Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Speaker 1: Detective sy a side of life the average persons never
Speaker 1: exposed to. I spent thirty four years as a cop.
Speaker 1: For twenty five of those years, I was catching killers.
Speaker 1: That's what I did for a living. I was a
Speaker 1: homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
Speaker 1: I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
Speaker 1: The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
Speaker 1: from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
Speaker 1: and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
Speaker 1: of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
Speaker 1: no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Speaker 1: Join me now as I take you into this world.
Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of Eye Catch Killers. Terrorism is
Speaker 1: defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially
Speaker 1: against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Now that's
Speaker 1: a fairly bland definition, but there's something we all have
Speaker 1: to live with because, as we have now become aware,
Speaker 1: none of us are immune to the effects of terrorism,
Speaker 1: and it can strike in the most sudden and devastating fashion.
Speaker 1: It is a role of multiple law enforcement agencies in
Speaker 1: this country and across the world to identify and prevent
Speaker 1: acts of terrorism. Most of their work is done behind
Speaker 1: the scenes. I think it's about time on eye catch
Speaker 1: kills we have a look at terrorism and get a
Speaker 1: better understanding of what causes it and how we can
Speaker 1: identify it and prevent it where possible, to educate us
Speaker 1: all about terrorism. I can't think of a better person
Speaker 1: than doctor Dave Gore. Dave is a former colleague and
Speaker 1: friend of mine. We worked in tactical policing together and
Speaker 1: major crime, but then he kind of just disappeared from
Speaker 1: that world and embedded himself into the world of counter terrorism.
Speaker 1: He's considered one of the most experienced counter terrorism investigators
Speaker 1: in this country. He only recently left the New South
Speaker 1: Wales Police and his post police career. He used his
Speaker 1: vast experience to write a book titled Principles of the
Speaker 1: counter Terrorism Process. Now I've read that book. I've learnt
Speaker 1: so much from the book and today we're very fortunate
Speaker 1: to have Dave in the studio to share his knowledge.
Speaker 1: Dave Gore, it's good to see you, Gary.
Speaker 2: It's been a while. Have you been.
Speaker 1: Oh, I've made okay, the world has changed somewhat, But yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm enjoying what I'm doing. And there is as we
Speaker 1: were talking the other day, there is life outside the cops,
Speaker 1: isn't it.
Speaker 2: Look it's an interesting position. You spend thirty three five
Speaker 2: years of your life dedicated to a career path and
Speaker 2: then when it ends, it ends in a hurry. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you've got to find where do you sit? Who's your
Speaker 2: new identity? So it's been an interesting journey.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well we're sort of part of a tribe and
Speaker 1: you lose that identity, and that was your identity Dave Gore. Oh,
Speaker 1: he's a cop, Gary Jubel, and he's a cop, and
Speaker 1: you step away from that. But I'm happy to say
Speaker 1: and that, as you'll found out, there is a world
Speaker 1: outside the police, and you realize it is fairly small
Speaker 1: and narrowing the world that we operated.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and look, you're in when you're in the game,
Speaker 2: it's all about policing. And our colleagues are still in
Speaker 2: the game. That's what they do. They chase, they live
Speaker 2: and breathe it. But rest assured when you get out
Speaker 2: there is a larger world and there's a lot more
Speaker 2: fulfillment and satisfaction in other aspects outside of policing that
Speaker 2: I didn't think would actually occur, but it's there.
Speaker 1: And you had a double headed household with policing because
Speaker 1: your wife.
Speaker 2: My good wife, which you've had the opportunity to work with,
Speaker 2: and she's still in the police. So whilst I'm out,
Speaker 2: I'm still within the police family, so to speak, sort
Speaker 2: of as a de facto in law. So I still
Speaker 2: sort of get my little dose of policing every now
Speaker 2: and again.
Speaker 1: She doesn't tell you, you just don't understand.
Speaker 2: It can be quite challenging that have there's conversations because
Speaker 2: I've changed perspective a little bit, which can be the
Speaker 2: source of amusement in the household.
Speaker 1: Well, you look relaxed, Dave. And people used to describe
Speaker 1: yourself as pretty intense in police and I know I
Speaker 1: cop that label as well as intense, but you always
Speaker 1: you had the cranky face on the fair bit you
Speaker 1: look a little bit more relaxed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Look it's you take stock. You know you reflect
Speaker 2: and look, we're both pretty we're both pretty driven individuals.
Speaker 2: I know that you know you're well regarded in your
Speaker 2: field and in my field. You know, there was a
Speaker 2: lot of there's a lot of expectation. Yeah, and that burden. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you're pretty switched on most of the time.
Speaker 1: Well, I look at it this way. Sometimes you just
Speaker 1: haven't got time for the niceties or the hello or
Speaker 1: how you going. Sometimes it's we need this done, we
Speaker 1: need this done now. And that that was policing the
Speaker 1: sharp end, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And look your hope throughout your career that you
Speaker 2: didn't burn too many bridges and that your colleagues realized
Speaker 2: that you weren't being you were in being blunt, you
Speaker 2: weren't being rude. You were just time poor and you
Speaker 2: were under the pump. But now that we're away from
Speaker 2: that and we can step back and look back in,
Speaker 2: it's nice to look back in and actually take a
Speaker 2: breath and enjoy, enjoy the ride, so to speak, smell
Speaker 2: the flowers, enjoy the day, and actually take some time
Speaker 2: to take stock of what's occurred.
Speaker 1: Yeah, very much so. So your your book, congratulations on it.
Speaker 1: I read it over the weekend and I think I'm
Speaker 1: very much more enlightened about the world of counter terrorism investigation.
Speaker 1: What prompted the idea of writing a book after you left?
Speaker 2: Well, so when I left the police. I didn't live
Speaker 2: on my terms.
Speaker 1: You know, that's unusual, so I had to So when.
Speaker 2: I left, you know, I feel a little bit unfulfilled,
Speaker 2: and I had I spent twenty years of research, policy writing, developing, training,
Speaker 2: operational engagements, and there was a great deal of knowledge.
Speaker 2: And when I left the police, I thought, at some
Speaker 2: point someone will come and want to download what I
Speaker 2: knew so that it can be used for the next
Speaker 2: generation and we can build on the information that we've
Speaker 2: already got. But after a couple of months, I realized
Speaker 2: that no one was coming, and look, there was a
Speaker 2: lot of information that I thought, actually, it does help,
Speaker 2: and it helps the process. We spent a lot of
Speaker 2: time researching it, so I didn't want to lose it.
Speaker 2: So when I looked around the marketplace of books, and
Speaker 2: I looked particularly at the private sector who are now
Speaker 2: partners in the ct Journey, the counter Terrorism JOm, and
Speaker 2: there's no books for them. There's no reference books, there
Speaker 2: was no guides, there was nothing to give them support
Speaker 2: and instruction on how they should do business. So they
Speaker 2: kind of motivated me to get my thoughts down and
Speaker 2: to put something that can be used for the wider
Speaker 2: communities to attention.
Speaker 1: Well, we're going to dissect the book and the book
Speaker 1: so people are aware of it. The principles of the
Speaker 1: counter terrorism process, a guide for new guard of counter
Speaker 1: terrorism professionals. And I've got to say, if you want
Speaker 1: to up skill or have an understanding of what counter
Speaker 1: terrorism is about, it's very much in that book. And
Speaker 1: I can see the effort that's gone into it too, Dave,
Speaker 1: So congratulations, it's not an easy book to write. You're
Speaker 1: not just sitting there rattling off old war stories. It's
Speaker 1: very deep. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So there's a lot of research in that of academic
Speaker 2: research that you know with and the beauty about being
Speaker 2: in the police is that there is a lot of
Speaker 2: academic research in the wider world of academia about terrorism,
Speaker 2: but being in the police, being close to the cold face,
Speaker 2: we've got the best sources of data. We've got the
Speaker 2: real data. So our research was more accurate. And it's
Speaker 2: that accurate research that I wanted then to communicate with
Speaker 2: everyone so that we can move forward as opposed to
Speaker 2: basing research on assumed facts or research based on information gaps.
Speaker 2: So I've tried to get it down as best we could.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, we've got a little bit ahead of ourselves.
Speaker 1: We've got to wind it back a little bit. So
Speaker 1: you didn't just wake up one day and decide you're
Speaker 1: account the terrorism expert. You joined the police. What prompted
Speaker 1: you to join the police?
Speaker 2: So join the police. So before I joined the police,
Speaker 2: I'm not a tall man, and back in the day
Speaker 2: when I wanted to join the police, there was a
Speaker 2: height restriction. There's a height and weight restriction, and you
Speaker 2: had have certain test expansions and I didn't meet those
Speaker 2: term was never going to So I went and joined
Speaker 2: the bank. I started studying accountcy and was doing a
Speaker 2: management program within Westpac. And then one lunchtime I'm sitting
Speaker 2: down reading the paper and my lunch break and the
Speaker 2: then Commissioner, Jack Avery removed the hype restrictions and mate restrictions.
Speaker 2: So I wandered down to Maryland's police station and the
Speaker 2: old desk sergeant was there and I said, excuse me, sergeant,
Speaker 2: could I have an application? He grunted at me, through
Speaker 2: the application at me, and I walked out.
Speaker 1: Nothing like customers.
Speaker 2: Customer service was fantastic. And then three months later I'm
Speaker 2: down at the academy.
Speaker 1: Okay, what year was that?
Speaker 2: What year the eighty seven?
Speaker 1: Okay, I was there just a little a little bit beforehand.
Speaker 1: So your career in uniform first up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you know, this is the day back where
Speaker 2: we did three months straight. We were trainees in the
Speaker 2: police academy, so you employed as a police employer employee,
Speaker 2: and so we did three months in tents. Then we
Speaker 2: had twelve months probation before you got confirmed. My probation
Speaker 2: and period in uniform was at Flemington with the L
Speaker 2: thirty two division, which was Flemington, Auburn, Lincoln. You know, again, etchy,
Speaker 2: typical uniform career. We're working at the markets, traffic domestics,
Speaker 2: and domestics is clearly a current issue and they were
Speaker 2: a current issue back then. So times haven't changed.
Speaker 1: It's sad saying things haven't changed.
Speaker 2: So look, and then I joined the police and I
Speaker 2: was under the I suppose my plan was to do
Speaker 2: a couple of years in uniform study law, have a
Speaker 2: go at going to through the prosecutors and pursuing that path.
Speaker 2: But in our part of our training program is that
Speaker 2: you've got to do two weeks in each of the
Speaker 2: units with that highway licensing, all those things and I
Speaker 2: got to spend two weeks in the detective's office and
Speaker 2: my mentor there was a detective charge my name of
Speaker 2: Henry Krnaky, a fantastic detective, and I was there and
Speaker 2: as soon as I walked in the office, my feet
Speaker 2: didn't hit the ground. In two weeks, I think we
Speaker 2: had four murders. We were chasing a group of kids,
Speaker 2: three kids for a grievous bodily harm attack that they
Speaker 2: inflicted on another a street kid with a sledgehammer in
Speaker 2: a squad house in Flemington. So we spent three days
Speaker 2: chasing these kids. Bronson, Blessington, Jamison and that crew were
Speaker 2: then chasing them all throughout Sydney trying to find them.
Speaker 2: And then we get a call one night Henry rings
Speaker 2: Mountain says that we've got our crooks at Penrith. So
Speaker 2: we drive out there. On the way out to the
Speaker 2: driver discussing what the interview process will be and what
Speaker 2: we'll interview them. We get to Penrith police station and
Speaker 2: Henry speaks to his brother, Dick Cornacky. They have a
Speaker 2: rather animated conversation. He turns around in his heel and
Speaker 2: comes back and he says, we're out here they've just
Speaker 2: fested up to murdering a young girl in a paddock,
Speaker 2: and we won't get access to them for a while,
Speaker 2: so we left. And that unfortunate young girl was Jenaine Balding,
Speaker 2: so terrible. It was a terrible crime, but it just
Speaker 2: showed I actually got to see how the process worked,
Speaker 2: fell in love with criminal investigation, fell in love with
Speaker 2: being a detective, and decided to make that my career.
Speaker 1: I understand that the way you described it them just
Speaker 1: thinking through. It's that. And I don't like to say
Speaker 1: it's a thrill of the chase because it sounds like
Speaker 1: a game, and we very much know it's not a game.
Speaker 1: But that hunting. You are actually out there hunting the.
Speaker 2: We were hunting them. We were trying to get them,
Speaker 2: and the reason to get them was to stop them
Speaker 2: because they were on a crime spree. We can incarcerate them,
Speaker 2: let things cool down, stop crime occurring. And you could
Speaker 2: see that practically occur. The more you got into investigations,
Speaker 2: you saw that the majority of crime was always been
Speaker 2: committed by the minority of criminals. If you got rid
Speaker 2: of that minority, you reduced crime. And that's a very
Speaker 2: simple equation, and it stayed pretty constant throughout. So I
Speaker 2: saw that equation, that.
Speaker 1: Correlation what you could achieve, what.
Speaker 2: You could achieve, and you actually could reduce crimes significantly
Speaker 2: by taking players out.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it sounds like it was a glob that
Speaker 1: fitted very well in plain clothes.
Speaker 2: So yeah. So I did my training Flemington Detectives and
Speaker 2: at the time we were new South Wales Police in
Speaker 2: the wake of the Wood Royal Commission was regionalized and
Speaker 2: Flemington was the home of the Southwest Major Crime Squad.
Speaker 2: So I got to interact a lot with the guys
Speaker 2: from Southwest and they would involve us on jobs, giving
Speaker 2: us great experience and exposure. I did my training there
Speaker 2: with Flemington, and what I had done, I continued my
Speaker 2: accountcy studies. So I just finished my accountancy course and
Speaker 2: an opportunity came for me to go to the fraud Squad.
Speaker 2: So I went to the fraud Squad for a couple
Speaker 2: of years and worked there with some very very good
Speaker 2: operators Terry Jamison, Roam Martin, Georgie McTaggart, Arthur Keatsiannas you
Speaker 2: know Arthur who went on becoming one of the commanders
Speaker 2: at State Crime and after a couple of years there
Speaker 2: an opportunity arose at Northwest Major Crime and that's where
Speaker 2: our past started to join.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's when we cross paths in the crime squads,
Speaker 1: but also the tactical policing when we're in the State
Speaker 1: Protection Support Unit, which is tactical police us through that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So in the day, so I went to Northwest
Speaker 2: and did a range of the squads there, the Kiddies
Speaker 2: Squad which is a child protection squad, property squad, and
Speaker 2: then I moved into these stick ups. Armed hold up
Speaker 2: one of the requirements there because of the nature of
Speaker 2: the beast. We're dealing with dangerous criminals, armed defenders, you know,
Speaker 2: on a daily basis. It was a real clever strategy
Speaker 2: to get those operators trained in tactical policing, the Tactical
Speaker 2: Support Team or the State Protection Support Unit. And it's
Speaker 2: through that training that you become proficient at weapons, your
Speaker 2: your tactical knowledge of things, what is a danger and
Speaker 2: what isn't. You get a really good understanding of how
Speaker 2: to do things a lot more safely and efficiently.
Speaker 1: I felt that it helped us as detectives, even though
Speaker 1: our role as detectives was investigation wasn't tactical, but when
Speaker 1: we had the tactical skills, you could help plan, earn
Speaker 1: effect and the rest or be involved in the arrest
Speaker 1: and high risk offenders.
Speaker 2: And that's probably what a lot of listeners don't understand that.
Speaker 2: As the detective, you prepare all the documents, so you're
Speaker 2: doing the planning documents, you're doing all the appreciations. So
Speaker 2: you've got to have an understanding of what their capabilities are.
Speaker 2: Whether that be a surveillance team, a team of texts
Speaker 2: that's going to put devices in, or a tactical team.
Speaker 2: You need to know what their capabilities are, what their
Speaker 2: limitations are, how they like to work. If they're a
Speaker 2: happy team, they get your good results. So again it's
Speaker 2: great exposure, I think for us both.
Speaker 1: And it was a lot of fun too. Some of
Speaker 1: those training days were they were intense, but they were fun.
Speaker 1: And that firing range.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, you know, lo Sheennanigan is a lot of fun,
Speaker 2: but a lot of team development, team bonding and building
Speaker 2: that team. You know that team camaraderie and look you
Speaker 2: twenty thirty years later, we're still talking about it and
Speaker 2: there's a smile on your face. You smile and mind,
Speaker 2: so it works.
Speaker 1: It was fun. And look, let's shout out to the
Speaker 1: tactical police, because often they were misconstrued as you know,
Speaker 1: the knuckle draggers or whatever, the tough guys in the
Speaker 1: black overalls. But the amount of training, the pressure was
Speaker 1: on when you had the job, wasn't it.
Speaker 2: And aren't they when you get down you speak with
Speaker 2: them and they talk through their plans. Aren't they articulate
Speaker 2: and incredibly detailed and professional? They know the game?
Speaker 1: Dave. I'm glad you say that because people often think
Speaker 1: detectives are briefing. The best briefings I've been to are
Speaker 1: the ones that tactical police are running. And it's succinct
Speaker 1: because you can't make a mistake. If you make a mistake,
Speaker 1: someone literally might die. And it was good fun when
Speaker 1: you got a call. When we'd get called out, I
Speaker 1: thought it was best time in policing because you had
Speaker 1: the excitement of criminal investigation. But then you get a
Speaker 1: phone call and some bad, bad guy's got to be arrested,
Speaker 1: and you jump out the back of a van.
Speaker 2: And see what the beauty of You know, as a detective,
Speaker 2: you've got left to clean up the mess. Yes, as
Speaker 2: a tactical operator. You walked away and you didn't have
Speaker 2: to do the brief. So it was it was it
Speaker 2: was the best of both line.
Speaker 1: I don't know about you, but when my phone would ring,
Speaker 1: I'd be thinking, I hope it's not a homicide. I
Speaker 1: hope it's tactical. Tactical, you go out the adrenaline rush,
Speaker 1: do your job and walk away in the paperwork.
Speaker 2: Fantastic, great day, great day.
Speaker 1: It was good. Okay, So what other squads did you
Speaker 1: work in inj major crime?
Speaker 2: So so I did the kiddies property and we worked
Speaker 2: with you know, in the wake. This is prior to
Speaker 2: the well. This is as the Royal Commission was going on.
Speaker 2: It was and Northwest was decimated as a result of
Speaker 2: the raw Commission. Then I went to the stick ups.
Speaker 2: Then close Small did something interesting that he amalgamated the
Speaker 2: regions again. So we went from four regions to crime
Speaker 2: agencies and I was part of the Serious and Violent
Speaker 2: Violent Offenders unit and there I stuck with stick ups
Speaker 2: and went to Bagnara and Bagnara was the operation that
Speaker 2: looked at the time counter jumpers. This is where he
Speaker 2: had a lot of young offenders. Bank robberies were still
Speaker 2: the rage and before they had screens putting up, the
Speaker 2: crooks would enter the banks on mass, jump the counter,
Speaker 2: overwhelm the staff, take the money and run. Incredibly busy
Speaker 2: times and interesting dynamic working with you know that cohort,
Speaker 2: which was a completely different mindset to the traditional stick
Speaker 2: up guys we were used to working with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, No, it was interesting times. And when we were
Speaker 1: brought together as crime agencies. I liken it to imagine
Speaker 1: four high schools that are all brought together because there
Speaker 1: was a bit of argie bargie, wasn't it. I was
Speaker 1: from north region.
Speaker 2: You were even today I refer to you as north
Speaker 2: your north. I was Northwest. There's southwest, the south. Yeah,
Speaker 2: somewhere we didn't meet in the middle. There was the clicks.
Speaker 2: Look how Clive was able to bring that and Clive
Speaker 2: is a very brilliant man. Yeah, and the way he
Speaker 2: could bring that together given the environment that we've just
Speaker 2: walked out of that New South Wales at that time
Speaker 2: was considered one of the most corrupt services in the country.
Speaker 2: He was able to bring us together and set up
Speaker 2: a really effective agency that stood the test of time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, full credit to Clive. He was a leader in
Speaker 1: the truest sense, wasn't he When he was there? There
Speaker 1: was no mucking round. You knew where you stood. But
Speaker 1: you're quite right moldling all that together. It could have
Speaker 1: gone either way, and I forgot how bad it was
Speaker 1: at the time. We're all shamed by the fact that
Speaker 1: we're major crime detectives and all that corruption horrendous exposed,
Speaker 1: and even the way your own organization looked at you. Yeah, uniform,
Speaker 1: you're a detective, you must be crupted. It was a hard,
Speaker 1: hard slog.
Speaker 2: And I remember I went to a course at the
Speaker 2: Goldman Academy and I bounced a couple of the new
Speaker 2: recruits and their first question was are you a detective,
Speaker 2: And in a suit, I said yes, I am. And
Speaker 2: their response was, we've been instructed not to talk to
Speaker 2: you because you're corrupt and a bad influence. Now I
Speaker 2: found that this is my own organization. These are the
Speaker 2: people that are training the next generation, are instructing our
Speaker 2: people not to talk to their own people because of,
Speaker 2: you know, the stink or the smell of corruption. It
Speaker 2: was disappointing.
Speaker 1: It was disappointing, but there was there wasn't a lot
Speaker 1: of us that had the it was still around long
Speaker 1: time after that that had the experience before it, the
Speaker 1: Royal Commission, during it and after it, and stayed in
Speaker 1: major crime. And I think it set you up very
Speaker 1: well for the further police career because you understood where
Speaker 1: things can go wrong with the corruption. And I think
Speaker 1: the people like yourself, like myself, that had that experience
Speaker 1: been there before, during and after it bous well for
Speaker 1: our careers.
Speaker 2: It did, and it gave us ability to look at
Speaker 2: consequence and consequence management and perception. And we didn't care
Speaker 2: too much about perception were young young men rawn around,
Speaker 2: but we started to understand the power of perception, what
Speaker 2: things look like to those outside, and how we had
Speaker 2: to manage that better. So it was a great learning curve.
Speaker 2: As tragic as it was, as traumatic as it was,
Speaker 2: it really it put us in a good space.
Speaker 1: And you could see it gave me an understanding of
Speaker 1: how a moral compass and then individual's moral compass can
Speaker 1: slide if you don't keep it, keep it strong, keep
Speaker 1: people pointed in the right direction.
Speaker 2: Exactly right, and that was probably you saw those with
Speaker 2: a strong compass and they could stand alone. Those were
Speaker 2: the weaker compass sort of fell into the fell into
Speaker 2: the wrong crowd.
Speaker 1: Whatever environment they were put in. Okay, another interesting aspect
Speaker 1: of your career. You went to these team, all.
Speaker 2: Yes, so I before I went to his team, or
Speaker 2: I went and joined and this is really interesting. I
Speaker 2: went and joined the Joint Asian Crime Group Talkers Through,
Speaker 2: which is this is a joint body with the AFP,
Speaker 2: the New South Walest Crime Commission and New South Wales
Speaker 2: Police and it was looking at the bulk we've targeted,
Speaker 2: the bulk imputation of heroin from the triads, predominantly from
Speaker 2: the Golden Triangle and the drugs that were coming out
Speaker 2: of China, and we were getting you know, we would
Speaker 2: call them bricks or units or half units, and we
Speaker 2: were a very successful unit. It was run by you know,
Speaker 2: Jeff Owens, Ken Hardiman and a range of other people.
Speaker 2: And it's at that point I understood the benefit of
Speaker 2: joint agencies and tapping into the best of both worlds.
Speaker 2: So I had I had the Commonwealth assets, which was
Speaker 2: both national and international. I had the State assets, and
Speaker 2: then we also had that funny little beast which is
Speaker 2: the New South Walest Crime Commission. And I don't know
Speaker 2: if you've explained much to your listeners what it is.
Speaker 2: But it is a really unique little beast.
Speaker 1: It's come up in a lot of different times that
Speaker 1: we've talked about that I was heavily involved with them
Speaker 1: on certain investigations, so we could describe it as the
Speaker 1: New South Wales Crime Commission. They have coercive powers and
Speaker 1: powers that we don't have as police. They can call
Speaker 1: people into hearings and they have access to resources that
Speaker 1: police sometimes find very difficult to get hold of. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's a powerful tool to be used in
Speaker 1: the fight against crime.
Speaker 2: It's a fantastic to them, and they also have a
Speaker 2: great intel arm. They've got a big engine in relation
Speaker 2: to intelligence. Now all this enhances an investigation. They're a
Speaker 2: wonderful partner and it's a wonderful asset that New South
Speaker 2: Wales has. I find it strange its success hasn't been
Speaker 2: replicated in the other states because it is a very
Speaker 2: successful organization and has been for twenty thirty years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I've definitely got good results and I've used them.
Speaker 1: We've organized crime murders and they've been very beneficial getting
Speaker 1: people in for hearings and different things. Those coercive hearings Okay,
Speaker 1: so you've had that would have boded well for your
Speaker 1: time in counter terrorism. But before we move on to that,
Speaker 1: talk about the role in ease team or because I
Speaker 1: think that's an interesting expect.
Speaker 2: So look, I've been being part of the AFP and
Speaker 2: they were sending and we're having the independence with Team
Speaker 2: more and you know, the Indonesians were slowly moving out.
Speaker 2: We had we had our intervention of so to speak.
Speaker 2: So I've got that exposure. So I put an application
Speaker 2: in and was seconded to the United Nations and I
Speaker 2: went over there as part of the Australian contingent for
Speaker 2: SIF poll. And my job there is I was my
Speaker 2: coursign was Delta three, which meant I was the third
Speaker 2: in charge of Dilly District and my job was to
Speaker 2: manage the security, the enforcement security for the whole of
Speaker 2: the Dilly CBD given that it's a low rise And
Speaker 2: during my time we had the elections, so my job
Speaker 2: was to manage the security of the election process with
Speaker 2: Janana Guzmal and dou A Morel who was the opposition
Speaker 2: or the other party that was part of the presidential elections.
Speaker 2: And then when those elections were done, then my main
Speaker 2: role then was to manage the security arrangements for Dilly
Speaker 2: for the Independence Day celebrations. So dealing with international agencies,
Speaker 2: international law enforcement media in a country that's not your own.
Speaker 2: There were three different distinct languages in Timor. There wasn't
Speaker 2: a common one. It was a challenging place.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the good experience for but yeah, nice to have
Speaker 1: on your resume and life experience.
Speaker 2: And you'll get this. So you don't get it when
Speaker 2: you're the kind of the un you don't get a
Speaker 2: day off. So you work for six months. So you
Speaker 2: come back and you're wrecked. And I remember coming back
Speaker 2: and I stepped foot back in the office and the
Speaker 2: first thing someone said to me, well, now you've been
Speaker 2: now you've come back from your junket, can you get
Speaker 2: to work? And you're difficult, Like yeah, just always the way, Yeah,
Speaker 2: no respect for the hard book.
Speaker 1: That done. Okay, So what year did you decide to
Speaker 1: go down the count of terror past?
Speaker 2: So yeah, So I came back from two more and
Speaker 2: then I worked with and then we worked together again
Speaker 2: in homicide. Yeah, and I was a staff officer staff
Speaker 2: officer to Nick Cawda's and then I'd had a few
Speaker 2: ins and outs of homicide, back of the crime squads
Speaker 2: and everywhere else. So I was Nick staff officer for
Speaker 2: a couple of years.
Speaker 1: One was that I'm just trying to think when Nick
Speaker 1: was there, So.
Speaker 2: That's two thousand and two thousand and two.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: So late two thousand and two an opportunity to come
Speaker 2: up to join the JC too, the Joint counter Terrorism Team.
Speaker 2: That stage, I'd worked three and a half years in
Speaker 2: joint bodies with the FEDS. I was quite comfortable with
Speaker 2: their techniques, their computer systems, and I put in for
Speaker 2: it and went across myself and a guy booked, Steve Ashton.
Speaker 2: I went across and joined, were seconded to the Australian
Speaker 2: Federal Police and were part of the initial JCT. And
Speaker 2: that was the first one in Australia and that was
Speaker 2: established in November two thousand and two.
Speaker 1: Okay, and what was your role there?
Speaker 2: So I was there as a detective sergeant, as an investigator.
Speaker 2: So my job again bringing the best of both worlds.
Speaker 2: I was operating in a Commonwealth environment, but I brought
Speaker 2: State assets. Now at the same time we'd set up
Speaker 2: a CT unit. Given the wake of nine to eleven
Speaker 2: and the Barley won attacks in October two thousand and two.
Speaker 2: New South Wales Police then invested and set up his
Speaker 2: own CT command. So we had the JCT which was
Speaker 2: primarily a vehicle for the Australian Federal Police, and the
Speaker 2: New South Wales Police had its own command and I
Speaker 2: was the go to on between Trendy South Wales and
Speaker 2: the FEDS.
Speaker 1: And a lot of it is about feeding that information
Speaker 1: backwards and forwards, and a lot of it's protected information,
Speaker 1: that type of thing, So it's a tricky thing to
Speaker 1: navigate through. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So look, so I go there and what we do
Speaker 2: is we do reactive investigations. We're very good at that.
Speaker 2: The crime curse, it gets reported, we investigate. I've landed
Speaker 2: in this team that no one knows anyone, no one
Speaker 2: knows anyone does, and I'm told to actually stop the
Speaker 2: crime before it occurs, a proactive approach.
Speaker 1: Which is not something that we're trained up with not to.
Speaker 2: So this is a real This is a big learning
Speaker 2: curve that we actually got. How do we stop a
Speaker 2: crime before it occurs? I think the best analogy is
Speaker 2: if anyone's seen Tom Cruise in Minority Report, it's like
Speaker 2: that stop the crime before it occurs, so we had
Speaker 2: to build, we had to figure out how we're going
Speaker 2: to do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it is a different approach, and I want
Speaker 1: to break that down. But let's before we get into that,
Speaker 1: let's just dissect your book because, as I said, the
Speaker 1: Principles of counter Terrorism Process a guide for the New
Speaker 1: Guard of counter terrorism professionals. Now, the forward in the
Speaker 1: book was written by our good friend Nick Kaldos, which
Speaker 1: is and utmost respect for Nick. He's been a guest
Speaker 1: on Eye Catch Killers and I quite often refer to
Speaker 1: him as one of the most experienced police officers or
Speaker 1: law enforcement officers in the world. And I don't think
Speaker 1: it's overstating it some of the stuff that he's done.
Speaker 2: And like say, from my perspective, Nick was one of
Speaker 2: my original mentors in CT. Nick is from an Arabic background.
Speaker 2: He gets it really well and has been immersed in
Speaker 2: that part of policing for quite a while. So I'd
Speaker 2: spent a lot of time chewing his ear trying to
Speaker 2: figure things out and bouncing ideas off him.
Speaker 1: Well, you've got the right person to do the forward
Speaker 1: in the book, because he speaks very highly in the
Speaker 1: book and accounts for something when someone like Nick Koaldos
Speaker 1: is doing that. But he made a couple of points.
Speaker 1: Because we're talking here now, we're going to take you
Speaker 1: into the world of counter terrorism. We want to get
Speaker 1: your credentials up here. This is how Nick broke it down.
Speaker 1: That pointed out that you bought three points that make
Speaker 1: your thoughts on terrorism significant. And the first point bean
Speaker 1: that you have decades of investigation experience in the world
Speaker 1: of terrorism prior to the book. You also spent many
Speaker 1: years in major crime investigations, so you understood law enforcement
Speaker 1: and policing, and you're an academic achievement which allows you
Speaker 1: to pull all these strings together in a logical, structured construct.
Speaker 1: So lovely, I can hear I can hear Nick Knick's
Speaker 1: voice coming out of that. But I think that does
Speaker 1: bring a uniqueness to what you can talk about in
Speaker 1: counter terrorism. And let's breaking it down. You've worked in
Speaker 1: counter terrorism, so it's not watching from the sidelines. You've
Speaker 1: been involved. You've been involved in the operations of the
Speaker 1: stopping terrorism, arrests of terrorists for a terrorist related defenses.
Speaker 1: You've also spent time as a major crime investigator, so
Speaker 1: you understand law enforcement, what can be done, what can't
Speaker 1: be done? And why am I calling your doctor talk
Speaker 1: us about your academic qualification.
Speaker 2: So funny enough. Look, I got into the j CT
Speaker 2: and film my feet. I think we kicked the ball
Speaker 2: off with Zachie Meller. We then did Operation Newport, which
Speaker 2: was Bridget, Willy Bridget for him, Lottie.
Speaker 1: Break down a couple of those, so people understand. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So Zachie Miller early two thousand and three was again
Speaker 2: very very much aligned to what's happened today, had an
Speaker 2: issue with the treatment of the Palestinians. He was interviewed
Speaker 2: by a particular meter outlet where he said that he
Speaker 2: was desirous to go to Palestine to become a suicide bomber.
Speaker 2: So that got the So that was our start, okay,
Speaker 2: so now we're starting to get it. Then, you know,
Speaker 2: a couple of months later, we get information from the
Speaker 2: French that there's a French national in town, which was
Speaker 2: Willy Bridget, and that he has come in under the
Speaker 2: guise of the Rugby World Cup and that he is
Speaker 2: going to do something significant on his birthday. Well, his
Speaker 2: birthday coincided with the opening ceremony of the World Cup.
Speaker 2: So we're chasing literally a person that's changed their name.
Speaker 2: That so when we talk about terrorism, they apply organized
Speaker 2: crime trade craft, so they change the name, they use
Speaker 2: fake vanes, they hide their identity. Well, will he changed
Speaker 2: his name. He was acting under an assumed name, and
Speaker 2: we're scouring Sydney trying to find him. Now, fortunously, one
Speaker 2: of our surveillance team left the office, walked two blocks
Speaker 2: down the road, was having a cup of tea in
Speaker 2: a coffee shop and was served by none other than
Speaker 2: Willi Bridget. So here we go. We've got this terrorist
Speaker 2: and the whole world is looking for him. He's in
Speaker 2: a coffee shop around the corner. Now he's working. Now, interestingly,
Speaker 2: this is where we get to use both sides of
Speaker 2: the coin. He's on a tourist visa and he's working.
Speaker 2: So whilst we the French have given us high side.
Speaker 2: That's top secret information, but we can't use in evidence.
Speaker 2: So we know we've got a threat, we can't use it.
Speaker 2: So what can we do. Well, here he's on a visa.
Speaker 2: He's working. Quantry to his visa, so we detained him
Speaker 2: under that and then had him deport it. He goes
Speaker 2: back to France and within makes full admissions to the
Speaker 2: French authorities about his intentions to undertake a terrorist act
Speaker 2: in Australia on behalf of a terrorist coup called Laska
Speaker 2: el Taiber l T, which is a Pakistani based terrorist organization,
Speaker 2: and he then nominated that the leader of l T
Speaker 2: in Australia was a person called for Hem Lotting, and
Speaker 2: then of course we then kick off an investigation into
Speaker 2: for Hem Lotting. Now, at that stage, as per most
Speaker 2: CT investigations, information gets leaked and in the middle of investigation,
Speaker 2: I think lot appeared on the front page of the
Speaker 2: Telegraph and other papers of this under the guise of
Speaker 2: is this guy a terrorist, etc. Etc. Well, here we're thinking, right, well,
Speaker 2: this brief's gone, he'll go to ground. Complete opposite, he
Speaker 2: actually sped up, so his preparations continued and it continued.
Speaker 2: So in light of that, we started doing search warrants.
Speaker 2: We did those with because of the nature information we
Speaker 2: did ajo search warrants, which is unique from an evidentary perspective,
Speaker 2: because to get that into evidence is a real complex task.
Speaker 2: We obtained some fantastic evidence, incriminating evidence during search warrants,
Speaker 2: and we will be able to convict Lottie for preparing
Speaker 2: to do a terrorist act in Australia. And I was
Speaker 2: fortunate enough to go to France on the advisor. I
Speaker 2: was going to give evidence for Bridget in France. Now,
Speaker 2: the French have a different legal system and they have
Speaker 2: inquisitorial system. So had we used the Westminster system, we
Speaker 2: wouldn't have had enough to convict Bridget, but under the
Speaker 2: inquisitorial system, the French could. Here's an important point, Gary,
Speaker 2: what's the first thing you do when you walk into
Speaker 2: a court of law? First thing you do the accept
Speaker 2: of practices?
Speaker 1: You bow?
Speaker 2: Well, what did the French do to their royal family,
Speaker 2: their crown?
Speaker 1: What they do?
Speaker 2: They cut their heads off in the French Revolution, So
Speaker 2: it is a faux part to bow to judge. So
Speaker 2: here i am back walking to court and I'm with
Speaker 2: an AFP agent and they said you're I'm not going
Speaker 2: to bow, are you? Of course I am. And they've
Speaker 2: got the whole history listening about now off with their heads.
Speaker 2: We don't bow. So again, okay, interesting third path.
Speaker 1: I've always I wonder just the sideline here for a
Speaker 1: sec inquisitorial adversarial Which do you think serves the community.
Speaker 2: The best inquisitorial, So we got to the facts. So
Speaker 2: what it was They determined the facts. So an independent
Speaker 2: investigating judge determines the facts. Then we argue the case
Speaker 2: on the facts, not opinion, not you know, the pros
Speaker 2: and cons. The facts is what is argued, and it's
Speaker 2: a shorter process, and it's a more accurate process and
Speaker 2: far more.
Speaker 1: Efficiency in the most basic terms. I made a career
Speaker 1: when I was doing my degree writing about inquisitorial versus
Speaker 1: adversarial and I always thought that was unusual that when
Speaker 1: you want to get to the bottom of something, you
Speaker 1: have a royal commission that has inquisitorial powers to find
Speaker 1: out the truth.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what we do.
Speaker 1: And then we've got the adversarial system, which is all
Speaker 1: about guilt or innocent but we don't really want to
Speaker 1: find we don't get to the truth.
Speaker 2: And you know, and then the same vein why does
Speaker 2: the current I have an inquisitorial system because we want
Speaker 2: to find out the truth of how people have died,
Speaker 2: Yet in our legal system it's innocence or guilt as
Speaker 2: opposed to truth.
Speaker 1: I've struggled with it. I know you need those checks
Speaker 1: and balances, but I've struggled with that simple concept. You
Speaker 1: mentioned an interesting point there, and it came up when
Speaker 1: I was speaking to Peter Moroni just a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago about terrorists, and you worked with him on
Speaker 1: the Pandemics, which was a huge operation, and Peter told
Speaker 1: us through that what you guys are, what you guys
Speaker 1: went through. But when terrorists as to sink from other crooks,
Speaker 1: the usual crooks we chase if they know where after him,
Speaker 1: they go the ground. But with terrorists that their motivation
Speaker 1: is completely different. That you've got to change your mindset
Speaker 1: as an investigator.
Speaker 2: So that was an anomaly. If I use I'll use
Speaker 2: a parlent. So if I was in the stick ups
Speaker 2: the hold up squad, and if a fender was going
Speaker 2: to rob a bank, what would be the easiest thing
Speaker 2: to do is to put a police car in front
Speaker 2: of the bank. The robber would rock up, he would
Speaker 2: see there's a police car. He doesn't want to get caught,
Speaker 2: so he walks away. We stop the crime. In this instance,
Speaker 2: if it was a terrorist, they would jump that police
Speaker 2: car would simply be an obstacle, and then they would
Speaker 2: go over the police car go on the bank to
Speaker 2: do the job. So we looked at that and we
Speaker 2: kept seeing this anomaly occur. So that was in Newport,
Speaker 2: it was in Pandanas, we saw it in Allneath and
Speaker 2: all these other jobs. So we looked and we researched that.
Speaker 2: And what that comes down to is that it comes
Speaker 2: down to the motivation. So most crooks that we investigate
Speaker 2: in a reactive sense are extrinsically motivated carrot or the stick.
Speaker 2: I rob someone to get money, or I don't do something,
Speaker 2: or I do something to avoid being caught and going
Speaker 2: to jail the stick. What we find with terrorists is
Speaker 2: that they're internally motivated, intrinsically motivated, so it's part of
Speaker 2: their personality, their identity identify as it and those that
Speaker 2: are religious, political, iological this is an internal drive into
Speaker 2: stronger form of motivation. So when we identify that that
Speaker 2: it makes stopping terrorists more challenging.
Speaker 1: And you've got to change. You have to know the
Speaker 1: person you're chasing, the person that you're working, and you'd
Speaker 1: have to change your mindset to that having looked at that,
Speaker 1: that this is what's motivating them, that's completely different to
Speaker 1: what the normal crook is that we chase.
Speaker 2: So so then when you're looking at strategies and you
Speaker 2: take this phenomenon into account, you then have got to
Speaker 2: manage that and that becomes awkward because cops are used
Speaker 2: to we'll just put up roadblocks, We'll.
Speaker 1: Just that literally scare them away, which it doesn't.
Speaker 2: So there's a bit of a nest there, and that's
Speaker 2: where the talent in the CT operator comes in. They
Speaker 2: look at opportunities of how they can manage them and
Speaker 2: keep them under control. Keep the pot boiling without it
Speaker 2: boiling over on the staff is an analogy that we used.
Speaker 1: And it's a tough one day, but it really is.
Speaker 1: So Okay, we've got your credentials and we've got a
Speaker 1: bit of understanding. Now I'm going to dissect some of
Speaker 1: the stuff that I've picked up in the book. I've
Speaker 1: got four headings, Identify, disrupt, risk, and threat. Yeah, break
Speaker 1: them down. So identify How do you identify a terrorist?
Speaker 1: Like if I'm walking around going I hate the world,
Speaker 1: I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that,
Speaker 1: what sort of what do you look at the threats?
Speaker 1: Because that's just me probably blowing off steam with no
Speaker 1: it's yeah, it's an anger, but there's no yeah, action
Speaker 1: to my thoughts.
Speaker 2: So I'll go back a step. So we look so
Speaker 2: to identify a terrorists, we have to look at a
Speaker 2: concept called radicalization.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Now, traditionally what we do is we look at radicalization
Speaker 2: as one dimensional. That person is radicalized. There was only
Speaker 2: one form. Then we had the link cafes yes, and
Speaker 2: I was task after lint to make a determination whether
Speaker 2: Monus was radicalized. Now, when we looked at our lists
Speaker 2: of indicators, minus didn't hit any of them. Out of
Speaker 2: our thirty forty indicators hit one or two. Yet if
Speaker 2: I apply the pub test, there's a guy with a
Speaker 2: religious flag. He says he's doing it in the name
Speaker 2: of an ideology of religious ideology, and he commits violence
Speaker 2: to further ideology. It's a terrorist act. So we had
Speaker 2: to look at that and it dawned that radicalization is
Speaker 2: at one dimensional. It's multi dimensional. We've identified five separate
Speaker 2: strands of radicalization. Now this is important breakthrough. So it's
Speaker 2: like when someone says you're sick, well, the first question
Speaker 2: you ask is, well, what are you suffering from? And
Speaker 2: your symptoms will be different from symptoms of another injury,
Speaker 2: i e. If you've got a flu, your symptoms will
Speaker 2: be different someone who's suffering from cancer, those symptoms be
Speaker 2: different from someone suffering from a heart attack or heart condition. Conversely,
Speaker 2: the treatments are different, the triggers are different. So what
Speaker 2: we found out there's five separate strands. They're are indicators.
Speaker 2: So what we do, Unfortunately today's environment, there's a single
Speaker 2: list of indicators. Well, we now know that that is
Speaker 2: in that that's not accurate. There should be five, maybe
Speaker 2: even six separates, and you identify the strand, you then
Speaker 2: apply the indicator, and that's what we look for. We
Speaker 2: look for what those indicators are. We look at how
Speaker 2: that works, how they interact, the knowledge, what they know,
Speaker 2: what they expouse, how they dress, how they look, who
Speaker 2: they associate with. All those will give us a really
Speaker 2: rich insight is to what strand of radicalization they're suffering
Speaker 2: from and where they are in the process. So the
Speaker 2: model I work on is we first start with a belief.
Speaker 2: So that belief could be anything. It's a generic belief
Speaker 2: I want to save koalas I have an interpretation of Catholicism,
Speaker 2: we will have a belief. Then it goes to is
Speaker 2: that belief moderate or extreme? Now the test, what's the
Speaker 2: test for extreme. Well, if their belief promotes acts of
Speaker 2: criminality or violence, then their criminal offenses and that outside
Speaker 2: them accept the normal parameters of society. If you're outside
Speaker 2: though normal parameters, that's an extreme belief.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the belief crosses that line when they're going to.
Speaker 2: So when their belief. So anyone can.
Speaker 1: Have a belief and it's not illegal.
Speaker 2: But if your belief promotes the use of violence or criminality,
Speaker 2: to forward that belo because that's outside the normal parameters
Speaker 2: of society, we say that's extreme. Now, once you've got
Speaker 2: an extreme belief, then you start the radicalization process. And
Speaker 2: the radicalization is when you start the process of turning
Speaker 2: those beliefs into tangible actions, where that be funding membership
Speaker 2: of a terrorist organization, operational support, or doing the terrorist act.
Speaker 2: So what for me if you would have said to
Speaker 2: me a person is radicalized, to me, you're saying they're
Speaker 2: a terrorist if they simply support a belief I e.
Speaker 2: I think bin Laden was a good man and I
Speaker 2: support the horrendous actually did on nine to eleven. Well,
Speaker 2: that's an extreme ideology because he committed a criminal offense
Speaker 2: is killing three thousand people.
Speaker 1: That's the ideology as distinct from radicalization.
Speaker 2: Yes, so these are processes that human based every human.
Speaker 2: It's a trait, that's a human trait. So we look
Speaker 2: at extreme extreme beliefs and then we go and radicalization.
Speaker 2: So if you're doing something in the name of a
Speaker 2: religion or a belief in our community, we accept that
Speaker 2: as an act of terrorism and that's a definition under
Speaker 2: the criminal Codect.
Speaker 1: Okay, hey guys, have you ever wondered what goes on
Speaker 1: behind the headlines of a gang war or shooting? Then
Speaker 1: you need to listen to crim City. Join crime reporters
Speaker 1: Mark Murray and Josh Hamrahan as they uncover the details
Speaker 1: of crimes unfolding on Sydney's streets and share the stories
Speaker 1: that don't make the papers. The latest season of crim
Speaker 1: City is out now. Listen early and ad free on
Speaker 1: Crime x plus on Apple Podcasts today. So to disrupt,
Speaker 1: so you can use an example of where you've identified
Speaker 1: someone that the ideology has crossed the line to become
Speaker 1: radicalization in that you think they're going to do something.
Speaker 1: Counter Terrorism as distinct, well not distinct. We all try
Speaker 1: to prevent crime, but the consequences are devastating. In counter
Speaker 1: terrorism if you don't act before the actual crimes occurs.
Speaker 2: So the aim of proactive investigtion is to eliminate the
Speaker 2: threat before occurs. So what we do is we look
Speaker 2: at the indicators. We then, because of necessity, Western societies
Speaker 2: have changed the legislation so that we can move a
Speaker 2: lot earlier in criminal offenses under the terrorism banner. Then
Speaker 2: we come under traditional crimes. So once we've got so,
Speaker 2: the tests for us to get above or get over
Speaker 2: are a lot less. So the whole idea is to
Speaker 2: preempt the threat by arresting the person before they can
Speaker 2: commit their acts of their terrorist acts are acts of criminality.
Speaker 2: They can go into custody and then they can be
Speaker 2: subject to treatment. Now this is probably as cops we're
Speaker 2: not used to this, but we need to treat these people,
Speaker 2: you know, so that when they come out they are
Speaker 2: no longer a threat to us.
Speaker 1: And that's a really complex saying treat if they're in
Speaker 1: custody or police custody or the custodial sentence, when do
Speaker 1: you think the treatment needs to come in?
Speaker 2: Well, look, i'll define it there. There's counter radicalization, so
Speaker 2: we're stopping people becoming radicalized. So those that are adhering
Speaker 2: to extreme belief, extreme ideology. Try to interdict there to
Speaker 2: stop them becoming radicalized. That's where we lean on you know, religious.
Speaker 1: Leaders community quite often you hear them come out.
Speaker 2: As psychologists support work. You know, New South Wales has programs,
Speaker 2: the Commonwealth has programs, each jurisdiction, Australia has programs and
Speaker 2: they've got programs in wa under this instance where they
Speaker 2: try to again take them away from that path and
Speaker 2: stop them going down that path of radicalization. Once a
Speaker 2: person has been radicalized, then by definition they have to
Speaker 2: be deradicalized so that their beliefs or their intentions are
Speaker 2: no longer to commit acts of violence against the community.
Speaker 2: So there are two different processes. Now, counter will start
Speaker 2: clearly before a person gets incarcerated. If a person has
Speaker 2: been radicalized, that means they're a direct threat, not storty
Speaker 2: times they will be in custody. Now, when they're in custody,
Speaker 2: that gives us their captive audience and that's I think
Speaker 2: where we can do a lot more work in that space,
Speaker 2: and I like to think government can invest more correct
Speaker 2: your services. You know, the community of Yeas on multiculturalism
Speaker 2: in New South Wales, they can all act and add
Speaker 2: to that process.
Speaker 1: It makes sense to try and deal with the situation
Speaker 1: that way because if they finish their sentence and come
Speaker 1: out and still have the same the same beliefs.
Speaker 2: To take that further, the biggest risks in globally from
Speaker 2: terrorists now is a thing court during threat. Now, during
Speaker 2: threat are people that have come to the tension of
Speaker 2: authorities in a terrorism context, but there've been assessed not
Speaker 2: to constitute a threat at that time and therefore have
Speaker 2: been cut loose for one of the better word that
Speaker 2: cohorted people are the ones creating the biggest threat to
Speaker 2: society globally. To counter that, both Commonwealth and New South
Speaker 2: Wales have brought into process new legislation could high risk
Speaker 2: terrorism offenders legislation which is post sentenced detention and compliance regimes.
Speaker 2: So we've invested the state government and the Comic government
Speaker 2: invested in developing teams that manage those people that are
Speaker 2: in custody for terrorism offenses or become radicalized in prison,
Speaker 2: that pose an unacceptable risk to society on their release.
Speaker 2: We've got teams now that just look at that and
Speaker 2: focus on that to try and mitigate that risk factor
Speaker 2: that we've.
Speaker 1: Got and a lot of resourcing goes into this, Dave too,
Speaker 1: do you think we've come to terms of this as
Speaker 1: the way that we've got to approach crime? Look at
Speaker 1: are the resources that we apply it to this because
Speaker 1: it's not an easy, easy fix to change people's views.
Speaker 2: And so if practically as detectives, we've got detectives working
Speaker 2: in the post sentenced detention world that are investigating threat
Speaker 2: and risk, not criminal offenses. So this is a dynamic change.
Speaker 2: So we're changing the way criminal investigators work and analysts work.
Speaker 2: So it's you know, it takes a lot of effort
Speaker 2: to change how you do business. Your skills are the same,
Speaker 2: but your focus is different.
Speaker 1: And I watched from the sidelines with you guys, but
Speaker 1: like speaking to Peter Moroney and catching up with you,
Speaker 1: it was a learning curve the whole way through when
Speaker 1: you guys first started.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look, it's got described me as a throw the plane,
Speaker 2: throw the bits of a plane over the cliff and
Speaker 2: build it on the way down. Wh's exactly what happened. Yeh,
Speaker 2: We're giving jobs and we don't know what we're doing,
Speaker 2: and we're finding it. We're catching it on the fly,
Speaker 2: so that the book. So all those lessons is what
Speaker 2: was contained in the book, and that's why I didn't
Speaker 2: want to lose that. They were hard one lessons.
Speaker 1: Because I know speaking to speaking to the guys and
Speaker 1: girls that went across the count of terrorism, some people
Speaker 1: got it. Some people said we're not doing anything because
Speaker 1: they were looking at it more as a traditional form
Speaker 1: of policing.
Speaker 2: So you say to someone Billy Smith over, there is
Speaker 2: a terrorist threat investigated. Some people take it, take like
Speaker 2: doctor water, Others go where do I start. It's just
Speaker 2: a skill set. Some people are really good at it
Speaker 2: and excel. Others don't.
Speaker 1: And what's the way I think there's a pressure to it, Dave,
Speaker 1: And I've said this to people that work in counter terrorism.
Speaker 1: The work that we do is reactive. Yes, it's bad,
Speaker 1: but the easiest on call I had was when someone
Speaker 1: had been murdered. I'm saying that with the greatest respect
Speaker 1: to the victims. It's easy to then, okay, work back
Speaker 1: from the crime. The difficult ones where you get information.
Speaker 1: You get called at two o'clock in the morning and
Speaker 1: you might be looking at some gangsters or whatever. They
Speaker 1: might do a hit on this person. They might do
Speaker 1: a hit on that person. Then you've got all the
Speaker 1: pressure of what do I do? If I do nothing
Speaker 1: and someone gets killed, am I going to be in
Speaker 1: the shit? And it's not just am I going to
Speaker 1: be in the shit? Someone's going to lose their life.
Speaker 1: But the pressure they were the hard calls you get
Speaker 1: at two o'clock in the morning counter terrorism, that pretty
Speaker 1: much sums up all the type of calls that you.
Speaker 2: So the unique aspect of CT work is that there's
Speaker 2: a reverse onus of responsibility upon the police and authorities.
Speaker 2: If it goes bad, we blame our authorities for not
Speaker 2: stopping it. We look for examples, we'll do a review,
Speaker 2: we'll do an inquest, and we will look at my
Speaker 2: niche details after where the authorities are failed to stop
Speaker 2: the attack. We don't see that to such a degree
Speaker 2: in other crime types. So if you miss, you don't
Speaker 2: get the speeding driver and he crashes into a tree
Speaker 2: and kills himself, there's no inquest as to why the
Speaker 2: police didn't stop.
Speaker 1: Well, outside homicide and a few arson matters, no investigation
Speaker 1: got reviewed. If you didn't get results, that's right, But
Speaker 1: we've countered terrorism. You're quite right. If there's a terrorist
Speaker 1: act that happened, Everyone's going to be turning over their shoulder,
Speaker 1: well did you do this, did you do that?
Speaker 2: And what didn't you do? And also to put it
Speaker 2: in context, it's well and good to look at these
Speaker 2: in isolation, but there's not one time in my career
Speaker 2: in CT that I didn't have five to ten to
Speaker 2: twenty jobs running concurrently that five to ten to twenty
Speaker 2: separate threats running around. So they're constantly there. So you
Speaker 2: never sleep, you never you never switch off. You're looking
Speaker 2: for triggers all the time, you know. So what we
Speaker 2: say terrorists think globally but act locally. Now what that
Speaker 2: means is that global events will impact locally. So we're
Speaker 2: constantly perusing international papers. What's happening in different parts of
Speaker 2: the world. Is that going to trigger a response here
Speaker 2: from the people looking at So it's a constant checking
Speaker 2: for triggers, monitoring people. You constantly collect, We collect information,
Speaker 2: and your head explodes with the amount of information colleck
Speaker 2: to try and make sense and to see the week
Speaker 2: from the shaft.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, well, and it's got to be you've got
Speaker 1: to have a global view of things too, because something
Speaker 1: that can happen on the other side of the world
Speaker 1: might impact on here well.
Speaker 2: So if we look at that, we look at currently
Speaker 2: you know, seventh of October we had a Hamas attack
Speaker 2: in Israel. Then consequently we then get an armed conflict
Speaker 2: within Gaza. Now that those interactions in the Middle East
Speaker 2: have created a great deal of unrest and tension within
Speaker 2: Australian society, it's not in Australian society. We've just seen
Speaker 2: recently a number of the universities in the US US
Speaker 2: where you know, you know, they've had confrontations with law
Speaker 2: enforcement and protests. Here we see a lot of pro Palestinian,
Speaker 2: pro Israel counter demonstrations. Now in the light of that,
Speaker 2: we've had Bondai, we've had Wakely. So the one would
Speaker 2: suggest that there is an increase in tensions in relation
Speaker 2: to religious ideology and that has been reflected domestically in Australia.
Speaker 2: So that's where globally is impacting.
Speaker 1: Like it's linked, isn't it definitely? Okay? Risk versus threat?
Speaker 1: How do you break that down in your terms? Like
Speaker 1: there's a risk is the threat? So I'll use the scenario.
Speaker 1: I'm the primary on core officer state crime, which is
Speaker 1: always a great job. You never got much slip, just
Speaker 1: the phone ringing constantly, but we get a call. Okay,
Speaker 1: what's the information. Someone's just come in and said, this
Speaker 1: young kid's talking about doing something because he doesn't believe
Speaker 1: in what's happening in Palestine going on like that. I
Speaker 1: refer it to you, guys, where do you take it?
Speaker 2: So we operate in the world of threat. Now. I
Speaker 2: don't know about you, but whenever we had a job,
Speaker 2: a new boss would come in and he'd say, give
Speaker 2: me a risk assessment, and then I'd say, a risk
Speaker 2: assessment on what there is a thousand risks involved in
Speaker 2: just that scenario. Corporation risk, risk to life rested in
Speaker 2: an individual risk to officer safety. So we have to
Speaker 2: identify how that works. So we operated on threat. Now,
Speaker 2: threat is aligned to human nature. Risk is an economic concept,
Speaker 2: so we don't We would normally associate risk of what
Speaker 2: we call corporate safety. So if I want to look
Speaker 2: after the good reputation and brand of the new South
Speaker 2: palest Police or the JCT or you know, Gary Jubilan Enterprises,
Speaker 2: I would apply the concepts of risk because that's what
Speaker 2: that's for. If I'm worrying about public safety and safety
Speaker 2: of individuals, I apply the concept of threat, So you
Speaker 2: give me that information. So we're now using that. Now
Speaker 2: one of the greatest unsung heroes in ct Intel analysts,
Speaker 2: they will get that and they will work it up
Speaker 2: and give us a picture and will profiles and we
Speaker 2: start then we start looking at what their indicators are
Speaker 2: and where they.
Speaker 1: Go and the type of things that you'd be looking
Speaker 1: at if we're talking the scenario I through out there
Speaker 1: is who is that person associated with? What's his background,
Speaker 1: any previous history, any threats.
Speaker 2: So we look at and depending what the ideology so
Speaker 2: do let's still a right wing ideology because that's so
Speaker 2: who are they associating with, what's their online traffic? Like,
Speaker 2: where do they go, what do they do? You know,
Speaker 2: have have they come into contact with authorities before? It's
Speaker 2: amazing when they've come into contact authorities before. They will
Speaker 2: say real silly things that leak their intentions through, you know,
Speaker 2: like you know, Adolf Hitler's a great man, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Those things. Now good police and you know, good police
Speaker 2: are worth there's you know, they're waiting black spiders record
Speaker 2: that and you see that, and that is a real
Speaker 2: enriched picture. It wasn't just a vehicle stop. There's a
Speaker 2: vehicle stop with intentions there. Look, I remember I go
Speaker 2: back to case. There was a guy isis can't that
Speaker 2: stabbed a fellow in Mintouh. And he was a classic
Speaker 2: case where he had cognitive opening. His mother he was
Speaker 2: his mother suffered cancer and died and he saw solace
Speaker 2: in his belief and then started to adopt an extreme
Speaker 2: interpretation of that belief. Now, some of his indicators were
Speaker 2: is that he would walk past shops and if he
Speaker 2: saw women scantily dressed in an advertising situation, uh, he
Speaker 2: would put covers up to cover the modesty of the woman.
Speaker 2: He would then walk around the street and start expousing
Speaker 2: his ideology to the neighbors. Now, all that got slipped.
Speaker 2: No one saw that. It wasn't until after that those
Speaker 2: indicators came out and we could have made a better picture.
Speaker 1: Okay, And they're the little things that can slip through
Speaker 1: if you don't have people switched on to what's occurring.
Speaker 1: We might take a break. Now, there is so much
Speaker 1: to dissect in the world of count the terrorism, and
Speaker 1: we'll do that when we get back. But you're giving
Speaker 1: this a really interesting insight into a world that it
Speaker 1: affects us. All doesn't. We can't ignore it.
Speaker 2: So the interesting part we identified terrorism in the first
Speaker 2: terrorist plot in Australia was in eighteen hundred, it's been
Speaker 2: with us ever since.
Speaker 1: What was that in relation to them?
Speaker 2: So Australia's first terrorists were religiously motivated. They were a minority.
Speaker 2: The predominant religion in Australia at the time was Protestant
Speaker 2: and the minority was a group of con of Catholic
Speaker 2: Irish descent, and they were referred to as radical radical
Speaker 2: Catholic convicts. Now, in September nineteen, eighteen hundred, Governor Hunter
Speaker 2: received human information that the Catholic convicts, through instruction from
Speaker 2: their religious leaders, we're going to attack the colony, stealership
Speaker 2: and head back to head home. So they interdicted and
Speaker 2: arrested the Irish Catholic convicts and interestingly appointed the investigation
Speaker 2: to a person called Reverend Samuel Marsden. Now Samuel Marsin
Speaker 2: is a pivotal person in the establishment of Australia, but
Speaker 2: in essence he was Australia's first counter terrorism investigator. Governor
Speaker 2: Hunter involved him to actually connect the first terrorism investigation,
Speaker 2: which that resulted in the Catholic priest being arrested and
Speaker 2: sent to Norfolk Island and a number of the other
Speaker 2: convicts are also being sent to Northfolk Island and Van
Speaker 2: Demon's Land in retribution for their intended actor. Do you
Speaker 2: think they do radical Yeah, that only really works, but yeah,
Speaker 2: so it's interesting, so that there's a history to it.
Speaker 2: If we accept that and we treat terrorism as a crime,
Speaker 2: crime is part of every aspect of our life. Terrorism
Speaker 2: is a crime. It's a part of every aspect of
Speaker 2: our life.
Speaker 1: Okay, well there you get. That's from doctor Dave Gore
Speaker 1: and that we'll do more of it when we get
Speaker 1: back to part two. Excellent Cheers,