EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Between 20 April 1999 and 22 June 1999, the Police Integrity Commission (‘the
Commission’) held public hearings in relation to an investigation code-named Operation
Oslo. Those hearings were preceded by a covert investigation, which commenced in
June 1997, in which evidence and information were collected by the Commission
pursuant to its statutory functions.
The general scope and purpose of the hearings announced on 20 April 1999 was:
to identify current and former members of the New South Wales Police Service who are or were involved in improper and/or illegal conduct with Kostas Kontorinakis or any of his current or former associates.
On 25 May 1999, Commissioner P D Urquhart QC announced that in addition to the
general scope and purpose announced on 20 April of that year, the scope and purpose
of the hearings would be:
to investigate whether Roger Rogerson has knowledge of any police misconduct and to investigate whether there has been any police misconduct by any member of the New South Wales Police Service associated with Roger Rogerson or any of his associates and, if so, the nature and extent thereof.
The two individuals referred to by name in the general scope and purpose announcements
were Kostas Kontorinakis and Roger Rogerson. Mr Kontorinakis, in his evidence to
the Commission, described his occupation as a self-employed entrepreneur who had
been involved ‘on and off’ in the sex industry (although he said he had not been involved
in prostitution or massage parlours). Roger Rogerson is a former NSW police officer
who was dismissed from the Service on 11 April 1986. Roger Rogerson was convicted
in 1990 of conspiring to pervert the course of justice and was sentenced to an eight
year (minimum six year) prison term. On 16 December 1992 the Court of Criminal
Appeal dismissed an appeal against his conviction and re-sentenced him to a total term
of four years and three months imprisonment (comprising a minimum term of three
years), dating from 16 December 1992.
KEY AREAS OF EVIDENCE
Operation Oslo ranged over a number of discrete areas. A summary of the key areas
of evidence obtained during the course of the investigation, together with the
Commission’s assessment of that evidence, is outlined below.
THE NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY TAPES
Material obtained by the Commission during the course of its investigations included
the National Crime Authority Operation Sugar telephone intercept and listening device
tapes of 1991 (referred to in this Report as ‘the NCA tapes’). A number of the NCA
tapes allegedly featured Kostas Kontorinakis, Branco Balic and others apparently discussing with associates the payment of money to police officers for protection of illegal activities.
In three of the NCA taped conversations, Detective Sergeant Kenneth Desmond was
allegedly mentioned in the context of receiving money in exchange for the protection of
illegal activities.
The Commission is not of the opinion that consideration should be given to the prosecution
of any of the persons allegedly receiving or paying corrupt payments.
PAYMENTS TO ROGER ROGERSON
Evidence obtained by the Commission indicates that for a period of two years ending in
1998, Mr Kontorinakis paid Roger Rogerson $500 a week through an associate, Allan
Chrara. Mr Kontorinakis, during the relevant period, had an interest in the Eros Cinema,
which he said provided private ‘peep’ shows.
The purpose of those payments cannot be established on the available evidence.
LINKS BETWEEN ROGER ROGERSON AND SERVING POLICE
In 1998, covertly recorded conversations between Roger Rogerson and others indicated
that corrupt activity may be occurring at Liverpool City Council (‘the Council’).
Information was disseminated to the Independent Commission Against Corruption
(‘ICAC’) which resulted in that Commission investigating the conduct of Sam Masri,
the former Purchasing Officer of the Council. The ICAC made findings of corrupt
conduct in relation to Sam Masri and a number of contractors to the Council, including
Roger Rogerson.
Further covertly recorded conversations revealed that Roger Rogerson was ‘tipped
off’ by a friend that he had been detected on telephone intercepts holding conversations
with Sam Masri. Senior Constable Stephen Williams, then seconded to the ICAC,
admitted to the Commission that he had divulged information to a former police officer,
Laurence Burgess. The evidence was that Laurence Burgess passed the information to
Raymond Johnson and requested that he convey the leaked information to Roger
Rogerson.
SERGEANT OWEN ROGERSON
Recorded conversations suggested that Sergeant Owen Rogerson, Roger Rogerson’s
brother, disclosed information to Roger Rogerson from a police intelligence report in
relation to an association between Roger Rogerson and Arthur Loveday. In Commission
hearings, Sergeant Owen Rogerson admitted discussing the report and explained that
with the benefit of hindsight, he should not have mentioned it.
THE AUSTRAL MATTER
Evidence obtained during the investigation was suggestive of a conspiracy between
Roger Rogerson, Raymond Johnson and Kenneth Weldon to carry out an offence of
break, enter and steal on a property at Austral. The explanations given to the Commission
by those involved lacked credibility, however the admissible material was incapable of
supporting an inference that there was a concluded agreement to carry out an offence
of break, enter and steal. Accordingly, the Commission is not of the opinion that the
NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (‘the DPP’) should give consideration to the
laying of criminal charges.
WESTERN SUBURBS MEDICAL CENTRE
Evidence obtained during the investigation indicated that Roger Rogerson, Raymond
Johnson and Kenneth Weldon conducted what appeared to be unlawful observations
of a particular western suburbs medical centre or a person associated with it. Insufficient
evidence concerning the precise objective of these men leads the Commission to form
the opinion that the DPP should not give consideration to the laying of criminal charges.
DRUG CULTIVATION
Further evidence revealed discussions about cultivation and distribution of marijuana
during the period 4 June 1998 to 19 January 1999 between Roger Rogerson, Kenneth
Weldon, Boris Link and another man. The admissible evidence, however, does not
warrant consideration by the DPP of any drug conspiracy charges.
DETECTIVE SERGEANT PAUL TUXFORD
Detective Sergeant Paul Tuxford appeared before the Commission on 16 June 1999.
In his evidence, he denied that he had arranged for a journalist to interview Allan Chrara
in relation to a story which was damaging to the NSW Police Service (‘the Police
Service’) and/or Commander Brammer, then of the Internal Affairs Command of the
Police Service.
The Commission considers that the relevant material should be referred to the
Commissioner of Police for consideration of reviewable or non-reviewable action.
SENIOR SERGEANT KEVIN VERDON
Senior Sergeant Kevin Verdon appeared as a witness before the Oslo hearings on 16
June 1999. On 29 April 1999, Senior Sergeant Verdon had met with a group of
people including Roger Rogerson for a number of hours at the Cabramatta Leagues
Club. In his appearance before the Commission, Senior Sergeant Verdon initially
indicated he did not see the harm in the contact he had had with Roger Rogerson, even
though he was aware Roger Rogerson had been convicted of offences which he believed
to be related to corrupt acts. On further consideration, Senior Sergeant Verdon agreed there was some merit in making notes of incidents where there was a potential conflict
of interest.
The Commission considers an officer with Senior Sergeant Verdon’s considerable
experience should have been conscious of the potential for his conduct to reflect poorly
upon his own professionalism and the Police Service as a whole. The Commission
considers it appropriate for the Commissioner of Police to give consideration as to
whether non-reviewable action should be taken against Senior Sergeant Verdon.
OPINIONS AS TO CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND OTHER ACTION
After examination of the evidence before it, the Commission formed the opinion that
consideration should be given to the prosecution of the following persons for specified
criminal offences and/or other action:
• Roger Rogerson
− Tampering with evidence (section 317 of the Crimes Act 1900); or
− Destroying a document or thing knowing it may be required in connection with
an investigation (section 88 of the Independent Commission Against
Corruption Act 1988); and
− Knowingly giving evidence that is false or misleading in a material particular
(section 107 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996).
• Anne Melocco
− Tampering with evidence (section 317 of the Crimes Act 1900); or
− Destroying a document or thing knowing it may be required in connection with
an investigation (section 88 of the Independent Commission Against
Corruption Act 1988); and
− Knowingly giving evidence that is false or misleading in a material particular
(section 107 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996).
• Raymond Johnson
− Knowingly giving evidence that is false or misleading in a material particular
(section 107 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996).
• Detective Sergeant Paul Tuxford
− Consideration by the Commissioner of Police to the taking of reviewable or
non-reviewable action within the meaning of section 173 of the Police Service
Act 1990.
• Senior Sergeant Kevin Verdon
− Consideration by the Commissioner of Police to the taking of a non-reviewable
action within the meaning of section 173 of the Police Service Act 1990.
IMPLICATIONS AND COROLLARIES
In addition to expressing opinions in relation to affected persons, the Commission seeks
to identify from its investigations issues that may have broader implications for the Police
Service and its members.
In this regard, the actions of two police officers are noteworthy.
Senior Constable Stephen Williams admitted in his evidence to the Commission that he
had divulged information to a former police officer. As noted above, the evidence
indicates that the former officer then passed the information to another former officer
and requested it be passed to Roger Rogerson. The Commission considers this disclosure
of information by Williams was deliberate.
The Commission needs to emphasise that the harm caused by police officers leaking
information can be significant and far-reaching. Amongst other things, investigations
are compromised and certain individuals can, in effect, be afforded a degree of immunity
from scrutiny by law enforcement agencies either on an ongoing basis or in relation to
discrete investigations. Furthermore it can put the safety of police officers in jeopardy.
The other police officer, Senior Sergeant Verdon, met with a group of people including
Roger Rogerson, for a number of hours one evening in April 1999. The evidence heard
by the Commission in relation to Senior Sergeant Verdon reinforces the need for officers
to be aware of the potential risks that can arise from their personal associations. These
risks present themselves in terms of conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts of interest.
As a minimum, records need to be kept of the circumstances and nature of contact with
persons with criminal records or those known to be under investigation for criminal
offences. It also seems prudent that an officer notify their supervisor when they have
had personal contact of this nature.
