Speaker 1: The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Speaker 1: Detective see aside of life the average person is 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: Today I had a conversation with Greg Gouhl, who is
Speaker 1: a highly respected defense solicitor. They're the natural enemies of detectives,
Speaker 1: so sitting down having a conversation with one was always
Speaker 1: going to be a bit awkward. We learned from today's
Speaker 1: conversation what drove our guests to defend the q's persons
Speaker 1: with the same vigor that I pursued suspects. I found
Speaker 1: out who Greg Gould is as a person. We talked
Speaker 1: about what drives him, his thoughts on police, the legal system,
Speaker 1: and some of his high profile and interesting cases. He's
Speaker 1: been defending people in the courts for over forty years.
Speaker 1: This is our chat. Okay, Greg, Well, I know that
Speaker 1: you defend your clients with the same passion that I
Speaker 1: used to pursue the suspects as a defense solicitor. Where
Speaker 1: did that passion come from?
Speaker 2: Well, it just sort of developed, I would think, Gary,
Speaker 2: I have my dad told me that my grandmother had
Speaker 2: some interest in law or legal studies in South Australia
Speaker 2: where she came from originally. And I sort of drifted
Speaker 2: through high school and scored a Commonwealth scholarship which allowed
Speaker 2: me to do arts lawrits in the university, and I didn't.
Speaker 2: It wasn't much good at science, so that was all
Speaker 2: that was left, and I ended up in law and
Speaker 2: drifted into criminal law. And I guess coming from a
Speaker 2: working class background and coming from a time when respect
Speaker 2: for each other was pretty important, it was drieled into
Speaker 2: you at school and at home, you get a feel
Speaker 2: for wanting to help.
Speaker 1: People, Okay, And that's I speak to the defense listens
Speaker 1: that I do speak to that. Quite often they say
Speaker 1: about that that everyone's entitle to a defense, which we
Speaker 1: fully understand, but there does seem to be a passion
Speaker 1: and to do it. Do it as long as you do.
Speaker 1: I think you're in your fifth decade now.
Speaker 2: I am.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a lot you would have. You would have
Speaker 1: seen some changes in that time.
Speaker 2: I certainly have, and some for the better and some
Speaker 2: you wonder.
Speaker 1: Why, Yeah, when you representing someone and you're playing at
Speaker 1: high stakes and went on the major cases, like depending
Speaker 1: on how you do your job potentially could dictate whether
Speaker 1: someone spends a large portion of their life behind bars.
Speaker 1: Do you feel that sense of responsibility when you take
Speaker 1: on a case.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and more so since the standard non parole periods
Speaker 2: which apply to serious criminal activity were introduced. That puts
Speaker 2: an extremely high large burden on criminal or practitioners to
Speaker 2: make sure that their clients understand that if they go
Speaker 2: to trial and lose, the penalty that they're going to
Speaker 2: face is going to be substantially more than if they
Speaker 2: decide to plead guilty.
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you this because I've spent my
Speaker 1: career in the witness box under cross examination, sitting there
Speaker 1: and getting carved up, sometimes getting victories other times, and
Speaker 1: most recent times, I've been sitting in there as the accused,
Speaker 1: which is even worse, and sitting in there as the informant.
Speaker 1: Have you ever been in the witness box?
Speaker 2: I spent three days in the witness box at the
Speaker 2: Police Royal Commission, being cross examined about aspects of the
Speaker 2: what you might call the King's Cross Underbelly saga, because
Speaker 2: I acted for quite a few of the participants in
Speaker 2: the Underbelly from the top Colorful Identities, the Colorful Sydney
Speaker 2: Identities and I and I was being asked about things
Speaker 2: that as the responsible partner for the legal the legal
Speaker 2: facilities that we provided, I wasn't actually the solicitor on
Speaker 2: the ground doing a lot of the work. It was
Speaker 2: a couple of my employees. So but I had to
Speaker 2: carry the can to the Crime Commission and it was
Speaker 2: I found it nerve wracking. I found it. I was
Speaker 2: angered by it and some of the inferences that were
Speaker 2: being drawn. I've always tried to be above board with
Speaker 2: the way I carry out my practice, and I was
Speaker 2: a bit disappointed and.
Speaker 1: In the witness box, in that environment in the Royal Commission.
Speaker 1: That's increase in the pressure. There's a lot more pressure
Speaker 1: than what I was talking about in the witness box
Speaker 1: of the criminal trial. Moving on past the traumas that
Speaker 1: I suffered in the witness box by people from your profession.
Speaker 1: And might I say, and i'd give this advice to
Speaker 1: young detectives. I'd see some police come out of the
Speaker 1: witness box absolutely shocked that they've been criticized because they
Speaker 1: haven't done anything wrong. And I was pain to explain,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter if you've done everything right, there's still
Speaker 1: going to be criticism. This is a way of an
Speaker 1: adversarial system. They're going to try to pull apart what
Speaker 1: you've done and the decisions you've made and the things
Speaker 1: that you've seen and said.
Speaker 2: That's true, Gary, but it's probably it's less so now.
Speaker 2: As I was saying earlier about the advances in forensic technology,
Speaker 2: the need for police officers to get into the witness
Speaker 2: box has become less than it was in the past.
Speaker 2: Police officers tend to gather evidence more than being involved
Speaker 2: in the case. They go out as investigators, they get
Speaker 2: the evidence, or they've already got the evidence because it's
Speaker 2: transcribed recording transcriptions of recordings or they are recordings, they've
Speaker 2: got photographic evidence, which tends to make the job easier
Speaker 2: for the prosecution in terms of its presentation and coming
Speaker 2: to the defense loves and saying well, try and get
Speaker 2: over this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I see what you're saying. And that probably answers
Speaker 1: why the police don't had that experience, because I remember
Speaker 1: my early days in playing clothes. I was in the
Speaker 1: witness box virtually every week there'd be some matter that
Speaker 1: you're called to give evidence on, and of course this
Speaker 1: is going way back, but when I came in the
Speaker 1: electronic recording of interviews, that took a lot of pressure
Speaker 1: out of instead of the type written Q and as.
Speaker 2: While I was around when there were the verbals, the
Speaker 2: police verbals as they were called.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 2: Yeah, rasps are are advantageous and can be to both
Speaker 2: sides if they use properly. But normally I would tell
Speaker 2: my clients never participate in an ARRASP because my advice
Speaker 2: to them is normally in a police station, so it's
Speaker 2: in their house. They'rey asking the questions, and you've been
Speaker 2: plucked and are in a state of shock, so the
Speaker 2: worst time to try and gather your thoughts and answer questions.
Speaker 1: Well, that comes as a surprise. I've never heard a
Speaker 1: defenseless as say no, don't participate in an interview. I've
Speaker 1: been at bit cynical. There, tell me about from your
Speaker 1: point of view, if someone comes to you, someone gets
Speaker 1: themselves in the trouble, or someone's been charged with a
Speaker 1: by police, what's the process? So they get in contact
Speaker 1: with you and say, hey, Greg, I want you to
Speaker 1: represent me. I've been charged with this offense. Where do
Speaker 1: you start from there? Talk us through the process.
Speaker 2: I started off straight away by looking at what the
Speaker 2: charges are and then going what is set out in
Speaker 2: the fact sheet? That's the fact sheet is a version
Speaker 2: of events that the officer in charge has formulated based
Speaker 2: on the evidence they've got at that particular time. Now,
Speaker 2: that's going to tell me in a reasonably accurate way
Speaker 2: the strength of the case and whether there's any holes
Speaker 2: in it that are going to assist in me stopping
Speaker 2: the police from eventually proving their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: Okay, you got the brief of evidence, You have a
Speaker 1: conference with the client, I would imagine, yep, And what
Speaker 1: sort of advice or what without giving a specific example,
Speaker 1: what sort of advice general advice are you providing to
Speaker 1: the client.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm telling the client, on the basis of what
Speaker 2: i'm reading now, what your prospects are likely to be.
Speaker 2: And unless you can explain what is said about your behavior,
Speaker 2: which is criminal, that's going to change my mind or
Speaker 2: provide us with a defense, then I'm going to be saying, well,
Speaker 2: you're going to have to consider your position, and these
Speaker 2: are your options. You complete guilty and get a lot
Speaker 2: of sentence. We can ask for particulars, we can take
Speaker 2: various make various applications in the court to get more information.
Speaker 2: But generally, as an experienced criminal lawyer, you read the facts,
Speaker 2: You've got a pretty good idea of which way you're heading.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, you've got a brief. Let's use an example.
Speaker 1: I've charged someone with murder. It's a brief. I consider
Speaker 1: it the strong brief murder. We're likely to be going
Speaker 1: through the trial without giving the way you trade secrets.
Speaker 1: What do you go through looking at the brief? Do
Speaker 1: you look at failings in that we've legislation, that we've
Speaker 1: breached something, or there's a hole in this particular proof
Speaker 1: of the offense. What type of things are you looking
Speaker 1: for when you're dissecting the brief evidence.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, you look at what the factual
Speaker 2: circumstances are and whether the facts are based upon inferences.
Speaker 2: That's connecting the dots on the basis of what you
Speaker 2: expected to have happened or what the police know happened. Now,
Speaker 2: that's firstly the thing. You look at what's the factual
Speaker 2: scenario here and can that be established without speculation. The
Speaker 2: second thing is you then go to the technical aspects
Speaker 2: of the case in terms of what then can be
Speaker 2: proved in a court of law, because what's put in
Speaker 2: a fact sheet, we're in a statement is not necessarily
Speaker 2: compliant with the rules of evidence.
Speaker 1: So that's okay. And then you've got the brief. You
Speaker 1: going to court, do you get access to witnesses or
Speaker 1: you speak to your client and make a decision whether
Speaker 1: they're going to get in the witness box or not.
Speaker 2: How do you.
Speaker 1: Approach a strategy for prepping for a trial? I'm talking
Speaker 1: general sense here, so each trial, I would imagine that
Speaker 1: have its own issues. How do you prepare for a trial?
Speaker 2: Well, unlike other states in Australia who still have local
Speaker 2: court proceedings where you can examine witnesses, New South Wales
Speaker 2: is to a large extent done away with that system,
Speaker 2: the committal system. It was as a result of a
Speaker 2: legend case called the Greek Conspiracy which went for months
Speaker 2: and months and months as a committal proceeding down at
Speaker 2: Central Local Court and clogged up the whole local court
Speaker 2: system for a long time, or the Court of Petty
Speaker 2: Sessions as it was then called. But ultimately there are
Speaker 2: there are ways of asking for further material, asking for particulars.
Speaker 2: There's a procedure called section eighty two of the Criminal
Speaker 2: PROCEDURECT which allows us to ask for witnesses. But you're
Speaker 2: not going to get a witness or a victim of
Speaker 2: a sexual assault because it's too traumatic. You're not going
Speaker 2: to get a victim of a serious violent offense. So
Speaker 2: you're really really left with looking at what's available through
Speaker 2: the evidence, calculating what, as I was saying before, what
Speaker 2: is based upon inference or speculation, and what can be
Speaker 2: actually proved. You then have to think about what your
Speaker 2: client's going to say and you have to make an
Speaker 2: assessment of their ability to withstand the rigors of the
Speaker 2: witness box. Now you've already spoken Gary about how tough
Speaker 2: it is, and I know from personal experience it can
Speaker 2: be tough and the average person is simply not equipped
Speaker 2: generally to handle that type of pressure. And so it's
Speaker 2: very rarely that you'd called you call your client in
Speaker 2: a trial. In fact, as an ould saying amongst criminal
Speaker 2: is that the best your case I'll ever be is
Speaker 2: at the end of the crown case. It's all downhill
Speaker 2: from there.
Speaker 1: And explaining that, I think people have a sense of
Speaker 1: it that the crown case, that's the prosecution present their
Speaker 1: case and then they rest their case. They've established If
Speaker 1: they reach that benchmark and they've established the primer facy,
Speaker 1: then it's a matter of the defense coming yes.
Speaker 2: And to understand why you wouldn't call your client is
Speaker 2: because there are two levels of proof in a criminal trial,
Speaker 2: and that is the evidence being accepted by the judge,
Speaker 2: not the jury at that stage, but by the judge
Speaker 2: to what we call a primer facy level, or a
Speaker 2: first level, which requires there to be evidence of the
Speaker 2: commission of the crime, but not necessarily proof beyond reasonable
Speaker 2: doubt of the crime. And that step from knowing that
Speaker 2: someone may have committed the crime and then elevating that
Speaker 2: to proof beyond reasonable doubt and that means that there's
Speaker 2: no other explanation that's really consistent with innocence that had
Speaker 2: explained that conduct being available. Now at the end of
Speaker 2: the Crown case, you might be saying, well, I've punched
Speaker 2: enough holes in this case for the jury to have
Speaker 2: some doubts. I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, no, I've seen it, seen it happen before.
Speaker 1: We talk about some of your high profile cases and
Speaker 1: some of the characters you've met, and the the extraordinary
Speaker 1: world that you've seen in the over forty years practicing
Speaker 1: criminal law in Sydney, the lovely queen Streets of Sydney.
Speaker 1: Why did you get into law? What were first of
Speaker 1: all your background, where'd you grow up and what inspired
Speaker 1: you to become a lawyer?
Speaker 2: Born in born in Couldji by the second son of
Speaker 2: two avid rabbit o supporters. They've gled red and green.
Speaker 2: Mum and dad ended up a rooster supporters somehow much
Speaker 2: of their chagrin.
Speaker 1: He would have been a shame of you.
Speaker 2: And so yeah, grew up in the Southern Shire, I
Speaker 2: delic place for me to grow up, word around on
Speaker 2: three sides, and went to a local Christian Brothers school,
Speaker 2: did well at school, surprised evan myself in that regard,
Speaker 2: and ended up at Sydney University doing arts law major
Speaker 2: it in politics. Realized that's the last place I'd ever
Speaker 2: want to be and drifted into law. Got myself a
Speaker 2: job with a commercial firm as an article, one of
Speaker 2: the last article clerks, and within two years I was out.
Speaker 2: I hung up my own shingle, and just for reasons
Speaker 2: that were driven by where could I get work? You
Speaker 2: ended up in criminal law.
Speaker 1: Okay, So it wasn't the driving passion from the day
Speaker 1: you went to kindergarten and you were accused of something
Speaker 1: and you were going to defend people for the rest
Speaker 1: of your life. It was just something that you fell into.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just something that I fell into.
Speaker 1: But your your reputation is that your passion and the
Speaker 1: way that you go about your work, and you have
Speaker 1: a good reputation. I say that not begrudgingly. It's I
Speaker 1: think from a detective point of view, when I came
Speaker 1: up against a good defend team, it would make me
Speaker 1: raise my standard. So it's sort of it helps in
Speaker 1: the way that you present your case. But what made
Speaker 1: you follow the path of a defense lawyer.
Speaker 2: Well, I've never prosecuted anyone. I can say that you
Speaker 2: should try. It's great, but I don't know. I think
Speaker 2: it was just, you know, I'm a bit of a
Speaker 2: people person. I like to help people. I like to
Speaker 2: see people who are entitled to representation get a job
Speaker 2: done properly for them. And some people that say, oh,
Speaker 2: I wasn't happy with your work, and a lot of
Speaker 2: others would say I did a good job, and that
Speaker 2: really pleases me, and it upsets me that someone mightn't
Speaker 2: have thought they got the best job done for them
Speaker 2: because as a lawyer, as a criminal lawyer, as a professional,
Speaker 2: that's what I strive to do and make a difference
Speaker 2: in a person's life.
Speaker 1: Is there a point in your career when you started
Speaker 1: out that you got someone off a serious crime, or
Speaker 1: off a crime that you believed that they're innocent. You
Speaker 1: got them off and you went home that night, or
Speaker 1: you felt, Okay, this is I'm achieving some good.
Speaker 2: I couldn't name the cases, Gary, but there have been
Speaker 2: cases where that's been the case, and I've felt really,
Speaker 2: really pleased that the system worked for that person. I've
Speaker 2: looked at systems in other parts of the world. I
Speaker 2: haven't appeared in course elsewhere, only in Australia, and I
Speaker 2: think we're reasonably lucky that in terms of the ability
Speaker 2: of a system to provide fairness, this one does its best.
Speaker 1: Okay. So that's interesting because I don't think it's infallible
Speaker 1: the system. I think there's always room for improvement. I'd
Speaker 1: like to talk talk to you about that later on,
Speaker 1: but I got a sense and going through a police
Speaker 1: career where I was prosecuting people for a long time
Speaker 1: and then been on the other side of the prosecution
Speaker 1: as the accused. It's quite confronting. And I always had
Speaker 1: an understanding that you had the balance. It couldn't be
Speaker 1: favored all for the defense or all for the prosecution,
Speaker 1: but seeing it from having the full resources of the
Speaker 1: state coming after you, and I was probably best set
Speaker 1: up as anyone could be to defend myself in that
Speaker 1: I understood the system and had the experience. But it
Speaker 1: was intimidating.
Speaker 2: Well, that's because it's an adversarial system. At the end
Speaker 2: of the day. I regard going into a courtroom like
Speaker 2: going onto a sporting pitch. It's no hols barred within
Speaker 2: the rules of the game. Once you're in the courtroom.
Speaker 2: You've got to play according to the rules. But having
Speaker 2: done that, you walk outside and you'll leave it there.
Speaker 2: But it's not for the fainthearted, and you've got to
Speaker 2: expect that you're not going to win every game it is.
Speaker 1: It's and I think people need to under stand that.
Speaker 1: And I don't know of anyone that's been exposed to court,
Speaker 1: whether as a victim of crime or someone that's been
Speaker 1: convicted of a crime, that it has an impact on you.
Speaker 2: I enjoy it, so it's my daily bread. So I
Speaker 2: enjoy it.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm glad you enjoy it because you've been doing
Speaker 1: it for a very long time. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you're considering changing careers. Oh this was a wrong career.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think you're going to be swopping places.
Speaker 1: Well, don't get cocky. I thought I was going to
Speaker 1: be a cop until the day I died. And look
Speaker 1: at me. Now. You've met some interesting characters and had
Speaker 1: some high profile cases, and I'll just rattle off a few.
Speaker 1: And if there's cases that you're not comfortable talking about,
Speaker 1: please tell me. If not, let me know of the
Speaker 1: one of the people that you defended, Alan Meridian. He
Speaker 1: was murdered in two thy and twenty three. I believe
Speaker 1: he was, and there was a lead up to the murder.
Speaker 1: Do you want to describe Allen and how you got
Speaker 1: to represent him in your dealings with him, what you
Speaker 1: thought of him and the circumstances leading up to his murder.
Speaker 2: I've been involved with Alan going back to the to
Speaker 2: a case that he was he was involved in which
Speaker 2: caused him to serve a considerable amount of time in prison.
Speaker 2: I ran into him afterwards and he asked me would
Speaker 2: he would he or could he use my services if
Speaker 2: that was needed? And whilst he didn't, he wasn't in
Speaker 2: any further trouble he was so far as charges were concerned.
Speaker 2: I don't. I'm not talking about what he may have
Speaker 2: been doing otherwise. But he came to see me, and
Speaker 2: he also got some advice from me another another lawyer
Speaker 2: who had had actually worked for me in relation to
Speaker 2: trying to get out of the country because of fear
Speaker 2: of being assassinated.
Speaker 1: And to put it in context, he was a high
Speaker 1: ranking member of the Commoneros.
Speaker 2: He wasn't a particularly high ranking member, but because of
Speaker 2: allegations about his involvement in other criminal activity, he had
Speaker 2: a profile within that.
Speaker 1: Okay, well established, yes, in that world. Okay, So there's
Speaker 1: fears that he was going to be killed. And I
Speaker 1: want to get your thoughts on some of the things
Speaker 1: with the we call it the gang wars. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if that's a media so that they beat up,
Speaker 1: but there's been a lot of public shootings and different
Speaker 1: things going on. So at that particular point in time,
Speaker 1: there was legitimate threats for his well being.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and he was aware of that, and he spoke
Speaker 2: to me about that, and it was a burden on him,
Speaker 2: it was a burden on his family, and it was
Speaker 2: something that I think, from what we know now could
Speaker 2: have or may have been avoided.
Speaker 1: And how with the benefit of hindsight, but how it
Speaker 1: could have been avoided.
Speaker 2: Well, perhaps the police could have stepped in earlier. My
Speaker 2: history of an experience of police officers, particularly in relation
Speaker 2: to listening device availability and monitoring devices. When they hear
Speaker 2: guns are involved, they jump in. If a shipment of
Speaker 2: drugs is coming in, they'll watch it, but if someone
Speaker 2: pulls out a gun, they're straight there. It didn't happen
Speaker 2: with Allan, and that's a real disappointment that I feel
Speaker 2: in relation to the way the police acted. Now, I
Speaker 2: may be offbeen, but as I understand it, they watched
Speaker 2: these people plan an assassination for a considerable period of time,
Speaker 2: and maybe they could have done something better.
Speaker 1: We see these people played out in the media, and
Speaker 1: the media love the picture of the gangs on the
Speaker 1: front page of the paper or the lead story in
Speaker 1: the news. What was this particular person?
Speaker 2: What was he like? So with me, he was a
Speaker 2: very very intense type of person. On the one hand,
Speaker 2: he could be he could be like your next door neighbor,
Speaker 2: nice block on the other but Alan was certainly not
Speaker 2: someone to be messed with. But in my dealings with him,
Speaker 2: I always found him to be straight up, honest and
Speaker 2: reliable in what he said and what he would do.
Speaker 1: Okay, you had in dealings with him, and correct me
Speaker 1: if I'm wrong, if I've got the information wrong. But
Speaker 1: handing in a lot of firearms.
Speaker 2: Too, I did. I've been asked sort of not to
Speaker 2: talk about that back in the day, But yeah, that
Speaker 2: was that that assisted in him in his case, and
Speaker 2: it's on public record that it did assist him.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay, we'll speaking taken away from allan, but you've
Speaker 1: had clients that have yeah to show that, Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: changing my ways of handed in firearms and the police
Speaker 1: are always keen to get firearms off the street. Have
Speaker 1: you the gun buyback scheme run by Greg gul.
Speaker 2: I had an interesting experience. And I'm not a particularly
Speaker 2: a particular lover of firearms. My dad out of twenty
Speaker 2: two back in the day when everyone had a twenty two.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately shoot bandicoots in the backyard. But I got called
Speaker 2: on to go down to Westpac Bank in Martin Place
Speaker 2: and go to the vault and pick up what turned
Speaker 2: out to be an old red Quantus bag with the
Speaker 2: white flying kangaroo. And anyone who would have traveled with
Speaker 2: the sixties or seventies in Quantus would have got one
Speaker 2: of these carry on bags, little sports bag. It was
Speaker 2: fall to the brim. It was absolutely chopper with ammunition
Speaker 2: and pistols. And I won't name the name of the
Speaker 2: person that gave it to, but I had. But I
Speaker 2: was glad. I was a bit of a bit of
Speaker 2: exercise at the time because I had to walk from
Speaker 2: Martin Place up to the police center all right and
Speaker 2: handed in and the sergeant looked at me when I
Speaker 2: handed in and he said, ask me, was I serious
Speaker 2: handing this in? And I said, well, absolutely, it's an amnesty.
Speaker 2: He said, well, are you going to tell me anything
Speaker 2: about it, mister Gilder, And I said, no names, no
Speaker 2: pact or serge. It's yours.
Speaker 1: I remember when the gun amnesty was in and people
Speaker 1: would walk into the police station and hand hand weapons in.
Speaker 1: Just over the county. You'd be there and they walk
Speaker 1: in with all sorts of rifles and different things. One
Speaker 1: of the things that was handed into you had resulted
Speaker 1: in the army being notified and called the outher Blue.
Speaker 2: I got an AR fifteen semi automatic Army Army Well
Speaker 2: I think they're automatic weapons, but it had had the
Speaker 2: grenade launcher attached to it, and I also got a
Speaker 2: grenade with it.
Speaker 1: Okay, they're always good there.
Speaker 2: And it was this. It was about I'm not talking.
Speaker 2: It was about five or six inches long, round around,
Speaker 2: with a sort of a sort of round knob on
Speaker 2: the end of it. And so I put it in
Speaker 2: the bird of my car and drove up to First
Speaker 2: of all, I rang the particular inspector who I was
Speaker 2: dealing with. I think it might have been Arthur Cat
Speaker 2: and Arthur had put a sergeant in touch with me
Speaker 2: to deal with these sorts of things, and I told
Speaker 2: them I was bringing in the rocket, the grenade, launch
Speaker 2: around the grenade. It was all sorts also, who we
Speaker 2: can't touch that, We've got to get the We've got
Speaker 2: to get the army involved. And ended up having a
Speaker 2: major from Ordinance come down and take control and I
Speaker 2: had the bloody thing bumping around in the boot of
Speaker 2: a car.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we'll send you to a lecture about firearm
Speaker 1: safety later. But it's amazing the type of things that
Speaker 1: you get get called up in doing the work that
Speaker 1: you're doing, and the time characters that you meet, and
Speaker 1: there is you know, there's a fascination with true crime,
Speaker 1: and I think people are particularly interested in the gangster types.
Speaker 1: And you know, we see these these public shootings and
Speaker 1: you think, how does this happen? You've had dealings with
Speaker 1: other clients. Wally Ahmed also ended up on the wrong
Speaker 1: end of a gun too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well I was. I acted for Wally and when
Speaker 2: he was involved in a shooting at Condall Park of
Speaker 2: Long Haired Danny. When I was involved in that, that
Speaker 2: was an interesting one. And then so i'd sort of
Speaker 2: acted for both sides, and I don't and I don't
Speaker 2: take sides. Yeah, when a client comes into me, provided
Speaker 2: there's no immediate conflict.
Speaker 1: Right, Okay, Yeah, And I've heard that because I worked
Speaker 1: Gang Squad for a while and I heard some solicitors
Speaker 1: are associated with this gang other because if there's a crossover,
Speaker 1: there can be a conflict of interest.
Speaker 2: I've been I've been warned off cases only once or twice,
Speaker 2: and I won't go into who it was and who
Speaker 2: it wasn't, but yeah, I was contacted and said, it's
Speaker 2: not politically correct for you to be acting on this case.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of people that are upset about what happened.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, there's a lot of threatened menace in
Speaker 1: a comment like that, if it's from a particular person.
Speaker 1: Have you ever felt concerned for your welfare or compromise
Speaker 1: with the type of people that you're dealing with, Like
Speaker 1: I would imagine, and I know the characters and we
Speaker 1: don't have to name particular ones, but someone would come
Speaker 1: in and get Greg, I want to you get me off,
Speaker 1: You get me off this. I don't care what it costs,
Speaker 1: what you've got to do, get me off. And they
Speaker 1: would really be going at you that way.
Speaker 2: I haven't really had that sort of intensity Gary. People
Speaker 2: come in and they say, you know it, can't you
Speaker 2: do better than that? I say, look on what I've
Speaker 2: got before me, on the case that the prosecution have
Speaker 2: assembled against you, your chances of winning this case are minimal. Now.
Speaker 2: If you want to waste your money and put yourself
Speaker 2: up for a much higher sentence, then I suggest that
Speaker 2: you reconsider. But if you want to get better news
Speaker 2: from some other lawyer who's prepared to tell you that,
Speaker 2: then off you go.
Speaker 1: I think that probably safeguarded you because my under or
Speaker 1: not my understanding, my dealings with people like that. If
Speaker 1: you're up front, then they know where you stand, where
Speaker 1: they stand, you're probably better off than making a false
Speaker 1: promise you I'll get you off and then you'll be
Speaker 1: looking living in fear for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2: I don't have any I don't have any sleepless nights
Speaker 2: because of that. The only time I was ever concerned
Speaker 2: was when to senior detectives came to see me back
Speaker 2: at a time when heroin was the drug of choice,
Speaker 2: and it was might have been the late nineties or something,
Speaker 2: and a senior sergeant from the Drug Task Force came
Speaker 2: to see me and told me that there was a
Speaker 2: contract on me. I was a bit disappointed to know
Speaker 2: that it's not as much as get you get paid
Speaker 2: these days. And it turned out that a rather roguish
Speaker 2: Chinese client of mind had asked me to send money
Speaker 2: overses back in the day when you could, and what
Speaker 2: he told me it was going for was totally different
Speaker 2: to what the reason it was going for, and then
Speaker 2: he'd pocketed it when it got to Hong Kong. Okay,
Speaker 2: So I got the blame.
Speaker 1: You got called up in that. Well, there is potential
Speaker 1: to get caught up in that as innos an agent
Speaker 1: doing your job. Were you Were you involved in the
Speaker 1: airport brawl the flow on effect from the airport brawl
Speaker 1: I think two thousand and nine Common Cerios and the
Speaker 1: Hell's Angels came to blows at Sydney Airport.
Speaker 2: I was. I was acting for one of the common
Speaker 2: Cero's and got to know quite a few of them
Speaker 2: and was always of the opinion that my particular client
Speaker 2: was innocent because he had no real involvement in it,
Speaker 2: but because of the arduous nature of leaving a jail
Speaker 2: at four thirty in the morning, traveling to the traveling
Speaker 2: to the court, being kept in cells underground, never seen
Speaker 2: the light of day, and getting back to the jail
Speaker 2: at eight o'clock is first arduous and difficult for anyone
Speaker 2: when you're morbidly obese and your health is a real issue. Michael,
Speaker 2: I didn't think you could take it and pleaded guilty
Speaker 2: to Manselord, totally against my advice.
Speaker 1: I was on call in gang squad when it happened,
Speaker 1: and there was a lot of trouble brewing within the
Speaker 1: gangs at the time. I'd been out all night. There'd
Speaker 1: been sixth places, six or seven places shot up that night. Men,
Speaker 1: I'm just driving home. And then the stuff that happened
Speaker 1: at the airport, I think there was. I was in
Speaker 1: gang squad at the time. I didn't work the case.
Speaker 1: I had some other cases. I think Steve French, detective inspector,
Speaker 1: was the officer in charge. But fifteen people were charged
Speaker 1: all up with a fray and different offenses.
Speaker 2: Is that and murder? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And murder? Mick Howie, Mick Howie, you again is another
Speaker 1: person that ended up at the wrong end of a gun?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's well. It seems to be that Sydney,
Speaker 2: particularly in the last twenty to thirty years, has changed
Speaker 2: in that respect. I think for those who know what
Speaker 2: the Raptor Squad does and what they deal with mostly,
Speaker 2: I think there's been a distinct change in the way
Speaker 2: criminals conduct themselves in their dealings with each other. The
Speaker 2: ego seems to be so important. Greed seems to be paramount,
Speaker 2: and you would think when you hear the statistics of
Speaker 2: the amount of drugs that are brought into Australia and
Speaker 2: what comes in, that there's enough for everybody. Not that
Speaker 2: that's right, Not that I'm saying that's right in the
Speaker 2: context of you know, how many midiings do you want?
Speaker 2: And do you have to go and kill someone because
Speaker 2: they got more than you.
Speaker 1: I'm watching it, watching it from the sidelines now, obviously,
Speaker 1: But in my early days in major crime, the shootings
Speaker 1: were quite often the person that disappear, you know, put
Speaker 1: on the boat and taken out the sea and never
Speaker 1: never seen again. That those were the type of murders
Speaker 1: that were investigating. Now it almost seems like there's a
Speaker 1: statement being made that the amount of people who are
Speaker 1: shot coming out of the gym or whatever in public
Speaker 1: places and letting shots fire. I don't you know, I
Speaker 1: don't want to compromise you talking about specific cases. But
Speaker 1: do you see because you've been involved in it and
Speaker 1: seeing it, do you see that nature of the crime
Speaker 1: crime change?
Speaker 2: Well? I do, and I see and what I see,
Speaker 2: Gary is that And you'd recognize this that twenty years
Speaker 2: ago these guys who were prepared to do this sort
Speaker 2: of thing were doing drive by. Now they're prepared to
Speaker 2: stake out a location, watch the intended victim, and then
Speaker 2: get out of cars, walk up to the victim and
Speaker 2: pump a magazine full of bullet to him from point
Speaker 2: blank range.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well you're right on that because the day or
Speaker 1: the night before the airport brawl. Yeah, as I said,
Speaker 1: seven houses have been shut up, and they were all
Speaker 1: drive by. They were the statements. But then it's escalated
Speaker 1: to the point, well, we're not going to do it
Speaker 1: just random drive by. We're going to wait till the
Speaker 1: target comes out and blow them my way.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, it's a violent, violent situation and an extreme situation.
Speaker 1: But you mentioned Raptor, and I talk about Raptor in
Speaker 1: that Raptor was formed on the back of what happened
Speaker 1: at the airport, because that was up until that point
Speaker 1: in time. You had the Father's Day massacre with the
Speaker 1: bikes where six or seven people were killed way back
Speaker 1: in the back in the eighties, but the violence wasn't public.
Speaker 1: And when that happened at the airport, you can't have
Speaker 1: Sydney Airport and someone caught up in the brawl and
Speaker 1: someone dying die in a brawl like that, them Raptor
Speaker 1: was formed and it was really the public had had enough,
Speaker 1: the politicians had had enough, and the police had to
Speaker 1: do something. Now, I know there's different views on Raptor,
Speaker 1: and I don't need you the comment, but I know
Speaker 1: the difference it made in that world at the time.
Speaker 2: Well, it's when I look back on my career, what
Speaker 2: I've seen is that when I first started it, there
Speaker 2: was a lot of There was a lot of robberies,
Speaker 2: armed robberies. Drugs weren't Drugs weren't as available. But with
Speaker 2: the Vietnam War particularly, and the influx of what we
Speaker 2: used to be buddhistics, which was cannabis coming in and
Speaker 2: heroin coming in. Cocaine had been around few years but
Speaker 2: was sort of running under the radar. And having been criminalized.
Speaker 2: Back in the early part of the last century, meth
Speaker 2: was really just speed, it was a it was a
Speaker 2: biky drug, which was we used to say it's poor
Speaker 2: man's cocaine. And most crime was under the radar. But
Speaker 2: the last twenty five thirty years have seen ego and
Speaker 2: I think sort of the look at me generation has
Speaker 2: influenced the way that crime has exploded. People want to
Speaker 2: be seen as criminals rather than criminals being under the radar,
Speaker 2: out of sight, making their money punting most of it
Speaker 2: away at the races of the tab But these days
Speaker 2: it's a look at me generation and the influences the
Speaker 2: criminal influencers want to.
Speaker 1: Be saying, I hadn't thought of it that way, but
Speaker 1: these almost generational because I know, as you know, some
Speaker 1: of the good crooks getting around, they slip under the radar.
Speaker 1: They don't stick their head up and you know they're
Speaker 1: doing major stuff, but they don't flaunt it. So yeah,
Speaker 1: it's interesting, but it's problematic. That makes it. Yeah, police
Speaker 1: have got to respond, like the underworld could operate and
Speaker 1: I think the word the underworld operate under the cover,
Speaker 1: but when they commit crime so publicly, well, the public
Speaker 1: are not going to accept that, and the politicians and
Speaker 1: the police and everyone's got to act on it. Let's
Speaker 1: let's just change change tacked a little bit. We'll get
Speaker 1: more into your stories, because you've got thousands of them
Speaker 1: on different people that you've come across. But we guilty, please,
Speaker 1: And we touched on it briefly about that. Have you
Speaker 1: when you're representing the client? Have you ever had a
Speaker 1: client that you've just gone, I can't represent you. Has
Speaker 1: it ever got to that point?
Speaker 2: I can't immediately think of anybody, But I've been lucky
Speaker 2: in that I haven't been or my practice hasn't been
Speaker 2: one of those practice that does a lot of historical sex.
Speaker 2: I've filed myself lucky in that respect, and not for
Speaker 2: my own personal experience, but from experience within my extended family.
Speaker 2: I've had experience that how sexual assaults, both in a
Speaker 2: family situation or an extended family situation, can have really
Speaker 2: lasting effects. And I actually have a lot of respect
Speaker 2: for those practitioners who do that work, because not only
Speaker 2: the practitioners, but the judges who are involved in it.
Speaker 2: It's a really difficult area of and I'm lucky enough
Speaker 2: not to have to deal with that when you've got
Speaker 2: juveniles and young people involved who've been sexually abused, it's
Speaker 2: terrific stuff.
Speaker 1: I've got a greater understanding any the work that I've done,
Speaker 1: more so since i've been from the police, speaking to
Speaker 1: a lot of people who have been victims of childhood
Speaker 1: sexual assault. And even the time that I spent in
Speaker 1: prison doing the Breaking Bad podcast series, the amount of
Speaker 1: people in prison that were victims of child sexual abuse
Speaker 1: was quite frightening. And when you sat down and heard
Speaker 1: their stories. And we're always looking at ways of reducing crime,
Speaker 1: society wants crime to be reduced, I think we've really
Speaker 1: got to look at the impact that child sexual abuse
Speaker 1: has because people carry that with them. And yeah, you've
Speaker 1: talked and I'm not saying any of the clients you've had,
Speaker 1: all the people that we've mentioned here on the podcast,
Speaker 1: but quite often these big, tough, taboo covered bikis that
Speaker 1: you don't mess with me, look about them. When you
Speaker 1: scratch the surface, go right back. It's because something that's
Speaker 1: happened in their childhood and they never want to be
Speaker 1: victims again.
Speaker 2: Oh well, we're all products of our upbringings. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: the influences that we've had in our lives, and hopefully
Speaker 2: for most of us they're all positive. But for those
Speaker 2: who haven't been that fortunate and haven't had the breaks
Speaker 2: with their parents, with their schooling, with the amount of
Speaker 2: money in the family, with food on the table, you know,
Speaker 2: life could be pretty tough, and you make choices that
Speaker 2: you might have otherwise made if you'd had the breaks
Speaker 2: that the bloke standing next to you had.
Speaker 1: I suppose you get to see that too. You would
Speaker 1: get closer to the people who have been in charge
Speaker 1: with criminal offenses than I would from the police point
Speaker 1: of view, So you get to understand, you get to
Speaker 1: meet the family more. You would understand that. That's your
Speaker 1: take on it. And you said before we sat down
Speaker 1: that you don't like to be judgmental on people unless
Speaker 1: you understand where what path they've walked.
Speaker 2: Now, that's been one of my one of my sort
Speaker 2: of mantras that I go, but you can't walk in
Speaker 2: another man's shoes, and there but for the grace of
Speaker 2: God go I. And coming from a person who doesn't
Speaker 2: believe in God, that was called well in Catholicism. You know,
Speaker 2: you've got to be very careful about how you judge
Speaker 2: a fellow man, and in relation to do a criminal practice,
Speaker 2: as I indicated to you Willia Gary, I think sentencing,
Speaker 2: particularly for judges, is an extremely difficult area of law.
Speaker 1: What do I cringe from a police point of view
Speaker 1: where I hear mandatory sentencing and I know that's a
Speaker 1: chest beating comment that's made where crime appears to be
Speaker 1: out of control and okay, we're going to get tough
Speaker 1: and mandatory sentencing. What horrifies me about that is that
Speaker 1: each case should be judged on its own individual merits.
Speaker 1: You can't just if you've committed that offense you should
Speaker 1: be there's non negotiable, You're going the way for ten years.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't sit with me. Well, what's your thoughts on.
Speaker 2: I agree with that, and there are very few crimes
Speaker 2: in our criminal calendar, in the Crimes Act that carry
Speaker 2: a mandatory sentence. Interestingly enough, is assault occasioning death as
Speaker 2: an aggravated offense carries a mandatory sentence of eight years.
Speaker 2: So that's like the coward punch and the history of
Speaker 2: all that is unfortunate because of what happened with that
Speaker 2: poor young Kelly Fellow and the reaction to that was
Speaker 2: was quite remarkable. But all political more than legal.
Speaker 1: We had Kelly's parents on the podcast and it's yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just such a sad situation, sad, sad story. And
Speaker 1: I like the fact that they've changed the narrative and
Speaker 1: calling it the coward punch. I think that's good changing
Speaker 1: changing that. But I'm also very much aware that you know,
Speaker 1: people walking down the street, you know someone could lash
Speaker 1: out and you know, horrible situation happens and they're mandatory
Speaker 1: eight years in eight years in prison or whatever did
Speaker 1: you say? Eight years mandatory eight years and the nature
Speaker 1: of the offense might warrant that, but the judge's hands
Speaker 1: are tied to send that person.
Speaker 2: That's true. That was all round. That was an absolutely
Speaker 2: disastrous piece of history that New South Wales has got
Speaker 2: to live with because it wasn't just the Kelly family
Speaker 2: that was decimated, which is tragic. About two thousand people
Speaker 2: lost their jobs in King's Cross and these people who
Speaker 2: have been working in that industry for a long time.
Speaker 2: And if anyone knows what it's like to go to
Speaker 2: work every day with the same people for years and
Speaker 2: years and years and all of a sudden you haven't
Speaker 2: got a job.
Speaker 1: The licensing law changes and yeah, all that that impacted
Speaker 1: on it.
Speaker 2: You're in no man's land. Your whole life goes down
Speaker 2: the drain. So it wasn't just that aspect of a
Speaker 2: person who deserved to be punished going to jail and
Speaker 2: a poor family being totally decimated. Thousands of people were
Speaker 2: impacted by all that.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, if it was cleaning up the streets of
Speaker 1: King's Cross. I was living at Piermouth at the time
Speaker 1: and all ended up down that end of town.
Speaker 2: Well the Star city got it all. Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1: I was living there there for a running the morning, dodging,
Speaker 1: dodging things.
Speaker 2: And the impact of that on Sydney as an after
Speaker 2: dark city we're still suffering from it. I think Christmins
Speaker 2: is trying to do an admirable job in bringing the
Speaker 2: life back to Sydney after dark.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I agree. I think we need to know
Speaker 1: we're a big world city and needs needs to have
Speaker 1: that after ours sensing for drug matters and again, and
Speaker 1: you learn a lot putting a foreign into a something,
Speaker 1: a different environment, foreign environment that you're not used to,
Speaker 1: but time spending in prison speaking to the inmates and
Speaker 1: the amount of prisoners there that started using drugs and
Speaker 1: then I'll buy a bigger bag and I'll give that
Speaker 1: to my mates, and then I'll buy a bigger and
Speaker 1: end up in jail and then doing very very long
Speaker 1: sentences in jail. And I'm thinking, well, I've been charging
Speaker 1: people with murder that aren't getting this, and I know
Speaker 1: the damage that drugs done, that can do. But I
Speaker 1: was shocked how many people are doing such lengthy senses
Speaker 1: for drug dealing.
Speaker 2: I'm pleased to say that in New South Wales our
Speaker 2: sentencing in relation to drugs is generally pretty humane. Don't
Speaker 2: go to Western Australia. They wack you out of the
Speaker 2: park over there unnecessarily. I think it's in humane the
Speaker 2: sentences they give over there. But yeah, there's a lot
Speaker 2: of people doing long sentences, and it's strange that because
Speaker 2: of the fact that you've got to demand, which is
Speaker 2: informed by people wanting to enjoy themselves or think they're
Speaker 2: going to enjoy themselves, but being totally ignorant of how
Speaker 2: that drug got to them, the journey from South America
Speaker 2: or from some meth lab or from the Netherlands of
Speaker 2: its pills and so forth. But generally it's quite it's
Speaker 2: quite difficult to understand the sentences that people do get
Speaker 2: when you're being asked to provide something to a group
Speaker 2: of people who want something. No one wants to be murdered,
Speaker 2: no one wants to be sexually assaulted, and that's done
Speaker 2: by a person who is is not is deserved a
Speaker 2: greater deal of punishment. So it's a really typical area
Speaker 2: of the law. But we're told in the in a
Speaker 2: society where I think there's got a lot to do
Speaker 2: with Queen Victoria and Catholics who said, if it makes
Speaker 2: you feel good, you must it must be bad, it
Speaker 2: must be a sin. I can't understand in the society
Speaker 2: in which we can we can do heart transplants and
Speaker 2: we can save people's lives on an operating table, and
Speaker 2: we can have drugs for this and drugs for that
Speaker 2: that they can't give drugs to keep people who want
Speaker 2: to use them as safe and allow them to have
Speaker 2: a different experience. I just don't understand it. And all this,
Speaker 2: all this industry that creates death and stryduction could be avoided.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, it's thinking outside the square and it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be without controversy. Taking what you're saying and putting it
Speaker 1: in practice, but.
Speaker 2: One provides a way Tiller retire.
Speaker 1: Bears your business, Greg, jeez, well done. But yeah, I've
Speaker 1: often looked at what we're doing and you hear the
Speaker 1: war on drugs and all the commentary that comes with it,
Speaker 1: and it hasn't really worked. Drugs are still on the street,
Speaker 1: and maybe we're going to change our thinking well transportation.
Speaker 2: When the first letter I didn't work either, I was
Speaker 2: still stuff and we're still going through the same process.
Speaker 2: What I'm really really pleased about, though, Gary, is the
Speaker 2: way that that jails are changing, and there we're starting
Speaker 2: that the people who run the jails are starting to
Speaker 2: turn out human beings rather than criminals, and that's something
Speaker 2: that we can be pleased with. I know a lot
Speaker 2: of people want revenge and they want to see people
Speaker 2: locked up forever because they've been individually affected by it.
Speaker 2: But we live in a state run society where the
Speaker 2: state determines punishment the state, and we don't sort of
Speaker 2: live in a tribal society where you go and get
Speaker 2: an eye for an eye and so forth. And it's
Speaker 2: pleasing from certainly a criminal lawyer's point of view, that
Speaker 2: the jails are starting to improve and people might look
Speaker 2: at the new Hunter section of the CESSNA and say,
Speaker 2: I look what these criminals are getting. They haven't got
Speaker 2: their freedom.
Speaker 1: We greg You've got. I concur one hundred percent with
Speaker 1: what you're talking about there. And Macquarie Correctional Center, which
Speaker 1: is on the same vein as Hunter, and what they're
Speaker 1: doing there and the way that they're treating prisoners. That
Speaker 1: was the whole premise of going in corrective services in
Speaker 1: by the men in the prison. They had a look
Speaker 1: at it and I can't champion it enough. What is
Speaker 1: happening in there, because the high recidivism rate that we have,
Speaker 1: we've got to try and break that. So Michael, and Yeah,
Speaker 1: someone that's known to you and someone that I've mentioned
Speaker 1: often here became a good friend before he passed away,
Speaker 1: Bernie Matthews, who did a lot of time in prison,
Speaker 1: a lot of time in the hard prisons in Grafton
Speaker 1: and Ktingle. He was the longest serving prisoner in Ktingle,
Speaker 1: the first supermax. And he said to me, you treat
Speaker 1: this like animals were going to come out like animals.
Speaker 1: And what I saw at Macquarie Correctional Center there was
Speaker 1: respect between the inmates and the corrective services stuff, and
Speaker 1: you know it's not always perfect, but there was definitely
Speaker 1: a different vibe in that prison, and the people I
Speaker 1: was talking to seemed a lot more prepared to come
Speaker 1: out into society and integrate back into society than other
Speaker 1: prisons that I've been in, where you feel the tension
Speaker 1: you walk in there. Everyone's bridged up and everyone's ready
Speaker 1: to go. And some of the prisoners said to me
Speaker 1: when I was in there, you put us in a
Speaker 1: jar when you open the cell doors, and the moment
Speaker 1: we walk out, we're looking for where the next bit
Speaker 1: of dangers coming from, and it's about survival, and then
Speaker 1: you open the door and put us back in the streets.
Speaker 1: We've still got that attitude. So if someone that insults
Speaker 1: me or someone does something that annoys me, my natural
Speaker 1: reaction is I'm going to react like I would in prison.
Speaker 1: And it makes sense when it's explained that way, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: It does, it doesn't. And that's built upon looking at
Speaker 2: people in terms of why they committed a cry and
Speaker 2: then going back to that sentencing aspect that we're talking
Speaker 2: about before, and crafting a sentence that's going to punish them.
Speaker 2: Because there are seven different aspects to sentencing which includes
Speaker 2: deterrents and acknowledgment and protection of the community and the
Speaker 2: punishment of the offender.
Speaker 1: Can you break that down? That just explain that because
Speaker 1: I don't think a lot of people we all make comments,
Speaker 1: so that person didn't get enough or that was a
Speaker 1: big sentence. What's the criteria when you're looking at that.
Speaker 2: There are seven criteria. Don't ask me to name them all,
Speaker 2: but there's and they each have equal value. First of all,
Speaker 2: person's got to be punished for what they've done. They've
Speaker 2: got to acknowledge what they've done. They've got to be
Speaker 2: put in a position where the community is safe. Other
Speaker 2: members of our society have got to be deterred from
Speaker 2: doing the same things by virtue of the punishment that
Speaker 2: that particular criminal receives. And importantly too, that person's got
Speaker 2: to be rehabilitated. In the children's court, rehabilitation takes the
Speaker 2: primary place because there's a view which is right that
Speaker 2: children that have a chance of being saved. Unfortunately, that
Speaker 2: doesn't always happen because a lot of the times they
Speaker 2: go into the very environments which cause them to commit
Speaker 2: crime in the first place. But yeah, sentencing has to
Speaker 2: look at all those aspects and if you go into
Speaker 2: an environment where everything's taken away from including respect, then
Speaker 2: you're never going to have any respect. And ultimately it
Speaker 2: saves the community money. People don't go back to jail.
Speaker 1: Well, it saves money. And I spoke to someone about
Speaker 1: a family member of victim of crime about what they're
Speaker 1: doing in Macquarie and Hunter and this person, I've mentioned
Speaker 1: him before, I can mention him again. I know he's
Speaker 1: comfortable with me talking about it. Ken marslw whose son
Speaker 1: was some was murdered and he set up enough is
Speaker 1: Enough and was protesting and truth in sentencing and all
Speaker 1: sorts of things. Over the past twenty years, he's channeled
Speaker 1: his energy differently in that how can we prevent crime?
Speaker 1: And I asked Ken, because I get on this platform
Speaker 1: about what they're doing in prison, I think is better
Speaker 1: than the more traditional way prisons were done. But I
Speaker 1: wanted to feel comfortable that I'm not forgetting the victim's
Speaker 1: point of view on this. And Ken made the point
Speaker 1: that it's not about getting tough on crime, it's getting
Speaker 1: smart on crime, and that if you reduce crime, you
Speaker 1: reduce victims. So it seems like a no brainer. And
Speaker 1: if that's what that prison system that we've been talking
Speaker 1: about does, it makes a lot of sense, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: It does, And I think that you might remember that
Speaker 2: you need a copy.
Speaker 1: Yep, yep.
Speaker 2: Her father had a very very pragmatic view, very much
Speaker 2: like Ken's, and it was not put aside his anger
Speaker 2: and his revenge and thought about how can we make
Speaker 2: the system better. That's it's hard for victims or victims
Speaker 2: families to come to that position, but it's a position,
Speaker 2: you know, that is worthwhile.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree, it's worthwhile and utmost respect for them
Speaker 1: that they can do that. Ken would say, and Gary
Speaker 1: Lynch neither Cobby's father. Ken would make the point that
Speaker 1: he's still got the anger, he will always have the anger,
Speaker 1: but he's not going to let it destroy him. He's
Speaker 1: going to channel it into something positive. And I find
Speaker 1: that quite inspirational. On what Gary Lynch did as well,
Speaker 1: we might we might take a break now when we
Speaker 1: get back, we're going to talk about more of your
Speaker 1: k I'm also going to ask you, if you've ever
Speaker 1: fired a gun in the courthouse, have a think about that.
Speaker 1: You can get you can get some legal advice during
Speaker 1: the break.
Speaker 2: If you need.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to give you another question on notice.
Speaker 1: Have you ever come across a good detective, Like forty
Speaker 1: years you must have had someone that you can say.
Speaker 1: Think about it, and we'll come back in part two
Speaker 1: and talk about your more about your fascinating career and
Speaker 1: your insights in the law and order.
Speaker 2: I'll put my mind to it and during the break
Speaker 2: carry cas.
Speaker 1: Jeez,