The State of Western Australia v Tresnjo - [2013] WADC 72

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- TRESNJO [2013] WADC 72

CORAM: MCCANN DCJ

HEARD: 27 & 28 MARCH 2013

DELIVERED : 14 MAY 2013

FILE NO/S: IND 1692 of 2011

BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
AND
LEJLA TRESNJO
LORIANNA CREWS

Catchwords:

Evidence - Telephone and surveillance product - Context - Coconspirators rule - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Evidence Act 1906 s 31A
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 s 3(1), s 6(1)(a), s 11(a)

Result:

Rulings made
Accuseds' objections to admissibility of evidence over-ruled

Representation:

Counsel:

The State of Western Australia :    Ms L E Christian & Mr L K Rosenthal
First-named Accused          :    Ms L B Black
Second-named Accused          :    Mr A E Eyers

Solicitors:

The State of Western Australia :    State Director of Public Prosecutions
First-named Accused          :    Kate King Legal Pty Ltd
Second-named Accused          :    Finola Bar Law Practice

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ahern v The Queen (1998) 165 CLR 87
Chamberlain v The Queen (1984) 51 ALR 225
Daniels v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 213
Davies v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 47
Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108
Michaels v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 174
Punevski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 71
R v Braysich (2006) 166 A Crim R 109
Russell v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 213
Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965
The King and the Attorney General of the Commonwealth v The Associated Northern Collieries (1911) 14 CLR 387
The State of Western Australia v R [2007] WASCA 42
Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1
Upton v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 54

MCCANN DCJ:

Introduction

Ms Tresnjo and Ms Crews are each charged that contrary to s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981:
(1)On 10 September 2010 at South Perth they had in their possession a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, with intent to sell or supply it to another;
(2)On 24 September 2010 at South Perth they had in their possession a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, with intent to sell or supply it to another.
The State contends that each accused was a member of a joint drug dealing enterprise with co‑offenders, namely Bernd Neumann, John Cameron and Stephen Cookson (as to count 1 only). For reasons which are not presently relevant, only Ms Tresnjo and Ms Crews are charged in the present indictment.
I am required to rule on the admissibility as to each of Ms Tresnjo and Ms Crews of the product of a number of lawfully intercepted communications between her alleged co‑offenders to which she was not a party.
I am incidentally required to rule as to whether the State's case against each woman is sufficiently particularised and as to the cross‑admissibility of evidence.

The State case

The evidence includes the product of telephone intercepts (including SMS's) and surveillance devices (audio and visual), the observations of surveillance operatives, airline travel records and items seized in various searches and the testing of the same.
The following is a summary of the basic facts which the State contends can be established:
(i)In August 2010 Messrs Neumann, Cookson and Cameron were involved in an ongoing enterprise of buying and selling illegal drugs, including methylamphetamine.
(ii)Neumann was the ringleader of the enterprise and made all executive decisions. Cameron primarily acted as the courier between New South Wales (where the drugs were sourced) and Perth. Cookson was responsible for distribution to other drug dealers in Perth.
(iii)Neumann and Cookson were also involved in the horse racing industry, including a business which supplied veterinary drugs and supplements such as 'TB500' and 'BioBute'. From time to time Neumann and Cookson referred to 'TB500' and 'BioBute' (or derivatives) in their communications as code for methylamphetamine.
(iv)Neumann rented an apartment at 2/31 Mill Point Road, South Perth for the purpose of receiving, storing and distributing the illegal drugs.
(v)As at 25 August, Neumann and Cookson were concerned that a batch of methylamphetamine that they had obtained from New South Wales had not been up to the usual standard.
(vi)At this time Ms Crews was in a relationship with Neumann and knew of his drug dealing activities with Cookson and Cameron.
(vii)From not later than 27 August, Ms Crews involved herself in the furtherance of the enterprise by performing tasks at Neumann's request.
(viii)Neumann and Ms Tresnjo met each other during one of Neumann's trips to Sydney in August and discussed doing 'business' together. Ms Tresnjo informed Neumann that she could source an alternative supplier of methylamphetamine for Neumann. Neumann believed that a Ms Kelly Murray could be of assistance.
(ix)Neumann travelled to Sydney on 3 September to see the supplier of the substandard batch of methylamphetamine.
(x)Ms Tresnjo flew from Perth to Sydney on 4 September to meet Neumann. She was supposed to have taken a flight the previous evening (3 September) and meet Neumann at the airport after their respective planes arrived, but she missed her flight (or, at least, that is what she said at the time).
(xi)Neumann, Cameron and Ms Tresnjo met in Sydney on or about 4 September. Ms Tresnjo became an active participant in the enterprise from no later than this time.
(xii)In particular, Ms Tresnjo introduced Neumann and Cameron to a new supplier of methylamphetamine.
(xiii)At the request of Neumann, Cameron returned to Perth on 5 September to raise money to buy methylamphetamine in Sydney. He was tasked with collecting debts from Neumann's customers and selling a quantity of methylamphetamine that Neumann had hidden in Perth.
(xiv)Cookson and Ms Crews assisted Cameron to do so, using the South Perth apartment as a base.
(xv)Neumann and Ms Tresnjo remained in Sydney. (Neumann was stranded in Sydney until approximately 13 September owing to an eardrum problem which prevented him from travelling by air.)
(xvi)Cameron flew back to Sydney on or about 8 September with a quantity of cash. Ms Crews helped to assemble the cash, provided Cameron with a telephone and took him to Perth airport. She and Neumann agreed beforehand that she would help Cameron to get the cash through airport security (she would take some of it through and return it to Cameron).
(xvii)Neumann and Ms Tresnjo met and purchased methylamphetamine from the new supplier in Sydney on the evening of 8 September. Neumann had it in his possession by 9 September.
(xviii)Cameron flew back to Perth on 10 September with the methylamphetamine. He took it directly to the South Perth apartment with Ms Crew's help.
(xix)Cookson and Cameron distributed and sold the methylamphetamine from the South Perth apartment on the evening of 10 September. Ms Crews was at the apartment at the time, kept Neumann up to date by telephone and disposed of incriminating rubbish. Count 1 on the indictment relates to Ms Tresnjo's and Ms Crews' possession of this quantity of drugs.
(xx)Ms Tresjno flew back to Perth on 13 September.
(xxi)By this stage Neumann had decided to exclude Cookson from the enterprise. Ms Crews assisted him to do so by lying to Cookson about Neumann's activities and whereabouts.
(xxii)Ms Tresnjo flew back to Sydney on 16 September. She met with the new supplier and was given a sample (0.6 ml) of liquid methylamphetamine in a small glass container.
(xxiii)Cameron also flew back to Sydney on 16 September to purchase another quantity of methylamphetamine, taking $140,000 in cash with him. Ms Crews assisted Neumann to count and package that money, using a counting machine that Neumann purchased in Sydney and posted to Ms Crews' post office box. She collected it on 15 September.
(xxiv)Ms Tresnjo flew back to Perth on 22 September. She forgot (or so she said) to bring the vial of liquid methylamphetamine which was left with some of her possessions at Cameron's flat in Sydney.
(xxv)On arrival in Perth she met Neumann at the South Perth apartment. They discussed the pending drug purchase in Sydney.
(xxvi)At approximately 5.35 pm on 22 September, Cameron met an associate of the supplier named 'Jim' and gave him the cash which he had taken to Sydney.
(xxvii)Cameron received two quantities of methylamphetamine shortly after the transaction was completed. One quantity was paid for with the cash. The other was paid for by Ms Tresnjo. She had facilitated and assisted with the purchase of these drugs when she was in Sydney.
(xxviii)Afterwards the suppliers of the first quantity asserted to Cameron that they had only received $135,000, ie, they had been short‑changed by $5,000.
(xxix)Cameron flew back to Perth on the morning of 24 September, bringing all of the methylamphetamine with him, as well as the sample. He arrived at Perth airport at 11.18 am and travelled by taxi to the South Perth apartment.
(xxx)By prior arrangement Cameron was met at the apartment by Ms Crews at approximately 12.12 pm and taken inside. Amongst other things they then had a discussion about the missing $5,000. Ms Crews insisted that Cameron had been given $140,000 because she had counted it and helped pack it herself. She was adamant that the supplier miscounted it.
(xxxi)Neumann arrived at the apartment at about 12.34 pm.
(xxxii)Ms Crews left the apartment at about 12.49 pm. Neumann and Cameron then began removing packages of methylamphetamine from a belt which Cameron had worn over from Sydney.
(xxxiii)Police gained entry to the apartment at 12.59 pm and arrested Neumann and Cameron while they were still removing the packages.
(xxxiv)The police seized four packages. Three of the packages contained 16 bags of methylamphetamine weighing approximately 1 ounce each (28.3 grams) with an average purity of 59.4%. A fourth belt‑like package contained four bags of purplish methylamphetamine weighing a total of 467.7 gm with an average purity of 70.75%. The total of 860.9 grams is the subject of count 2.
(xxv)Neumann and Ms Tresnjo had previously arranged for her to come to the South Perth apartment after Cameron arrived, which she did after an exchange of text messages (one of which was sent by police using Neumann's phone). She was in possession of $19,800 cash, five mobile phones and a methylamphetamine pipe.
(xxvi)Ms Crews was stopped in her vehicle at Leederville around 1.10 pm.

The defences

For present purposes neither Ms Tresnjo nor Ms Crews disputes the accuracy of the telephone intercept and other surveillance product and evidence relied on by the State. As such, neither disputes their proximity to, and communication with, members of Neumann's enterprise. Each puts the State to proof of their knowledge of the enterprise's drug dealing activities specifically related to each count and their involvement in the same.
Clearly, the State must negative any inference of innocent association that arguably arises from the evidence. In part the State seeks to do so by reference to the guarded, coded and/or clandestine nature of the telephone and surveillance product.
Ms Crews owned and operated her own settlement agency and her conversations with Neumann sometimes related to that. Mr Eyers, who appeared for her, went further and explicitly stipulated that, as far as she was concerned or knew, at worst the enterprise's activities were limited to the illicit purchase and distribution of Medivet products such as BioBute and TB‑500: hence the clandestine telephone and surveillance product. (I shall refer to this as Ms Crews' defence hypothesis.)
Ms Crews' defence hypothesis is supported by the fact that the police found a quantity of Medivet product in the South Perth apartment during a covert search on 8 September and (I infer) on 24 September. There is further evidence to support the hypothesis in the statement of Mr Shaneel Khan who will state that:
(i)He is the chief executive officer of Medivet Pty Ltd which is a distributor of veterinary products in Australia such as BioBute, TB‑500 and Activate.
(ii)BioBute was a topical animal pain relief that was sold in 125 ml and 500 ml bottles, or as a patch (in 10's) for retail (wholesale) prices of respectively $34.95 ($23.10), $99 ($66) and $29.95 ($21).
(iii)TB‑500 is a synthetic peptide used by subcutaneous injection mixed with saline. It was sold for $500 retail (per 10 mg vial) or $3,000 (for six vials).
(iv)Relevant racing rules applied to TB‑500 and it could only be distributed to veterinarians or other professionals.
(v)Medivet had no distributor in Western Australia and had never had any dealings with Neumann, Cookson or Ms Crews. However those people could have dealt with a sub‑distributor in another State, of which Kelly Murray was one, without Medivet becoming aware of it.
(vi)In August and September 2010 Medivet made only three sales to veterinary clinics in WA.

The elements of each count

The State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each accused had possession of the methylamphetamine in each count with intent to sell or supply it to another.
In all the circumstances, and having regard to s 11(a) of the Act, it is clear that the only issue in each case is whether Ms Crews or Ms Tresnjo had joint possession with Neumann, Cookson and/or Cameron of the relevant methylamphetamine as alleged.
The element of possession is non‑exhaustively defined in s 3(1) of the Act as follows:
To possess includes to control or have dominion over, and have the order or disposition of … [which, for convenience, I shall refer to as 'control'].
The primary requirement for possession, at least in the legal sense, is knowledge (He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523). A person cannot be in possession of a drug of which she or he is unaware, including when the drug is in that person's actual physical custody. Having a suspicion or an idea of the presence of drugs is not necessarily the same thing as knowledge. The prosecution must establish that the accused had an awareness or belief in the likelihood, in the sense that there was a significant or real chance, that the item in question was a prohibited drug (The State of Western Australia v R [2007] WASCA 42; [67], [200]).
Knowledge is not, of itself, a sufficient basis for possession. Possession also connotes having control.
Possession includes joint possession by more than one person and the nature of their joint possession need not be identical (Davies v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 47).
Possession is not the same thing as ownership, but the latter may be evidence of the former.
In this case the State must establish beyond reasonable doubt that each accused had knowledge of the presence of some or all the prohibited drugs in the apartment in South Perth and had some control over the same.
Pursuant to the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise, if a person reaches an understanding or arrangement amounting to an agreement with another or others that they will commit a crime, and one or other of the parties to the understanding or agreement does so, or they do so between them in accordance with the continuing understanding or arrangement, then all are equally guilty regardless of the part each played in the commission of the crime (McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108; Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1 [35] ‑ 36] and Michaels v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 174 [13]).
The State's cases are entirely circumstantial. That is to say, it is a case in which it is contended that an inference of guilt can be drawn on each count based on the combined force of a number of facts and circumstances, no one of which is by itself sufficient to prove guilt. The State is not required to prove any of these facts or circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Only the elements need to be proved to that standard: Chamberlain v The Queen (1984) 51 ALR 225, 236 ‑ 237).

The co‑conspirators rule and other rules of evidence

Evidence is inadmissible unless it is relevant to the issues in the proceedings. Evidence is relevant if it could rationally affect, directly or indirectly, the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue.
Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not called to give evidence is hearsay and generally inadmissible when the purpose of adducing the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in, or implied by, the statement.
However, evidence is not hearsay, and is therefore admissible, when it is not led to establish the truth of the statement, but rather to establish the fact that it was made, and, a fortiori, the effect of the making of the statement on the recipient: (Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965; Upton v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 54 [49]).
There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule including, for instance, the res gestae rule and the rule as to statements against interest.
In this case the State seeks to adduce evidence of conversations and communications (as well as acts) to which each accused was not privy (ie, evidence which is prima facie hearsay) on the bases that it is admissible pursuant to the so called co‑conspirators' rule and/or because it is essential background evidence which places the State's circumstantial case in its proper context.
The co‑conspirators' rule provides that when two or more persons are bound together in the pursuit of an unlawful object (ie, a joint criminal enterprise) anything said, done or written by one in furtherance of the common purpose is admissible in evidence against the others (Michaels v The State of Western Australia citing Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1, 7; R v Braysich (2006) 166 A Crim R 109 [36] – [39]; Ahern v The Queen (1998) 165 CLR 87, 95 and Punevski v The Queen [2000] WASCA 71 [37]).
The co‑conspirators' rule is underpinned by the concept of agency. It proceeds on the basis that entering into a joint illegal combination or enterprise implies the giving of authority by each participant to the others to act or speak on his or her behalf (Michaels [23]; Ahern (95)).
Three conditions must be established in order to bring the rule into operation. These are questions of law since they relate to a question of admissibility. Accordingly they must be decided by the trial judge (Ahern (103 – 104 and Punevski [40] on the basis of 'independent' evidence, which means no more than evidence admissible in the ordinary way against the accused excluding evidence of the acts (insofar as they imply hearsay assertion) and hearsay declarations of the alleged co‑offenders (Punevski [41]).
First, there must be evidence of a combination or preconcert of the type alleged in the charge which goes further than some understanding or agreement of a criminal nature. The evidence must support a finding that the combination was for an unlawful purpose of the same general character as the offence charged (Punevski [39]).
Second, the evidence must suggest that the particular accused was participating in the combination, preconcert or enterprise. This is a crime of law since it relates to a question of admissibility. Accordingly it must be decided by the trial judge (Ahern (103 – 104) and Punevski [40]) on the basis of 'independent' evidence, which means no more than evidence admissible in the ordinary way against the accused excluding evidence of the acts (insofar as they imply hearsay assertion) and hearsay declarations of the alleged co‑offenders (Punevski [41]).
The standard of proof (ie, as to the accused's participation) is the prima facie standard in the sense that there must be reasonable evidence on which a tribunal of fact could lawfully and properly reach the conclusion that the accused was a participant (Ahern (83); Punevski [42]).

The independent evidence may comprise evidence of the particular accused's own acts, as in Punevski where there was 'abundant independent evidence' that he was engaged with the co‑offenders in an attempt to get hold of some ecstasy which a courier had brought to Perth. The particular accused's conduct is not to be considered in isolation and may be considered in relation to the coincident conduct of alleged co‑offenders and, in effect, all relevant circumstantial evidence (Punevski [45]). In other words the word 'independent' refers to evidence independent of the evidence sought to be adduced under the co‑conspirators' rule.
The behaviour of the particular accused may provide independent evidence of both the fact of the joint enterprise as well as his participation in it (Punevski [47] and The King and the Attorney General of the Commonwealth v The Associated Northern Collieries (1911) 14 CLR 387). In Northern Collieries Isaacs J made the following statement (cited in Punevski):
…though primarily each set of acts is attributable to the person whose acts they are, and to him alone, there may be such a concurrence of time, character, direction and result as naturally to lead to the inference that such separate acts were the outcome of pre-concert, or some mutual contemporaneous engagement, or that they were themselves the manifestations of mutual consent to carry out a common purpose, thus forming as well as evidencing a combination to effect the one object towards which the separate acts are found to converge.
Third, the evidence of the acts and statements of the other participants in the enterprise must have been performed or uttered in furtherance of the common purpose to which the accused is bound, ie, once the particular accused has joined the enterprise. This temporal requirement is a consequence of the implied agency. But it must be emphasized that this rider only applies to the identification of the evidence that may be admitted under the rule. The circumstantial evidence of the particular accused's involvement in the enterprise may include circumstances prior to joining which relate to context, to which I now turn.
Evidence of the acts and statements of offenders made at any time to which the particular accused is not privy may be admissible if they place relevant events in their true context without which the essential background to the case cannot be properly understood (Upton [58]). This basis for admissibility is separate from the co‑conspirators rule (Michaels [23]; see also Punevski [48]).
The facts of Upton illustrate this principle. Upton was charged with selling or supplying a quantity of MDMA tablets to one Loffler on 21 January 2005. Two others, Wallace and Armstrong, were said to be involved in this scheme. On appeal one of the issues was whether evidence could be adduced of conversations between Wallace, Loffler and Armstrong which occurred before and after certain conversations to which Upton was privy and prior to Loffler coming into possession of the relevant drugs. The State was obliged to negative a contention that Upton's relationship with Loffler was innocent (ie, that she was unaware of the existence of drugs). To that end the State led evidence which showed that Upton's relationship with Loffler was not innocent and that she was privy to, or played a part in, his drug dealing activities. The court held ([59] per Steytler P) that the challenged telephone calls did 'much to achieve that objective'. They established that Loffler and Armstrong were engaged in drug dealing and that they spoke in a code very similar to that used by Loffler and Upton in their conversations. The President said:
If the jury were required to ignore these calls when considering the case against Upton, it would be difficult for them to understand the meaning and significance of the conversations between [her] and Loffler, or the nature of the relationship between the two. On the other hand, by permitting the jury to take these calls into account, the trial judge enabled them to understand the drug dealing relationship between Loffler and Armstrong. They were also able to understand what the appellant knew and understood about Loffler's activities, and consequently to draw the logical and compelling inference that [her] relationship with Loffler was not innocent …
In other words, context evidence may be adduced to identify the co‑offenders' criminal lingua franca for the purpose of proving the particular accused's comprehension and use of it and, thus, involvement in the criminal enterprise.
Punevski also provides helpful guidance insofar as it illustrates that the antecedent acts of the alleged co‑offenders (in furtherance of the joint enterprise before Punevski joined it) may be relevant as circumstantial evidence of context.
Finally, evidence of the propensity of the particular accused may be admissible subject to s 31A of the Evidence Act 1906 if it is relevant to any live issue, and may thus form part of the 'independent evidence' for the purposes of the co‑conspirators rule or for establishing context, or for both purposes. It must, have significant probative value when considered either by itself or with other evidence and it would be necessary that the probative value compared to the degree of risk of an unfair trial be such that fair‑minded people would think that the public interest in adducing all relevant evidence of guilt have priority over the risk of an unfair trial (see Danielsv The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 213 [42] ‑ [51]).
The State contends that the evidence in respect of each count against each accused is cross‑admissible on the other count, ie, the evidence in respect of count 1 is admissible in respect of count 2 and vice versa.
Each case must be judged on its own circumstances. The jury will be required to examine each charge separately and will not be permitted to approach the charges in a global way. But that does not preclude the possibility of evidence on one being relevant to the other, and vice versa, because it may be open to draw inferences from a series of directly or indirectly connected events.
In a case in which there is a degree of underlying unity, similarity and/or contemporaneity all of the events before and after the commission of the index offence (including the evidence led in respect of the other offence) may be relevant to determining the accused's guilt in respect of the index offence. They may demonstrate, for instance, that the accused had a propensity to deal in drugs (as was the case in Upton) or that the accused had esoteric knowledge of the activities of the illegal enterprises (eg, understood the code).
I accept that evidence of other offending would not be cross‑admissible in a number of instances, including a case in which an accused person's alleged propensity to offend is to be proved by the commission of another of discrete offences over a period of time, and then it might only be admissible in respect of counts for which there is a guilty verdict.
It by no means follows in a case such as the present that the cross‑admission of evidence will automatically lead to the same verdict on each count. To illustrate, evidence on one count might establish that the particular accused was au fait with the drug dealing enterprise of the co‑offenders and thus place conduct in respect of the other count in an incriminating light (by establishing propensity for example), but yet be insufficient to lead to a conviction on the first‑mentioned count for all sorts of reasons, including, for example, that the particular accused had knowledge of the presence of the drugs but did not at that juncture have the requisite control to be guilty of possession.
I turn now to consider the admissibility of the challenged evidence in respect of each accused in this matter.

The evidence against Ms Tresnjo and Ms Crews

The State is taking a selective approach to the admissibility of the intercepted product. So, for instance, it does not contend that all of the product is admissible in respect of each accused.
Each accused formally objects to the admissibility of all telephone intercept and surveillance product which the State seeks to adduce and to which she was not a party, whilst accepting that it may be admissible against the other under certain circumstances.
Having said that, Ms Black accepted on Ms Tresnjo's behalf that the evidence against her in respect of count 2 is stronger than in respect of count 1 and may give rise to a reasonable case as and from 14 September 2010. That concession was properly made.
Contrary to my initial and overly‑sanguine hopes, there is no alternative but for me to address all of the telephone intercept and surveillance device product in depth, as was done during submissions.
The State contends that the relevant (ie, incriminating) communications were coded, but I would describe them as a form of clandestine lingua franca rather than a code per se. An inference is open that all of the participants in all of the telephone intercepts (including clients of the enterprise) habitually spoke in a fashion which is inconsistent with normal, unguarded speech and predicated a desire to obfuscate and confuse anyone who was listening in, such as a law enforcement agency. To be precise, they spoke of events, things, people and places in a cryptic, indirect and abstract way which does not usually occur in a legitimate conversation and would make no sense, but seemed to be comprehended by the participants. Sometimes a participant would repeat himself to make sure that the other had received his point (eg 93, 194). Having said that, at times Neumann appeared to inadvertently drop his guard. For example, he referred to 'denominations' or 'money' in the same context as 'spreadsheets' or 'paperwork' (93, 100, 113) or he would miss a point or fail to take an obvious hint (4, 30), or use the lingua franca erratically ('TB–500' instead of 'BioBute': 38, 80, 81).
The State contends (reasonably arguably in my opinion) that some of the commonly used code words and names were:
•'John', 'JC', 'Sir', 'the boy', 'the young guy' (ironically since he appeared to be quite mature in years) – John Cameron
•'Bruce', 'Patrick' and 'the trainer' - Cookson
•'BioBute' or 'Buoe' - methylamphetamine
•'TB‑500' or 'TBs'- methylamphetamine
•'the girl' or 'the young lady' – Ms Tresnjo, who appeared to be quite young, no older than 30 years, if that
•'horses' – clients/drug deals and/or drug money
•'paperwork' and 'spreadsheets' - drug money or records of the same (but not when Ms Crews was talking about her settlement agency work)
•'invoices' – drug debts and/or drug money or records of the same
•Neumann's 'place', 'the place' and 'there': the South Perth apartment
The numbers referred to in parentheses below are item numbers in the schedule of the telephone intercept and surveillance device product which is relied upon by the State against each accused. All dates are in 2010 and all times are Western Standard Time. All of the emphasis and intercalcations have been added by myself, save for 'indistinct' (in which case I have occasionally inserted my own understanding of the purportedly indistinct passage). The intercalations represent an inference which is arguably open to the State.
There are some instances where the time stamp on the transcript and/or page number in the brief does not correspond to the schedule (eg, items 24, 114, 216). I have relied upon the details in the schedule.
Items 1 – 39 cover 9 August to 2 September and comprise telephone conversations between Neumann and Ms Crews, Neumann and Ms Tresnjo and Neumann and Cookson. For the most part these communications furnish evidence of the relationship between the participants themselves, with occasional references to other persons of interest such as Cameron. Sometimes the discussion was personal (especially between Ms Crews and Neumann) and occasionally legitimate matters such as horse racing and the Medivet business were mentioned (eg, item 2 in which reference was made to ceasing to use Kelly Murray's services).
However, from the outset there were a number of suspicious features which are redolent of the lingua franca.
On 18 August (3) Neumann (who was in Perth) spoke to Ms Tresnjo (in Sydney) about them having met coincidentally in Sydney. Neumann referred to Cameron in a way which suggested that he was a mutual acquaintance. He said that Cameron could introduce Ms Tresnjo to Kelly Murray and proceeded to give the latter a character reference which was intended by Neumann to be favourable but was actually suitable for a person who would need to be familiar with the underworld and drugs. Neumann suggested that 'we [Cameron, Kelly, Neumann and Ms Tresnjo] should all do some work together' with which Ms Tresnjo agreed. There was a lengthy discussion about the veterinary distribution business, which included references to Kelly and Cookson, before the conversation turned to another topic which was spoken of in noticeably guarded terms, including the following passage:
NEUMANN:     And if you need any help just call me, and like I said John [Cameron] can introduce you to Kelly and she – she's one tough girl.
TRESNJO:Mm'hm.
NEUMANN:     She'll put her hand up and have a fist fight.
TRESNJO:You give me a bell when you come back here [Sydney] yeah?
NEUMANN:     I will.
There is no suggestion in any evidence that Ms Tresnjo was genuinely interested in the distribution of veterinary products and the conversation as a whole suggests that Kelly Murray's interests were not confined to that domain either. The State is entitled to submit that Neumann and Tresnjo were speaking in the above passage (and later) of some other form of business which would involve Cameron and Murray and that they would meet in Sydney in the near future for that purpose.
On 18 August (4) Ms Crews warned Neumann that he could not have Cookson 'over' [as he was intending to do] because there was 'another appointment'. Neumann did not take the hint, whereupon Ms Crews said:
Well, just fucking get your head space back into gear. I'll talk to you ‑ ‑ ‑ [when I get there]
On 19 August Ms Crews and Neumann spoke twice (5, 6) of their mutual inability to contact Cameron, who was not answering his telephone.
Cookson and Neumann had numerous conversations between 19 August and 2 September (7, 8, 9, 14, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) about a problem they were having with some business associates. But they never identified them by any means. Instead these people were vaguely alluded to in a way which was evidently understandable to both men, but which is not normal. There seemed to be some sort of deadline approaching and Neumann was stressed about it. They spoke on 24 August 2010, 30 August and 2 September about 'paperwork' or needing to collect 'paperwork' [money] in the context of dealing with this matter. Cookson repeatedly backed Neumann up and promised him absolute, unswerving loyalty.
At 9.23 pm on 19 August Cookson telephoned Neumann (10) and asked the latter if he could 'make up … a teeny, teeny little one just to show someone', which Neumann said could easily be done. An inference is open that Cookson requested Neumann to supply him with a sample of drugs for the former to give to a client.
Slightly less than two hours later Neumann told Ms Crews (11) during a long, rambling conversation that he wanted to go to bed [he had not yet moved in with her], but could not do so because he was 'waiting for' Cookson [to give him the drug sample]. Ms Crews appeared to be already aware of the appointment ('you're still waiting for him?'). An inference is open that she also knew the purpose of the appointment since she never queried it [as would be expected if someone put themselves out as much as Neumann was doing]. Later in this conversation Neumann referred to 'the toy out that I picked up last night'. Ms Crews seemed to already know about that too. He said 'It's a beauty' and that someone (whose name was indistinct) 'mightn't have had the market for it' [since it was illegal and would be difficult to sell]. Later Neumann and Ms Crews agreed that 'in the next two years we're going to set ourselves up for life' so that they did not have to work. Ms Crews said she would be 'more than happy to work' and that 'if this thing comes off like Bruce [Cookson] says, I'll be in there … working till, you know, three o'clock in the morning' [since the Neumann enterprise did much of its work very late at night]. Neumann said:
Yeah, yeah. It's going to come off. I'm going to make sure of it. I'm the puppet master, remember?
Later Neumann said that it had been a stressful day and that someone [Cookson having regard to the context] had 'got all his toys out' and was 'checking them out'. Neumann said that he hoped that he didn't play with [use] 'that toy' [Neumann] 'gave him … today'.
Inferences are open that Cookson was a key player in a planned enterprise which Neumann would seek to control. The reference to 'toys' is suspicious but could apply to drugs or guns. The latter is consistent with the facts that the person who gave one to Neumann did not have a market for it (unusual in Neumann's milieu if the 'toy' was drugs), the fact that Neumann had an illicit Glock pistol in one of his cars (in Ms Crews' garage) on 24 September ([222 (v)] below) and Neumann and Cookson's business associates were dangerous people (see items 39, 102, 103, 104, 112, 169, 205 for example).
On 21 August 2010 Neumann was having trouble getting hold of Cameron and asked Ms Crews (12) to 'give him a call', which she agreed to do ('I'll sort it').
On 24 August 2010 (13) Ms Crews told Neumann that she'd been thinking about 'lots of things'. He asked what they were and she said: 'Not something to talk about over the phone'.
On 25 August 2010 Cookson and Neumann had four conversations between 3.14 and 6.15 pm (17, 18, 19, 20) regarding quality control issues, apparently about BioBute. According to Cookson the last batch that they had received from their supplier was 'repaired', 'weaker than the other … but it's alright … but not nearly the same standard as a normal'. Neumann said that he 'just mixed it all together to make it consistent'. Cookson acknowledged the benefits of doing that, but said that it was 'not nearly as strong'.
The State proposes to rely on evidence from Mr Khan that the chemical formula of BioBute did not change at any material time. In the light of that evidence and the implausibility of Neumann having the skill to mix up different batches of a bona fide pharmaceutical for consistency purposes, an inference is open that Neumann and Cookson had not received a substandard batch of BioBute, but had recently been supplied with a substandard batch of drugs.
At 5.01 pm on 27 August (21) Ms Crews agreed with Neumann to use her credit card to book a flight for an unnamed person [Cameron]. That construction is supported by a reference to her having spoken to Cameron [at Neumann's request - see (21)]. It was 'all sorted' she told Neumann at 5.16 pm on 28 August (22). In that same conversation (22) Ms Crews said that she had 'a bit of information' [from Cameron] which evidently could not be discussed over the phone and must wait until they next saw each other. If read with a conversation at 3.01 pm on 28 August (24: the transcript, p 905 – 907, wrongly dates this to 2 September), Cameron's flight was due to arrive in Perth at 3.15 and it was decided that Cameron would 'cab it' [which he did].
On 28 August 2010 Cookson and Neumann discussed whether Cookson had enough BioBute to supply their customers because Neumann had 'somebody else' interested. The tenor was highly suspicious. They spoke of whether they had enough 'BioButes' for 15 horses [drug deals]. Neumann asked if they could 'settle on those 15 horses?' and Cookson said that they might only have enough for 8 or 10 horses.

Ms Crews and Neumann spoke before midnight on 30 August 2010 (30). The conversation was highly abstract even by the standards of the lingua franca. Ms Crews and 'JC' [Cameron] were at Neumann's 'place' and 'there' [the South Perth apartment]. Ms Crews was at pains to tell Neumann that she wanted to 'ensure that the arrival was before you'. Neumann was unclear what she was talking about ('arrival of what') and she said:
What you wanted.
He said he was 'down the road' and would be 'back [in] probably another half an hour' and she said:
we shall call to get together in about 15 minutes so we're all clear about the arrival.
She also said that 'other people' were not there. Neumann said that he was 'going to go and see Patrick' and would then be home. Ostensibly this was a reference to seeing a racehorse named 'Patrick' that Neumann and Cookson had an interest in, but it seems most unlikely that Neumann was going to see the horse itself at midnight. The timing, nature and context of this conversation is highly suspicious and inferences are open that Ms Crews and Cameron were at the South Perth apartment, that something illegal had arrived shortly before midnight which could not be openly discussed, that Ms Crews had gone to some trouble to make sure it arrived when Neumann was not there, that it involved Cookson and Neumann and the latter was going to see Cookson about it.
At 10.43 pm on 31 August 2010 (31) Ms Crews and Neumann spoke of setting up a meeting with Cookson and Cameron. Neumann said that Cookson 'wanted to talk to you [Ms Crews] about something'. Neumann agreed to liaise with Cameron about picking Ms Crews up and bringing her 'over here' [the South Perth apartment].
Cookson and Neumann had a number of conversations on 1 and 2 September which implied that their problem with their business associates was coming to a head. Evidently Cookson had been speaking to Cameron and their 'window of opportunity' was closing quickly, but Neumann was having problems with 'the group' and he was 'going over there [to Sydney] to meet the big chap'. He was also 'running around and trying to get as much paperwork [money] in' as he could. There was discussion about Neumann meeting a female [Ms Tresnjo] of whom he had sanguine expectations ('what the girl said the other night was – sounded good'). There was reference to 'John' [Cameron] being away until Sunday (5 September) and to Neumann flying 'over there' and being away for two or three days during which, it would seem, Cookson was to hold the fort. Neumann said (38) that the 'latest TV' [sic TB – ie, TB‑500, ie, methylamphetamine] caused a lot of grief for him and 'that crew … from … over at the other side' [of Australia, ie Sydney] were 'not getting away with it'. This statement illustrates Neumann's erratic use of the lingua franca because he seems to be here complaining about sub‑standard TB‑500, whereas on 25 August (17 to 20) his complaint was about BioBute.
The following product (39) illustrates how Neumann's planned meeting with the group of associates in Sydney was sinister and potentially dangerous:
NEUMANN:     Aye, listen, if the meeting doesn't go well over there I'm going to need a team over here for surveillance.
COOKSON:Certainly. Yeah, not a problem.
NEUMANN:     Nobody is going to get away with this mate.
COOKSON:Yeah, no, not a problem. But like you said, just good to see how – what they're like and get some insurance for the other girl, you know what I'm saying?
NEUMANN:     Yeah, I'll do that. I'm not handing a fucking cent over I can tell you that right now.
At approximately 7.30 pm on 2 September (39) Neumann and Cookson discussed the supply by the latter of 'two Buoes' [methylamphetamine] at an address known to Ms Crews, an inference being that Neumann should contact Ms Crews to get the address of a drug customer.
I pause to summarise the evidence to this point (items 1 – 39). Even read as a discrete body of evidence (ie, ignoring other evidence) inferences are open that Cookson, Cameron and Neumann were involved in some form of dangerous, costly and ongoing illegal business (drug dealing was likely), that Ms Crews was aware of what was going on and played a role in it. An inference is also open that Ms Tresnjo ('the girl') was about to become a part of that enterprise.
I turn now to deal with events more closely connected with count 1. Ms Tresnjo and Neumann had four telephone conversations (40 – 43) between 9.46 pm on 2 September 2010 and 8.58 am on 3 September relating to the events referred to at [6] (x) and (xi) above, ie, they planned to rendezvous at Sydney airport, but Ms Tresnjo did not make her flight and was still in Perth.
On 3 September Neumann was busy making enquiries in Sydney about the acquisition of a money counting machine. At 10.05 am (45) he asked Ms Crews quite openly (ie, he referred to a counting machine) if he could send it to her business address in Perth and she agreed. Neumann put her onto Cameron [who was with him] about the arrangements and she asked if it was possible (ie, feasible) since she had a post office box. Cameron said that would be 'safer' (for some reason which no‑one questioned). The State is entitled to contend that they were mindful that the possession of such a device could be potentially incriminating and that it was felt to be 'safer' to distance Neumann from it.
At 4.47pm (49) Neumann told Ms Crews that he had 'ordered that machine' and that it would be sent to her mailbox. He said 'that'll come in use for when you have to count the bloody horses' [money from drug dealing that she would be counting], which she said 'would be good', and for when they 'opened up that pub'.
In the same conversation Neumann and Ms Crews discussed a meeting that Neumann and Cameron were supposed to have with some people in Sydney which had fallen through (evidently at Neumann's behest). He said that he and Cameron 'sat down and did some numbers', that the people were 'probably not going to like it but … it's hard to dispute'. He said 'I've got to look after my clients too', which Ms Crews agreed with.
At 9.44 am on 4 September (51) Ms Crews agreed to telephone Cameron and get him to contact Neumann.
Ms Tresnjo and Neumann exchanged text messages around 6.00 pm on 4 September (53 – 56). She informed him that she had arrived in Sydney and was staying at an unmentioned hotel on Elizabeth Street, the name of which he already knew [there was already an understanding]. Neumann told Ms Tresnjo (54) that Cameron was coming over to see him at his [Neumann's] accommodation in Darling Harbour and suggested that the three of them catch up and have dinner, to which she agreed (56).
At 5.29 pm on 4 September 2010 (57) Neumann told Cookson that he 'was supposed to catch up with that, ah – those people' but he had a 'gut feeling something's going wrong'. Neumann said that he was 'with JC [Cameron] and the girl [Ms Tresnjo] at the moment' and said that he would speak to Cookson when Cookson got home using 'that other phone'.
At 5.59 pm (58) Neumann told Ms Crews that he was with 'JC and the girl' [Ms Tresnjo]. An inference is open that Ms Crews was already aware of who 'the girl' was because she never asked, nor did she enquire as to what she was doing there. She did ask if Neumann had been 'able to accomplish anything' that day. Neumann said 'not really', that he was 'supposed to have a meeting' but did not go 'there'.
My friend is not getting back to me and, ah, there's – I – it wasn't feeling right.
The implication from the guardedness is that there was something secretive about the proposed meeting and that it was risky, and Ms Crews was understanding about that. An inference is open that the 'friend' was a go‑between to the 'people' with whom he was supposed to be meeting.
Superficially Neumann was talking to Ms Crews about an aborted business meeting. But the surrounding context suggests that this was to be no ordinary meeting, that Neumann was taking a stand and the other people were not reputable. Once again, and strangely, no names were mentioned at all but Ms Crews and Neumann knew who and what was being spoken about. According to Ms Crews' defence hypothesis it was a Medivet distributor and defective Medivet product.
Incidentally, Ms Crews told Neumann in item 58 that she 'had to take $500 out of your bag [the manbag in her wardrobe referred to at [222] (iii) below] … to do some shopping and stuff'. Neumann had no problem with that and encouraged her to use the money.
Neumann and Cookson had a number of telephone conversations between 7.46 pm and approximately 9.00 pm on 4 September 2010 which provides evidence of the planning of count 1. At 7.46 pm (59) Cookson and Neumann agreed to contact each other later. Cookson said that he would use a telephone number which was 'clean as'. At 8.45 pm (60) Neumann said he had 'met up with the girl' [Tresnjo]. Neumann referred to 'TB‑500' and said that it was 'excellent'. [He could not have formed such an opinion in so short a time if the 'TB-500' really was a veterinary drug, but he could have done so if he was referring to methylamphetamine, especially since he was a user: see [222] (iii) below]. Neumann said that it could be purchased at 'bloody, half the price' or 'not quite half'. Neumann made it clear (61) that he wanted Cookson and Cameron to move quickly to 'get paperwork from a couple of people' [to collect money from debtors in Perth]. Neumann said that Cameron would go to Perth 'to get all those invoices [call in debts] so I can get the new TB‑500'. They said:
NEUMANN: The horses will get sick and the new product is going to help, you know [first names mentioned] and everybody.
COOKSON:Beautiful, yeah. great.
NEUMANN: Yeah, all be good.
As I have said, Mr Khan from Medivet states that Medivet had no new or different formula for TB‑500 in August and September. In other words, the State contends that Neumann or Cookson could not have been talking about 'new' TB‑500, and, as such, the 'product' that they were talking about was not really TB‑500.
Given the need to collect cash urgently, the suspicious pretext that a number of horses might become sick and need 'the new' (but non‑existent) TB‑500 and the overall tone of urgency, inferences are open that Neumann and Cameron had met Ms Tresnjo ('the girl') as planned between approximately 6.00 pm and 8.00 pm and they had settled upon a new supplier of methylamphetamine at a very attractive price, that the machinery for the purchase and distribution of the same needed to move quickly and that Ms Tresnjo had been instrumental in arranging for this. Kelly Murray was mentioned in item 61 and there were references to 'vets' and equine matters (and the association of TB‑500 with the same), but this must be construed in context. For instance, Neumann told Cookson, in response to a question about a 'situation' in Broome, that 'John [Cameron] knows all the vets [drug dealers] … that …I've been working with for years'.
Neumann telephoned Ms Tresnjo at approximately 9.38 pm (62) and asked her 'Is everything good?' [She was no longer with Neumann and had left to deal with the arrangements for the drug purchase]. She said that she would talk to him when she saw him. Neumann told her that Cameron had to go back to Perth the following day to 'bloody pick up some bloody table work [paperwork, ie, money] for me, you know?' The fact of this conversation and its content tends to directly implicate Ms Tresnjo in the matters that Neumann and Cookson had been discussing, ie, the transaction which became count 1, and is also consistent with the contention that the person described as 'the girl' was Ms Tresnjo.
By a series of texts and phone calls shortly after midnight on 5 September (63 – 71) Neumann and Ms Tresnjo arranged to meet at his hotel in Darling Harbour. She arrived, was met by Neumann and was taken upstairs at approximately 1.33 am. Inferences are open that, at this very late hour (3.33 am in Sydney), they met to discuss something important which could not be spoken of on the telephone at 9.38 pm (11.38 EST).
Ms Crews and Neumann spoke at 10.03 am on 5 September (72). The State contends that their discussion directly implicates her in count 1 as it evidences her willingness to assist Neumann in Perth and to implement instructions which Cameron would bring with him. After a discussion about some unrelated personal matters the following took place:
CREWS:There's nothing I can do for you here, darl?
NEUMANN:     Ah, ah, well John [Cameron] will come over [to Perth] and he'll have instructions for everything.
CREWS:Okay.
NEUMANN:     So, um, yeah.
CREWS:(Indistinct).
NEUMANN:     Yeah, he was – he's – he's coming over – he's coming, he's just getting dressed and then he's coming over here [to Neumann's hotel] and then, um, he's gonna book some flights for him and ‑ ‑ ‑
CREWS:Okay (indistinct).
NEUMANN:     Everything else all right?
CREWS:Yeah, yeah, you just tell me what you want done, so.
NEUMANN:     Yeah, yeah, he's coming over (indistinct).
CREWS:Okay, love.
NEUMANN:     And, um, and you (indistinct).
CREWS:Okay.
A few minutes later Neumann texted Ms Tresnjo (73) to tell her that Cameron was on his way over to see him and that he would let her know when he arrived.
Afterwards Neumann telephoned Cookson (74, 75) and told him that Cameron would be with him (Neumann) in 30 minutes and that he (Neumann) would organise his flight which would arrive in Perth that night. Cookson was happy with that and undertook to do anything that needed to be done. He suggested that Neumann provide Cameron with a list, to which Neumann agreed.
A few minutes later Neumann contacted Ms Crews (76 – 78) and she agreed that he could use her credit card 'again' for the purpose of booking Cameron's airline ticket. Ms Crews was quite helpful about this and undertook to provide Neumann with the details of the credit card as soon as she got home. He asked her to get the keys for 'the apartment' and 'my unit' [the South Perth apartment] and the keys for 'the other vehicle' from his manbag [one of two such bags in her apartment – see [222] (iii) and (v) below] because Cameron was going to need them. She agreed to do so and Neumann asked if she would also be able to collect Cameron at the airport. She said that she was already intending to do so. Neumann referred to 'the instructions that you'll need at the moment'. The State submit, with some force, that there is only one rational explanation for this conversation, namely that Ms Crews was already aware that Cameron would be coming back to Perth, that she intended to pick him up and she agreed to take him to the South Perth apartment in one of Neumann's cars (the keys for which were in one of Neumann's bags).
At 1.04 pm (79) Neumann spoke to Ms Crews again. There had been a change of plan. It was now proposed that Cameron take a taxi from Perth Airport and telephone Ms Crews when he arrived [as would be necessary for him to get access to the South Perth apartment].
At 3.41 pm (80 and 81) on 5 September Neumann apprised Cookson of a discussion he had had with 'the guys from Medibank' [sic – Medivet] about TB‑500. Medivet had insisted that 'the product was good'. They had evidently dismissed Neumann's complaints and were 'wholesaling it for 450'. Cookson insisted that the first 'product' or 'part' (ie, shipment) was acceptable but not the 'second part of that other one' which 'wasn't nearly as good'. Neumann said that the outcome did not 'look too good' for him but Cameron would explain it all to Cookson when he arrived back in Perth that night. So they were apparently discussing the quality control problem with the August shipment mentioned in items 17 to 20.
Neumann also asked Cookson whether there was any of the sub‑standard 'TB‑500' left. Cookson said that there was not, which is not consistent with the fact that the police found a large amount of genuine Medivet product (probably including TB‑500) in the South Perth apartment three days later. Neumann complained that 'the shortfall' (ie, 'a heap of bloody credit on that TB‑500') was 'huge'.
I pause here to comment that Neumann and Cookson appear to have let the cat out of the bag about the lingua franca (see also item 38). As at 25 August the quality control problem apparently related to BioBute (17 to 20), whereas on 2 and 5 September it was TB‑500. An inference is open that in the lingua franca the terms 'Biobute' and 'TB500' were interchangeable because they meant the same thing – namely, methylamphetamine, and Neumann and Cookson were erratic in their usage of the terms.
At any rate, Cookson was placatory about Neumann's predicament, saying that he knew 'many trainers … in Perth'. He suggested that with two or three weeks of hard work and after allowing 'enough for the girl' [after sharing with Ms Tresnjo] their problems would be sorted out. Later there was some discussion about Kelly and 'Activator' (another Medivet product) and Cookson referred to wholesale and internet prices for TB‑500 ($600 and $1,200) and said 'but that aside … you know, that first product did work'. He said 'there's about four trainers, you know what I'm saying?'
Given the improbability that Medivet had distributed sub‑standard TB‑500 (and/or BioBute), which Neumann and Cookson had been unfortunate enough to receive, but of which Medivet (Mr Khan) knew nothing, and having regard to the erratic use of the lingua franca, inferences are open that Neumann and Cookson were speaking in items 80 and 81 of Neumann having met the people who supplied the sub‑standard batch of drugs and that this was the meeting that he cancelled or avoided earlier in the Sydney trip.
At 8.46 am on 6 September (85) Ms Crews told Neumann that Cameron was good and that he would 'be busy today'. [She had been in touch with Cameron and was aware that he was following Neumann's instructions.] She said that someone had given a 'bullshit story' to Cameron, who 'had a bit of a chat' and 'iterated the fact that the matter was urgent … and he [has to] just do something, has to be in there today'. [Cameron had to persuade a recalcitrant debtor to pay up immediately, that day].
The first recorded conversation between Cookson and Ms Crews occurred at 4.40 pm on 6 September (81). Ms Crews passed on a message from Cameron for Cookson to telephone him. They also had some abstract discussion about a 'situation' of concern to Cameron that they both appeared to know about which Cookson had 'sorted out'.
At 9.51 pm on 6 September Cookson had a conversation (92) with an unidentified man about four bundles of money ['paperwork' that had been collected]. Cookson believed that the first bundle was $500 short.
Ms Crews and Neumann had a number of cryptic conversations over a lengthy period on the evening of 6 September 2010 (91, 93, 94, 95, 96) which are consistent with Ms Crews being Neumann's conduit to Cameron and vice versa. At one point (93) Neumann referred Ms Crews to some 'spreadsheets' in his manbag that 'he needed over here [in Sydney]'. But he used the word 'denominations' in that context [because he was really talking about money]. Ms Crews said that she would 'put them in a plastic container [a vacuum sealed bag or clipseal bag] so the print doesn't smudge or anything'. Later Neumann confirmed with Ms Crews that she would 'arrange that out of that bag' and checked that Ms Crews knew what he meant (she did: '100 per cent'). This would be odd if he was really referring to spreadsheets which would be reasonably obvious things to a professional person like Ms Crews.
At one point Ms Crews said:
Well, when you talk to me about shit like that they're [some visitors Neumann had] they're not in front of you, are they?
Neumann said 'No' and 'Nobody knows' and then admonished Ms Crews for saying things which 'makes it obvious'. There was also discussion (96) about when Cameron was 'going' [to leave for Sydney].

Ms Crews and Neumann spoke on two occasions on the morning of 7 September. At 10.51 (98) Neumann asked her to remove a telephone from his manbag and give it to Cameron to bring with him to Sydney. She agreed to do so without enquiring as to why Neumann needed another telephone when self‑evidently the one that he was using was working fine.
At 12.30 pm (100) Neumann asked her to give the 'paperwork' (earlier referred to as 'spreadsheets') [money] from the manbag to Cameron to bring over to Sydney. Ms Crews agreed to do this and then the following took place:
NEUMANN:     Yeah, but, yeah, but what I was suggesting though, you take him [Cameron] to the airport.
CREWS:Yeah.
NEUMANN:     And, you know, with, with the big denominations and, and, and maybe in your handbag you can carry some through in your handbag, you know, like ‑ ‑ ‑
CREWS:Yeah.
NEWMANN:    ‑ ‑ ‑Just a couple of, just a couple of bundles and then separate them then just, you know give to him and ‑ ‑ ‑
CREWS:Yeah, all right then.
NEUMANN:     You know ‑ ‑
CREWS:No worries.
NEUMANN:     No, he knows. It just makes it all easier.
CREWS:Yeah, not a problem.
NEUMANN:     You know, you know, of, I've seen you with, you know, $30,000 in the casino.
CREWS:Okay?
NEUMANN:     You know? You, you've come over here with bloody piles of bloody money, bloody gambling all the time.
It is open to the State to contend that the only rational explanation for this exchange is that Neumann wanted Ms Crews to divide the cash that Cameron was bringing to Sydney between them prior to the security process at Perth Airport, and to carry it through separately, and suggested that, if required, Ms Crews or Cameron could say they were big gamblers. It is not illegal to transport large amounts of cash around Australia, or to split it up for security purposes, but it is unusual and an inference is open that Neumann and Ms Crews were aware that Cameron could give no proper account if such a matter came to the attention of the authorities. In other words, they were discussing Cameron transferring a large amount of money ['paperwork' and 'spreadsheets'] to Sydney for the purposes of an illegal transaction.
About five hours later Neumann and Ms Crews had another telephone conversation (101) in which they discussed some personal requirements of Neumann. Ms Crews enquired whether he still needed the 'paperwork and phone', and he said that he did. Shortly afterwards Neumann made a remark which suggested that his endeavours in Sydney were related to the acquisition of 'Medivet product' 'on consignment' which, he felt, signified the new suppliers' belief in their products. He went on to say that the most successful and reputable companies in the world such as Porsche (of whom he was a customer) based their reputation on their warranties and quality assurance. Of course, this part of the conversation is consistent with Ms Crews' defence hypothesis, provided that the possibility is accepted that whilst he had been in Sydney Neumann had found a new source [manufacturer] of the line of veterinary products that Medivet was selling who was more reliable than Medivet's source [manufacturer].
Ms Crews and Cameron spoke to each other on three occasions (102 ‑ 104) between 9.07 am and 1.05 pm on 8 September 2010. Cameron was in Sydney at the time. He asked (102) if Ms Crews had 'heard from him' [Neumann]. He said that he would take Neumann's 'shirt there, but the other' [the money] could 'wait till later'. Cameron and Ms Crews were very concerned about Neumann's whereabouts and wellbeing and, further, that Cameron or someone known to Cameron should go with Neumann to a certain meeting [because Neumann could be in danger]. Concerns of this kind are not consistent with Ms Crews' defence hypothesis which predicates that the meeting was to be with the new, reputable supplier of veterinary products.
At 2.33 pm on 8 September Ms Tresnjo sent the following text message to Neumann (105):
Hey what time you wanna go shopping?
The State contends that Ms Tresnjo was seeking to arrange a rendezvous with Neumann for the purpose of purchasing the drugs the subject of count 1. There is force in that submission. The text predicates two things. First, that Ms Tresnjo and Neumann had previously arranged to go shopping together. Second, the shopping was of mutual interest. The accuseds point out that Ms Tresnjo was herself an avid shopper for which there is evidence in other intercepts (see Brief 1988), but it seems unlikely that Neumann and Ms Tresnjo would have spoken about and planned to go shopping together for personal items for Ms Tresnjo or for TB‑500 for Neumann.
Neumann told Cookson on 9 September at 3.34 pm (110) that he was 'just with the boy [ie, Cameron] …getting organised'.
At 4.53 pm Neumann sent a text message (106) to Cookson in which he said:
Hello buddy i got the new tb500 in my hand.
As I have said, on the State's case there was no 'new' TB‑500 to speak of and it is unlikely that Neumann meant that. So, the State contends, with some force in my opinion, that Neumann was not really referring to TB‑500 and, as always, he was actually referring to the methylamphetamine from the new supplier.
Neumann spoke unhappily to Ms Crews about his predicament at 6.06 pm (112). She said that 'regardless' she was 'on your side' but she was 'fearful'. He placated her by saying that he had to take 'all these actions' or 'it would have got worse', that he 'didn't have any more choices' and 'just had to sort it out'. He continued: 'Now I've been up for hours and going through all that paperwork, doing all the numbers, working it all out', getting it all clear in his head and was 'just gonna see the old boy and see what the day brings'.
At 9.14 pm on 9 September 2010 (113) Neumann told Ms Crews that 'bloody Lejla' (Ms Tresnjo) had missed her flight (according to her). Ms Crews was evidently already aware that Ms Tresnjo was flying over. Neumann said that Ms Crews would be getting a 'visitor' [Cameron] and would 'need to get the key' and 'pick up the key'. She agreed to alter a personal appointment (for 3.30 pm) for that purpose. He said that he had given Kelly Murray $10,000 for something which was indistinct but one gathers that he felt she was a worthy cause. Neumann referred to Cookson being able to 'use it, but he has to pay for it'. Ms Crews replied:
Yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. You gotta pay for it. That's product. Someone at the end. Yeah.
Neumann told Ms Crews that he had just had some communication with 'the old fella involving paperwork' [money], as he had said (see 112) he would do and this met with Ms Crews' approval. Neumann then said:
You never know where you're at till you (indistinct) then you gotta balance it out and look at the end to see if you made money or not.
The collocation in item 113 of 'paperwork' and 'money' (and also on 7 September: 100) exposes what was meant by 'paperwork', but also illustrates Neumann's erratic use of the lingua franca.
Neumann told Ms Crews at 9.31 am on 10 September (114) that he had lain awake in bed the night before waiting for texts and that he and Cookson 'were gonna go with the Medivet products', which also met with Ms Crews' approval. So, at face value Medivet had come up with a new version of TB‑500 and everyone was happy.
But, TB‑500 was not the original cause for complaint – it was BioBute. And, on the evidence, there was no new TB‑500 anyway. And Neumann had decided to stay with Medivet after all notwithstanding his, Ms Crews' and Cameron's earlier premonitions of danger about meeting them. And Neumann never mentioned any other product line or distributor by name besides 'Medivet'. An inference is open that in the context of Neumann's Sydney trip 'Medivet' always related to the same thing, namely drugs and Neumann had nothing whatsoever to do with Medivet Pty Ltd. So, what was Ms Crews' approbation about? An inference is open that she approved of the choice of the new drug supplier.
By texts on the late morning and early afternoon of 10 September 2010 (116, 117) Neumann asked Ms Crews whether she had seen 'the young guy' [Cameron]. It would seem that Neumann had got his time zones wrong and expected this rendezvous [in Perth] to have already occurred when it hadn't. A guarded conversation occurred which was perhaps too cryptic because Neumann asked whether Ms Crews knew what he was talking about. She said that she did and she would 'get that sorted'.
Neumann and Cookson had a conversation (120) at 4.37 pm on the same day which, on the State's case, involved Neumann telling Cookson that Cameron had arrived in Perth with appropriate instructions and that Cookson should go to see him. Later Neumann said that he 'sold four TBs yesterday' which met with Cookson's approval.
Neumann and Ms Crews spoke at 5.12 pm (121) on 10 September. He said that Ms Tresnjo had been getting messages from 'fucking Meathead' telling her to meet him (Meathead) at Neumann's 'place' [the South Perth apartment]. Ms Crews was incredulous, the inference being that this was an egregious breach of discipline (especially considering what transpired at the apartment that very night: see below). On another topic, Ms Crews said that she was going to ring Cameron, to which Neumann agreed because, he said, Cameron had not 'turned on the work telephone'. The conversation concluded with Neumann saying that he had just got a message from 'Lejla', and was reading it.
At 5.50 pm (123) Ms Crews and Neumann spoke of a proposed rendezvous between her and Cookson at the South Perth apartment. She said that she was 'going back there' and 'everything [was] sorted'. Neumann said that 'the trainer [Cookson] is heading there too'.
Between 6.26 and 7.55 pm Cookson sent or received a number of messages from potential clients. At 8.03 pm one person said that he wanted 'at least three' and had 'the cash for two on me'. He was ready to meet at short notice. This is more redolent of selling drugs than veterinary products (legally or otherwise). Cookson was seen to arrive at the apartment at 9.26 pm.
Ms Crews and Neumann spoke several times that night whilst she was at the South Perth apartment. The State contends that Cookson and Cameron were inside preparing the drugs that Cameron had brought from Sydney for distribution and that Ms Crews was keeping Neumann apprised of what was going on. At 10.17 (150) Neumann asked Ms Crews to tell Cameron to text him. She replied:
Yep, when he's finished.
Okay? I'm just outside on the balcony.
… They're [Cookson and Cameron] checking stuff out [sampling the drugs]. It's not my business … [Sampling the drugs was not her role].
Ms Crews mentioned the arrival of 'a visitor' whose identity was left unsaid but meant something to both of them. Neumann said it did not matter, whereupon Ms Crews said:
Okay, so you want it done now, regardless of the visitor?
Neumann replied in the affirmative and Ms Crews said:
Okay. I'll go in there and say something then. Okay?
Shortly afterwards Neumann asked if she had 'said it' and 'told him' and she replied:
No, not yet. I haven't gone inside yet. When I hang up, I'll go inside and tell him.
The following conversation occurred at 10.34 (153):
CREWS:Oh, we've finished, darling. Yeah, we've finished.
NEUMANN: You outside?
CREWS:No, no, no, no. Just inside at the moment. That's okay.
Ms Crews said that Cookson was 'just checking stuff out' [still sampling the drugs]. Neumann said that he wanted to know what Cookson's 'reactions' [as to the quality] were. Ms Crews said that she understood.
Neumann wanted to ask some questions 'while they're there'. Ms Crews said:
Uh'huh. Yeah, they're in front of me, so ask questions.
Neumann did not seem happy with her relaying the questions and answers and, it would seem, wanted one of the two men to personally answer his questions. The fact that that still did not happen suggests two things. First, Neumann's propensity for erratic breaches of protocol. Second, Ms Crews' discipline and the importance of her role that night.
Between 10.48 pm and 11.34 pm Cookson had numerous communications [after he and Cameron were ready] with customers by voice and SMS and arranged to meet them in places which were in the vicinity of the South Perth apartment. For example, at 11.05 pm (156) he directed someone to 'Millpoint Rd down the bottom there' [the customer knew where 'there' was]. Another told Cookson he was at the 'bp near pub' (106).
Neumann was nervous and frustrated when he and Ms Crews spoke at 11.10 pm (158) because he had not received an update about what was going on in the apartment. Ms Crews reassured him and said (twice) 'that everything is fine'. She then said:
I just want to do a couple of things. I've just been cleaning up and taking the dustbin and all that off where I needed to.
Neumann said that he liked 'reading the play' and Ms Crews reassured him again saying that 'the play looks okay so far'. The following occurred:
NEUMANN: What is the hesitation in there?
CREWS:The delivery of one particular situation.
NEUMANN: Oh, and which situation is that?
CREWS:Er, I – oh, just the motor vehicle is pulled up too close to the home [indistinct].
Inferences are open from the above that Ms Crews' role (in addition to representing Neumann) was to open and close up the apartment and to clean up after Cookson and Cameron and, in particular, to get rid of potentially incriminating rubbish, which she did between 10.34 and 11.10 pm. (One can comprehend what this involved when one has regard to the unwrapping and rubbish collection that was seen, or can be inferred, to be taking place on 24 September.) It is further open to infer that customers were coming into the vicinity to pick up their orders from Cookson at the time and that at least one had come a little too close to the apartment for comfort.
There was a similar conversation between Ms Crews and Neumann at 11.29 pm (165). Ms Crews said that everything was 'fine' and 'good' and that she just wanted to see 'it to the end'. Neumann was worried that there was a 'con going on' and Ms Crews replied:
Well, at the moment there isn't. Okay? So I'm just making – I'm just keeping my eyes open and my ears open. That's all, darling. Okay?
An inference is open that she was fully cognisant of what was taking place and was actively protecting Neumann's interests.
Neumann enquired whether someone (indistinct, but it was either Cookson or Cameron) was still there. Ms Crews said that he was there and was 'just waiting for the last pick-up'. At that very moment Cookson was receiving SMS's from the customer who was waiting at the BP service station. An inference is open that Ms Crews was fully aware that Cookson was in the process of arranging the last delivery of drugs and needed to remain there until Cookson had attended to it.
At 11.52 pm (169) Ms Crews told Neumann that everything was 'calm' and that everybody had gone (except Cameron) and, in effect, the goings on in the apartment were over. But Neumann was still unhappy and said:
It's just that it can't be done this way again.
He said that he needed to know 'that everyone is safe' and Ms Crews said:
Everything has gone. Everybody is safe. Okay darling?
Later Ms Crews said:
I just want this whole shit to finish and, and I get there and I'm making my millions of bloody dollars, and I don't give a shit about anything else. Okay? And it's happening. Okay?
Ms Crews' defence hypothesis is that these conversations with Neumann late on 10 September are consistent with Cookson and Cameron distributing a quantity of the Medivet product which was in the apartment. However, there are contra‑indications in the evidence.
Having regard to all of the independent evidence, including that relating to the packaging and transit of the drugs the subject of count 2 (see below), it is open to infer that a process was underway inside the South Perth apartment that was similar to that which was taking place on 24 September when the apartment was raided by police.
Ms Crews was at pains at the end to tell Neumann that everything that could be of concern [every potentially incriminating thing such as drugs and the rubbish that she took somewhere at the unusually late hour of approximately 11.00 pm] was gone from the apartment. This is inconsistent with a bulk disposal having taken place of the large stockpile of Medivet products that was found by police during the covert search on 8 September (there was plenty still there on 24 September). And, whilst she told Neumann that the activities in the apartment were 'not my business', she had no scruples at all about handling genuine TB‑500 on 24 September (see [200] below).
It also seems unlikely that at that late hour on 10 September Cameron and Cookson were processing orders for Medivet products, illegally or not, or that they would be 'conning' Neumann in the process.
Ms Crews was also at pains to assure Neumann that everyone was 'safe'. From what? Concern of that nature is consistent with an apprehension of danger that could most conceivably come from high‑level law enforcement agencies or other criminals, but not the racing stewards.
I accept the State's submission that inferences are open that at that time Ms Crews had a consciousness or awareness of acute illegality which also bore upon her wish to become a rich woman, that Ms Crews knew what was going on and that it had nothing to do with Medivet products.
I now turn to consider the telephone intercepts and surveillance device product in respect of count 2.
On 12 September Neumann (still stranded in Sydney by ill‑health) and Ms Crews spoke at length in the early hours of the morning (175). Neumann spoke in general terms of his plans which included greater control over 'invoices' [sales and receipts]. He spoke of 'the way I'm gonna keep people motivated' and said:
Oh, um, I'll let you know so you know. Um. There's no more invoices [money] into a bag to come across here [Sydney]. You're the only one that can take invoices and do what you like with them but none of them are coming back over here other than the one that gets collected.
He spoke of Cameron remaining in Perth until he had enough to come back to Sydney 'without touching the invoices [money] in the bag' [the manbag]. Ms Crews signified her understanding. An inference is open that Neumann had decided to tighten his management and cashflow arrangements and to fund purchases in Sydney solely from collections rather than his own cash on hand (which Ms Crews had permission to use).
There was also discussion in this conversation about legitimate deliveries of Medivet products (four units each of TB‑500). Neumann also said something about 'looking after the stock' but not wanting 'to get involved any further though' and having told Kelly Murray as much. An inference is open that Neumann was losing interest in the legitimate Medivet business and was pulling back, which tends to undermine the contention that he and Ms Crews were talking about Medivet on or about 9 ‑ 10 September.
On 14 September Cameron spoke to Ms Crews and told her of an arrangement for her to meet Neumann, Cookson and 'the young lady' [Ms Tresnjo] at the South Perth apartment. Cameron said that 'the young lady' was already there. (Surveillance operatives saw a young woman matching Ms Tresnjo's description attending the apartment at about this time and she described herself as Croatian in the intercepted product between 7.35pm and 8.11pm).
Neumann, Ms Tresnjo and Cameron were at the apartment at 7.35 with an unidentified male (probably Cookson). Ms Crews was not there. Eventually there was only Neumann and Ms Tresnjo. It is relevant to note the absence of the lingua franca from their conversation. Ms Tresnjo said 'tomorrow night I've got to collect some more money for you (indistinct)' and Neumann said 'Okay. It's all ready to go (indistinct)'. Later Neumann said:
I'm gonna hang around [in Perth] and get as much money [paperwork] as I can. I've got people bloody owing me everywhere.

At 12.44.34 Neumann removed a white bin liner from the drawer under the island bench and appeared to place it under the sink [he lined the kitchen tidy].
At 12.45.37 Cameron and Ms Crews came back to the kitchen area from bedroom 2. Cameron and Neumann had a discussion in Ms Crews' presence (whilst she was doing things in the bench area) about 'the one [parcel] that Lejla's got'. Cameron told Neumann that it was purple and that it stank when he opened it up. He said that he 'passed out on one try' of it. He said that he might be 'a guinea pig on this shit' but later had a 'couple of pipes' and got 'knocked out'. Ms Crews did not comment or react.
An inference is open that Ms Crews knew Cameron was talking about the purple, smelly drugs which he had brought to Perth for Ms Tresnjo, which she had already discussed with Cameron and smelt.
At 12.46.50 – 12.47.30 Cameron said to Neumann (audibly to Ms Crews who was still standing at the kitchen bench):
And your [parcel], I dunno, the weight was – the [indistinct] weight wrong, so it was about eight grams under or seven grams under, so I couldn't [indistinct] after that and I made 'em 27 grams each.
…
… but, no, this was (indistinct). It was in a plastic bucket thing, so when I scraped it, there was only about four or five grams [indistinct] I mean (indistinct).
Ms Crews expressed no dissent, surprise or lack of comprehension about this either. An inference is open (especially bearing in mind that the police later seized 16 bags of methylamphetamine weighing approximately 27 grams each) that she knew that Cameron was speaking of the other drugs that he had bought in Sydney with the $140,000.
Ms Crews left the apartment with Cameron at 12.48.00 but left the boxes of veterinary products [TB‑500 etc] on the dining table. Neumann put the kettle on and then picked up those boxes and went into the hallway. At that point (12.49.45) Cameron returned and saw the boxes in Neumann's hands. Cameron was carrying a partly filled white bin liner which was identical in appearance to the one that he carried into the kitchen at 12.23.51 and out of the apartment at 12.25.01. He placed this on the island bench. Neumann returned the boxes of TB‑500 to the dining room table and went backwards and forwards to the kitchen drawers, from which he eventually removed a white bin liner similar to the one that Cameron had brought in. He placed the boxes in this and gave it to Cameron.
Neumann then (12.50.21 pm) turned his attention to the bin liner that Cameron had brought in. It can then be seen to be two liners, ie, one inside the other, which is consistent with Cameron having earlier taken two from the kitchen and thus consistent with this being the same parcel that Cameron handled when Ms Crews was present. (No other possibility was identified when the police searched the premises). Neumann lifted it, looked in and sniffed. He then put it down and went back to the kitchen drawers. He removed three latex gloves from a box and put two on.
At 12.51.01 Neumann removed a plastic-coated cummerbund or belt‑like object from the bin liners and placed it on the island bench. At 12.51.10 he removed a second, chunkier plastic belt, examined it, smelt it and returned it [the smelly, purple drugs] to the bin liners. He then began ripping pieces of adhesive plastic or tape from the first belt.
At 12.51.20 Cameron approached from the bedroom 1 area and placed a flat package containing a white substance on the island bench. At 12.51.37 he spoke to Ms Crews by telephone about the TB‑500 ('hey honey, you left the trainer's stuff behind') and offered to take it down to her. He left at 12.51.50 taking the bin liner containing the TB‑500 and returned empty‑handed at 12.53.05.
At 12.53.12 Cameron smelt the contents of the bin liner and had another conversation with Neumann about a parcel of drugs that 'tasted disgusting', which were supposed to be 'yellow stuff' but weren't [the smelly, purple drugs]. Cameron said (12.53.40):
Whatever it is, it's fucking terrible. I don't think I put it in [indistinct] I think, I think I wrapped it in [indistinct] bags. They didn't put it in – I think [indistinct] oh, and [indistinct] put it in [indistinct] I didn't put hers in another bag.
At 12.53.50 – 12.54.19 Neumann removed his latex gloves and placed them on the island bench.
Neumann and Cameron (mostly the latter) then continued unpacking the first belt which involved tearing off numerous strips of adhesive tape, sometimes using a small pair of scissors that Neumann took from the drawer. At 12.56 Neumann made himself a cup of coffee and offered one to Cameron who declined. They did this work methodically. Neumann asked Cameron if he had been in touch with 'Lejla'. Cameron said that he had and she was 'gunna call over here shortly'.
At 12.58.02 Neumann picked up a ball of rubbish [used adhesive tape and wrapping and the three latex gloves] and placed it into one of the white bin-liners (now seen to be separated from each other).
At 12.58.42 Neumann picked up the loose white package that Cameron had brought it at 12.51.20 and began to unwrap it. He said that it would be 'very fucking dangerous' to work with a person called Pinkstone. Before much else could happen the police let themselves into the apartment through the front door (using a key presumably) and placed Cameron and Neumann under arrest.
The search by police of the apartment disclosed the following:
(i)Cameron's unopened luggage was in bedroom 1. A small number of men's shirts was hanging in a wardrobe.
(ii)Bedroom 2 was unused.
(iii)Two boxes of latex gloves were in the same kitchen drawer as the roll of white bin liners, plus some clip seal bags. An empty box for a 'Sunbeam' vacuum foodsaver was in a kitchen cupboard.
(iv)Two separate white bin liners were on the island bench. One contained four vacuum sealed packages of pink/purple crystals wrapped together in grey tape to form a chunky belt. On analysis (B296) two months later these weighed 467.7 gm in total and were described as orange‑yellow crystalline material with an average methylamphetamine content of 70.75% (part of the count 2 drugs). Inferences are open that these were Ms Tresnjo's smelly, purple drugs, that Cameron and Neumann had left them in the bin liner whilst they worked on the other belt containing their drugs, and that with the passage of time the colour of the drugs changed to an orange‑yellow tone [consistent with the colour that Ms Tresnjo had been given to understand she would be receiving].
(v)The other bin liner contained loose rubbish [which had been placed in the bag by Neumann at 12.58.02] including screwed up adhesive tape, the three latex gloves [handled by Neumann] and wrapping.
(vi) Two flat packages were on the island bend [these were formerly part of the first belt or cummerbund‑like object]. These were made of plastic wrapping and adhesive tape. Inside were the balance of the count 2 drugs in 16 individual snaplock bags, each weighing approximately 27 – 28 gm.
(vii)A vacuum-sealed plastic container containing snaplock bags containing 600 gm of the cutting agent dimethylsulfone (B299) was found on the kitchen floor near the island bench. [The package which Neumann was handling when the police entered the apartment].
(viii)A set of electronic scales was in a cupboard above the cook top.
(ix)A glass vial was found in Cameron's luggage containing a clear liquid, found on analysis to comprise 0.6 gm of methylamphetamine [the 'pseudo' sample referred to by Ms Tresnjo on 22 September].
(x)A black garbage bag was found on the floor near the island bench. This contained a left glove (gardening variety), a shopping bag, some garments such as long johns and shorts, two pieces of used grey tape, two empty bottles [including Ms Crews' water bottle], an empty pre‑mix drink package and screwed up toilet paper of similar length to the drug belts. [These objects included the garments which were inspected by Neumann at around 12.35 and rubbish (the grey tape) collected by him from the bedroom 1 area and placed near the island bench at 12.43.55].
(xi)$7,100 cash was found on Neumann.
(xii)Three phones and two sim cards were found on or with Neumann.
(xiii)Sheets of handwritten notes including accounting, names and numbers where in Neumann's shoulder bag.
(xiv)Two phones were found on or with Cameron.
(xv)$2,435 cash was found on Cameron.
(xvi)A small plastic box was found behind the fire hose reel in the fire‑fighting closet which was in the lobby between apartments 2 and 3 and opposite the elevator serving those apartments. The box contained some small electronic scales and packages containing a white powdery substance. On analysis these were found to contain 394.69 gm of methylamphetamine of 22 to 59% purity (B291).
(xvii)A large quantity of boxes were stacked in the cupboard in bathroom 2 [Medivet products, from which Ms Crews removed the TB‑500 etc for Cookson].
Police officers searched Ms Crews' vehicle after the traffic stop. This disclosed two mobile phones (one on her and one in the glovebox) and a quantity of TB‑500, saline and other veterinary products [from the cupboard in bathroom 2].
The police also searched Ms Crews' apartment at Burswood later that day and interviewed her in the process. She made partial admissions. The following evidence emerged:
(i)Ms Crews shared the apartment with her adult son who more‑or‑less had sole occupancy of some rooms on one side. The balance comprised an open plan kitchen, dining and living area, Ms Crews' well‑equipped office (she was practising from home), a master bedroom, a spare room and storage areas.
(ii)One of the wardrobes in the master bedroom was full of male clothing and other property which (based on Ms Crews' partial or implied admissions and documentation) belonged to Neumann who was also living in the apartment.
(iii)Other objects in that wardrobe included a small quantity of methylamphetamine and smoking implements, a manbag containing $29,900 in $50 notes, two sheets of paper with some sort of accounting summary, a Sunbeam 'Foodsaver' vacuum sealer [from the box at the South Perth apartment] and bags for the same, grey adhesive tape, a TY100B money counting machine with instruction manual and documents connecting it with Neumann. (Ms Crews admitted that she collected this item from the Post Office). A bag containing a large quantity of elastic bands was also found [as brought to the apartment by Cameron and Neumann on 15 September]. Neumann's DNA profile was found on the foodsaver, a foodsaver bag, a clip seal bag, the loose tape and the manbag.
(iv)There were three mobile telephones (with instruction booklets in the wardrobe). Two more were being charged in open view on the floor of the living area. Mrs Crews said that she had not noticed them.
(v)Neumann's passport and the keys to his Porsche were found in a briefcase in the wardrobe. The Porsche was parked in the basement garage. A search disclosed a Glock pistol with the identification numbers ground off [possibly the 'toy' referred in item 11] and ammunition in a bumbag on the back seat. Ms Crews said ('without being categoric') that she had seen the bag before, but not the gun.
(vi)According to the exhibits officer (as per the video) the coin scoop for the money counter was found in the 'office area' which is consistent with the money counter having been present and/or used in Ms Crews' office. (The exhibits log states that this was found on a filing cabinet in the office. I was unable to see this in the pan of that room and have considered the possibility that it was actually found on a filing cabinet in a storage room).
Ms Crews told police that the [incriminating] objects in the wardrobe belonged to a friend who had just moved in [Neumann], but denied any knowledge of them saying that she 'had no idea and did not interfere'. [Likely to be untrue given the product relating to her accessing money and phones in Neumann's bag].
I am not aware of any evidence of Ms Tresnjo's employment. She told the police who arrested her that she had no fixed residence. She told police that the money that was found on her ($19,800) had been given to her by somebody (or was for somebody) in relation to her finding a place to rent. She also told police that she had a drug habit and that she had come to the South Perth apartment to see Neumann.
The execution of a search warrant at Cameron's flat in Sydney on 24 September disclosed considerable evidence of drug dealing activity which was consistent with him having packed the count 2 drugs there (including the smelly, purple drugs) as he said to Ms Crews and Neumann in the South Perth apartment. Amongst other things police found numerous phones, pepper, electronic scales, vacuum sealing bags and duct tape.
In my opinion the following inferences are open based on the product to which Ms Crews and Ms Tresnjo were a party:
(i)Ms Crews personally counted and wrapped the sum of $140,000 that Cameron took to Sydney.
(ii)She went to the South Perth apartment on 24 September by prior arrangement with Cameron for the express purpose of meeting him and letting him in.
(iii)She was present when Cameron untaped the two drug belts [from his body]. They discussed the smelly, purple drugs and she smelt the same.
(iv)She was nearby in the apartment when Cameron placed the drug belts inside two white bin liners and knew of the contents (or of the likely contents) when he placed them on the kitchen bench. She directed him to take them somewhere and he placed them in the hiding place behind the fire hose reel outside the apartment.
(v)The discussion between Neumann and Cameron at 12.46 ‑ 12.47 was about the smelly, purple drugs and about Cameron weighing and packaging the Neumann enterprise's drugs in bags (of about 27 gm each) in Sydney the day before. All of this was audible to Ms Crews and she knew what Cameron was talking about.
(vi)The bin liners and drugs which Cameron brought into the apartment at 12.48 came from behind the fire-hose reel and were the same as those referred to at (iv) above.
(vii)Ms Tresnjo attended the apartment by prior arrangement with Cameron and Neumann to take delivery of drugs (including the smelly, purple drugs if Neumann did not want any of them).
Mr Eyers submitted that the events in the apartment on 24 September are consistent with Ms Crews' defence hypothesis. In addition to the facts that Neumann was involved in legitimate Medivet business and there was a quantity of Medivet products in the South Perth apartment on 8 September 2010 (and still was on 24 September), he relied on the following matters. First, Cookson had requested Ms Crews to get him a quantity of genuine TB‑500 (as corroborated by Cameron at 12.51.37). It is submitted that this provides an innocent explanation for her presence at the apartment that day. Second, Neumann and Cameron waited until Ms Crews had left the apartment before they began to unpack the drug belt, ie, she was not in their confidence.
This argument is not without some force. However, in my opinion it fails to take into account all of the evidence relating to that day.
First, it overlooks the possible inferences referred to at (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) above which are consistent with Ms Crews having some authority, sharing the confidence of the others and being completely 'in the know'.
Second, there is an inculpatory explanation for why Ms Crews left the apartment before the drugs were unwrapped. Unlike 10 September, Neumann was present, could 'call the play' and take care of the rubbish and cleaning up (which he began to do whilst she was still there and continued to do at 12.58.02). As such, there was nothing to keep her at the apartment, especially bearing in mind that it was, in her opinion, a 'dangerous' place to be (see item 205). In other words, the unwrapping of the drug belts and the packages of drugs was in fact quite time‑consuming and would have kept her there for a while for no purpose, but at some risk. As it happens, she left at the same time that Cameron went to retrieve the drugs from their nearby hiding place (which only took him 105 seconds) and an inference is open that she had the opportunity to observe him remove them from the fire‑hose cupboard, which was directly opposite the elevator. Overall, and having regard to the entirety of the independent evidence, inferences are open that each member of the enterprise had distinct roles to play in a well‑organized and well‑understood operation, including when shipments of drugs arrived, and Ms Crews fulfilled her required role on each occasion and no more.
Third, in my opinion there did not appear to be any noticeable change in the tempo of events before and after Ms Crews departed. Certainly there was nothing overt to suggest that Neumann and Cameron were hanging around waiting for her to leave.
Fourth, Mr Eyers' submission overlooks the inference at (ii) above from which it follows that Cookson's request for some real TB‑500 was coincidental with Ms Crews' underlying reason for going to the apartment, which is consistent with the fact that she forgot to take the TB‑500 with her when she left.
Fifth, Neumann wore latex gloves, of which there were two boxes in the same kitchen drawer that Ms Crews looked through when she was (apparently) looking for some bags. Thus, it is open to infer that she saw and knew of the presence and purpose of the gloves.

Overall analysis of the State case against Ms Crews

I turn now to address whether it can be held based on independent evidence that there is a reasonable case against Ms Crews.
The starting point is the issue of motive. Ms Crews' own words support an inference that she saw the enterprise as a means of getting rich quickly. According to Mr Khan's evidence very large volumes of BioBute would need to be sold to make profits of millions of dollars, although the same could not necessarily be said of TB‑500 which was more valuable. Very large profits could be made from high level drug dealing, especially (as Neumann suggested) he could acquire it at a good price. To illustrate, the State will contend that the value of the count 2 drugs was $14,000 per ounce or a total of $448,000 (at least in Western Australia), but approximately 55% belonged to Tresnjo on the State's case. On that basis the enterprise paid $140,000 for approximately $204,600 worth of drugs. Ms Crews' one‑woman settlement agency appears to have been trading alright, but this was the status quo from which she apparently wanted to escape. And, based on some of the intercepted product and her interview with police, the business was basically just paying its way.
An inference is open that the business scheme which Ms Crews had in mind involved Cookson and Neumann (the 'puppet‑master'). In the context of the Neumann‑Cookson product and Neumann's undoubted occupation as a high-level drug dealer, it is open to infer that Ms Crews was talking about getting rich by drug‑dealing when she spoke of making millions of dollars. She shared Neumann's views about Cookson using 'the product' himself (item 113) but was herself permitted to spend drug‑derived money (items 58, 175), which is consistent with her having a proprietorial interest in the venture.
I turn now to the lingua franca which was only used in telephone (including SMS) communications. (At times Ms Crews declined to speak at all on the telephone about some matters). People who have nothing to hide do not speak to each other on the phone in this way. To illustrate the point, the lingua franca was not used in parts of intercepted conversations which were self‑evidently about legitimate matters, nor was it used in conversations in the apartment which were not susceptible to telephonic interception. [The participants did not think about covert electronic surveillance].

The State submits that there is only one rational explanation, namely that the enterprise that was being discussed by telephone involved high level illegality that could (to the minds of the participants) potentially attract telephone intercepts by law enforcement agencies and, thus, some level of encryption by them (Neumann et al) was necessary. In my opinion there is force in this submission and an inference is also open based on Ms Crews' familiarity with the lingua franca, and use of it, that she was a party to the illegal enterprise.
The next general circumstantial matter which supports the State's case is Ms Crews' association and proximity with Neumann and Cameron and, to a lesser extent, the other members of the enterprise. Ms Crews and Neumann were in a close personal relationship and, one could infer from the product, trusted each other. He tasked her to perform a number of functions which were important to the enterprise. For example, she controlled access to the South Perth apartment and co‑ordinated a delivery there on 30 August. She was privy to the involvement of 'the girl' and 'Lejla', a vital and highly privileged fact which is inconsistent with her being a disinterested party. She also helped Neumann to exclude Cookson which was important to the restructuring of the enterprise by distancing Cookson and his associates, which rendered the enterprise safer.
Further, as far as the product in evidence is concerned, Ms Crews acted as Neumann's telephone intermediary with Cameron and vice versa at all material times except on 23 September. She also paid for some of Cameron's airline bookings. These functions were significant given Cameron's exposed role as the courier and the desirability of Neumann distancing himself from him as much as possible. So, for instance, it was not safe for Cameron to travel with drugs or cash using airline tickets that could easily be traced to Neumann.
Next, inferences are open that Ms Crews knowingly stored and handled drug dealing paraphernalia at her apartment, including large amounts of cash, at least one 'work' telephone [but probably more], the money counting machine (which she agreed to collect and did so and used on 15 – 16 September) and the Foodsaver vacuum sealer [the box for which was at the South Perth apartment] and packaging. Once again, this role was significant.
Inferences are also open that she knew Neumann and Cookson had guns ('toys') and that Neumann kept his on or near her apartment (his motor vehicle in fact).
More specifically, independent evidence is capable of establishing that Ms Crews did the following as to count 1:
(i)She agreed to help Cameron and Cookson collect money to pay for the drugs, to which she added cash from the manbag in Neumann's wardrobe in their bedroom.
(ii)She took Cameron to the airport and helped him to take the money through security (or at least agreed with Neumann that she would do so in order to put him at ease). She also provided Cameron with a mobile phone to give to Neumann.
(iii)She acted as Neumann's representative at the South Perth apartment on the evening of 10 September, which was a significant role given he did not want to communicate with Cookson or Cameron directly whilst they were exposed with the drugs.
(iv)She also cleaned up the South Perth apartment that night and removed potentially incriminating evidence.
Having regard to the abovementioned general and particular matters, I am satisfied that there is independent evidence that establishes a reasonable case that Ms Crews was a party to the enterprise that culminated in count 1. In particular, that Ms Crews was in joint possession with others of a number of packets of drugs for sale and supply to clients in the late evening of 10 September. This finding is supported by the further evidence post‑dating count 1 (the admissibility of which I deal with later).
So far as count 2 is specifically concerned, independent evidence is capable of establishing that Ms Crews did the following:
(i)She allowed her apartment to be used on 15 September for the purpose of counting and packaging the sum of $140,000 cash that Cameron took to Sydney to purchase the drugs.
(ii)She assisted Neumann to count and package the cash, probably in her office.
(iii)She met Cameron at the South Perth apartment on 24 September on his arrival from Sydney and let him into the apartment.
(iv)She was present whilst Cameron unpacked the drugs from his person and directed him to cache the drugs off‑site. It can also be inferred that she knew where, ie behind the fire‑hose reel.
In my opinion, having regard to the general and particular matters just mentioned there is independent evidence that supports a reasonable case against Ms Crews in respect of the count 2 drugs. In particular, Ms Crews was in joint possession with others of the drugs in the first belt plus the smelly, purple drugs with intent to sell or supply to Neumann and/or Tresnjo alone and/or to clients.
I turn now to discuss the admissibility of the entirety of the independent evidence in respect of each count, ie, its cross‑admissibility.
In my opinion an inference is open that the criminal enterprise was an ongoing one at all material times, albeit the personnel changed slightly from count 1 to count 2. This is supported by the nature of the business (wholesale drug dealing), the similarity of the modus operandi (sourcing the product through Ms Tresnjo in Sydney, the use of the lingua franca, the use of the South Perth apartment and the use of Cameron as the courier) and the relative contemporaneity or continuity of the events (counts 1 and 2 were only 14 days apart).
In my opinion the independent evidence in respect of count 2 (ie, as and from 12 September) supports an inference that methylamphetamine was being distributed from the apartment on the night of 10 September and that Ms Crews knew it (or likely knew it). To illustrate, the evidence in relation to count 2 explains what she meant by 'it' in items 150 and 169 and what she meant by 'one particular situation' in item 158, namely the preparation and distribution of methylamphetamine.
In my opinion the independent evidence in respect of count 1 (ie, all of the evidence up to and including 10 September) supports an inference that Ms Crews knew (or likely knew) what was involved in count 2 and what was occurring at all material times until the police raided the apartment. To illustrate, it is probative of Ms Crews' knowledge of the purpose of the sum of $140,000 that she counted and packed and her knowledge of what Cameron brought back from Sydney, namely methylamphetamine.
In short, all of the independent evidence is relevant to each count as to Ms Crews' knowledge of the enterprise (it negatives innocent association) and as to her propensity to involve herself. In my opinion all of the evidence would have significant probative value on each count in the sense that it would be of importance or consequence. The State's case cannot be fully or fairly considered without cross‑admissibility.
Further, in my opinion the risk of a jury using the evidence in a prejudicial way is low since it is relevant to propensity and adequate directions could be given by the trial judge as to how the evidence could be used (including a separate trials direction). Amongst other things, the trial judge would make the point at [44] above and direct the jury to consider every aspect of each element and not to jump to conclusions.
Accordingly, in my opinion fair-minded persons would think that the admission of all relevant evidence should have priority over the risk of an unfair trial and, as such, all of the independent evidence is admissible on each charge.
In conclusion, having regard to the independent evidence I am satisfied and find that there is a reasonable basis for concluding that Ms Crews knew what was going on in respect of each count, willingly played her role and had requisite control in respect of each count. I am not satisfied that Ms Crews' defence hypothesis is sufficiently strong to negate this finding. That is a jury question.
I accept the State's submission that the independent evidence establishes that Ms Crews was a party to the criminal enterprise at all material times from no later than 27 August when she assisted with booking a flight for Cameron. Having said that, the independent evidence supports a finding that she was aware of the nature of the enterprise prior to that date.
I turn now to consider the telephone intercept and surveillance product itself.
In my opinion all of the items challenged by Ms Crews are admissible for the purposes relied upon by the State (as set out in the schedule) namely as context or, in some instances, as furtherance of the criminal enterprise and thus admissible under the co‑conspirators rule.
Accordingly, all of Ms Crews' objections are dismissed.
I am further satisfied that the State case against Ms Crews is adequately particularised, namely as and from 27 August she was an active member of the criminal enterprise and was tasked with specific and important responsibilities which are enumerated above. It is alleged that Neumann made all executive decisions on behalf of the enterprise (although he delegated to Ms Crews at times), but she nevertheless had a share in the enterprise and stood to make substantial profits from the on‑sale of the product.

Overall assessment of the State case against Ms Tresnjo

The State's circumstantial case against Ms Tresnjo is different in a number of particulars from that against Ms Crews. Ms Tresnjo kept a lower profile and was very cautious about using the telephone (and may even, for security reasons, have deliberately missed flights and left the 0.6 ml sample in Sydney). She used less of the lingua franca and had a different role to the others (except Neumann).
As of 18 August she was receptive to working with Neumann and making Kelly Murray's acquaintance. In context she had no interest in Medivet, ie, her shared interest with Neumann was drug‑dealing. It is apparent from what she said to Neumann on 14 and 22 September that she had esoteric knowledge of the nature of the drugs that were supplied to Neumann's enterprise and the scale of the supplier's operation, which supports the inference that she was highly trusted and her roles were as a go‑between and a customer.
The particular independent evidence against Ms Tresnjo in respect of count 1 is as follows:
(i)On or about 2 or 3 September she and Neumann agreed to travel to Sydney (independently of each other for security reasons) and rendezvous when they got there.
(ii)She contacted Neumann as soon as she arrived at her hotel in Sydney and agreed to meet him for dinner and did so. They spoke by telephone after their meeting (at 9.38 pm) about Cameron going back to Perth to collect money. They met again at Neumann's room in the very early hours of the next day to discuss the arrangement.
(iii)On the morning of 5 September Neumann told Ms Tresnjo that Cameron was on his way over to Neumann's accommodation.
(iv)Between 5 and 8 September she and Neumann agreed to buy the drugs (the shopping trip) together and did so on the evening (Sydney time) of 8 September.
In my opinion, having regard to the context of Neumann and Cameron's drug‑dealing activities in Sydney, there is sufficient independent evidence (see also [266] (ii) below) to establish a reasonable case that from not later than 4 September Ms Tresnjo was a participant in the enterprise that ultimately culminated in count 1 in that she went to Sydney to facilitate a drug‑dealing transaction with Neumann.
In my view the evidence is capable of establishing that Ms Tresnjo agreed to join the drug‑dealing enterprise during a discussion with Neumann prior to 3 September, but did not act on it until 4 September. I am satisfied that the evidence establishes a reasonable basis for inferring that she then became the go‑between who arranged the purchase on the afternoon of 8 September, and that she was present, and as such she had both knowledge and control over the drugs.
As with Ms Crews' case, this finding is supported by, but not necessarily dependent upon, the cross‑admissibility of the independent evidence about count 2, to which I shall return.
Turning specifically to count 2, the independent evidence implicates Ms Tresnjo in the following particular events:
(i)She had a lengthy discussion with Neumann in the South Perth apartment on 14 September about their mutual drug‑dealing activities and modus operandi
(ii) She also mentioned getting some money to Neumann which is consistent with her being indebted to him in respect of count 1 or funding count 2, or both.
(iii)She was given a sample of liquid methylamphetamine by the supplier in Sydney.
(iv)She and Neumann had another meeting in the South Perth apartment on 22 September. On this occasion there was more specific discussion about the ownership and division of the count 2 drugs.
(v)She was in regular contact with Cameron on 23 and 24 September about the issue of the missing cash, the quality of the drugs, his flight and which drugs he brought to Perth. She had the direct say as regards the smelly, purple drugs. She and Neumann also liaised with each other about Cameron's arrival in Perth and she liaised with her own associates about that.
(vi)She arranged to go to the South Perth apartment on 24 September after Cameron arrived and did so. At the time she was in possession of drug‑dealing paraphernalia, namely $19,800 in cash and five telephones, and she admitted that she was there to see Neumann who, but for the arrival of the police, was there to distribute drugs which she had previously discussed buying from him or sharing with him.
I am satisfied that there is independent evidence that establishes to a reasonable level that Ms Tresnjo was a participant in the enterprise which culminated in count 2 insofar as she had knowledge of the nature of the drugs Cameron brought to Perth (or the likely nature of the drugs). She organised the same, dealt with the problem of payment and the rendezvous for their distribution. She had an ownership interest in some of the drugs as well. As such, she had the requisite knowledge and control to constitute possession.
I turn to the issue of the admissibility of the whole of the independent evidence in respect of counts 1 and 2 (cross‑admissibility). In my opinion, that evidence supports a finding that Ms Tresnjo was part of a single drug‑dealing enterprise as and from no later than 4 September and there was an underlying unity through to the afternoon of 24 September. The unity emerges from the identity of the participants and their roles (save for Cookson as to count 2), Ms Tresnjo's access to the common drug supplier and the use of the South Perth apartment. An inference as to her propensity to deal in drugs at a wholesale level emerges which is important to negating any suggestion of innocent association at any time.
In my opinion the State's case cannot be fully or fairly considered without cross‑admissibility. So, I am satisfied that the probative value of the independent evidence in respect of each count is significant in the sense that it would rationally affect the proof of Ms Tresnjo's knowledge and control and would be of importance and consequence.
I am further satisfied that the risk of an unfair trial (prejudice) is low and that, having regard to the directions of the trial judge, fair‑minded members of the public would consider that cross‑admissibility should take priority over the risk of an unfair trial. Accordingly, I am satisfied that all of the independent evidence against Ms Tresnjo is admissible on both counts and this supports my finding that independent evidence establishes a reasonable case against her in respect of each count.
I turn now to address the admissibility of the telephone intercept and surveillance product objected to by Ms Tresnjo. In my opinion that evidence is admissible to establish context, particularly bearing in mind Ms Tresnjo's interest in working with Neumann can be dated to as early as 18 August.
I am also of the opinion the objected communications and actions of Neumann, Cookson, Cameron and Ms Crews as and from 4 September are admissible against Ms Tresnjo under the co‑conspirators rule to the extent contended for by the State.
Finally, I am satisfied that the State's case against Ms Tresnjo is adequately particularised. It is alleged that she was knowingly and actively involved in count 1 from not later than 4 September and in count 2 at all material times. Her role was to liaise between the Neumann enterprise and the supplier in Sydney which she actively facilitated. She had a proprietorial interest in some of the count 2 drugs. As such she had the requisite knowledge, involvement and dominion or control.

Conclusion

It has proved necessary to do a painstaking item by item analysis of the independent evidence (product) which is relevant to each accused and consider the inferences to be drawn there‑from in the context of the other evidence.
This analysis discloses that there is a reasonable case that each accused played an essential role in the Neumann drug dealing enterprise from not later than 27 August 2010 in the case of Ms Crews and not later than 4 September 2010 in respect of Ms Tresnjo.
In my opinion the accused's objections to the evidence relied on by the State should be dismissed. I also find that the State's case is adequately particularised in respect of both counts.