said that police told him that it was Tooks and Soni. He agreed that Exhibit 2, photograph 7 showed roughly where he was standing when his finger got shot off. He said that the intruders were never in the house. He agreed that he chased them out the back door and up the street. He agreed that police asked him about the need for medical attention. He said that after about four hours he got a bandage. He said he did not review the CCTV footage because the police took it away. He denied telling police that he knew who did it. He denied receiving Snapchats showing Soni, Tooks or Mr Palavi. He said it was the police who questioned whether there was a feud between factions of the Comancheros. He denied saying to
police that he was worried about what the CCTV would show, saying “I don’t care. I wish I fucking killed them”. He said that he shot back more than once. He denied telling police

that he had got rid of the gun and said that when he was asked in hospital he told them
where it was.

He said to police “Which fucking dog would come to a house with a three-year-old and a
woman and try and shoot someone up, and still miss?” He agreed that he had heard at
that stage that shots had been fired at his parents’ house. He agreed that he said to

police “Then they go up and shoot at my parents’ house. They’re nearly 80 years old,
for fuck’s sake”.
170.  He could not recall saying to police that it was not the first time something like this had happened. He could not recall showing police a CCTV video on his phone of hooded intruders. He said it was the police who told him that there was a feud over him leaving the club rather than the other way round. He agreed that police had spoken to him on 3 June indicating that they were concerned for his safety, that they had told him that there was a hit out on him, or words to that effect. He could not recall if they told him that they had arrested Alex Miller.
171.   He agreed with the proposition that he was concerned that if he told the court everything
that happened he would be considered a dog or a rat saying: “what happens to rats, they get poked in the neck and they lie in the gutters so I don’t want to be one of those guys”.
172.  He said that prior to the incident in question it was just a normal Thursday night and he would have simply gone to bed.
173.  He agreed that he is of Serbian background and that his nickname is “Serb” or “Serb Pete”.
174.  In cross-examination by senior counsel for the accused he was taken to various examples of questions asked by the Crown about what he told police, where he either denied saying anything to police or said he could not recall the conversations. He was taken to examples where the Crown suggested that he had told police something and he responded that, in fact, it was the police who told him that. He said that these were all honest answers.
175.  He said that he could not recall Ms Senthavysouk showing him a message posted by Mr Palavi or Ms Senthavysouk sending a message back on his behalf saying that Soni was a snitch. He disagreed that he believed Soni was a snitch or rat. He denied knowing that Soni had been murdered a few months ago. He was referred to his comment from the previous day of questioning about rats getting poked in the neck and lying in gutters. He denied knowing that Soni was stabbed in the neck or that he was found dead in a gutter. He denied that his comment was a reference to Soni because he was a snitch,
saying “I never knew he was dead”. He denied that the comment meant he lied in court
because he is scared of getting killed.
176.   He maintained that he does not talk to police or help them with their cases. When it was suggested that he remembered more at this trial compared to the earlier trial when Soni
was still alive he said “My memory came back a little bit.”
177.  He was asked more questions about the incident. He agreed that it was a typical Thursday night and that his gun was out of its case. He agreed that the gun was right
beside his bed. He said “That’s where I just left it.” He denied that he left it there so he
could get it easily at night if he needed it. He denied changing his answer in examination-in-chief by saying that the gun was more under than beside his bed. When asked whether he had spoken or communicated with police in the last week he said
“Police keep coming to my place.” He could not recall any conversations with them. He
could not recall any conversations with the Director of Public Prosecutions’ office. He
could not recall speaking to Ms Senthavysouk during the week.
178.  He could not recall whether there had been multiple threats and attempts on his life in the months before the incident.
179.   He agreed that he was in the bedroom when he heard something from the backyard. He
saw armed people in the backyard. He agreed that he probably “wanted to blow their
heads off”. He agreed that he picked up his gun but denied pointing it at the intruders
straight away and firing at them. He said he was standing behind the wall that the bullets were coming through. It was suggested to him that he was trying to kill them. He said
“Well, I don’t know if I was trying to kill them but, you know, there was bullets flying in my
bedroom.” He did not know how many shots he fired. It could have been one, two or
three shots. The chamber of his gun held up to eight bullets.
180.   He could not recall picking up casings from his gun and putting them in the bin.
181.   He kept shooting until they ran away like little girls. He ran out the front door and chased
them. He denied firing at them out the front of the house. He said “did I shoot them or did I shoot at the vehicle?”. He then agreed that he was shooting to kill them when he

was outside the front of his house. He was near the driveway when he was shooting at
them.
182.   He said there might have been CCTV footage from inside the house on 28 June. He said he got cameras installed inside the house about four months prior to the incident.
183.   He agreed that he had convictions for fraud, obtaining financial advantage by deception and acting dishonestly. When it was suggested that he told lies to police on 28 June 2018
he said “Did I?”. When it was suggested that he gave untruthful evidence in court he said
“Have I?”

184. There was no re-examination.
Detective Senior Constable Sarah Harman

185.  Detective Senior Constable Harman was on call on the evening of 28 June 2018. At 1:09am she was called to attend the scene. She travelled to the Winchester Police Centre where she received a briefing. She then went to the scene some time after 3am and spoke to Senior Constable Clark. She was underdressed for the cold weather and retreated to the car to await further instructions. She was then tasked to attend another incident, being a vehicle on fire. She did so with Detective Senior Constable Kristy Anderson. They left Carter Crescent shortly after the call came over the radio at 5:15am.
The location of the other incident was less than five minutes’ drive away.
186.  On the old Tuggeranong Road, just off the Monaro Highway next to a paintball centre, they found a burning vehicle being attended to by four firemen. When they arrived the vehicle was still smouldering. She took images of the vehicle. She made checks on the numberplates. The vehicle was so burnt out that she could not identify the colour of it. She took 50 images of the vehicle. The checks revealed that the vehicle was a silver Toyota Prado which had been reported stolen by an identified person. A single item was seized which was suspected to be a glove but she was later informed that it was not in fact a glove. At the time of attending the burning vehicle, it was suspected that the incident may be related to the incident at Carter Crescent.
187.   In cross-examination she was referred to a note in her diary that referred to the car being
stolen and there being an unknown Asian driver in the driver’s seat.
188.  In re-examination this note was explained in that it was a reference to another job involving that vehicle which had been detected by a speed camera on an earlier occasion.

NS
189.	NS lived at 37 Girdlestone Circuit, Calwell. This was a property which adjoined part of the rear of the property at 20 Carter Crescent.
190.	On 28 June 2018 she got ready for bed at about 10pm. At 10:30pm she was in bed reading. At around 10:35pm or 10:40pm she heard noises which she thought at first might have been fireworks. She heard five or six such noises. She went to the kitchen.
She could see a faint glow through the window. Her grandson said to her “What was that, nan?”. She walked out the back of her house. She thought there was a fire and she
heard a male voice shouting “call the fire brigade, call the fire brigade”.
191.	She went back inside the house and heard another lot of five or six bangs from a slightly different direction, more to the north of the house.
192.	The fire at 20 Carter Crescent got larger. She was aware that the fire brigade attended. She could hear yelling and swearing and see smoke and flames.
193.	Police visited her on Saturday, 30 June and asked her to recount what had happened.
194.	On Sunday night police attended again and wished to gain access to an area at the back of her house near a dead shrub.
195.	Subsequently she observed that a wire plant guard in the area of her back fence adjoining 20 Carter Crescent had been trodden on. Police came again sometime after and inspected what she had reported to them. Around this time barbed wire had been installed at the top of the fence by the residents of 20 Carter Crescent.
196.	She described that the noises on 28 June sounded like a “pop, pop, pop” but very loud.
She did not notice any difference between them. They occurred fairly quickly, about a second between each. The second set of noises was similar and occurred a few minutes later.
197.	In cross-examination the chronology was clarified from statements she made to police in July 2018. On Saturday two officers had attended. A male and female. She could not recall their names. She had a discussion with them inside the front door.
198.	On the second occasion two different officers had attended on Sunday night. They wished to look in the location near the back fence. She understood that they were looking for an indication of who was there or what had gone on. At the time they attended it was night but there was some light from a light in the back garden.
199.	On about Wednesday, 4 July 2018 she noticed that the plant frame had been bent and that there were some footprints in the area. Her recollection was that she had contacted police within the 24 hours after noticing that. She agreed with the proposition that the police attended 16 July 2018 and that they were Senior Constable Nicola Jebtovic and
Constable Ben O’Brien. They gave her no explanation for the delay in attending after
her report. She said that the area had not changed in that period. The police conducted a more thorough examination of the area.

Steven Pomeroy

200. Mr Pomeroy is a crime scene investigator with the AFP. He has been doing the job since August 2015. He has attended more than 800 crime scenes in the period he has been working for the AFP. He attended the scene at 20 Carter Crescent because he was on call that evening. Because of the size of the scene he also called for assistance from his backup crime scene investigator, Evan Robinson. He received a briefing from the officers there. He gave a detailed description of the examination of the crime scene and various items that were recorded. Initially that involved an examination of items of evidence that were outside number 20 Carter Crescent. Then they moved to items outside number [address]. This was in order to allow the road to be reopened. They then proceeded to do the crime scene examination at [address] before returning to 20 Carter Crescent. He finished his shift at 1:30pm and handed over to another crime scene investigator, Jessica Brenner.
201. It is not necessary to set out in detail his evidence. The evidence relating to the location of spent and live gun cartridges, projectile damage consistent with bullets, and the location of bullets, fragments of bullets and blood spatter provided the foundation for the expert evidence given by Mr Roberts. In summary, three different types of cartridges
were found at the scene: PMC .270 Winchester ammunition (headstamp “PMC 270 WIN”), .45 ACP calibre ammunition (headstamp “FEDERAL 45 AUTO”) and Winchester
12-gauge shotgun ammunition (headstamp “WINCHESTER 12 GA”). He and another

crime scene investigator took a large number of photographs of the scene which were
Exhibit 35.

Clive Roberts

202.  Mr Roberts is a forensic firearms examiner and has worked in that role for 15 years, initially for the Western Australian police and subsequently for the AFP. His qualifications are a Diploma in Forensic Investigation from the Western Australian police and a Graduate Certificate in Forensic Firearm Examination from the Canberra Institute of Technology. He is accredited by the Australasian Forensic Sciences assessment body as a forensic firearms examiner. As a forensic firearms examiner he has prepared hundreds of reports on firearm tool markings.
203.  On 28 June 2020 Mr Roberts was called by his supervisor and attended 20 Carter Crescent in the early hours of the morning. He arrived at the address at 3:36am and was there until 5pm the same day. He was assisted by Tom Smale. He did a walk-through of both properties to assess the scene and to make a decision as to what to record and provide guidance to the crime scene investigators as to what to collect. He gave evidence by reference to the photographs and diagrams within Exhibit 16.
204.   Four cartridge cases of the .45 calibre type were found on the rear patio at various points. Three of those were spent. One of them was live.
205.   Projectiles from those three spent cartridges were located within the premises. One on the floor of the living room, one in the doorframe of the master bedroom and one within the mattress in the main bedroom. Based upon the location of the impact marks associated with those projectiles, Mr Roberts could identify the outer limits of the locations from which they were discharged. That was shown on the page numbered 16 of Exhibit 16.
206.  There were also four 12-gauge shotgun cartridges found on the rear patio. The impact sites for the shotgun pellets were illustrated on the diagram at page numbered 19 of Exhibit 16. Wads from within the shotgun cartridge were also located at points within the premises. From the location of the shotgun pellet damage, Mr Roberts identified the apparent direction of fire of one of the shotgun cartridges as being from the vicinity of the patio doorway.
207.  The same exercise was undertaken in relation to a .270 calibre bullet which passed
through a green rubbish bin, through the neighbour’s fence and into the neighbour’s

house, and another which ricocheted off the driveway and struck the inside of the right
front wheel of the ute parked in the driveway.
208.   In relation to the patio area, damage from firearms was found on the aluminium pillars of the sliding door, the green wheelie bin, a motor vehicle in the driveaway and the fence. It was only possible to discover the ricochet mark on the driveway in daylight.
209.  He reached the conclusion that because of the three types of cartridge involved there were three types of gun involved, a shotgun, a 0.270 Winchester calibre rifle and a 0.45 calibre weapon.
210.  He explained that the firing pin drag mark shown on page 8 of Exhibit 16 was a mark created as the barrel drops down after firing.
211.   In relation to the unfired cartridge he explained that it could have been ejected when the pistol was cocked if there was already a live cartridge in the chamber.
212.  He explained that it was possible to say whether a bullet had been fired through glass because the bullet would be diced by the glass in a particular way leaving it with a rough texture and white crystalline material would become embedded in it. He explained this by reference to pages 13 and 14 of Exhibit 16. The microscopic analysis of the bullets was not consistent with those three .45 calibre bullets having gone through glass.
213.   In relation to the 12-gauge shotgun cartridges Mr Roberts’ evidence was that there was
evidence of five discharges. There were only four cartridge cases located. He explained that there may not be a fifth shotgun cartridge case because if it is not an automatic firearm then the case does not automatically eject and it can be carried away with the firearm.
214.  He explained that a plastic wad was positioned between the propellant and the pellets. This helped separate the pellets from the propellant (the gunpowder), assisted in providing a gas seal after the propellant exploded and held together the pellets for a distance of about 1 m after exiting the barrel. He said that the wad itself could travel for about 30 m.

reduce the significance of this aspect of Mr Smith’s evidence.
577. While the accused told police during the search of his house on 26 July 2018 that no one else used his firearms, I do not place a great deal of weight on that because of the manner in which the questions were asked and the fact that the use of the weapon by others was not fully explored in subsequent questioning.
578. The most significant evidence on this aspect of the Crown case was that of Mr Roberts:

(a) Following his test firing of the accused’s weapon he identified a crescent shape
just below the ejector cut-out mark that he would not normally see, and identified within each crescent shape similar marking in the same relative location. He also identified the same crescent shape and interior markings on the test fired cartridge cases and the cartridge cases from the crime scene in the same relative location, the same relative orientation, depth, shadow creation, shape and size. He was able to identify the part of the bolt face on the shotgun that was responsible for creating that crescent shape on the cartridge case, and could conclude that it was not the product of a subclass characteristic.

(b) He also identified other similarities or impressions in the same relative location on the test fired and exhibit cartridge cases on the primer that were not the result of subclass characteristics.
(c) His ultimate conclusion was that the markings on the exhibit cartridge cases from the crime scene were consistent with coming from the accused's shotgun.
579.  The approach of the accused to this evidence was to accept that Mr Roberts had
established that “the tool markings on the exhibit fired cartridge cases from the crime
scene were consistent with coming from the firearm… that [he] tested”. Stripped of all
of its foundation and context, that would not be a particularly strong piece of evidence in support of the Crown case because it does not rule out consistency with any other firearm. It would simply establish a lack of inconsistency and hence negate a matter
which would be fatal to the Crown case that the accused’s firearm was used in the
incident. However, it is not appropriate to strip the opinion of its foundations and context and thereby ignore all of the other evidence given by the witness and focus only on his ultimate conclusion. The evidence included a number of findings and intermediate conclusions which are of significance and may be relied upon by a finder of fact. When regard is had to the details of the evidence, it provides a solid foundation for a conclusion
that the exhibit cartridges were fired by the accused’s firearm.
580.   So far as the crescent shaped area was concerned, having regard to:

(a) the repetition of microscopic features within the crescent shaped area;

(b)

the explanation of the manner in which that crescent shaped area was created as a result of the plastic deformation of a part of the bolt face adjacent to the ejector cut-out; and

(c)

the evidence that the crescent shaped area did not arise from subclass characteristics ([227] above),
its existence and features are strong evidence that the accused’s weapon fired the
exhibit cartridge.
581.     So far as the impressions on the primer area of the cartridge were concerned:

(a)

the multiple microscopic impressions on the primer which were repeated between test and exhibit cartridges;
(b) the fact that these arose as a result of the firing process; and
(c) were not the result of subclass characteristics ([230] above),
is also strong evidence that the accused’s weapon fired the exhibit cartridge.
582.   Because of the forensic approach taken by counsel for the accused to this evidence, no challenge was made to the conclusions referred to above, no submission was made in relation to the detail of it and no alternative hypothesis was explored in evidence or put forward in submissions that could explain the features identified and explained by Mr Roberts. Considering the evidence independently of any submission made on behalf of the accused, it is difficult to conceive of any alternative hypothesis that could result in the degree of similarity between the exhibit and test fired cartridges. The evidence provides very strong support for the Crown contention that the weapon fired during the incident on 28 June 2018 was the weapon which belonged to the accused.
583.   Counsel for the accused pointed to some other matters which tended against the shotgun used in the offending being that of the accused. I accept that Adler A110 shotguns are popular and readily available and that accessories such as the red dot sight are not uncommon. I accept that the accused had a long-term interest in firearms. Further, I accept that the level of detail shown on the CCTV of the shotgun used is limited. I do not accept the submission that there is a distinction that can be drawn in the recoil as between the gun fired on the CCTV and the video of the accused firing his gun at a rifle range. Nor is it significant that some smoke is visible in the video of the accused firing his weapon but not visible in the CCTV of offender 2. The CCTV is not of such a quality that an ephemeral discharge of smoke would be expected to be seen.

The accused submitted that Mr Macken’s evidence was significant because it pointed to
the sophistication of such groups as the Comancheros. In particular it was suggested that this indicated that a planned operation would not use a gun registered to one of
those present and hence, even if it was the accused’s gun, he would not be carrying it:
“There is no way that, in such a planned operation, that any weapon used would be that
of an intruder.” While I accept that this submission might have weight in some
circumstances, in the present case it would be consistent with the circumstances and
attitude of the accused that he would seek to “add value” to the operation and
demonstrate his own loyalty by bringing and using his own weapon even if a clinical assessment might suggest he ought not to have. I therefore do not consider the usual sophistication of such groups as weighing significantly against the involvement of the accused. While the use of such a weapon would tend to undermine some of the other steps taken to prevent identification of those involved, the operation was in some ways unsophisticated and brazen, emboldened by the culture of silence associated with OMCGs.

Similarities between the accused and “offender 2”

585.  There were a number of similarities between the accused and offender 2 shown in the CCTV. Collectively these strengthen the Crown case.
586.  During the search of the accused's house police found a pair of boots that looked the same as the boots worn by the person carrying the shotgun. The accused told police during the search that no one else had worn his shoes.
587.  During the forensic procedure of the accused he was photographed against a ruler as being 170 cm tall. The height of the offender carrying the shotgun in the CCTV footage is about 170 cm tall when compared against the measurements in Exhibit 34. Photograph 8 in Exhibit 36 is a particularly useful comparison showing a close correspondence of height. There is a similarity between the overall build of offender 2 and the accused. Further, although a matter that can be given limited weight, the impression of the manner in which the offender moves in the video from the shooting range appears consistent with the movements of offender 2 in the CCTV.
588.   What can be seen of offender 2’s face in the CCTV is not inconsistent with the photo of

the accused during the forensic procedure (Exhibit 36 and Exhibit 41). These are of
limited assistance because of the lack of resolution in the CCTV images.
589.  The offender carrying the shotgun in the CCTV footage looks to be wearing the same clothes that the accused possessed the day before when shooting at the rifle range, namely:

(a) tradesman’s boots of similar appearance with black markings on the back at the
top and in the middle (Exhibits 36 and 43);

(b) tradesman’s pants with distinctive lightly coloured back pockets and a logo on
the side of the left knee (Exhibit 43);

(c) a hoodie (Exhibit 23); and
(d) a white cap (Exhibit 23).
590.  The boots and pants have a level of distinctiveness that is of significance. It may be accepted that they are not an uncommon form of work boot and that they did not contain any glass, which was the reason why they were initially seized. However, they did have distinct features which were also visible under infrared light.
591.  Further, the overall consistency with what the accused is filmed wearing at the shooting range the day before the incident and the outfit worn by offender 2 is also significant. The failure by police to locate any gloves that match those worn by offender 2 does not greatly detract from the pattern of similarity.
592.  In the video of the accused at the shooting range, I accept that the accused holds the weapon in a similar grip to offender 2 in the CCTV footage (Exhibit 29 compared to Exhibit 36).

The accused’s post-offence conduct

593.  The Crown also pointed to conduct of the accused after the incident on 28 June as supporting the proposition that he was offender 2.
594.  On 2 July 2018, four days after the incident, the accused sent a message on the
encrypted app Signal to “Yousless” stating, “I'm not in Canberra. I had to lay low hard”
(Exhibit 22). That is consistent with having recently been involved in activity which would
require him to “lay low hard”. Contrary to the submissions made on behalf of the
accused, there is no evidence that there was a likelihood of generalised retaliation by Mr Zdravkovic or any supporters against persons associated with the Soni faction that might explain such a remark.
595.   On 5 July 2018 the AFP issued a second media release about the shooting (Exhibit 45). On 7 July 2018, a week after the incident, the accused searched the internet on his
mobile phone for “adler 12 gauge popularity in Australia” (Exhibit 19). This was

consistent with a desire to assess the risk to him arising from the use of such a weapon
in the incident.
596.   On 24 July 2018 the accused sent messages to Soni demonstrating his continued loyalty to the Comancheros and willingness to follow orders, including showing a hostile
relationship towards “serb” (Exhibit 21).
597.  The accused believed by 24 July 2018 that he had a full patch but that they “need to clean up all this flops all serb is friends” (Exhibits 21 and 40). (Mr Zdravkovic was known
by the nickname “Serb Pete” and it is clear that in the communications with Soni, references to “serb” are to Mr Zdravkovic.) In that context the accused expressed
willingness to do more work to earn his 1% diamond and to prove how much the club meant to him. It is notable that even after he believed he had achieved membership of
the OMCG, the accused maintained his “obsequious tone” (as counsel for the accused
described it) in his communications with Soni.
598.  On 26 July 2018 police located a note in the bedside drawer of the accused's bedroom
that said “10 Carter Crescent” (Exhibit 15 photograph 19). The resident of 10 Carter
Crescent did not know the accused. Although some doubt was placed upon that
evidence arising from the resident’s involvement in a motor vehicle accident and some
tradesman having visited his house, the finding of the note must be considered in the context of the range of other evidence, including Exhibit 20 (the Google maps image created on 10 June 2018 with the dropped pin) which shows number 20 Carter Crescent but does not show number 10.
599.  Counsel for the accused pointed to the absence of evidence as to when, if at all, the accused became a nominee or member of the Comancheros. He pointed to the obsequious tone in the communications in Exhibit 21 suggesting that it was inconsistent with the author having achieved membership. However as pointed out above, at this point the accused believed he had become a member because of what Soni had told him. The accused also identified that there is the possibility that some other act apart from involvement in the 28 June incident resulted in the advancement of the accused to
membership. The accused also contended that the availability of “soft colours” on the

internet undermined the significance of the large quantities of items found during the
search of his house.
600.   Overall, the Crown case for faster than usual advancement within the Comancheros was
a strong one. The accused’s first messages to Soni are on 24 March 2018, and by July
he understands that he is a fully patched member and will shortly be presented with his patches. There is no other event disclosed by the evidence that would have been significant for the Comancheros at the time which might have justified rapid advancement. The mere involvement of his firearm in the incident would not seem to be a significant enough contribution to the acts of the gang to be consistent with the evidence of Mr Macken.

The accused’s admissions to AB

601. The Crown relies upon a number of admissions said to have been made to AB. They were as follows:

(a) The accused admitted to AB when they were in neighbouring cells that he was
involved in the incident at Mr Zdravkovic’s house and that he was the one with
the shotgun. The Crown submitted that although the police media releases referred to a shotgun, there is no reference about who has got it or where it was, meaning that this information must have come from the accused. (In fact, the two exhibits containing media releases referred to firearms but not to a shotgun
– tending to strengthen that submission).

(b) The accused admitted to AB that the whole purpose was not just to shoot Mr Zdravkovic, it was to kill him.
(c) The accused admitted to him that they drove to Mr Zdravkovic’s house in a
“hottie”, which AB understood to mean a stolen car.

(d) The accused admitted to him that they approached the house through the back sliding door. The accused told him there were four people there. The accused admitted to him that afterwards they tried to burn down the house. While the Crown accepted that this information was in the ACT police media releases it submitted that AB gave evidence that he did not really watch TV.
(e) The evidence established that gunshots were fired by Mr Zdravkovic at the front of the house. That shots were fired at the front of the house were facts not in any of the police media releases. AB gave evidence that the accused admitted to him that they got in their car and shots were fired as they were leaving.
(f) The accused told AB that he was only a “nom” for two months, and he was a
patched member now.

(g) The accused said that he was stupid and regretted using his own firearm that was registered to him, and that was what probably brought him undone.
602.  I have not placed any weight upon the evidence of AB. While the manner in which he gave evidence and my impression of him would tend to indicate that his evidence was truthful, the structural factors concerning his evidence and some features of his evidence indicate that I should not place any weight on his evidence.
603.  So far as the manner in which he gave evidence was concerned, he appeared to be doing his best. He carefully attended to some quite complex questioning. He gave, when challenged, a plausible explanation of his change of attitude to offending behaviour. He gave the impression of somebody who had in fact realised that he was wasting his life spending it in and out of jail and had made an effort to turn his life around.
604. However, regard must be had to the fact that he was a prison informer and the significance of the direction that I have referred to at [28] above. In particular, he was in a position where he had a strong motivation to give false evidence to police.
605.  Further, there were a number of features of his evidence which call into question its reliability:

(a) Notwithstanding that he gave evidence to Detective Sergeant Norman in the recorded conversation, he purported to have no recollection of that evidence either at the first trial or during this trial. However, when reminded what was recorded in his interview with police, he did assert that whatever he had told the police previously was the truth. While people do have complicated lives and do not necessarily recall what they have said to other people two years ago, the complete lack of recollection made me cautious about the reliability of his evidence.
(b) In addition to the police media releases and what appeared on television news there was potential for AB to obtain information from other people associated with the Comancheros within prison and outside prison, as the incident was clearly a significant one. Prior to the interview with police he had spent time in the community from 26 October until 10 December 2018 and there was a considerable discussion of the incident amongst people who knew about it. While I accept his evidence that some people would be reluctant to discuss what occurred because it involves an OMCG, I consider that it is likely that there were other sources for the information that he said he was given by the accused.
(c) AB’s evidence such as that to the effect that the accused had told AB that he
“went to Pete’s son and said that his dad is a very bad man and deserves what
he’s gonna get” is not supported by any other evidence in the case and is clearly
inconsistent with what is shown on the CCTV. Further, he gained the impression that the intruders went into the house which is also inconsistent with the evidence. While some inaccuracy would be understandable, the evidence
of the conversation with the accused’s son is a matter of some significance in
assessing the overall reliability of the evidence.

606.  There were a variety of other criticisms of his evidence which are not necessary to address in detail. I will, however, mention two.
607.  The inability of AB to remember the names of the other Comancheros who he said the accused identified as having been involved was not believable. However, given the prominence of the incident within the circles in which AB moved, I did not place great weight on that because, even if he did not advance this as a reason for not identifying those others involved, he may well have been reluctant to name senior members of the Comancheros to police.
608.   So far as the denial in the recorded conversation that any promise, threat or inducement had been held out to him to provide the answers that he had given (Question 62), I accept that the statement was incorrect. I do not accept that it reflects significantly upon the
witness’ credibility. In the context in which it was given, and as a wrapped up concept “threat, promise or inducement”, it is not surprising that a detainee who has not been
threatened but may have been given some inducement in relation to evidence in another
matter would answer “no”.

Conclusion as to identity of the offender

609.  Having regard to the fact that I have not placed any weight upon the evidence given by
AB, the Crown’s case in relation to the identity of the offender is circumstantial. In

assessing the Crown case I have taken into account that the accused is a person who
has no previous convictions for violence or dishonesty.
610.   As pointed out above, the evidence that the weapon used in the incident was the weapon owned by the accused was very strong.
611.  I do not consider that the variety of criticisms made of the extent of the police investigation are of significance. While some possible further investigations were pointed to during the evidence of Detective Sergeant Norman, they did not appear to me to be significant.

612.   The alternative hypothesis that might be available is that offender 2 is some other person
associated with the Comancheros using either the accused’s shotgun or another gun.
613.   So far as any other identified person is concerned, there was no evidence to support that
proposition. The evidence was effective in ruling out “Millsy” ([480] above) and Dean
Reid ([413] above) as well as other persons associated with the Comancheros whose involvement the police took steps to investigate.
614.  There was some evidence from Mr Macken of the possibility that if a club fails to deal internally with an issue then another chapter might become involved. However, as explained earlier, involvement by another chapter would be inconsistent with the very active steps taken by the Soni faction of the ACT chapter to deal with Mr Zdravkovic. It would be inconsistent with the identified involvement of Tooks and Soni in the incident. In my view, the possibility that Comancheros from other chapters were involved did not rise above a bare theoretical possibility.
615.  That leaves the possibility that some unidentified person associated with the
Comancheros using the accused’s shotgun, or another 12-gauge shotgun with
similarities to that of the accused, was offender 2. In my view the circumstances established by the Crown case, when considered together, exclude that possibility beyond a reasonable doubt. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that offender 2 is the accused and that he was using his own shotgun.

Conclusion as to individual counts

Count 1 – Attempted murder

Element 1 – Agreement: I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was an
agreement to murder Mr Zdravkovic. There is no direct evidence of that being the case. The earlier incident on the night of 17 March 2018 is not sufficient to indicate an intention to commit murder. Following that, accepting that there was an escalation of the conflict as a result of Mr Zdravkovic burning the Comanchero colours, the evidence does not establish beyond reasonable doubt an intention to murder as opposed to punish by the infliction of grievous bodily harm. That is the case in relation to the intention prior to
arrival at Mr Zdravkovic’s home. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that any
such agreement, express or arising from conduct, arose during the course of the incident. It is not possible to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the intention of either shooter was to shoot to kill.

617. In light of the conclusion in element 1, it is not necessary to consider the other elements or consider whether the Crown has excluded self-defence beyond reasonable doubt.

Count 2 – Intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm

618.  Element 1 – Agreement: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was an
agreement between the intruders that really serious injury would be inflicted upon Mr Zdravkovic. That was not the sole aspect of the agreement. Obviously, it also included the burning of vehicles. However, the actions of offenders 1 and 2 are inconsistent with them being there in a merely defensive role or the agreement being limited to arson.
619.  The background of conflict between the Comancheros and their former commander, including its escalation after the incident on the evening of 17 March 2018, supports the existence of an agreement to inflict really serious injury upon Mr Zdravkovic if the opportunity presented itself during the intrusion. The existence of such an agreement is
also supported by the actions of offenders 1 and 2 shown in the CCTV – enthusiastically

and aggressively continuing to shoot into the premises when the opportunity to hit
Mr Zdravkovic arose.
620.  Element 2 – Agreed offence committed: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
the agreed offence was committed in that one of the two shooters shot off the end of
Mr Zdravkovic’s left middle finger. I consider that the permanent loss of the middle finger

at the level of the middle phalanx is a really serious bodily injury and hence constitutes
grievous bodily harm.
621.  Element 3 - Accused and one other intended offence under agreement: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each of the intruders intended that an offence be committed under the agreement.

Self-defence: I am satisfied that the Crown has excluded self-defence. I accept that the evidence of Ms Senthavysouk and Mr Zdravkovic was not so reliable as to permit a conclusion as to whether the intruders or Mr Zdravkovic fired first. I accept that
Ms Senthavysouk’s statements to police and evidence may well have been affected by
her desire to say nothing to police that would incriminate her partner. Further, I do not consider that Mr Zdravkovic would be likely to be truthful in that regard, having regard to his history of involvement with an OMCG, his obvious hostility to Soni and his faction and his desire to characterise the intruders as cowards. Similarly, the ballistics evidence did not demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the glass was first shattered by an
incoming projectile and did not otherwise demonstrate that the intruders’ weapons were

fired first. Finally, it is not possible to work out from the compilation video whether the
first shot came from inside or outside the house.
623.   I accept that Mr Zdravkovic was of a state of mind that he would shoot to kill intruders.
624.   I am satisfied that the Crown has excluded beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that either of the shooters (offender 1 and the accused) believed that when shooting into the building it was necessary to do so in self-defence. First, there was no direct evidence that either had that state of mind. Second, such a state of mind would be inconsistent with the agreement that I have found beyond reasonable doubt to have existed prior to the shooting starting. Third, what may be observed on the CCTV is the aggressive and enthusiastic shooting into the building and the shooters returned to fire again in a way that is inconsistent with any defensive state of mind.
625.   Further, I am satisfied that the Crown has excluded beyond reasonable doubt that there could have been any reasonable grounds for such a belief, had it existed. That is because the accused and the other intruders had created a situation of emergency by
unlawfully entering onto Mr Zdravkovic’s premises with the intention of committing arson
and doing him harm. In those circumstances they had provoked a lawful attack upon themselves and could not claim upon reasonable grounds the right to defend themselves against that attack: Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645 at 664. There were no reasonable grounds for a belief that it was necessary to shoot back rather than cease their unlawful intrusion.
626.   The accused is therefore guilty of this offence.

Count 3 – Attempted arson with intent to endanger life

627.  Element 1 – Agreement: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was an
agreement that went beyond burning the vehicles. I do not accept the submission that the driver (offender 4) was heading towards the third car prior to diverting towards the back door. Rather, what is shown on the video demonstrates that the driver took a leading role in what was occurring and the other intruders awaited his arrival. He proceeded to the back door with a petrol container. Offender 3 acted consistently with a plan to link the vehicle fire to the house fire prior to being deterred by the shooting.
628.   I do not accept the submission that if there was a plan to use arson to endanger life then petrol would have been poured at the front door of the premises. Having regard to the fact that there was undoubtedly a plan to burn vehicles which required access to the rear of the premises and a plan, if it was possible, to shoot Mr Zdravkovic, it would have been inefficient and risky to attempt also to burn the front of the house which was secured within a courtyard and by other measures.
629.  I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the agreement extended beyond burning the vehicles and extended to setting fire to the house with the intention to harm the lives of the occupants.

Element 2 – Offence attempted: The offence was clearly attempted. Offender 4 poured
petrol into the premises and threw the fuel container into the premises. These acts were clearly more than merely preparatory to the offence. The only reason that the offence was not completed was that, as a result of offender 3 being interrupted while he created a trail of petrol to the sliding door by the outbreak of shooting, the flames from the petrol burning near the cars did not travel as it was intended all the way to the rear sliding door of the house.

631. Element 3 – Accused and one other intended offence under agreement: I am

satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each of the intruders intended that an offence be
committed under the agreement.

632. The accused is therefore guilty on this charge.
Count 4 – Aggravated burglary

633. Element 1 – Agreement: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was an
agreement between each of the intruders that at least two of them would enter into 20 Carter Crescent without the permission of the occupier. I am also satisfied that they agreed that at least one of them had an offensive weapon with him. That clearly arises from the circumstances in which the incident occurred. It is necessary to establish that the intruders agreed to enter a building and did enter a building. Building is defined as including any structure for residential purposes. That includes both the carport and the covered outdoor area at the back of the house. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the agreement between the intruders extended to entering the carport for the purposes of allowing access to the driver and to allow the arson of the motor vehicles. It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the offenders had engaged in sufficient planning to know the layout of the premises and that they needed to open the carport from inside. Further, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they knew that they would be approaching the back door and that there was a covered outdoor area. In any event, even if the planning had not been sufficient to properly identify the layout of the premises, such an agreement would have arisen upon the arrival of offenders 1, 2 and 3 on the driveway at the rear of the carport when the location of the carport and the outdoor area was apparent to them.

Element 2 – Offence committed: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that:

(a) each of offenders 1, 2 and 3 entered the carport and offenders 1, 2 and 4 entered the covered outdoor area;
(b) they entered as trespassers;
(c) the groups identified above entered together and further they entered when offenders 1 and 2 had an offensive weapon with him; and
(d) they entered with the intention of committing arson.
635. Each of these matters arises from what can be seen on the CCTV, understood in the context of the events leading up to that night.
636. Element 3 – Accused and one other intended offence under agreement: I am

satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of entry the accused and each of the
other offenders intended that an offence would be committed under the agreement.

637. The accused is guilty of this offence.

Count 5 – Arson

638.  Element 1 – Agreement: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was an
agreement between the intruders that arson of the vehicles would be committed. That is demonstrated by the preparation of containers of petrol, the scheme by which access was gained to the carport from the rear of the property to allow access to the carport and entry with the petrol, and the steps that can be observed on the CCTV taken by offender 3 to douse the cars with petrol and offender 3 to ignite that petrol as the intruders were making their escape.
639.  Element 2 – Agreed offence committed: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that

the agreed offence was committed in that offender 3 lit the petrol on one of the vehicles
and thereby cause all three to be burnt.
640.  Element 3 – Accused and one other intended an offence be committed under the

agreement: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused and each of the
other intruders intended that an offence be committed under the agreement.

641. The accused is guilty of this offence.

Count 6 – Act endangering life

642.  Element 1 – Agreement: I am satisfied that there was an agreement that one or more
of the two weapon carrying offenders would discharge their firearms into the house in a manner that would cause persons to reasonably apprehend for their safety. While the intruders could not have been absolutely certain that the house would be occupied, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the agreement was that firearms would be discharged and if persons were there the discharge would be done so in a manner that caused them to fear for their safety.
643.  I reject beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that there was no agreement to discharge the weapons at the premises or that they were only brought along for defensive purposes. That is inconsistent with what is shown on the CCTV, particularly the hovering at the back door pending the arrival of the driver (offender 4) and then the enthusiastic and aggressive discharge of multiple shots by two shooters into the residence when Mr Zdravkovic appeared.
644.  Element 2 – Offence committed: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the
offence was committed in that loaded arms were discharged at the premises and the discharge of those firearms caused Ms Senthavysouk reasonable apprehension for her safety.
645.  Element 3 – Accused and one other intended offence be committed under the

agreement: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused and the other
offenders intended that the offence would be committed under the agreement.
646.  Self-defence: For the reasons given in relation to count 2 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown has excluded self-defence.

647. The accused is guilty of this offence.

Count 7

Element 1 - Vehicle taken: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the silver Toyota Prado was taken by someone from the identified owner referred to at [186] and [420] above.

649.  Element 2 – Taken dishonestly: Having regard to the evidence given by Detective
Sergeant Norman about the circumstances in which the vehicle was taken, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle was taken dishonestly.
650.  Element 3 – Owner did not consent: Further, based on that same evidence, I am
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the owner did not consent to it being taken.
651.  Element 4 – Accused rode in vehicle: I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the
identity of offender 2. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each of the offenders drove to and from the scene in the vehicle. I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle shown in the CCTV is the same vehicle that was stolen and the same vehicle that was found burnt out shortly after the incident. This element is therefore established beyond reasonable doubt.
652.  Element 5 – Accused rode dishonestly: Having regard to the circumstances in which
he rode in it (with leaders of an OMCG, for the purposes of a hit, understanding it would be destroyed), I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was aware that the vehicle was a stolen vehicle. Therefore, this element is made out.

653. The offender is guilty of this offence.

Verdicts

654. The verdicts that I return are as follows:

(a) count 1 (CC2018/10914): not guilty;
(b) count 2 (CC2018/11028): guilty;
(c) count 3 (CC2018/11025): guilty;
(d) count 4 (CC2018/11022): guilty;
(e) count 5 (CC2018/11020): guilty;
(f) count 6 (CC2018/11023): guilty;
(g) count 7 (CC2018/11027): guilty.
655. Finally, I note the guilty plea in relation to the charge of failing to properly store ammunition (CC2018/13863).
I certify that the preceding six hundred and fifty-five [655] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop.
Associate:
Date: 4 February 2021

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

Amendments

3 February 2021	Anonymisation and redaction for publication on the	Throughout
internet

Add “311” Legislation Cited
Replace “Constable Jacob Tapscott” with “Senior Paragraph: [96]
Constable Jacob Tapscott”
Amend “recognise” to “recognised” Paragraph: [116]
Replace “Sergeant Ball” with “Detective Sergeant Ball” Paragraph: [129]
Replace “Detective Sergeant Chris Ball” with “Detective Paragraph: [146]
Sergeant Ball”
Replace “his wife” with “Ms Senthavysouk” Paragraph: [177]
Replace “marking WINCHESTER 12 GA” with Paragraph: [201]
“WINCHESTER 12 GA”
Replace “out front” with “out the front” Paragraph: [237]
Replace “butt shotgun” with “butt of the shotgun” Paragraph: [261]
Replace “OMCG who identified” with “OMCG which Paragraph: [309]
identified”
Amend “sortaf” to “sorta” Paragraph: [347]
Replace “person Y’s and” to “person Y’s matter and” Paragraph: [386]
Replace “Constable Harman” with “Detective Senior Paragraph: [421]
Constable Harman”
Amend “password” to “passcode” Paragraph: [425]
Amend “creating” to “create” Paragraph: [440]
Replace “Constable Sarah Harman” with “Detective Paragraph: [496]
Senior Constable Harman”

Replace “10 through the 18” to “10 through 18” Paragraph:
[497](e)

Replace “a bum bag shown of” to “a bum bag of” Paragraph: [505]
Replace “a bundle images” with “a bundle of images” Paragraph: [506]
Replace “The last time person” with “The last person” Paragraph: [510]
Replace “not happy being” with “not happy with him Paragraph: [510]
being”
Amend “36C” to “39C” Paragraph: [521]

Amend “left-handed” to “left-side” Paragraph:
[525](d)

Replace “house on the date” with “house and the date” Paragraph: [526]
Replace “ACT press conferences” with “ACT Police Paragraph: [529]
press conferences”

(a)	count 1: attempted murder of Peter Zdravkovic contrary to s 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and s 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);
(b)	count 2: intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Peter Zdravkovic contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act;
(c)	count 3: attempted arson with intent to endanger life contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act and s 44 of the Criminal Code;
(d)	count 4: aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code;
(e)	count 5: arson contrary to s 404 of the Criminal Code;
(f)	count 6: act endangering life contrary to s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act; and
(g)	count 7: dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code.

(a)	the principles of law applied; and
(b)	the findings of fact which I make.

(a)	the reliability and accuracy of the material which the expert used to reach his or her opinion; and
(b)	the degree to which the expert analysed the material upon which the opinion was based, and the skill and experience brought to bear in formulating the opinion given.

(a)	a left middle finger comminuted fracture and amputation at the level of the middle phalanx;
(b)	a left ring finger laceration and extensor tendon laceration;
(c)	a left index finger distal fat pad injury; and
(d)	two glass foreign bodies in his right foot.

(b)	He also identified other similarities or impressions in the same relative location on the test fired and exhibit cartridge cases on the primer that were not the result of subclass characteristics.
(c)	His ultimate conclusion was that the markings on the exhibit cartridge cases from the crime scene were consistent with coming from the accused's shotgun.

(a)	the repetition of microscopic features within the crescent shaped area;
(b)	the explanation of the manner in which that crescent shaped area was created as a result of the plastic deformation of a part of the bolt face adjacent to the ejector cut-out; and
(c)	the evidence that the crescent shaped area did not arise from subclass characteristics ([227] above),

(a)	the multiple microscopic impressions on the primer which were repeated between test and exhibit cartridges;
(b)	the fact that these arose as a result of the firing process; and
(c)	were not the result of subclass characteristics ([230] above),

(b)	The accused admitted to AB that the whole purpose was not just to shoot Mr Zdravkovic, it was to kill him.
(c)	The accused admitted to him that they drove to Mr Zdravkovic’s house in a

(d)	The accused admitted to him that they approached the house through the back sliding door. The accused told him there were four people there. The accused admitted to him that afterwards they tried to burn down the house. While the Crown accepted that this information was in the ACT police media releases it submitted that AB gave evidence that he did not really watch TV.
(e)	The evidence established that gunshots were fired by Mr Zdravkovic at the front of the house. That shots were fired at the front of the house were facts not in any of the police media releases. AB gave evidence that the accused admitted to him that they got in their car and shots were fired as they were leaving.
(f)	The accused told AB that he was only a “nom” for two months, and he was a

(a)	Notwithstanding that he gave evidence to Detective Sergeant Norman in the recorded conversation, he purported to have no recollection of that evidence either at the first trial or during this trial. However, when reminded what was recorded in his interview with police, he did assert that whatever he had told the police previously was the truth. While people do have complicated lives and do not necessarily recall what they have said to other people two years ago, the complete lack of recollection made me cautious about the reliability of his evidence.
(b)	In addition to the police media releases and what appeared on television news there was potential for AB to obtain information from other people associated with the Comancheros within prison and outside prison, as the incident was clearly a significant one. Prior to the interview with police he had spent time in the community from 26 October until 10 December 2018 and there was a considerable discussion of the incident amongst people who knew about it. While I accept his evidence that some people would be reluctant to discuss what occurred because it involves an OMCG, I consider that it is likely that there were other sources for the information that he said he was given by the accused.
(c)	AB’s evidence such as that to the effect that the accused had told AB that he

(a)	each of offenders 1, 2 and 3 entered the carport and offenders 1, 2 and 4 entered the covered outdoor area;
(b)	they entered as trespassers;
(c)	the groups identified above entered together and further they entered when offenders 1 and 2 had an offensive weapon with him; and
(d)	they entered with the intention of committing arson.

(a)	count 1 (CC2018/10914): not guilty;
(b)	count 2 (CC2018/11028): guilty;
(c)	count 3 (CC2018/11025): guilty;
(d)	count 4 (CC2018/11022): guilty;
(e)	count 5 (CC2018/11020): guilty;
(f)	count 6 (CC2018/11023): guilty;
(g)	count 7 (CC2018/11027): guilty.

Add “311”	Legislation Cited
Replace “Constable Jacob Tapscott” with “Senior	Paragraph: [96]
Constable Jacob Tapscott”
Amend “recognise” to “recognised”	Paragraph: [116]
Replace “Sergeant Ball” with “Detective Sergeant Ball”	Paragraph: [129]
Replace “Detective Sergeant Chris Ball” with “Detective	Paragraph: [146]
Sergeant Ball”
Replace “his wife” with “Ms Senthavysouk”	Paragraph: [177]
Replace “marking WINCHESTER 12 GA” with	Paragraph: [201]
“WINCHESTER 12 GA”
Replace “out front” with “out the front”	Paragraph: [237]
Replace “butt shotgun” with “butt of the shotgun”	Paragraph: [261]
Replace “OMCG who identified” with “OMCG which	Paragraph: [309]
identified”
Amend “sortaf” to “sorta”	Paragraph: [347]
Replace “person Y’s and” to “person Y’s matter and”	Paragraph: [386]
Replace “Constable Harman” with “Detective Senior	Paragraph: [421]
Constable Harman”
Amend “password” to “passcode”	Paragraph: [425]
Amend “creating” to “create”	Paragraph: [440]
Replace “Constable Sarah Harman” with “Detective	Paragraph: [496]
Senior Constable Harman”
Replace “10 through the 18” to “10 through 18”	Paragraph: [497](e)
Replace “a bum bag shown of” to “a bum bag of”	Paragraph: [505]
Replace “a bundle images” with “a bundle of images”	Paragraph: [506]
Replace “The last time person” with “The last person”	Paragraph: [510]
Replace “not happy being” with “not happy with him	Paragraph: [510]
being”
Amend “36C” to “39C”	Paragraph: [521]
Amend “left-handed” to “left-side”	Paragraph: [525](d)
Replace “house on the date” with “house and the date”	Paragraph: [526]
Replace “ACT press conferences” with “ACT Police	Paragraph: [529]
press conferences”