THE HEINER AFFAIR
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
- The police are required under the provisions of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 and their Oath of Office to investigate all allegations of criminal conduct without fear or favour, and malice to no one. The impartiality of the police constable in applying the law equally is a foundation policing principle in the maintenance of law and order in any free democratic society;
- That in order to fully investigate complaints of criminality, societies governed by the rule of law have given their police (all sworn to solemnly uphold and abide by the law) conditional authority to seek evidence (when and if necessary) by use of search warrants [eg section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cwth)], and other powers obtained under due process, on private and government property and persons. They are restrained in using such powers by judicial review should a party contest any such search from being applied, particularly in respect of legal professional privilege exempt documents. (See Baker v Campbell (1983) 153 CLR 52; Jacobsen v Rogers (1995) 182 CLR 572; Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427 and other cases). Having been given the significant power by Parliament to protect the people from harm and illegal conduct by any quarter, impartial policing is and must remain a high legal obligation. The undoubted enemy of equal justice is the double standard, and therefore, if policing is abused, biased or corrupted, it invites the law, its enforcement agencies and officials to be brought into contempt;
- That such a principle, extended from the police constable to government itself, is well settled in law. In civilised societies in the world, it finds an expression over seventy (70) years ago by Mr Justice Louis D Brandeis, of the United States Supreme Court in Dissenting in Olmstead v United States, 277 U.S. 438, 475 (1928):
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subject to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
- That on 7 April, 24 May and 14 September 1994, CIB detectives from the Queensland Police Service (QPS) interviewed me. The interviews were taped. The QPS was informed of possible criminal conduct pertaining to (a) the shredding involving potentially (i) a Departmental Director-General and senior public officials; (ii) a Minister of the Crown; (iii) an entire Cabinet; (b) the subsequent cover up which included possible criminal conduct by certain high ranking CJC officers assisting in that cover up. A separate matter (which brought the police to me in the first place on 7 April 1994) of prima facie misappropriation of funds from the Queensland Professional Officers Association Superannuation Fund [QPOASF] by former fund members Messrs Donald Martindale, Kerry Daly, Gordon Rutherford and Ms Roslyn Kinder who (via her hand as the designated officer entitled to sign a document) pretended to resign their employment [ie ticked "leaving the service" box on the relevant National Mutual Life form] in order to access QPOASF contributions [as required under the QPOASF Trust Deed] was referred to the police on 3 September 1993. The referral came from then Attorney-General the Hon Dean Wells MLA acting on Crown Law advice regarding Recommendation 2 of the 8th Report [p62] of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation made up police file (MS93/25262) commenced on 3 September 1993;
- That compelling evidence and leads were provided to the police on those aforesaid occasions directing their investigations to records held by and into officials in Executive Government, Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, State Archives, CJC and by normal policing/investigative processes to other places ie the Office of Crown Law, State Public Services Federation Queensland, Queensland Professional Credit Union Limited (QPCU), and the Rock Building Society in Rockhampton;
- That on 16 November 1993, Mr Cec A Lee, then QPCU Board Chairman, informed me that the Board had reviewed my membership (commenced in June 1984) and decided that it did not comply with the QPCU's Rules. He enclosed a resignation form and said that any failure on my part to terminate my membership would result in an automatic termination in 14 days. I refused to resign knowing that I was eligible under the Rules holding the same membership status as many other QPCU shareholders, including some Board Directors;
- That on 20 November 1993 I lodged a grievance with the Senate. I alleged a discrimination against myself (and my wife) as a consequence of providing evidence to a Senate hearing. Following a further "interim" investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation which found a prima facie case existed, the grievance was on-forwarded to then Senate President the Hon Senator Kerry Sibraa who made a referral to the Senate Committee of Privileges for examination of possible contempt to the Senate pursuant to the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 on the matter (See Senate Hansard p4931 17 December 1993 & Point 192);
- That on 8 April 1994 QPCU General Manager Mr Gordon Rutherford and the QPCU Board, through solicitors, demanded that I sign prepared statements retracting statements alleged to have been said by me at the QPCU 1993 Annual General Meeting, held on 28 October 1993, that the police were investigating evidence given to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation involving Mr Rutherford's withdrawal from the QPOASF which breached the Trust Deed. The solicitors claimed that "…There was not then, and is not now, any Fraud Squad investigation into Mr Rutherford or the credit union or the payment." Unless I signed the retraction, both parties would institute defamation proceedings against me. I refused to sign. It was an untruthful statement, let alone having been approached and interviewed by the police the previous day about the very matter;
- That on 27 April 1994 Mr Rutherford lodged and served a Writ for Defamation in the Supreme Court of Queensland (No 579 of 1994) but the QPCU Board withheld its hand. He failed to serve a Statement of Claim for over a year. On 21 June 1995 my counsel rebutted every aspect to his claim at which point the matter has rested ever since, leaving it "open to conclude" that it was a "Stopper Writ" and possible abuse of process. The serving of the Writ disallowed the matter from being debated at QPCU Annual General Meetings;
- That the QPCU's and Mr Rutherford's conduct was brought to the attention of the credit union statutory watchdog agency, the Queensland Office of Financial Supervision, by personal meeting (31 July 1995) and letter (13 August 1995) with its Chief Executive Officer Mr Stephen Maitland as a prima facie breach of the credit union's rules and Australian Financial Institutions Code, but without effect;
- That on 14 September 1994, when assisting the police (Fraud Squad) in their investigation, the police were told of Mr Rutherford's legal action against me for defamation. They were told that it was predicated on the premise that no such police investigation existed, which plainly had no foundation in truth. The detectives were told that the Writ was having the effect of intimidating a witness, namely myself. The senior detective indicated that he could not interfere with his legal rights without infringing the law. It was then suggested by me in return that, as any intrusion or interference with the rights of another person in his or her legal action (however distasteful and lacking in cause for action it may be in defamation or judicial review) infringed the law, then he (the senior detective) had, out of his own mouth, admitted criminality on the part of the Goss Cabinet's shredding decision because it purposefully infringed Mr Coyne's rights to his day in court in respect of a judicial review regarding access to the Heiner Inquiry documents by shredding them when he (Coyne) had a known lawful claim on them;
- That on 22 November 1994 Police Commissioner O'Sullivan was supplied by me (acting on legal advice) with a copy of Crown Law advice of 16 February 1990 (having been just released to me by the FOI Commissioner) as I was led to believe its release was done because I had provided sufficient prima facie evidence of a crime pertaining to it [as was previously stipulated on 9 November 1993 by the FOI Commissioner before he could overturn its exemption under section 43(1) of the FOI Act re "legal professional privilege"] (See Point 148);
- That on 24 November 1994 the police informed me that the CJC was the appropriate body to investigate the shredding, and that as the CJC was satisfied, the police investigation would discontinue. On 29 December 1994 (after taking into account my letter of 22 November 1994 and attachment of Crown Law advice of 16 February 1990 which crossed in the mail), the police informed me that my criminal complaint pertaining to the shredding had been referred back to the CJC. My police file was sent to the same high ranking CJC officials against whom I was making serious criminal allegations of failing to act impartially by not properly investigating the shredding;
- That on 7 January 1995 Police Commissioner O'Sullivan was informed by me that it was totally inappropriate to transfer my criminal complaints back to the CJC and to the same officers against whom misconduct was being alleged which involved: (a) failure to interview key witnesses; (b) fabricating evidence; (c) tampering with evidence; (d) attempting to intimidate me; (e) misquoting and misinterpreting a key statute (ie Public Service Management and Employment Regulation 65); (f) omitting evidence; (g) giving false and misleading evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Public Interest Whistleblowing. He was told that the recently established Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases was about to examine the matter;
- That on 25 January 1995 Assistant Police Commissioner Graham Williams - State Crime Operations Command - informed me that the appropriate body to investigate my matter (ie suspected official misconduct and criminal conduct in the State of Queensland) was the aforesaid Commonwealth Senate Committee (which has no authority under the Australian Constitution to investigate allegations of criminal conduct done in Her Majesty's Sovereign State of Queensland). He stated that the police would be "…happy to address any matter which remains for investigation upon the report of the senate inquiry."
- That on 21 February 1995, when the Cabinet-in-Confidence submission was unexpectedly tabled in the Queensland Parliament by the Hon Santo Santoro MLA (having been leaked to him from an unknown high level source in the Queensland Government), it revealed that the QPS, along with other relevant Queensland Government departments, had agreed with a "political decision" not to cooperate with the Senate. In evidence to that Senate Committee, then CJC Director of the Official Misconduct Division Mr Mark Le Grand related a phone conversation between himself and Assistant Commissioner Williams which revealed that:
"… He (Williams) indicated during the course of that conversation that they did not propose to investigate the Lindeberg complaint until the results of the inquiry were known." (Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases Hansard 23 February 1995 p128).
- That on 16 January 1996 Police Commissioner O'Sullivan was informed by me that fresh admissions had been made during hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Unresolved Whistleblower Cases. He was told that senior counsel (now High Court of Australia Justice Mr Ian Callinan QC) had specifically addressed its relevance to certain sections of the Criminal Code (Qld) in a special submission to the Committee on 7 August 1995. The Police Commissioner was asked:
"What do you now propose to do to resolve this matter affecting due process involving the admitted deliberate des- truction of known and foreseeable evidence to stop a citizen from accessing the material in foreshadowed litigation?"
- That on 15 February 1996 the police informed me that its investigation "…concerning the shredding of the Heiner Inquiry documents and related matters…" was closed. The police referred me to its earlier letter dated 31 August 1995 which I had not received. I requested a copy, and discovered that the police had closed my criminal complaint into the shredding on the findings of a totally separate complaint concerning possible misappropriation of monies from the QPOASF by certain parties in which they found insufficient evidence to charge anyone.
- That the QPS, at its highest level, had evidence (and clear leads) of prima facie criminal conduct involving the Executive Government of Queensland and high ranking CJC officials. Despite (a) taking evidence from me on three separate occasions and being given concrete leads; (b) giving me assurances that its investigation was "on-going" on several occasions; (c) having sworn an Oath to uphold its public duty pursuant to the Police Service Administration Act 1990 without fear, favour or ill will to none, and to investigate all complaints of suspected criminal conduct; the police officers concerned did nothing to carry out their legal obligations in a matter which corrupted the administration of justice in the State of Queensland to its very core.
Heiner Affair News Articles
Additional Heiner Affair Coverage
Queensland Parliamentry Crime and Misconduct Committee
Other heiner affair commentary.
Radio 4BC 01/10/2009
Radio 4BC 09/07/2010
Radio 2GB 30/09/2009
Radio 2GB 29/09/2009
Radio 2GB 24/06/2009
Radio 2GB 23/06/2009 Video
ABC Radio Richard Fidler Conversation Hour 17/03/2009
Brisbane radio 4BC 20/03/2009
Alan Jones radio interview with Piers Akerman.
Alan Jones radio interview with Peter Beattie
Alan Jones radio interview with former QLD union official Kevin Lindeberg
Download PDF Documents
Crime in the Community
Forde Commission of Inquiry
Inquiry into Harmonising Legal Systems
Tasmanian Parliament Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct
Standing Committee Legal & Constitutional Affairs