The brutal reality of defending the guilty: Patrick Schmidt Pt. 2

Ex-cop turned defence lawyer Patrick Schmidt reveals the brutal reality of defending the guilty - and why cops hate lawyers. Gary goes head-to-head with Patrick on going to the dark side, how the worst police investigation he ever saw changed how he defends clients, and the courtroom tactics that get police destroyed on the stand. From standard operating procedures that aren't law, to where he draws the ethical line when he believes someone did it, this is cops vs lawyers at its rawest. See omnystudio.com/listener https://omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

• 0:01Speaker 00

  The public has had a long-held fascination with detectives. Detectives see a side of life the average person is never exposed to. I spent 34 years as a cop. For 25 of those years, I was catching killers. That's what I did for a living. I was a homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead, I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated. The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some of the content and language might be confronting. That's because no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged. Join me now as I take you into this world.

• 0:46Speaker 00

  Patrick Smith has now gone from locking people up to defending people who have been locked up. In part two of my chat with him, we talk about law from different perspectives. Where the justice system fails and the many interesting clients Patrick has represented. And yes, I do ask him the hard question. As a former cop, how does he reconcile his conscience when he knows his client is guilty? Have a listen.

• 1:12Speaker 00

  Patrick Smith, welcome back to part two of I Catch Killers.

• 1:16Speaker 01

  Part two.

• 1:17Speaker 00

  Now, in part one, I wanted to spend more time talking about your policing career as a cop-to-cop type talk. But now we're going to have to talk as the ex-cop talking to the defence solicitor. And as a former cop yourself, you know that defence solicitors were often not held in high esteem in policing.

• 1:40Speaker 01

  No, still not.

• 1:41Speaker 00

  Still not? I've wondered whether that had changed.

• 1:44Speaker 01

  No, there's the common gone to the dark side. And then there's from the old defence lawyers, oh, they've seen the light. Legal aids, you finally saw the light.

• 1:55Speaker 00

  Finally seen the light. You know the old saying that it's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent person convicted or something along those lines. Do you believe in that?

• 2:08Speaker 01

  I do. And my firm belief, even when I was a prosecutor, look, if they've skipped the punishment or they've skipped conviction on this occasion, look, provided it's enough of a warning for them, then the whole process has served its purpose. And if they're going to keep doing it, they're going to get caught again. So, and I think that when you see somebody, they've only got so many lives. They can only skip, skip out, or they might get lucky once for some sort of loophole defence. But I think that some people just get lucky in relation to the fact that, okay, they escaped a conviction on this occasion. And I think you'll hear the judges use, because it's beyond reasonable doubt, they go, "I'm pretty sure you've done it."

• 2:51Speaker 01

  Actually, if you ask me, I'm more than sure you've done it, but that's not enough. And I think that sort of system of law is great in relation to the fact of, because can you imagine? And I know even now, not even in a criminal thing, I hate being accused of something that I didn't do. And so this way that once you are convicted, then you can be fairly well assured that they deserve.

• 3:16Speaker 00

  Well, as hard line as I take or people might think I take as a police officer, I do strongly believe in the checks and balances that are needed in the justice system to make sure innocent people aren't convicted of crimes they haven't committed.

• 3:31Speaker 01

  Yeah, but then there's also the procedural defences, which don't sit well with people. So, for example, they did what they've accused of, but then the police didn't comply with, say, one of their leper directions or something along those lines. So, that's again a different scenario in relation to it. They're afforded that right and police, unfortunately, they have to go through all their checks and balances. But then that to a lesser degree is in relation to letting the innocent, one innocent party go to jail.

• 4:03Speaker 00

  Yeah, look, I, sometimes I've had debates with people that have been acquitted or their convictions have been overturned. And yeah, we're very informed people, people that well adverse as dissecting a criminal case. And they'll come back to me, even when I put all my compelling arguments to them on why this person has committed the crime, they go, "They very well may have committed the crime, but there's insufficient evidence to convict them." And that's what we stand beside. And so I do understand it, but it's a principle that's, yeah, rubs some people the wrong way. But the more you see of the justice system, and even from a policing point of view,

• 4:45Speaker 00

  you understand that it impacts on a lot of people's lives in the most horrendous ways. And we need those checks and balances.

• 4:52Speaker 01

  Oh, you have to. And then the other thing is that people don't even realise they're there for a reason. So, for example, you know, you'd sit there and say, well, the police officer didn't give his reasons for why he was executing a discretion or an order or a power. But the problem being is it's not the words. If you've got someone that's intoxicated and a cop is sitting there going, "Show me your ID", quite argumentative. But if you've got a cop that are going, "This is my name, rank and station. This is the reason why I'm giving you an order." It's quite professional, it snaps them out of it. It sits there and goes, "Hang on, this bloke's not joking around. I need to, this is a proper order." So, I don't think it's, and it's interesting because someone will sit there and say, well, look,

• 5:36Speaker 01

  it's such a couple of words, who cares about them? But it's enough that that's the whole of what that section states in relation to it. And there's a reason behind it. And I think that that's one of the main reasons to sort of sit there and say to someone, "No, you've got your final warning. I can't be any fairer than this. You've got to comply."

• 5:55Speaker 00

  Okay. When you're representing on the dark side, which, yeah, we'll say tongue in cheek, but maybe not tongue in cheek, but when you're on the dark side, are you conflicted when you're representing someone that, yeah, common sense or your own, understanding this person's clearly committed this crime? Are you conflicted in defending them?

• 6:17Speaker 01

  No, because I tell them. I sit there straight away. I'm one of the lawyers that I don't, to use the vernacular shit to shit. I'll sit there and say, "Mate, this is what's against you. This is what's going to happen. You've got discounts if you want to plead out now. If you don't want to plead out now, it's going to be a very, very tough win. I mean, there's only so much that you can climb Everest. If you want me to do it, it's on your head. I will follow instructions, but not if they've told me that they've done something. We're very careful about that. Half the time, they all say they didn't do it, but you say to them, "Look, I know you say you didn't. This is what the evidence is."

• 6:55Speaker 00

  If I came to you as an accused person and said, "Look, Pat, I actually did it, but I want you to defend it." Once that's been said, how do you do, do you then exclude yourself from?

• 7:08Speaker 01

  Yes, I'd sit there and say, "Look, I plead you out. Otherwise, you're going to have to go somewhere else." I'm not going to, because we've got duties to the court as well. And I can't mislead the court. So, I can't then run a case which I know is false. So, generally speaking, if they constantly profess they're innocent, I can put their instructions towards the court. I can say how it's going to be received. And half the time, you know, for some reason, people get this make-up, this version in their head and they think, "Oh, this is so plausible." When you step back and look at it from a third party, go, "Mate, who are you kidding? No one's going to believe that." And if you do want to still go ahead with it, it's on your head.

• 7:45Speaker 00

  I suppose that they roll the dice. I don't have a problem with discounts in sentencing on a plea of guilty because I understand the cost that is incurred running trials. And I think it does encourage people because if there was no discount then, everyone would just go, especially the people that aren't even paying for their own defence, "I'm just going to roll the dice, see if I can get off. Maybe it's a technicality, who knows? Maybe someone in the jury likes me and see what happens." So, there is purpose to having a discount in regards to the pleas.

• 8:20Speaker 01

  And especially with the bigger matters. So, all the crooks sit there and say that extra time's the worst. So, if they could have pled out, just say it was four years and they could have pled out and got three, that last year, they all say is the worst.

• 8:32Speaker 00

  You'd be kicking yourself, wouldn't you?

• 8:34Speaker 01

  Yeah, yeah. Because every 365 days, you go, "I could have, I could have avoided this. How do I have actually listened to some people who knew what they're talking about?"

• 8:42Speaker 00

  Do you find most clients, and you don't have to give specifics, but most clients do listen to your instructions?

• 8:49Speaker 01

  Yes, I'd say most do. You've got some that sit there and go, well, they've got the questions, which is great. What they don't like and they don't understand is the way the courts work and the way they perceive things. And they sit there and go, "Well, that's not fair." You go, "Well, it doesn't need to be fair. That's the way it works. That's the way the system is." And I think it's getting their heads around that that's the hardest bit. And just saying to them, "Well, look, you've got to take a step back and look at this from somebody else's point of view. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and we're trying to say it's a chicken, we're pushing it uphill." And then, you know, you've obviously also got the smart crooks that we did one for, it happened back in 2000.

• 9:34Speaker 01

  He got done for assaulting a police officer back before the Wood Royal Commission. And he got given six years in jail. And found out that the detectives lied. And they said that he stabbed them in the hand, but they didn't, he cut himself some other way. Our first question was, why did you plead guilty? And he sat there and he said, who's gonna believe an old crook against two cops?

• 9:59Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 10:00Speaker 01

  And he said, if I didn't plead out, I would have got twelve years. He said, six months, six is way better than twelve.

• 10:05Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 10:06Speaker 01

  So the smart crooks know. You'll also find that the guys that know what they're doing in relation, when I, when I say know what they're doing, you know, the, the crims that have been doing for a while.

• 10:14Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 10:15Speaker 01

  They never go for bail.

• 10:17Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 10:18Speaker 01

  They always sort of look, cause it's too hard for them to go out, come back in, go out, come back in. They generally like to stay there.

• 10:23Speaker 00

  Yeah, you, you see that happen a lot where people end up getting three years, four years or whatever, but they've already done two years.

• 10:29Speaker 01

  Yep.

• 10:29Speaker 00

  Because, uh, uh, cause otherwise it's sort of, some people have reasons they wanna get out, cause they've probably got further crime they wanna commit, I, I dare say, or it might be family related. But yeah, I, I do, do understand why they, uh, they, they don't go for bail. Is there, once, and again, I don't want you to identify it, but it was abhorrent to you representing the person, like you just, if, okay, you might have won the case for them, do you just go, see you?

• 10:54Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 10:56Speaker 00

  How, how, how do you reconcile in your own mind with, uh, dealing with people like that?

• 11:01Speaker 01

  Strangely enough, the way I justified it in my head, it was just the worst police investigation I've ever seen.

• 11:07Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 11:08Speaker 01

  And I sat there and said.

• 11:09Speaker 00

  That must be bad.

• 11:10Speaker 01

  Oh, this was, this was, this is horrendous.

• 11:12Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 11:13Speaker 01

  And of all the things that they could have done and did do, and it was so bad that it was a hand up brief.

• 11:20Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 11:21Speaker 01

  Didn't cross examine anyone.

• 11:22Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 11:23Speaker 01

  Made five minutes worth of submissions and it was thrown out.

• 11:25Speaker 00

  Right.

• 11:26Speaker 01

  Um, I couldn't bring myself to go for a cost order.

• 11:29Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 11:30Speaker 01

  Cause normally when solicitors win and they win like that.

• 11:32Speaker 00

  You potentially could have, but the nature of it.

• 11:35Speaker 01

  Yes, no, so that, that's only ever happened once in my career. Um, but the problem being is I had to, because, you know, I had to run the best case for my client.

• 11:46Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 11:46Speaker 01

  At the time, and the evidence just wasn't there.

• 11:50Speaker 00

  Is it out of, and I had the role as a, a crime manager for a couple of years in my career and we did, uh, some of the applications for matters to be withdrawn and I'd look through the quality of brief and I, I'd be mortified that, uh, police have put together a brief of, of this nature. A lot of times I saw it as inexperience, like they honestly did not know, like you, you get them into the office and say, look, you've, you've put this, but you're missing this proof of the offence, you're missing this, they hadn't been, hadn't been taught. Is it lack of, um, education and training for police or is it sometimes laziness? Because I have also seen lazy briefs.

• 12:27Speaker 01

  Yeah, no, look, those two, and also lack of time.

• 12:30Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 12:30Speaker 01

  So for a detective, obviously, if you've been given a case.

• 12:34Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 12:34Speaker 01

  You've got plenty of time to go and investigate it.

• 12:36Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 12:36Speaker 01

  If you're a GD's officer, you know, you're trying to do your investigation, why are you going to other jobs?

• 12:41Speaker 00

  And then there's a traffic accident, you're tied up for three hours.

• 12:44Speaker 01

  And then before you know it, the, the CCTVs, you know, you've done, you do your two days, two nights, the CCTV's been taped over, all that sort of stuff. Um, but on the flip side of that as well, there are some briefs where you sit there and go, why have you charged this person?

• 12:59Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 12:59Speaker 01

  You know, so there, there's, there's sides where you go, well, how this person's done, it's a shoddy brief.

• 13:04Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 13:04Speaker 01

  But then there's, where's your discretion?

• 13:06Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 13:07Speaker 01

  And I think that if they had a little bit more nounce or, or a bit more training.

• 13:13Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 13:13Speaker 01

  Then they'd be more willing to use that and stand up to their duty sergeants and say, well, no, look, this is what I think.

• 13:19Speaker 00

  And, and that was something you were talking about, like with SOPs of, of police, because it's an interesting thing and you say with discretion, but quite often discretion's beaten the other police, because if you, you make a mistake and your bosses are going, yeah, well, you should have, you shouldn't have done that, or I, I know people that I've charged and it's been reluctant and it's a sort of grey area, whether they should have been charged or shouldn't be charged. There is discretion, but it takes a lot of experience and confidence to use that discretion to be able to justify why you've made those decisions.

• 13:52Speaker 01

  Oh no, certainly, but then there's also the young guy that goes up and the, he hasn't charged and the sergeant.

• 13:58Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 13:58Speaker 01

  Your supervisor goes, you go and charge. It's not the sergeant that's in court that's making decisions, it's this young guy that then comes up and fronts us.

• 14:05Speaker 00

  Oh, are you suggesting there's a lot of tough, uh, cowardly senior police?

• 14:12Speaker 01

  Maybe, maybe.

• 14:12Speaker 00

  Talk tough, they're not actually tough, but yeah.

• 14:14Speaker 01

  And then they sit there and, and it's, and they can make those decisions, cause it's not their head on the chopping block, that, that's gotta go and give that, that, that evidence. And standard operating procedures for the police are not law.

• 14:27Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 14:27Speaker 01

  It's not law and it's not legislation.

• 14:29Speaker 00

  Break that down so people understand. I understand what you're saying, but people that don't understand the culture of police and the parameters.

• 14:35Speaker 01

  So standard operating procedures is, is the procedures that the police have adopted to sit there and say, this is what we want you to do and this is their expectation when you go to something and this is, so for example, if you handcuff somebody or when, when you use an appointment or something of that nature. Okay. Um, and at the moment, for example, they've now got as a, a knee jerk reaction to DV, which obviously something has to be done, they've got standard operating procedures. I haven't seen it, but my understanding is if there's a DV complaint, then somebody has to be charged.

• 15:07Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 15:08Speaker 01

  Now, that's not the law.

• 15:11Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 15:12Speaker 01

  Somebody has to be charged if there's been a crime that's been committed.

• 15:15Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 15:15Speaker 01

  And it's been identified. So you've got these young coppers that are rocking up to DV, so, uh, uh, a neighbour calls because a, a couple's having an argument, just a, couples do.

• 15:26Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 15:27Speaker 01

  And then because they've been called and because it's DV and they have a chat to them and they say, oh yeah, we just had a small argument. Oh, well, gotta charge one of you because that's what our SOPs say.

• 15:35Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 15:35Speaker 01

  Instead of the law is, hang on, identify what crime's been committed, how it's been committed.

• 15:40Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 15:41Speaker 01

  And then charge.

• 15:42Speaker 00

  It's dangerous, isn't it?

• 15:43Speaker 01

  It's really dangerous.

• 15:44Speaker 00

  And I, that would not just be the, yeah, the, the police SAPs would be fed by the media, the politicians.

• 15:52Speaker 01

  Definitely.

• 15:52Speaker 00

  Crackdown on, uh, domestic violence and, uh, yeah, it's, someone's been called, someone's gotta be charged. I can see the danger there.

• 16:00Speaker 01

  Oh, it's, it's massive.

• 16:01Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 16:01Speaker 01

  And the problem being is what they don't understand is that, okay, fine, they sit there and go, well, the inconvenience of, you know, the many.

• 16:10Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 16:11Speaker 01

  It then secures the safety for that small percentage of who do, who do die from domestic violence and we've, it's a problem.

• 16:18Speaker 00

  Yeah, and, and no one's gonna argue, argue with that being a problem.

• 16:22Speaker 01

  Yeah, but then there's also the collateral damage that sort of has to be recognised. Um, and weighing up is putting these really stringent conditions on anybody that's had an argument.

• 16:35Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 16:35Speaker 01

  Is that worth a life? And, and I think that's a, a, a real topic for debate. Um, is the inconvenience of a few people worthy of it? And, you know, I'm, I'm sort of sitting there on, on the fence for both sides because you know, I just think something has to be done about DV.

• 16:51Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 16:51Speaker 01

  Um, especially with these real offenders.

• 16:54Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 16:54Speaker 01

  But then you've also got other couples who, because of the restraints that the government and the police have put on them, and their family unit's broken.

• 17:03Speaker 00

  I, I'd go and I, I'd keep on the soapbox until it's everywhere, like for someone to be charged with domestic violence and then say an AVO order's taken out and, uh, uh, they're not to approach. If they breach that, I, for the life of me, can't see why they, they're not, uh, required to wear ankle bracelets or, or monitoring their, their movements.

• 17:24Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 17:24Speaker 00

  What, what's your, your thoughts on, on that?

• 17:26Speaker 01

  Well, there's degrees of breaching AVOs.

• 17:28Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 17:28Speaker 01

  And I think there's a new case that's just come out saying that it has to be intentional, which is great.

• 17:33Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 17:33Speaker 01

  Because you can have some people, um.

• 17:36Speaker 00

  If I'm not to be within two kilometres of you, but I didn't know you were going there.

• 17:39Speaker 01

  Yes, and then there was another one that we had, um, where he was using Siri to call someone with a similar name and it, and it only rang for one thing, he realised and, and hung up straight away.

• 17:49Speaker 00

  That's a good excuse.

• 17:50Speaker 01

  Yeah, that's, that, we had that one and butt dials, we still get a fair few of those where the, as soon as, like, you can see that it's rung once and, but then. Um, so that's why you still need the adversarial system, just to see what those goes, and that's where it's, so you can't just have the straight breaches.

• 18:06Speaker 00

  Uh, uh, sadly, I've had too many people come through on the podcast and I saw, saw it in my career where the lead up to the, the, the tragedy that is domestic related violence where it ends in the death of someone, there's all these red flags. And if we had using technology that we, we've got available to us, that, uh, yeah.

• 18:28Speaker 00

  If I'm a threat to to someone, I'm wearing a tracking device because I've breached my my A V O. And then the victim or potential victim gets notified if I come within a five kilometer radius or or something like that. I just think it sets up a safety barrier more so than just the power of an A V O and the paper that it's written on.

• 18:48Speaker 01

  No, I I'd agree with that, but I think it's the cost as well.

• 18:51Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 18:52Speaker 01

  And because there's so many people, if you look at the D V courts now, um, on a D V day, on any court.

• 18:58Speaker 00

  Well, I I'm he- I'm hearing from people, you know, affiliated in the corrective services, that the jails are just filling up with people that have been, uh, bail refused on D V matters.

• 19:09Speaker 01

  Oh, definitely.

• 19:09Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 19:10Speaker 01

  But then there's, um, also, uh, if resources wa- wasn't an issue.

• 19:14Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 19:14Speaker 01

  Um, there could be more investigations. So we've now got the specialised D V L Os.

• 19:19Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, which is a good thing.

• 19:21Speaker 01

  Yeah, oh, it's it's a great thing. But at the moment, I find that they're doing more in relation to making sure the victim's all right this year, that.

• 19:29Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 19:29Speaker 01

  As opposed to nutting down on the accused.

• 19:32Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 19:32Speaker 01

  And working out what are you doing, why are you doing it?

• 19:35Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 19:35Speaker 01

  Are you, you know, a a few background searches.

• 19:39Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 19:39Speaker 01

  Um, and focusing more on getting, uh, by all means, but the victims, it's happened to them.

• 19:46Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 19:47Speaker 01

  To sit in there and holding their hands is not going to help them.

• 19:49Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 19:49Speaker 01

  What they need to do is is is weed out where to put all their resources in relation to the real serious offenders. Because they they clearly are.

• 19:57Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 19:58Speaker 01

  Different degrees in offending. And the other issue you find is, um, mental health.

• 20:03Speaker 00

  Um, yeah. Are you you seeing mental health become a big issue in the courts? Because I I just, yeah, uh, mental health seems to have been, uh, on a larger scale in society, just by my observations.

• 20:14Speaker 01

  Oh, definitely.

• 20:15Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 20:15Speaker 01

  Definitely. But what I've also seen.

• 20:17Speaker 00

  Um.

• 20:18Speaker 01

  Um, is there's a real trend from the courts away from a section fourteen.

• 20:22Speaker 00

  Which is section fourteen?

• 20:23Speaker 01

  A section fourteen used to be you get diverted through the Mental Health Forensic Provisions Act, as opposed to by law. Now, when I first started, you know, you just needed a, pretty much a a a letter from a psychologist and a treatment plan.

• 20:36Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 20:36Speaker 01

  Um, and that was, that would suffice.

• 20:38Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 20:39Speaker 01

  But now, with the test, and the test is in our mouths and a couple of other other cases. I've found that the magistrates are really only doing it or granting them on exceptional circumstances.

• 20:51Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 20:52Speaker 01

  So it's not the get out of jail free card that everybody thinks it is. I'm going to play the mental health card. You know, the the judges and magistrates have seen through that now.

• 21:00Speaker 00

  Well, uh, it has been, you see any high profile person that's misbehaved badly and all of a sudden they've been diagnosed with this, uh, terrible thing. And it's lucky we found out because I didn't realise I was living with, uh, with this disease.

• 21:13Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 21:13Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 21:14Speaker 01

  But no, I think that's all been seen through now. I mean, and I think there's been a lot more. It's not just a rubber stamp application anymore. It's it's a significant application.

• 21:22Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 21:23Speaker 01

  And it has to have proper legs before you even run it now.

• 21:26Speaker 00

  What about the crackdown on crime? And, you know, crime becomes the flavour of the month in the media. They're they're talking about youth crime, that it might be domestic violence, a whole range of things. We're going to get, uh, tougher legislation, we're going to mandatory sentencing, uh, we're going to make bail harder for people to to get. Do you believe in that? Or is, do you believe that each case should be judged on its own merits?

• 21:49Speaker 01

  No, each case has to be judged on its own merits. I mean, because people are going through different circumstances in relation to it. And then just to to group everybody into one.

• 21:59Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 21:59Speaker 01

  Category, then, I mean, a computer could then hand out sentences or hand out bail, and that's where the human aspect comes into it.

• 22:05Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 22:05Speaker 01

  But with the tougher laws that have come in, which I'm I'm just absolutely surprised with how many knives are being found.

• 22:12Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 22:13Speaker 01

  Now that the police have got this new power to wand.

• 22:15Speaker 00

  Um.

• 22:15Speaker 01

  I I think that's really concerning of how many people, a lot of them with mental health issues, are walking around with these sort of blades. I think that's, and and they can cause more damage than than a lot of things.

• 22:26Speaker 00

  Well, that can cause a lot of damage.

• 22:28Speaker 01

  Yeah. And but but the success that the police are having with finding those sort of knives, I think I'm a little bit taken back with how many we're getting.

• 22:37Speaker 00

  So you're you're i- in in principle not supportive of tougher legislation or greater powers. But you're saying with that one, maybe they were right then?

• 22:46Speaker 01

  Well, it's it's not greater, it's not tougher legislation and greater powers. I'm I'm I'm in agreeance with that.

• 22:51Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 22:51Speaker 01

  What I'm in, what I think though is that it can't be one size fits all.

• 22:55Speaker 00

  Right, yeah.

• 22:56Speaker 01

  Tough legislation is great, but it has to be applied.

• 22:59Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 22:59Speaker 01

  In the same principles that it's always been provided, which is procedural fairness.

• 23:03Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 23:04Speaker 01

  Um, because, you know, somebody could have been, there there could be more to any story than than what's happened. So if you say, for example, get a, uh, someone who's speeding or a drink driver. Do you think, well, I'll I'll probably shoot myself in the foot with this one, but if somebody's driving for a legitimate reason, just say that, um, well, there's no legitimate reason to drive when you're you're on alcohol, just put it that way, but people do stupid things. Uh, if you if you're emotionally distraught or you need to get to somebody that's been hurt or something like that, that's very different to someone sitting there going, well, I'm going to drink drive because I'm going to go down and get myself a pack of cigarettes.

• 23:39Speaker 00

  So you you're at home and your your mum's had a fall and you you've had your six beers, well, I'd better get round there quickly.

• 23:47Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 23:48Speaker 00

  As distinct from, I'm going to the club, I'm going to drink all day and I can't be bothered catching a taxi. So, uh, yeah, yeah. I look, I I I don't like it around, um, state election time when the the call is to get tougher on crime. Mandatory sentencing, I I don't agree with it. And I, yeah, uh, we talked the one punch or you mentioned the one punch. Horrific and, uh, some of the crimes that have happened there. But you can't have a one, uh, punishment fits all in those type of things. Because there there's people that, yeah, kids that go out and, uh, get into a punch up with someone and and, uh, they hit their head as they fall, die. Do we sentence them for twenty years?

• 24:27Speaker 00

  Or then you have other people that are walking around through the streets looking for trouble and legitimately just coming up and doing a coward punch.

• 24:34Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 24:34Speaker 00

  From behind. Yeah, punish punish them, but you can't have them all the all the same. Um, as a solicitor, do you run trials? Have you, uh, run run trials?

• 24:45Speaker 01

  Yes, yes. So look, most solicitors don't.

• 24:48Speaker 00

  Yeah, because normally, and just break that down because people don't understand, or when I say people, a lot would. But the difference between a solicitor and a barrister.

• 24:56Speaker 01

  Okay, so barristers are primarily advocates that stand up in court. Now, what people don't realise with a trial is that the solicitor and barrister have got very different roles in relation to it. And as a solicitor, I call trials practice busters. So we do all the, um, preparations. So the solicitors do most of the preparation leading up to it. You prepare the brief, you get the evidence together, you issue the subpoenas. And then that way you present it to the barristers who are specialised advocates that know how to cross examine, that all they need to focus on.

• 25:28Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 25:28Speaker 01

  Is the brief.

• 25:29Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 25:30Speaker 01

  All the side issues we take care of. So if a witness is is not rocking up or or they're calling, we don't want to bother because we want that mindset straight in there.

• 25:38Speaker 00

  So they can perform.

• 25:39Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 25:40Speaker 00

  On on the stage that this is a court.

• 25:42Speaker 01

  Exactly right. And and they are brilliant.

• 25:44Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 25:44Speaker 01

  And, um, ninety nine point nine percent of the time, if I can, I use a barrister.

• 25:48Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 25:49Speaker 01

  Because it also means that, you know, if you've got a trial starting at ten, I can do a sentence beforehand or something like that. I can do the little things in between. And I can guarantee you, trials never go to plan. And we need to run out and do some photocopying or we need to print something out. So that that's the reason we use them.

• 26:05Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 26:06Speaker 01

  But in saying that solicitors can represent in jury trials as solicitor advocate.

• 26:11Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 26:11Speaker 01

  The legal aid has them, the D P P has them.

• 26:15Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 26:15Speaker 01

  Uh, not many privates do it. Okay, there's only a few that I know of that do it. I I I do it.

• 26:20Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 26:21Speaker 01

  And I had one of my first one, I actually fell into a little bit by accident. So we had a a trial out at Parramatta. It was a two week, twelve count sexual assault trial. Um, our client told us that he couldn't pay for the barrister.

• 26:35Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 26:36Speaker 01

  And in law, there's a no, no do, no show.

• 26:39Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 26:39Speaker 01

  It's got a rule. So the barrister obviously bowed out. And, um, in those circumstances, you can normally get in a German.

• 26:46Speaker 00

  Well, that that would be the next thing, the the application for in the German.

• 26:50Speaker 01

  Application for a German. Uh, the issue explained and and quite fairly, the judge that I was in front of said, well, I can't see if I get you in a German, what's going to change? He's not going to make that money in that period of time. He said, I'm not going to delay it. He said, well, you can run it.

• 27:05Speaker 00

  And so just dropped, uh, so the judge is is telling you.

• 27:08Speaker 01

  Yep.

• 27:09Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 27:09Speaker 01

  I said, well, you're running it. So all I could do is I rang my wife. I said, um, I'm up at Parramatta, could you bring me up some shirts? So I booked myself into a hotel up there and um the D P P were wonderful because any printing, they realised they didn't have any printers.

• 27:24Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 27:25Speaker 01

  And we ran the two week trial.

• 27:27Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 27:28Speaker 01

  For the sexual account, uh, there was, we lost on one and got up on all the others.

• 27:32Speaker 00

  What was the nature of the uh, sexual assaults?

• 27:35Speaker 01

  They were, it was a sexual masochism offence. So it was a consensual basis. So it was.

• 27:42Speaker 00

  Sounds interesting.

• 27:43Speaker 01

  Yes, so it was, yeah, so it was, it was a consensual basis. And believe it or not, during that two weeks, I was able to get an expert from New Zealand to, on sexual masochism.

• 27:55Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 27:56Speaker 01

  And I actually didn't realise that bondage had five levels. So five being the master and, and one being the, the novice.

• 28:02Speaker 00

  Well, I'm not gonna sit here and go, oh, I knew that. So you, you explain.

• 28:07Speaker 01

  So, yeah, and so it gets up to, so certain things, you're not allowed to use ties unless you're at a certain level.

• 28:11Speaker 00

  Right.

• 28:12Speaker 01

  Um, and if you use ties, you've got to have secateurs there and things like that to get them going.

• 28:16Speaker 00

  So this is that, that whole sexual macas, uh, the, the.

• 28:19Speaker 01

  Ma- ma- ma- macassism.

• 28:21Speaker 00

  Macassism.

• 28:22Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 28:22Speaker 00

  Uh, well.

• 28:23Speaker 01

  And we, and we all learnt that, you know, the auto erotic officiation where Michael Hutchins went wrong.

• 28:27Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 28:28Speaker 01

  They all think it's, it's lack of oxygen. It's not. It's the pressure points underneath the ears and it's lack of blood flow.

• 28:33Speaker 00

  Right.

• 28:34Speaker 01

  And all this sort of stuff. It was all coming out in the trial.

• 28:36Speaker 00

  Yeah. So can I ask how I got the trial to start with? Like, if it was consensual.

• 28:41Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 28:41Speaker 00

  To, to start with, but did it go further than it was meant to go or what, what?

• 28:46Speaker 01

  That was, that was the general, that was the general thing. And I think as well, it was a shame.

• 28:51Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 28:51Speaker 01

  Um, because a lot of the people do this is behind closed doors.

• 28:55Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 28:55Speaker 01

  And a lot of the participants who we unfortunately had to subpoena, their other halves didn't know what they got up to on, on the side. It was, it was a very under, underbelly world.

• 29:05Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 29:05Speaker 01

  In relation to it. And it's, it's something that was, they were into and they were excited. And it was, I think for everybody, a bit of a shock that the state basically went into their bedrooms.

• 29:15Speaker 00

  Right.

• 29:16Speaker 01

  And um, yeah, so it was, it was a group that was all, all involved in it. So most of them had to come in to give evidence.

• 29:23Speaker 00

  That would, that would have been, it just, yeah, that would have been a fascinating trial and, and people, yeah.

• 29:28Speaker 01

  It was. And I didn't realise certain positions existed.

• 29:31Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 29:31Speaker 01

  And, and I didn't, and the photographs were, were interesting because these parties were all filmed and there was um, photographic evidence of what went on. Uh, the messages to and from. So it was all, all, all came out. It was um, not much left of the imagination at the end of it.

• 29:47Speaker 00

  So with, with the uh, the police getting involved in that, that, that clearly the, the victim has gone and reported uh, reported the matter to the police and it, it's consensual up until this point, but then the consent was withdrawn.

• 29:58Speaker 01

  Safe words.

• 29:59Speaker 00

  Sa- safe word wasn't, uh, I, I applied the safe word and the person didn't stop.

• 30:04Speaker 01

  Yeah. So they, they had to, so the police who investigated would have had to have, I'd say, educated themselves because it's not, half of these principles in this, this life is, is not many people know about or understand.

• 30:16Speaker 00

  Different world.

• 30:16Speaker 01

  Yeah. And I think the judge, I think the poor judge as well was sort of learning a few things. There was lots of, huh, really.

• 30:23Speaker 00

  Did the media uh, cover, cover it?

• 30:25Speaker 01

  Yeah, they, they got into, yeah, they covered it. So it was um, not to the extent, because I don't think they would have been allowed.

• 30:31Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 30:31Speaker 01

  With, with the level of censorship. Um, but I think that as well, they were fair in the sense that they tried to use discretion because um, it was so many people's lives at stake in relation to their other halves finding out. And then we talk about reputational damage. I mean, you can't, you, you couldn't possibly get away from that. So I think that they were, this is one of the matters that they were quite respectful.

• 30:56Speaker 00

  Yeah, okay.

• 30:57Speaker 01

  Which was good, but yeah, no, most certainly was reported on. Um.

• 31:01Speaker 00

  All right. Well, I'm sorry, we got distracted with the nature, the nature of the crimes, but you're running your first, first trial at, at short notice. How, how did you uh, how did you handle that? And it would have been, there would have been some interesting cross examinations, I, I would imagine, and delicate cross examinations.

• 31:17Speaker 01

  There was. And it, it was interesting though. I was, I was so fortunate that we had a very experienced judge. And we had to, obviously, there's uh, sexual assault communication privilege and you're also not allowed to cross examine someone on their prior sexual history. But it was ultimately important in this matter. So we had to put that application forward to the judge. I'd never done one of these applications before. And so I um, I did my application. And this is before we started because I wanted all this dealt with. And he looked at me and he said, um, that's probably one of the worst applications I've ever seen in my life.

• 31:53Speaker 00

  That gives you a good.

• 31:54Speaker 01

  Read. And I went, oh, that's wonderful. He said redo it and this is the way I want it done. And so he pretty much gave me the guidelines. I was writing, I've never, my, my hand couldn't keep up with how quickly I was writing.

• 32:05Speaker 00

  And you were probably shaking too.

• 32:06Speaker 01

  Yes, yes. Uh, I, I spent that entire night. I think I got to bed at about four o'clock that morning.

• 32:11Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 32:12Speaker 01

  I brought it in. He loved it. And to this day now, I've got barristers calling me for the table of what I did in that matter.

• 32:20Speaker 00

  That's amazing what pressure can do.

• 32:22Speaker 01

  Yeah. Oh, well, and, and I'd love to say it was all my work, but it, it quite, it quite clearly wasn't.

• 32:27Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 32:27Speaker 01

  But um, I just joined the dots of, of what he wanted in relation to that application.

• 32:31Speaker 00

  Right. What, what, what was the end result with the trial?

• 32:34Speaker 01

  We won, or we lost on one.

• 32:36Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 32:36Speaker 01

  We lost on one, but the way we lost on that one, it was pretty significant. So he did spend some time in jail.

• 32:42Speaker 00

  Right.

• 32:43Speaker 01

  At the end of it.

• 32:43Speaker 00

  And, and you were comfortable with the court's decision?

• 32:46Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 32:47Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 32:47Speaker 01

  Once that finding was there in, well, you have to respect that.

• 32:50Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 32:51Speaker 01

  And so therefore the outcome, I think, was, was pretty just in relation to the, the wrapping it up of, of it all.

• 32:58Speaker 00

  Okay. It's, that type of trial, um, it reminds me of uh, investigations, like if I'm doing a homicide investigation. You go down a rabbit hole of a world that you, you don't know or haven't experienced. And you would find that in trials a lot, I would imagine, in, in different uh, representing clients, just having to get an understanding of the, the world in which the, the people live.

• 33:21Speaker 01

  Oh, you do. And the amount of times you sit there and you've got to try and bluff your way through it, as though you know it.

• 33:26Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 33:27Speaker 01

  But I think the only time that that doesn't really happen.

• 33:30Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 33:31Speaker 01

  Is when you get retrials. So I've had a retrial and then you know everything that's going on. The poor jury's not there, the police are the same, everyone's the same. You're just going through the motions again. And it's interesting because it's just so relaxed on the retrial as opposed to the normal, and nothing pops up.

• 33:46Speaker 00

  What, what sort of reasons are a retrial? I, I know I'd been caught with retrials a, a couple of times and they're, they're like time wise, you, you're frustrated because trials take a lot of, out of you. And then you, you've got, and then you've got to do a retrial. It might be a hung jury or.

• 34:01Speaker 01

  Yeah, we had a hung.

• 34:02Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 34:03Speaker 01

  So I was, I was once again solicitor advocate for that one.

• 34:05Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 34:06Speaker 01

  And that was because um, my client was just comfortable with me. And he, he, he wanted me to do it.

• 34:11Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 34:11Speaker 01

  And it was a, a drug matter.

• 34:13Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 34:14Speaker 01

  An importation matter. And um, it was, I thought it was, I, I was really quite surprised that we lost the first one. I was actually even more surprised that the D P P were going to retry it.

• 34:23Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 34:24Speaker 01

  But um, by the time the retrial came on, it was, the file was done, everything was done. It was just go through the motions.

• 34:29Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 34:30Speaker 01

  And we got, we got the right outcome at the end of it.

• 34:32Speaker 00

  The D P P, there's been, uh, and I, I don't take or put a great deal of weight on that, that there seems to be an ongoing argument with the D P P and certain media organisations about running uh, trials on uh, sex matters that uh, don't warrant uh, or they shouldn't have got to, got to court. Do you wanna buy into that or is that, each case should be judged on its own merits?

• 34:54Speaker 01

  Well, luckily enough, I had about three or four of them that got withdrawn in a year.

• 34:58Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 34:59Speaker 01

  Uh, because they actually sat down and had a look at them.

• 35:01Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 35:01Speaker 01

  And once again, yeah, it, it, it has to be done on its merits. But the D P P were going through a stage there that we're just gonna prosecute anything and everything. But that seems to have changed.

• 35:10Speaker 00

  Yeah. And, and that almost, it, it sort of lends itself to not dissimilar what you were saying with the uh, domestic violence and the S A Ps with, with police. That, you know, if police are called to a domestic violence situation, uh, someone's got to be taken away. Someone's got to be held responsible. And with sexual, especially historical sexual assault investigations, quite often that, that it came down to the accused version of events and the victim's version of events and very little evidence to corroborate it. And uh, they're, they're tough ones to prove at court.

• 35:42Speaker 01

  Yeah, no, they are. They are. But a lot of the times where there's smoke, there's fire.

• 35:46Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 35:47Speaker 01

  And I've been finding that, especially with the historic matters.

• 35:50Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 35:50Speaker 01

  The investigations for those are actually getting a lot better.

• 35:53Speaker 00

  Good, good.

• 35:54Speaker 01

  So they're doing things like not just, they're looking at cars and jogging memories and it's not just a matter of word on word now.

• 35:59Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 36:00Speaker 01

  And that makes it better for us.

• 36:02Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 36:02Speaker 01

  Because we can actually give proper advice to people as opposed to, you know, having a crack at it. But this is another example where I reckon juries just look at your client and go, he looks like a pedo.

• 36:12Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 36:13Speaker 01

  The evidence isn't there and that's, that's where you used to win or lose them.

• 36:16Speaker 00

  Police, defending police, uh, police that have been in charge. What uh, what sort of things are we talking about?

• 36:23Speaker 01

  Uh, look, we get um, on the duty assaults.

• 36:27Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 36:27Speaker 01

  Uh, we get off duty assaults.

• 36:29Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 36:30Speaker 01

  Anything ranging from, you know, domestic violence at the house.

• 36:33Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 36:34Speaker 01

  You know, it's a, any, any and every crime that you can think of in relation to it. Um, you know, drunk driving.

• 36:39Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 36:40Speaker 01

  Uh, but they're normally quite standard in relation to it. Now, the thing that people don't understand is for police officers, the adversarial system or the court system is their first step.

• 36:50Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 36:50Speaker 01

  Once they've got through that, then they've got the internal system and, and the, the, the old good old one eighty one or one eighty four.

• 36:56Speaker 00

  One eighty one.

• 36:57Speaker 01

  One eighty one, there we go. Um, D. Um, that they've got to look forward to at the end of it. So regardless of even if they're found innocent at the end of it, they've then got that, um, that process that they need to go to. So we have to be careful.

• 37:11Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 37:12Speaker 01

  In the trial. So you can't only just win it.

• 37:14Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 37:15Speaker 01

  But you also have to win it in a way.

• 37:17Speaker 00

  That you can keep your job.

• 37:18Speaker 01

  Keep the job.

• 37:18Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 37:19Speaker 01

  Which is what they wanna do. Now, the interesting thing is, I've just had one recently and thankfully it was withdrawn. But we had a, a young copper that was caught up in an assault.

• 37:28Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 37:29Speaker 01

  Um, if this was any other person, we would have sat it down for two hours.

• 37:34Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 37:34Speaker 01

  Here's the footage, here's this. Yeah, cause it was a copper, it got set down for four days.

• 37:40Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 37:40Speaker 01

  They were trying to give me receipts of the D P P of he ate a schnitzel with his, you know, I don't care. Let's get to the crux of it. I I don't understand. Let's get some agreed facts together.

• 37:50Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 37:52Speaker 01

  They just don't budge in relation to these. It's almost as though, you know, everything, you know, death by a thousand cuts. Um, but everything has to be done to the nth degree because it's almost as though that um, to show that we're so impartial.

• 38:05Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 38:06Speaker 01

  We're gonna go so hard against these guys.

• 38:08Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 38:08Speaker 01

  Which I just think is, it's just not fair. You know, it's, it shouldn't be.

• 38:14Speaker 01

  Regardless of your occupation, regardless of anything, you need to face the same sort of scrutiny that anybody else does.

• 38:19Speaker 00

  There, I I suppose the argument could be, and I'm speaking, sitting here speaking with someone with great experience. On both sides, so you're not the only person that's worked both sides. Like, I've been a a cop that's been charged and convicted and I I know. I wish they, the resources they put into investigating my local court matters, they gave me those resources to investigate the murder I was investigating.

• 38:43Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 38:44Speaker 00

  At the time, we might have, might have got different, different results, but. There it should be, and I I had to accept that in, when I had to front the, front the court for my charges. Yeah, there's a degree of trust that's put in in you as a police officer, so I I understand that. But I don't like the culture of police, the way they go at, how hard they go at uh, police. And it always seems to be the relatively junior police, like you would have seen it and you don't even. Where senior police seem to escape un- unscathed, it's more the junior police that are, are, are kept accountable. Um, it is a tough thing that uh, the police go through and the, the scrutiny, scrutiny that they go through.

• 39:29Speaker 00

  They're not just facing the court of law, are they?

• 39:31Speaker 01

  No, and look, if it's got, and I I agree that that added scrutiny with the position of.

• 39:36Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 39:36Speaker 01

  Trust, if it's that related. So if it's a fact that the crime that they've committed is on duty while they're doing it, say that, you know, you're, you know. Belting up people at the pub while you're on duty, you know, with your baton.

• 39:48Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 39:49Speaker 01

  That's very different when you're out in a social situation, you know, you've got to be, there, there has to be an off switch somewhere.

• 39:54Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 39:55Speaker 01

  You're not twenty four hours on duty.

• 39:56Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 39:57Speaker 01

  And that's where I just think it's a little bit unfair, that they sit there and expect police. Um, when it's unrelated to working duties. You know, the, the same could be said about a lawyer. I mean, you know, there's a, there's a level of, you know, we're not, we know.

• 40:11Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 40:12Speaker 01

  You know, we know that what's right, what, what's a crime and what's not, so, you know, it's the same sort of thing, but. Um, and I know lawyers do get dragged over coals, but just not, not, not to that extent.

• 40:23Speaker 00

  Yeah, a- and sometimes I, I think they go after, it's a way of going after police that they, they don't want to.

• 40:30Speaker 01

  Oh, that is.

• 40:31Speaker 00

  And you, you would see that if you're not one of the boys.

• 40:34Speaker 01

  Exactly right.

• 40:35Speaker 00

  You are, yeah, you are out, out on the limb on your own.

• 40:38Speaker 01

  Exactly right. No, you couldn't have said that any better. If you're liked within the command.

• 40:43Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 40:43Speaker 01

  They will do everything they can to try and help you out.

• 40:46Speaker 00

  Won't even get to.

• 40:47Speaker 01

  Won't even get to it. So you can generally assume that the ones that have got to court.

• 40:52Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 40:52Speaker 01

  Are the ones that, you know, they wanna try and sweep away.

• 40:55Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah. It's a, it's a tough thing. Have you, have you been involved in any critical incidents?

• 41:01Speaker 01

  Yes, not as a police officer.

• 41:04Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 41:04Speaker 01

  Uh, but no, I've, I, I have a.

• 41:06Speaker 00

  Representing police?

• 41:07Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 41:07Speaker 00

  Yeah, that, that's a tough, tough gig to.

• 41:10Speaker 01

  Oh, it's horrendous.

• 41:11Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 41:11Speaker 01

  It's horrendous. And the problem being is.

• 41:16Speaker 01

  People don't look at the fact that you've got two seconds to make a split decision. And that decision, once it's been made, has been made, and the, the, the consequences of making it or not making it are quite often catastrophic.

• 41:28Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 41:29Speaker 01

  And that person's actually made that decision and been put in that position to make that decision. Then to sit there and scrutinize it on a frame by frame basis.

• 41:38Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 41:39Speaker 01

  You know, brings out a different story and, and coulda, shoulda, woulda.

• 41:42Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 41:43Speaker 01

  Hindsight's a wonderful thing, but you can't, when you're looking at that evidence, also put. The level of emotion, the level of fear, the level of, all those things that are going through their minds.

• 41:54Speaker 00

  Yeah, well, when we're talking critical incidents, we're, we're talking about where police have been killed as a result of a police operation that might be. A shot or, or the, the variety of, of ways that someone might be killed. As a homicide detective, my role, uh, was heading up critical incidents. I did lots of critical incidents. And I always felt bad because it's such a traumatic situation to start, start with, where someone's life has been lost, regardless of the circumstances. Or taken, and then you've got to separate the police. And then you've got you guys coming in, the, the legal people, the association telling them, and their heads spinning. I, I've been on the other side too, when I've run in an operation where someone's been shot, shot and killed.

• 42:36Speaker 00

  And, yeah, separated, you're not allowed to talk to your workmates, you're gonna be interviewed, you're gonna get this. And it's, it's overwhelming and I think it destroys some people.

• 42:44Speaker 01

  Oh, it does, most certainly. And I think that half the thing is, you know, they sit there and say, well, this is what I've been trying to do. I've done everything that I've been trying to do. And now you, you're holding me to this.

• 42:54Speaker 00

  And, and, and you, you're treated like you've done something wrong.

• 42:57Speaker 01

  Oh, certainly.

• 42:58Speaker 00

  And you know it because, you know, you're not allowed to talk to your colleague, your best friend, you can't talk to. Um, the person that was there that you could share the, um, uh, the emotion and, and what's gone through. So, yeah, it is a, is a hard, hard thing.

• 43:11Speaker 01

  And taking, and they take your property, all that sort of stuff, and it's, you know, you, you feel, yeah, you feel like, almost like criminal during the event. Yeah. The punishment is process.

• 43:20Speaker 00

  Is there a way that police discipline could be done better? Like, you, you've talked about the failings or the overzealous way it's approached?

• 43:29Speaker 01

  Quite frankly, I've, lately I've seen very little discipline. I find that any time that the police have done anything majorly wrong. When I was going through the prosecutors.

• 43:38Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 43:38Speaker 01

  If the police had done something wrong, you could email the command and say, well, this, this is, we've got some serious concerns about this. It may be just that I don't see it, it may be happening behind closed doors.

• 43:49Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 43:49Speaker 01

  But I'm finding that there's a real culture of the senior officers protecting. Uh, bad decisions and, and bad actions on the police. But look, in saying that though, to sit there and look at the police force and say that they're all golden eggs.

• 44:04Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 44:04Speaker 01

  Is, is naive.

• 44:05Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 44:06Speaker 01

  I mean, the fact is, you've got some people in there, they make mistakes.

• 44:10Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 44:10Speaker 01

  The key is, take the politics out of it, say, look, they made a mistake. You know, they'll get trained, disciplined, and then society can see that.

• 44:18Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 44:18Speaker 01

  Instead of writing back to them, I mean, you get so many clients, I'm gonna report it to LEC.

• 44:24Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 44:24Speaker 01

  LEC's not gonna do anything. They take on about five matters a year.

• 44:27Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 44:28Speaker 01

  And so what they do is they write to the command, and then all the command does is the letters that I generally see back. Uh, we've looked at it, it's baseless.

• 44:36Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 44:36Speaker 01

  And clearly the, the officer's done something wrong and it's, it's an ass covering exercise.

• 44:41Speaker 00

  Well, may, maybe we've got to work towards it, and it's interesting, I didn't think we were gonna go down this, this rabbit hole, but maybe you've got to work towards. The punishment is, is less, like if you make a mistake, as, when you were a young cop, you made mistakes, I've made mistakes. But, yeah, when I say cover it up, it wasn't exposed because you make a mistake on the streets now as a cop and someone's gonna be filming it.

• 45:03Speaker 01

  Oh, exactly right, yeah.

• 45:04Speaker 00

  On social media. But, okay, we're learning, like in any job that you learn, you make mistakes as a solicitor, I'm, I'm sure. When, when you're standing in the courts. So, about, okay, you've made a mistake, acknowledge the mistake. Learn from the mistake and, and, yeah, don't do it again. If you do it again, maybe we come, come differently. Maybe that's the way we've got to approach because we've also got to look, if we're just protecting it becomes this, uh, where no one. No complaint gets heard because it just gets covered up. That's what led to the, um, yeah, the Royal Commissions. In not just New South Wales, in every police state.

• 45:41Speaker 01

  I don't think it's, I don't, I don't think it's at, at the Royal Commission level yet.

• 45:45Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 45:45Speaker 01

  But it's, it's just a small step.

• 45:47Speaker 00

  That's how, how it starts to evolve.

• 45:49Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 45:49Speaker 00

  Like, you, you're sweeping under the, under the carpet.

• 45:51Speaker 01

  Yeah, that, that, that culture.

• 45:53Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 45:53Speaker 01

  Of, of sweeping it under the carpet. But I mean, and, and I remember even being on the street.

• 45:58Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 45:58Speaker 01

  Uh, you did something wrong and the, the senior officers would pull you up.

• 46:02Speaker 00

  Yes, yeah.

• 46:03Speaker 01

  And you would get a few warnings.

• 46:04Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 46:05Speaker 01

  But if you kept doing it, then, you know, you'd be, you'd be fronting up in front of the commander.

• 46:09Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 46:10Speaker 01

  Now, look, I haven't obviously been part of it for so long now, for, for, for quite a while, so that could still be happening.

• 46:16Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 46:16Speaker 01

  And I just, and we just don't see it.

• 46:17Speaker 00

  In fairness, you, you're right, it, it, it could be.

• 46:20Speaker 01

  And they, they, they do it, but they, you know, they're keeping it quiet, but, you know, my, I, I'd like to see a little bit more. Especially for our clients, a little bit more accountability because then it, it gives a little bit more, uh, freedom, not freedom of.

• 46:32Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 46:33Speaker 01

  Your actual clients sit there and say, well, no, this is a, a non-corrupt, this is a, a police force that's got morals and, and scruples. Yeah.

• 46:42Speaker 00

  Um, A I, have you, have you got a job in the next three years?

• 46:46Speaker 01

  Uh, look, I've, I've, I'm not worried about A I. What I'm worried about in the.

• 46:51Speaker 00

  I A or A I?

• 46:53Speaker 01

  There we go, I need it already.

• 46:54Speaker 00

  You're out of the cops now.

• 46:55Speaker 01

  I'm out of it already. Now, look, my concern with A I is the evidence.

• 47:00Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 47:01Speaker 01

  I mean, the amount, I've seen people send me photos, sitting at a bar in the city.

• 47:08Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 47:09Speaker 01

  And I would swear they're in Hawaii on the beach.

• 47:12Speaker 00

  Right.

• 47:13Speaker 01

  How is evidence now going to differentiate, especially when so much emphasis is placed on photographs, on videos?

• 47:20Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 47:21Speaker 01

  How, it's gonna be a minefield. What's real and what's not real? How do we distinguish the properties of a video, you know, with the dates and times? I think that that's gonna be the major issue. When it comes to actual A I and our submissions and things, I tried to use A I for, as, as wrong.

• 47:38Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 47:39Speaker 01

  Every case.

• 47:39Speaker 00

  It is, it, it's wrong.

• 47:40Speaker 01

  It comes out as so wrong.

• 47:41Speaker 00

  I've used it on a test case on, on different things and then, no, that, that's not right.

• 47:47Speaker 01

  And I got, I got a letter from a self-represented person the other day and I looked at it.

• 47:50Speaker 00

  It's A I?

• 47:51Speaker 01

  It's A I.

• 47:52Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 47:52Speaker 01

  You can tell it.

• 47:53Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 47:54Speaker 01

  So I'm not, and the other thing is, A I is not gonna stand up in front of a court.

• 47:57Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 47:57Speaker 01

  And the quickest thing that you'll learn as a junior lawyer.

• 48:00Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 48:00Speaker 01

  Is you print out what you're gonna say in your submissions and all the rest. I can guarantee you'll get three words into it and the magistrate will throw a question at you.

• 48:08Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 48:09Speaker 01

  There's your chain of thought gone.

• 48:10Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 48:11Speaker 01

  So your A I little written submissions don't work.

• 48:14Speaker 00

  What, what about like with, uh, for case law? And I know, I think it was down in Melbourne, someone, uh, the defence barrister or solicitor was quoting case law from A I and it wasn't even ca- case law. But when it is checked or whatever, A I's got access to all the, yeah, as a solicitor, you know how much time you would have spent researching, preparing for cases and all that. Now A I can deliver it to you in the, you know, pu- push of a button. Um, do you think it's gonna get to the point where the courts are gonna rely on, on, uh, yeah, I, I hear when complex legal arguments are going on and normally, and I'm always surprised how the barristers, solicitors or judges can come up with reference to a case law and that's part of the skills of, of being, uh, uh, being a lawyer.

• 48:58Speaker 00

  Do you think courts are gonna start relying on A I?

• 49:00Speaker 01

  Well, I think to quickly locate a case, but you can't just sit there. And I know we had a prosecutor that used to like making up cases and we all didn't wanna say anything because we thought, oh God, we should know that. And we didn't wanna look dumb.

• 49:13Speaker 00

  Right.

• 49:13Speaker 01

  Then one magistrate said, I'm gonna stop you there.

• 49:16Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 49:16Speaker 01

  I'm gonna, I'm gonna have a look and.

• 49:18Speaker 00

  It wasn't there.

• 49:19Speaker 01

  Didn't exist.

• 49:19Speaker 00

  Oh.

• 49:20Speaker 01

  And he said, well, he said, oh, I've, I, I must have got it wrong. I'll, I'll find it later.

• 49:24Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 49:25Speaker 01

  That, that little technique stopped.

• 49:27Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 49:27Speaker 01

  But generally speaking, just say, I mean, one of the common possession cases, Philip Eddy.

• 49:32Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 49:32Speaker 01

  Which most people know is, you know, it's a possession case. It's that joint that was found in a share house. Um, everybody knows that case.

• 49:39Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 49:40Speaker 01

  So you don't need to go for it.

• 49:41Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 49:41Speaker 01

  But then the newer cases that come out.

• 49:43Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 49:44Speaker 01

  They may, and especially if they're a longer judgment.

• 49:46Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 49:47Speaker 01

  You may put it into A I and say, the defence is quoting paragraph fifty four, please tell me how it relates in this matter.

• 49:54Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 49:55Speaker 01

  That may do that. But then, I mean, to trust a summary that you haven't looked at yourself.

• 50:01Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 50:02Speaker 01

  That's really opening yourself up.

• 50:04Speaker 00

  Oh, it's, you'd be mad to.

• 50:07Speaker 01

  Yeah, so, yeah, so, I mean, cause the case can mean so many different things and it can be interpreted so many different ways.

• 50:13Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 50:14Speaker 01

  So I don't even see how an A I summary could do it.

• 50:16Speaker 00

  What, what about police using it for facts? And, and you would have seen it when you were a prosecutor. I'm sure you've seen it in defence. You have some people that are gifted writers and can type up a comprehensive set of facts and then you look, you, you see someone that will type up a set of facts that looks like they haven't gone to kindergarten.

• 50:31Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 50:32Speaker 00

  Um, can you, do you see the, I don't know if the police use it. Can you see the police using that? Here's, here's all the information then, then print up a set of facts that are, are something that the courts would rely upon?

• 50:44Speaker 01

  Was pretty much a template anyway, for most of them.

• 50:47Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 50:47Speaker 01

  Um, I might take out and, and in saying that though, you've got some police that love using adjectives. So it's, uh, you know, and, and that's, and but look, the fact sheet is not evidence.

• 50:58Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 50:59Speaker 01

  The fact sheet is just a summary by a person that's compiled all the bits and pieces together and that's what you're gonna plead to.

• 51:05Speaker 00

  I, I was thinking you might be able to use it in, like in, in homicide, invariably we'd go to a, a crime scene at ten o'clock at night and then at two A M. in the morning, you're typing up an affidavit that you've got to serve to the Supreme Court.

• 51:17Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 51:18Speaker 00

  It was the, the worst job, but if you, the more experience you became at it, you became skilled at it, you'd be the person that had to type the affidavit up and that, uh, you had to make sure it was done thoroughly. Make sure it's, it's the quality you can present to a Supreme Court judge. I could imagine that type of thing being used. Cause do you have a, have a, the thing against, against that? Like you, you have to check it. But, okay, this is a situation. We've got this house, blah, blah, blah. You give rough details, need an affidavit to apply for a listening device to a Supreme Court judge. And the listening device is act such and such, bang.

• 51:53Speaker 01

  If it's still not, I mean, even if you use your precedents.

• 51:58Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 51:58Speaker 01

  So you, you know, you, you get your best paragraphs out of this and this is what relates and all the rest of it. I'm still concerned that little bits will slip through.

• 52:05Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 52:06Speaker 01

  And the problem being is when you're reading something like you said at four o'clock in the morning, you're trying to get it to a Supreme Court judge quickly.

• 52:12Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 52:13Speaker 01

  You read over things.

• 52:15Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 52:15Speaker 01

  And a lot of the times, I know that I, um, when I write, say, uh, submissions.

• 52:20Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 52:20Speaker 01

  I always leave them for a day or two.

• 52:22Speaker 00

  And then you, you go, you, I, I, you read them and you think, perfect, don't know the change. And then you pick it up a day later and go, how did I, what am I saying there?

• 52:31Speaker 01

  And so you, you know what's going on in your head, but you haven't put it down on the paper. So the A I takes a little bit of that automation away. And I think that, that's, it's, look, it's, it's doable.

• 52:43Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 52:44Speaker 01

  But I just think it's a little bit dangerous.

• 52:45Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 52:46Speaker 01

  To do it that way. And then, um, you've also got to remember, if you're using A I and the Supreme Court judge starts getting very similar submissions from everybody.

• 52:55Speaker 00

  Well, I, I, yeah, true. I, I think with A I, it's like when we're talking about police giving evidence in court.

• 53:04Speaker 01

  Hmm.

• 53:05Speaker 00

  When I first joined, we had to learn our statements verbatim. And that was, the evidence in chief was, and I could have a ten-page statement. I remember it, my early days in, in detectives. And I'd get in there at nine A M. on Wednesday, the third of October, two thousand, blah, blah, blah. And I could rattle it off. But that didn't come naturally. I had to sit at home all weekend and just.

• 53:26Speaker 01

  Read it.

• 53:27Speaker 00

  Read it, read it, read it. But you knew your statement. And then, once you got through giving that evidence, cross-examination was so much easier because you could recall. No, that was at, uh, two thirty that I went to that location. This was the address. This is who I spoke to, cause it was in your mind. I suppose if we get lazy using A I in investigations, you won't have that in-depth knowledge.

• 53:50Speaker 01

  Exactly right.

• 53:51Speaker 00

  At the crucial times.

• 53:52Speaker 01

  Exactly right. And then, and that's by writing it out is the best way to.

• 53:56Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 53:56Speaker 01

  The muscle memory.

• 53:57Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 53:58Speaker 01

  No, it's definitely, so yeah, no, you're a hundred percent right. I think that's a, it's a real concern.

• 54:03Speaker 00

  Okay. You prefer being a cop or a prosecutor or a defence solicitor?

• 54:10Speaker 01

  Well, that's a hard one. There's, the workload was much better in the prosecutors.

• 54:14Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 54:14Speaker 01

  And the one thing I loved about being in the prosecutors, once you're finished for the day, that's it.

• 54:19Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 54:19Speaker 01

  You're home.

• 54:20Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 54:20Speaker 01

  And it's the same with holidays. Once you're finished, you're done.

• 54:23Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 54:24Speaker 01

  Defence law, we get phone calls at one o'clock in the morning.

• 54:27Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 54:27Speaker 01

  I think my wife could rattle off, don't talk, it's not gonna help you, be quiet.

• 54:33Speaker 00

  Are we talking the standard advice?

• 54:35Speaker 01

  Yeah, the standard advice. Uh, we get all that. Um, the amount of times, I, I obviously grew up with a surgeon with a father and every time we went away, we had to stop off at all the hospitals.

• 54:45Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 54:46Speaker 01

  On the way to, to, before we went, so I could say goodbye to all his patients and, and all have you. And I used to be, I used to hate it. And I said, I'll never do that to my kids. We went down south quite recently. Um, so I stopped off and visited my clients in the South Coast Correctional Centre, come out and they're talking to all the blokes in the green tracksuits. So, you know, it's, it's, it's a lifestyle that we do. It's, uh, a lot more stress.

• 55:11Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 55:11Speaker 01

  When I was a prosecutor, if somebody got away, you know, as long as you did a good job, you'd sit there and go, it wasn't that emotional. Like the police officers would be like, a little bit.

• 55:19Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 55:20Speaker 01

  Annoyed. But, um, you know, but they'd see that you did the right thing.

• 55:23Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 55:24Speaker 01

  Um, you're losing this, you know, people are going to jail. And the strange thing is, in relation to when somebody loses in criminal law.

• 55:33Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 55:34Speaker 01

  They don't blame themselves.

• 55:35Speaker 00

  Sorry, I'm not crying.

• 55:36Speaker 01

  That's all right. They don't blame themselves.

• 55:38Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 55:39Speaker 01

  They don't blame the police for arresting them. They don't blame the judge for convicting them. It's always the lawyer's fault for not getting them off.

• 55:47Speaker 00

  Well, if you just did what I told you to do, we'd be fine. Yeah.

• 55:50Speaker 01

  If you haven't found that loophole.

• 55:52Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 55:53Speaker 01

  And you sit there and go, mate, it's, you know, you've got a magic wand, but I mean, it's, it's only got a, a certain amount of power in it.

• 55:59Speaker 00

  J- uh, jokes aside, but there is a, a, I, I would imagine a sense of responsibility you carry, represent, or, or defending someone.

• 56:08Speaker 01

  Definitely.

• 56:08Speaker 00

  You're, you're, their life is li- literally in your hands. So have I done enough? It's ten o'clock at night. I'm tired. Do I wanna go to bed? I should just check this. I, I would imagine the pressure if you, if you're committed to, to your job and passionate about it.

• 56:21Speaker 01

  You're always doing it. Even when I go on holidays, you know, if, even if I'm overseas, I don't switch off until it's sort of five o'clock in, in Sydney time.

• 56:30Speaker 00

  Cause it would be mortifying if, if one of your clients went to prison because you, you've stuffed up or.

• 56:35Speaker 01

  It'd be horrendous. Absolutely horrendous.

• 56:37Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 56:38Speaker 01

  And the big thing for me though is I like to say, well, this is what's, the options are.

• 56:42Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 56:43Speaker 01

  This is how it's gonna work. This is, you, you, you, this is, you're, you're playing a role in this. It's not just me telling you what to do and how to do it. You know, this is what is against you. This is what's for you. You know, these are the pros and cons. How, how you go at it.

• 56:57Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 56:57Speaker 01

  Um, sometimes I sit there and go, we're running this, cause it's shocking. Uh, but no, the, the, when somebody especially goes to jail, it's, it's, it's heart wrenching. And, um, I just had one recently. He was, uh, involved in, in a drug supply.

• 57:13Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 57:14Speaker 01

  And I had to look at his mum.

• 57:16Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 57:16Speaker 01

  While he was getting led away. And he'd done something wrong.

• 57:20Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 57:20Speaker 01

  There's no doubt about it.

• 57:21Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 57:22Speaker 01

  We thought we could possibly get him in I C A. We thought with everything that we've done in the middle, it was on the cards.

• 57:27Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 57:27Speaker 01

  And that's what we're really shooting for. But, you know, looking at him.

• 57:31Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 57:32Speaker 01

  He was, strangely enough, he was prepped and ready. But it's just the rest of his family and it's, it's, it's really hard. Cause he goes off and then you're left.

• 57:40Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 57:41Speaker 01

  To explain it all to the family. And it's, um, it's, yeah, it's not, not, not good.

• 57:45Speaker 00

  Yeah, well, you just, you, you, what you described there is the human side of the, uh, the justice system. And invariably, no one wins, do they?

• 57:54Speaker 01

  No, and, and the worst thing is. By the time he went to jail, it was almost two years after the offence.

• 58:00Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 58:00Speaker 01

  You know, by the time all the, the systems have done and you've done, you've got all your reports and, and you know, the investigation's completed.

• 58:07Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 58:07Speaker 01

  So, you know, he's been living with it, remorseful. He's been caught. Okay, he's done the wrong thing.

• 58:11Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 58:11Speaker 01

  A lot of them have and it's, it's, you know, I can't see it ever happening again.

• 58:15Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 58:16Speaker 01

  But, you know, still there's the rule of law that has to, has to play.

• 58:20Speaker 00

  Yeah, they're, they're, they're sad ones, aren't they, where someone's made the mistake, been caught. The punishment is coming, but they're doing everything that they can to point their life in the right direction. And they go to the prison and, yeah, the prison system isn't, isn't perfect and invariably they're gonna fall back into old ways because of it.

• 58:38Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 58:39Speaker 00

  All going there with a resentment. I made a mistake, but look, I've genuinely turned my life around, but I'm still being punished. Fuck this, when I go out, when I come out of jail, I'm gonna do it again now.

• 58:49Speaker 01

  Exactly right.

• 58:50Speaker 00

  Yeah, it's a, it's a, and, and that's probably why we've got the higher recidivism rate.

• 58:55Speaker 01

  And what do they call it? Criminology one O one?

• 58:57Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 58:58Speaker 01

  When they go into prison, you know, and it's, but I think that's something that the judges have to weigh up.

• 59:02Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 59:03Speaker 01

  And then, but the problem being is if they sit there and think, well, I'll do the crime and then if I just do this, this and this, then I won't get punished.

• 59:10Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 59:10Speaker 01

  Then is the risk worth the reward?

• 59:13Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 59:13Speaker 01

  And I also, on the flip side of that, I, I had a bloke who was a, a cook.

• 59:18Speaker 00

  Hmm.

• 59:18Speaker 01

  And he stopped because he wants to be around where his kids are there and then he, he's gonna start up again. I said, mate. You, you go to jail for four years.

• 59:27Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 59:28Speaker 01

  Yes, but look at what I can earn in the interim. You know, so, but when he goes in, you, there's, there's not much sympathy in there.

• 59:36Speaker 00

  Yeah, no, well, yeah, that, it's, I, I think for the people in jail, it's the ones that genuinely wanna try if the system can help them, uh, turn their life around.

• 59:45Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 59:45Speaker 00

  But if, uh, yeah, that's a career crook if he goes, oh, well, I've just waited up four years, but look at the money I'll make.

• 59:50Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 59:51Speaker 00

  Yeah, but, uh.

• 59:52Speaker 01

  Yeah, and those are, those ones, unfortunately, there's a fair few of them around as well. So that's where the justice system, it's, you know, am I, you know, and I, I, I sort of feel for the judges.

• 1:00:01Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:00:02Speaker 01

  So I sit there and go, are they pulling the wool over my eyes or is this a legitimate attempt to, to rehabilitate?

• 1:00:08Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:00:09Speaker 01

  And I, I'm, I'm glad I'm not making that decision.

• 1:00:11Speaker 00

  No, I, I, like, I've been impressed. There, there's some, uh, judges or magistrates that I, I don't particularly like, but I'm, generally speaking, I'm impressed by them and, uh. Uh, the, the wisdom that comes, uh, uh, it makes me feel good, like, uh, it makes me feel good that if our society's been judged by people with this type of wisdom, um, we're in, we're in safe hands. And I, I've seen them make some decisions where I think, how did they come up with that? But Jesus, that, that's the right way to go.

• 1:00:37Speaker 01

  Oh, look, and I'd, I'd say ninety percent of the time in relation to the judgments that I hear.

• 1:00:41Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:00:42Speaker 01

  And they pick up on things that you just didn't pick up on. And you're sort of sitting there, why, how did, I, I've had this for, for, for six months. How did I miss it?

• 1:00:50Speaker 00

  Don't worry, Pat. I, it, it used to piss me off, like, I'd, I'd been working on this brief for ten years. I know everything about it. And then, uh, on the first day one of the trial, the judge is making a comment, going, fuck, that's pretty smart. Why didn't I think of that? Um, look, we'll, we'll wrap it up now. All right. Thank you for your, uh, your time as a prosecutor and, and, uh, time as a cop. And I'm gonna say it, but reluctantly, thanks for your time as a defence, uh, solicitor as well. It is an important role. We, we joke about it and we call it the dark side, but, uh, we, we need people defending, uh, defending the innocent and, uh, yeah.

• 1:01:26Speaker 01

  And, and giving a fair go to the, the ones that aren't so innocent as well, making sure that the, that's where we have a look at it.

• 1:01:32Speaker 00

  Oh, see, there you go. You had that little bit. You can't help it. The defence solicitor's always gotta have the last say. Okay. Um, enj- enjoyed the chat. I, I found it very insightful and, uh, just getting a, you know, your view that's from someone that's seen it on both sides. So thanks very much for coming in.

• 1:01:49Speaker 01

  No, thanks for having me, Gary.

• 1:01:50Speaker 00

  Cheers.