BrothelGate Day 7 PM

8/14/2019 BrothelGate Day 7 PM

1/61

(Kaye J)

UPON RESUMING AT 2.14 PM:

HIS HONOUR: Mr Johnson has not made it back to court yet.

MR JOHNSON: Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: The witness box, thanks.


2/61

And it seeks to readdress mail for James Johnson and James

Sutton, amongst others, doesn't it?---It does. There's a

mistake with that last part, Mr Devries.

It's in your handwriting, signed by you, and it seeks to

readdress - readdress mail for you from 166 Queen Street,

Altona, is that correct?---Yes, it does.

What date did you seek to have the mail readdressed from?

---This particular application is dated 25 September

2007.

Yes?---No, sorry, it was signed by me on 19 September 2007.

I tender it, Your Honour?---May I have a copy, please?

HIS HONOUR: In due course. Exhibit O - - -?---Your Honour,

may - - -

I'm describing an exhibit, Your Honour, you don't (indistinct).

#EXHIBIT O - Application to redirect mail signed by

Harold Johnson dated 19/09/07.

MR DEVRIES: Your Honour pleases?---Your Honour, might I be

excused from the box just to get my pad that I was

writing notes on?

HIS HONOUR: Yes?---Thank you, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: For Your Honour's assistance, I'm now turning to

Exhibit 47, this is the income tax return for Mr Johnson

for the financial year of 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2008?

---Forgive me, Your Honour, I'm still looking

(indistinct) notepad this morning. I've found it, Your

Honour. I do apologise to everyone.

MR DEVRIES: Perhaps you can let us know when you're ready,

Mr Johnson?---I shall, Mr Devries, thank you.

What are you writing down, Mr Johnson?---That there's an

exhibit, "O", mail redirection, Mr Devries. Thank you, I

apologise to my learned friend, I'm ready for more

.LL:SK 10/12/08 FTR:28 JOHNSON XXN

Cressy

74

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

1

2


3/61

questions.

HIS HONOUR: Can I just ask you this, when you sign a tax

return, you're aware of your obligation to ensure that

every statement contained in it is true and correct, is

that right?---Yes, Your Honour.

Yes, and that's not just simply statements relating to your

financial affairs, but everything that's contained in

your tax return has to be true and correct, doesn't it?

---I believe so, Your Honour, yes.

Yes?---Yes.

And so when you signed your tax returns, you always sign them,

I take it, in the - doing your best to ensure that every

detail on them relating to you or your financial affairs

is true and correct?---Yes, my tax agent would prepare

them, print a copy for me, I would sign one or two pages,

and they would be submitted electronically.

Yes?---Yes, Your Honour.

(Indistinct) something with your individual tax return for the

year 2005, please, it's taken from Exhibit 5, that's a

copy of your tax return for that year?---Yes, Your

Honour.

Yes, describes your home address at that time as 2 Dorrington

Street?---It does, Your Honour.

Is that true?---It was the address of a home that I owned at

that time - - -

No, that's not the question I asked you, was that true?---Was I

residing at that address?

No?---When I signed - - -

No, was your statement as to your home address there true?---I

was living at that address when I signed - - -

You were living there?---I was not living at that address when


Cressy

75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


4/61

I signed this form.

Was that untrue? Would you prefer not to answer that, would

you prefer not to answer that question?---I considered

this and the cautions you gave me yesterday - - -

Yes, well, I won't - - -?---- - - irrelevance - - -

I won't insist on an answer on the basis it may incriminate

you?---Also to relevance, Your Honour, I think - - -

It is relevant, it's entirely relevant.

MR DEVRIES: Could I have a look at it for a moment, please,

Your Honour? Sorry, has Your Honour completed your - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes?---Sorry, Your Honour, may I ask on what basis

Exhibit O was tendered?

You identified it as your signature, Mr - - -?---Was it

tendered as to relevance?

Yes?---Or as to credit - - -

Relevance. I received it as to relevance?---I submit that

should have been tendered as part of the plaintiff's case

so that I could have the opportunity to cross-examine her

on that document.

The plaintiff is entitled to enter documents through you?---I

believe I should be entitled to cross-examine the

plaintiff as to how she obtained the document, given that

it's dated 19 September 2000 and - - -

Well, you can make a submission to that effect later?---Thank

you, Your Honour, that - - -

You can make a submission to that effect later. At the moment,

you are being cross-examined by Mr Devries.

(CNP Thank you, Your Honour. MR DEVRIES: Have you got a )

?---Thank you, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: Now, do you have a copy of your 2007/2008 income

tax return in front of you, Mr Johnson?---I do,


Cressy

76

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


5/61

Mr Devries.

I note that this document is not signed by you?---That is

correct; this copy is not signed, Mr Devries.

Have you signed an identical version of that return?---As I

just explained to His Honour - - -

No, no, just answer yes or no, Mr Johnson?---I will have signed

one or two pages for my tax agent, who has then lodged

this electronically.

You're required to sign every page, aren't you?---I have never

sometimes a bank will request that as part of due

diligence no, I didn't I've never signed every page.

The lodgements are electronic, I just sign the pages the

tax agent wants so that they're satisfied they've got all

the (indistinct) to lodge electronically. I might sign

two or three pages.

So you've only signed two or three pages? Are you saying to

His Honour that every one of these pages of this document

is true and correct? It's your document, you should know

the answer to that question?---There is one there is

one aspect that I realise now is not correct, so I do

need to file an amendment before April/May 2009.

Which part is not correct, Mr Johnson?---I haven't brought into

account the disposal of the Lisa Court property, there

would be a small capital gain there. It's irrelevant to

the outcome because it would be offset against staggering

net tax losses.

So apart from the absence of reference to Lisa Court being

sold, this Individual Tax Return, you say, is true and

correct in every respect?---Yes, it meets the

requirements of the income tax legislation.

Are the contents of that document factually true and correct in


Cressy

77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


6/61

every respect, Mr Johnson?---Subject to the above two

answers, yes.

You're not prepared to give me an unqualified answer to that

question?---Yes, except I haven't brought into account

the disposal of Lisa Court and capital gains implications

thereof.

And that discloses, does it not, that your income from your

business was a minus figure?---For the tax year beginning

1 July 2007 and ending 30 June 2008, yes, that's right;

my business expenses exceeded my income from that

business by a significant amount.

What were your business expenses for that year?---The usuals, I

was still locked in - - -

No, just the amount, not - - - ?---May I read off the document?

No, just give us the figure, please?---I can't without reading

off the document.

HIS HONOUR: He may refer to the document.

MR DEVRIES: You can look at the document, but just give us the

figure. I'm sorry, Your Honour, if I trespassed onto

Your Honour's territory.

WITNESS: Total expenses are showing up at 110,265 for the

business.

MR DEVRIES: So your gross income from your business was

190,000 for that year? No, sorry, 30,000?---No, it's at

the bottom of that page, Mr Devries - - -

No, just this is - - - ?---It's minus 82,000. Net income or

loss from business for this year, it's a loss of 82,286.

So if your income from your business was 110,000 - - - ?

---No, no.

Your expenses were 110,000?---Yes.

Of which - - -


Cressy

78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


7/61

HIS HONOUR: Your business income was 28,250?---Yes, Your

Honour, that's correct.

It's on Line J. It's the fourth page on the document. See

"Non primary production, 28,250".

MR DEVRIES: I'm indebted to Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: "Total expenses, 110,265", that gives him a loss

of 82,286.

MR DEVRIES: Your Honour, could I have a look at Exhibit N,

please? N for Nelly.

HIS HONOUR: North.

MR DEVRIES: Sorry, I refuse to be military. (To witness) How

do you equate 28,250, Mr Johnson, with 240,000 gross?

---As I said, that 240,000 is a historical figure that

probably was out of the 2004 or 2005 tax return. It bore

no relevance the banks always look at your last lodged

tax return, they like to see your bank statements - - -

You're giving at the moment - - - ?---I'll address it in

re-examination.

At the moment you are giving hearsay evidence - - - ?---I can't

reconcile because - - -

You can't reconcile it? Now, I presume, too, that as a result

of this tax return Your Honour, the other tax return

will be returned in a (indistinct).

HIS HONOUR: You want to hang on to that?

MR DEVRIES: Just for a few moments, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: That's all right, yes.

MR DEVRIES: I presume as a result of that individual tax

return, Mr Johnson, you won't be paying my client any

child support for the foreseeable future?---Your Honour,

my legal child support obligations Mr Devries, need to

be recalculated by the Child Support Agency based on my


Cressy

79

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


8/61

current income. That is current income. It's not

historical (indistinct). I'm not aware of any recent

recalculation. I have never paid bare minimum legal

requirement. I will be asking, because this is the only

forum I can do it, for DNA paternity testing for Illyana

just so that I know - - -

HIS HONOUR: Let's just stay away from that because that has

got nothing to do with the question you've just been

asked, and I consider your answer evasive?---Am I a

delinquent who won't pay his legal obligations of child

support - - -

That wasn't the question either?---OK, but I will meet my

obligations.

The question put to you is, will you be paying child support?

---According to my legal obligations, yes, I will.

You have the financial capacity to pay?---I have had no income.

I have no earnings since 1 July 2008, Your Honour. For

child support purposes I'm deemed to have an income equal

to the - - -

I'm not interested in that question. I just asked you a very

short question and you - - -?---I think it's (indistinct)

the question.

The question was will you be paying child support?---When I

have a legal obligation to do I shall, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: Your expectation is that as a result of this

income the lodgement of this income tax return your

child support will be reassessed back to zero for that

financial year and the current financial year isn't it?

---I am horrified - - -

Just answer the question, please?---I am horrified that I've

not been able to pay any child support to Julie Johnson


Cressy

80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


9/61

since early June this year. I am horrified that the

Child Support Agency deems me to have an income of

$80,000.

HIS HONOUR: Your emotions in relation to all that are

irrelevant. You have deliberately refused to answer

questions over the last five minutes. Now - - -?

---The questions are making vile accusations as to my

character.

Mr Johnson, you have an obligation to answer questions

directly. An evasive witness can be dealt with. I do

not wish to even make that threat at the moment, but

don't put me in a position where it's necessary for me to

do so in order to expedite this case?---I'll - - -

Just behave yourself. You're an officer of this court you keep

reminding me. You're doing yourself no good and you're

not assisting your case at all with this behaviour. Now,

listen to the question and answer it. Mr Devries.

MR DEVRIES: Your expectation, Mr Johnson, is that as a result

of the lodgement of this tax return you'll be assessed to

pay my client no child support for the financial year

covered by your tax return, and for the current financial

year isn't it?---No.

Are you serious in that answer, Mr Johnson?

HIS HONOUR: That's not a proper question.

WITNESS: I would love the liberty to explain my answer but

I'll do that in re-examination.

MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, when was the last time you paid my

client child support?---The last time I gave her cash

would've been in August 2007.

Was that child support or support for her or was it overdue

wages? What was it characterised by you as?


Cressy

81

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


10/61

---Characterised by me as moneys that Ms Cressy would

have available to support the children together with any

financial benefit she was getting from the government,

together with living rent free in the house at Altona.

So that she had sufficient means as single mum, while we

sorted out this mess, to maintain the children without

having to resort to prostitution which to my knowledge

she - - -

HIS HONOUR: How much did you pay to her at that time?---This

would've been a thousand dollars exactly, less the cost

of the mobile phone and the house phone at the Altona

property. They were phones of mine.

How much cash did you hand to her?---Zero, Your Honour. I will

have deposited that into her bank account.

How much did you deposit into her bank account?---It would've

been a thousand dollars less whatever the latest monthly

phone bills were for those two phones, so I'm guessing

somewhere - a bit more than $800, Your Honour.

Sorry?---A bit more than $800 I guess.

Until then had you been paying moneys to Ms Cressy for her

support and for the children?---Until then I'd been

giving Ms Cressy moneys since even before Illyana was

born.

MR DEVRIES: This income of $28,000 is that commensurate with

your present level of income, or has your income gone up

or down since the end of the last financial year?---My

present my present business income for this half

financial year 1 July 2008 to to date is zero. I have

some running down expenses I believe I'm entitled to

claim because I have an expectation of earning

(inaudible) due course, but the actual figure if I was to


Cressy

82

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


11/61

prepare this return today as at 1 July 2008 to this

period ending today the figure in Item J would be zero.

That's going to be the figure for the foreseeable future isn't

it, Mr Johnson?---No, Mr Devries. I'm hopeful early in

the New Year, and especially if His Honour gives a

judgment before Christmas I can get this monkey off my

back and I can start earning in the order of - - -

HIS HONOUR: The chances of giving a judgment before Christmas

are receding every time you give an evasive answer - - -?

---The quality - - -

- - -just prolonging this case?---The quality of my earnings

from the start of next the start of the next calendar

year will depend substantially upon whether I'm an

undischarged bankrupt or not. Provided I'm not an

undischarged bankrupt I will be commensurate with what I

was earning in my business, but obviously I'm starting

from zero. I've got to ramp up again. As an

undischarged bankrupt I understand I my options are to

work as an employee so I will be earning a fraction of

what I could earn as a principal of a firm.

MR DEVRIES: Sorry, as an undischarged bankrupt?---Yes,

Mr Devries.

HIS HONOUR: I think you've missed about three quarters of his

answer, you heard a lot, but you missed about three

quarters.

MR DEVRIES: Are you anticipating becoming an undischarged

bankrupt, are you?---I'm doing everything possible to

avoid that, Mr Devries, I should be patently aware from

the life of these proceedings - - -

HIS HONOUR: The long and rambling answer, I think, is

foreshadowing what might happen if you become a bankrupt


Cressy

83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


12/61

and wasn't discharged.

MR DEVRIES: And you're going to do that to try and frustrate

any judgment that my client gets in her favour from His

Honour? I say that with respect, Your Honour?---I think

they're vile accusations, Your Honour, not a question.

Your Honour, I wouldn't have asked those questions, except for

a couple of things I've gleaned on a quick reading

of - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes, it's around about Paragraph 272 or something,

isn't it, Justice Neeve.

MR DEVRIES: I think it might be around about p.120 or

thereabouts, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I saw it too. In other words, contrary to

the current flow of authority, the Court of Appeal now

say that what - post relationship contributions are

relevant.

MR DEVRIES: Certainly in the context of (indistinct).

HIS HONOUR: I understand that.

MR DEVRIES: Yes, and on that basis, Your Honour, what I put to

Your Honour, and (indistinct) has now changed.

HIS HONOUR: I follow that.

MR DEVRIES: Yes, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Because I think the situation might be important.

MR DEVRIES: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Whatever it was, but we have to cope with that,

but it seemed to me you probably already dealt with it.

MR DEVRIES: Yes, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Your client's got the children.

MR DEVRIES: Yes. There is only one other matter that will

arise out of that, Your Honour, which - - -

HIS HONOUR: Anyway, you're still cross-examining Mr Johnson.


Cressy

84

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


13/61

MR DEVRIES: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: It's best we try and get that done.

MR DEVRIES: I was going to say, I'm moving onto another

subject that arises out of that.

HIS HONOUR: (Indistinct) Ms Sofroniou, if it did help you,

you're entitled to use the jury box if - - -

MS SOFRONIOU: Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: - - - face that way, you're comfortable there?

For the transcript, Ms Sofroniou has been alternately

standing and sitting because she has a very bad back,

with which I sympathise.

MR DEVRIES: I'm sorry, Your Honour. You recall that letter

that was tendered yesterday, which was the letter from

your employee, Exhibit J, Your Honour?---Yes, Mr Devries.

Your tax return is not consistent with the contents of that

letter either, is it?---I will say that the tax return

was prepared a good six months after that letter was

prepared, and on grounds of relevance and also having

regard to the cautions His Honour spoke to me yesterday

afternoon, I declined - - -

HIS HONOUR: It is relevant, but I will permit you to take the

privilege against self-crimination?---Except to the

extent I wish to come back with some comments in re-

examination, to the extent that I had already answered

that question to some degree yesterday afternoon.

Well, to the extent that you answered, you may give evidence in

re-examination. If you go beyond that, then it opened -

you waived the privilege, and that opens cross-

examination, so you'll have to tread wearily?---I'm

indebted, Your Honour.

Because it's a privilege for you to waive, so you'll need to


Cressy

85

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


14/61

take care not to waive it. Bear in mind that I cannot

draw any adverse inference against a witness who takes

the privilege against self-incrimination, do you follow

that?---Thank you, I wasn't aware of that, Your Honour.

And it's a principle of law?---Thank you.

Because it's a basic common law right we (indistinct).

MR DEVRIES: You are aware, aren't you, that pursuant to orders

of this honourable court, my client was given occupancy

of 166 Queen Street, Altona?---Not exactly, Mr Devries.

No? OK, not exactly? I've mislaid some documents, Your

Honour. You consented, didn't you, to an order of the

Federal Magistrates Court made on 26 September 2007, to

the effect that my client and the children shall reside

at 166 Queen Street, Altona?---Not exactly, Mr Devries.

Order 19 says, "The mother and the children shall reside at

166 Queen Street, Altona, do you agree that that's the

order, that's that order"? You don't need to write it

down to tell me whether you agree or not, Mr Johnson?

---Yes, that's the order, Mr Devries.

And those were consent orders?---Those were consent orders,

Mr Devries.

And you had counsel appearing for you on that occasion?---Yes.

And are you suggesting that Order 19 is not an order with which

you agree?---No, I'm saying two things, firstly that

there's an order that I sought in my application, I

sought that order, Ms Cressy consented to it. It's a bit

of a nonsense to say that I consented to an order I was

seeking in my own application, Mr O'Dwyer's jurisdiction,

and I say secondly, Ms Cressy did not gain occupancy of

the premises by virtue of my application or that order,

she had been in occupation since 2006, at my permission,


Cressy

86

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


15/61

I granted her occupancy of the premises, not any court

process, Mr Devries.

From 26 September 2007 she was supposed to have occupancy, with

the children, of 166 Queen Street, Altona, wasn't she?

---That was the gist of my application - - -

Yes, and thereafter you took every step you could to frustrate

that order and to force her and the children to have to

move from residence to residence, didn't you?---They are

vile statements and they are incorrect.

Well, on 5 November 2007 you wrote to Mr Hanlon, didn't you,

and said, "I wish to assure Ms Lonergan, Miss Delanthy

and yourself in the clearest possible terms that I have

no desire or intention of commencing any steps to have my

daughter, Illyana, or her half-brothers, Skye and Treece,

or her mother, Pippin, evicted from the premises at 166

Queen Street, Altona. The suggestion is abhorrent"?---I

wrote two letters to Mr Hanlon on that date.

Did you write those words, Mr Johnson?---I did write those

words and the word "conundrum" in the next paragraph.

Thank you, you've answered my question now, Mr Johnson. I

tender that, Your Honour.

#EXHIBIT P - Letter from the defendant to

Mr David Hanlon of Harwood Andrews Pty

Ltd dated 05/11/07.

MR DEVRIES: And then after that you proceeded to attempt to

see the property, didn't you?---I received no response

from David Hanlon to that letter and I entered into a

contract of sale of the property. Whether or not I was

going to be able to complete that sale, I had no idea at

that stage, but I set up that possibility.

So notwithstanding the court order, that you said to His Honour

you proposed that you were in agreement with, the court


Cressy

87

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

1

2


16/61

made at the end of September, 26 September 2007, and your

letter of November to Mr Hanlon assuring him and my

client that you would not do anything to have my client

moved from 166 Queen Street, Altona, you signed a

contract of sale of that property on or about 24 December

2007, didn't you?---Mr Devries, my evidence on this point

hasn't and can't change from when we discussed this

before Justice Cavanough in the Practice Court on 20

June.

His Honour is not Mr Justice Cavanough - - - ?---And when

myself and Dr Ingleby it before Justice - - -

HIS HONOUR: Mr Johnson, your answer is unresponsive. The fact

is, as you've already tendered, you signed a contract of

sale on the property at 166 Queen Street, Altona on

24 December 2007, is that right?---Yes, sir.

You've told me that settlement of that property was due in, I

think, February 2008, is that right?---Yes, Your Honour.

I take it, it was a term of the contract of sale that you would

give vacant possession to the purchaser on that date?

---And that the purchaser's caveats and the Harwood

Andrews no, the purchaser's caveat would be removed,

there was - - -

Do you agree with what I put to you?---Totally, Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: And as a result of correspondence from you to the

mortgagee, the mortgagee took possession of those

premises on or about 21 January this year. That's

correct, isn't it?---Totally incorrect.

Well, as a result of your letter they sought possession, we had

proceedings in this honourable court, isn't that correct?

And my client was forced to move to another of your

properties, isn't that correct?---Your Honour, the


Cressy

88

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


17/61

questions are skipping, I can't give - - -

HIS HONOUR: There are some questions in that. Perhaps a more

important one is a factual question; I take it that in

January of 2008 the plaintiff was required to vacate

Queen Street?

MR DEVRIES: She was given a notice to quit by the mortgagees

as a result of correspondence from Mr Johnson.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, don't worry about the result - - -?

---I am not aware of that document.

Yes, but you understand that she left in January 2008?---I

understand that she didn't, and I believe that's not

contested.

She did or did not?---She did not.

MR DEVRIES: She left a bit later than that, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: When did she leave?

MR DEVRIES: About June 2007.

HIS HONOUR: Eight?

MR DEVRIES: 2008, I'm sorry, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Is that right?---A bit later, we're talking

January, Your Honour, now we're talking June, a bit

later.

Yes, well I understand the difference between the two months.

Is it common ground that the plaintiff left the Queen

Street property in June 2008?---Yes, Your Honour.

And that would be common ground that that was as a consequence

of action taken by the mortgagee?---No, Your Honour, that

was action taken by the plaintiff's application that was

heard before Justice Cavanough and the orders that

Mr Justice Cavanough made on or between 20 June this year

and 21 July this year.

MR DEVRIES: That is not quite accurate, is it? The mortgagee


Cressy

89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


18/61

attended, the mortgagee had their own representation, the

mortgagee had their own representation and as a result of

the position the mortgagee was in, which emanated from

your letter, the mortgagee was given possession by His

Honour so it was given orders giving the mortgagee

possession of those premises. Isn't that correct?---That

is something I didn't understand because the orders

Justice Cavanough made were orders against a non-party in

the proceedings and - - -

HIS HONOUR: It doesn't matter whether you understand it or

not, were those orders made?---Yes, Your Honour.

The orders are part of the record anyway, Mr Devries.

MR DEVRIES: Yes.

WITNESS: It's a possibility that Your Honour indicated on the

first day the trial was impossibility, I think.

HIS HONOUR: Sorry?---I believe in you said in the first day

of the trial that it's impossible to make orders against

a non party.

I didn't say that?---My memory must be wrong Your Honour.

Just stick to the point would you please.

MR DEVRIES: As a result of that tune the children had to move

to Dorrington Street, that's correct isn't it?---Justice

Cavanough's fitted orders evicting me from Dorrington

Street, banning me from speaking or dealing with the

mortgagee.

HIS HONOUR: Did you leave Dorrington Street at that point?---I

did but - - -

Did the plaintiff move in?---Yes pursuant to the orders - - -

Thank you, thats all we need?--- - - - that Justice Cavanough

made.

MR DEVRIES: Order 6, Your Honour, of the orders made by His


Cressy

90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


19/61

Honour on 20 June 2008.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR DEVRIES: You are aware that my client has now located to

Dorrington Street with the children?---I became informed

of that fact when your client gave her evidence-in-chief.

You're currently aware of that, aren't you?---I think I

answered that question, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Remind me of the date of that again Mr Devries,

what date did your client leave?

MR DEVRIES: It's within the last two weeks Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: That's right?---Excuse me, Mr Devries, the

plaintiff still has possession and keys and her things at

the house, so I believe in that sense she might not be

residing there but she still has possession of the

property based on her testimony, Your Honour.

She and the children have vacated those premises, Mr Johnson,

haven't they?---I can only rely on your client's

evidence-in-chief, Mr Devries, that's the only

information I have on the point.

When you refinanced Gibson Street, you refinanced from a

mortgage in which the liability was a little bit less

than $400,000 to a liability of approximately $507,000,

isn't that correct?---In the broad brush, yes, I don't

recall the exact amount of the loan but it would have

been 90 per cent of the valuation which I think was

600,000 in bank valuation so that would give it a 540,000

and presumably the other 30,000 was - if that figure is

correct - was the mortgage insurance capitalised in, so

the number sounds about right Mr Devries.

You applied some of the proceeds to the purchase of a another

property, is that correct?---Yes.


Cressy

91

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


20/61

You pocketed some of the proceeds?---Mr Devries, I have given

you in the other jurisdiction a copy of my bank statement

showing the dispersal of those moneys out of my

Commonwealth Bank account where they were put, the

balance of the borrowings by the Commonwealth Bank early

in January this year. You have that information, sir, in

the other jurisdiction.

His Honour doesn't have that information and I don't have that

information in this jurisdiction, Mr Johnson, so perhaps

you would like to answer the question?---You are entitled

to tender that information, Mr Devries.

HIS HONOUR: Ask the question again, I'm sorry, I was

distracted.

MR DEVRIES: How much money did you pocket as a result of the

refinancing of Gibson Street?---I won't take issue at the

word "pocket", I think after the two financings were done

there was a net figure of about 80,000 banked into my

Commonwealth Bank account.

You used the rest of the money to either improve your equity in

the other property or - sorry, that was in Endeavour

Drive or to reduce other liabilities of yours, didn't

you?---I used the rest of the money for many things,

including to repay short term borrowings I borrowed over

the previous quarter, trying to keep up all of my

mortgage payments up to date, child support payments for

Mrs Johnson as well as covering expenses of Ms Cressy's

that I was still paying at that time.

Breese Street, you say that you have an equity of $1000 in each

of those properties?---I said that on a principal - - -

Is that right?---I said on a principal - I think I said Calder

or Mead, but they were economists - funny what the memory


Cressy

92

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


21/61

does. What I meant to say was on the principal of

Lysaght v. Edwards 1867 - - -

HIS HONOUR: We don't need the citation and you know that?

---499 - when I signed those contracts and put down my

$1000 deposit on each, I had a secured enforceable right

to the contracts. I believe that opportunity has been

lost. I have had nothing touched, nothing heard, nothing

signed, nothing for those properties except a bit of

mucking around with deposit bonds.

MR DEVRIES: You have had paid on your behalf a deposit of

$25,000 in respect of each of those two properties,

haven't you?---These are deposit bonds that the

Commonwealth Bank did.

Would you like to answer my question Mr Johnson, you have had

paid on your behalf a deposit of $25,000 in respect of

each of those properties, that's correct isn't it?---No,

it's not correct Mr Devries.

Or very close - or $23,250 for one property and $22,730 in

respect of the other property, that's correct then isn't

it?---That is not correct, Mr Devries, that is not how

deposit bonds worked.

You have provided a guarantee of the deposit of $23,250 for one

property, Unit 27, and $22,730 in respect of Unit 6,

haven't you?---No, I've not provided any bank guarantee,

my bank provided the bank guarantee.

HIS HONOUR: The bank guaranteed that deposit, do I take it,

and you purchased that guarantee from the bank?---And I

would have paid a fee of a few thousand dollars which

would have come out of that Commonwealth Bank global

financing, it was a $2 million financing, Your Honour,

over four properties. I was pre-approved for the two


Cressy

93

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


22/61

units.

I don't need the whole of the story, just answer the questions?

---I'm doing my best, Your Honour.

No, you're not.

MR DEVRIES: Getting back to the refinancing of Gibson Street,

just in case there is any misapprehension, you refinanced

that to the figure of $577,309 didn't you, which includes

the insurance?---As I've - I believe that's correct but I

don't have the exact figure in my head, Mr Devries.

Thank you. It's certainly a lot more than the $540 you

mentioned a few moments ago?---Did I say 540?

Yes?---If I said $540 forgive me, Mr Devries. I clearly meant

$540,000.

You in fact had about 120,000 available after refinancing for

your own purposes, not 80,000?---No, I don't think it was

that high. It was either just above or just below the

(inaudible). There were bank charges. There were the

deposit bond charges.

Are we having a Dutch auction, Mr Johnson?---I can - - -

HIS HONOUR: That's not necessary. (To witness) Are you saying

you had about a hundred thousand dollars available?

---Your Honour, I'm happy to tell - - -

Mr Johnson, just answer one question directly. You've just

said you had about a hundred thousand dollars available.

Is that what you said?---That's my recollection. I - - -

Thank you?---I can tender my bank statements in evidence, Your

Honour. No hesitation. Mr Devries has already had

access to them.

MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, you are the owner of a Land Rover

which you purchased for $54,572?---I was the owner of a

Land Rover that I purchased for approximately that amount


Cressy

94

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


23/61

in 1999, Mr Devries.

You were the owner as of 30 June 2008?---(No audible response.)

HIS HONOUR: Did you still own it then? Mr Johnson, answer the

question?---No, I no, I did not. I did not own it at

that date.

For the purposes of the transcript Mr Johnson is writing down

questions and is delaying answering them, despite my

request and even direction that he not do so that we can

continue with this evidence without these constant

delays?---Your Honour, in my defence I need to keep a

note for re-examination because I won't have the

transcript - - -

You do not have to note that question down. That simply it

seems commonsense to suggest that. Now, let's continue

on and see if we can finish this shortly.

MR DEVRIES: When did you dispose of that motor vehicle,

Mr Johnson, if you didn't own it at 30 June 2008?

---That vehicle was disposed of in September 2007.

Why does your tax return make a claim for that vehicle for the

whole of the financial year?---I don't think it does,

Mr Devries.

"Claim details. Period start date 1 July 2007. Period end

date 30 June 2008"?---Can you direct me to the page,

please?

HIS HONOUR: Is this Exhibit 45 is it?

MR DEVRIES: It is, Your Honour. (To witness) My document has

no page numbers?---I've found it. I've found it, Your

Honour.

That's what your tax return says, Mr Johnson, and which you

said was true and correct in every particular?---Just

like Lisa Court obviously I need to do an adjustment for


Cressy

95

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


24/61

the fact that the vehicle was disposed of. Oh dear, oh

dear, the odometer the odometer reading would've showed

that part period from 1 July 07 up until the disposal in

September 08.

Mr Johnson - - -?---The business use you'll see are zero in any

case.

Mr Johnson - - -?---I'll take that up - - -

You've given evidence that you have a number of motor vehicles

and that you don't do a lot of driving. Anyway the next

vehicle, the Mazda QUD720, you still own that motor

vehicle don't you?---Yes, I do.

What did you purchase that one for?---$2200.

When did you purchase that?---1998.

You also are the owner of a Ford vehicle NDJ067?---Yes.

Also the owner of a vehicle, a Camaro vehicle?---Yes.

Also the owner of a Ford Capri?---That's a second Ford Capri.

I'm no longer the owner of that one, Mr Devries.

Again your tax return is incorrect when it says that the claim

is in respect to the whole of the financial year?---No,

because I disposed of that Ford Capri after 30 June - - -

How much did you dispose of it for?---I disposed of it for the

repair costs. I needed a thousand dollars work done on

the engine and I couldn't afford to pay it, so I signed

the disposal notice over to the mechanic for the

registration period. It was only about a month to go on

the registration period as well.

How much did you dispose of the Land Rover for?---The Land

Rover I think the Land Rover was disposed of for about

$10,000. May I just ask for a relevance check, please,

Your Honour?

HIS HONOUR: No. It goes to your financial position.


Cressy

96

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


25/61

MR DEVRIES: Mr Johnson, returning to the questions I was

asking you just before we had the lunch break?---Yes,

Mr Devries.

Thank you. I put to you that throughout the period that my

client says she had a relationship with you. She was

earning between $2,000 and $3,000 as a prostitute and

that's the figures that you agreed to yesterday; do you

still agree with that figure?---I put to you that - - -

Is the answer yes or no?

HIS HONOUR: You don't put anything to the counsel?---Sorry,

it's hard for me because we're talking a long period. I

would like to talk about separate periods.

It's not what you wish to talk about. What date do you put

this at?

MR DEVRIES: From November 1998 to May 2007, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: It's a long period.

MR DEVRIES: It's a period of the relationship as certified by

my client.

HIS HONOUR: So you're asking the witness to agree that your

client was earning $2,000 or $3,000 per week throughout

that period.

MR DEVRIES: I will break it up, Your Honour, I think that

might be - - -

HIS HONOUR: If this is relevant you will need to do that?---It

contradicts his client's evidence too, Your Honour

substantially.

It is not a matter of you commenting, it is a matter of you

answering the questions?---Forgive me, Your Honour.

I won't forgive you because you know that?---Sorry, Your

Honour.

This is again some more time wasting. Now, Mr Devries.


Cressy

97

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


26/61

MR DEVRIES: You conceded yesterday in your evidence that you

had asserted on a number of occasions or on occasions in

this court that my client was deriving two to three

thousand dollars per week from her activities as a

prostitute, didn't you?---At times up to and while living

in South Yarra - - -

Did you or did you not give that evidence, Mr Johnson, that you

agreed with that?---I gave evidence that she was working

as a prostitute from the night or the morning that I met

her, on - - -

Mr Johnson, would you please answer - - -

HIS HONOUR: Mr Devries, you are asking very general questions

on this topic. If you wish the witness to agree with you

then you can put the part of the transcript to him.

MR DEVRIES: It will take me a few moments Your Honour, if you

would bear with me. Did you, Mr Johnson, do you recall

whether or not you agreed that you had said to this court

on at least two occasions that my client was earning two

to three thousand dollars as a prostitute?---I have given

evidence in two respects, the first is that to the best

of my knowledge and belief until I found out otherwise

late in 2007, to the best of my knowledge and belief

Ms Cressy had ceased earning any money as a prostitute

prior to her - us - moving out of the house at South

Yarra which was in March 2003. My knowledge and belief

until I found out otherwise late last year that from a

date - I'm a bit hazy - before Christmas 2002, ever since

that day she had given up the game for good. I was

horrified when I found out in August last year that she

was in fact back on the game and probably had been for

much of that time.


Cressy

98

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


27/61

You asserted - - - ?---Including when she was living at the

house at Point Cook.

You asserted, didn't you, that she was earning two to three

thousand dollars a week while she was working as a

prostitute.

HIS HONOUR: When you say he asserted this, in his evidence-in-

chief or that he put it as a proposition in cross-

examination?

MR DEVRIES: Cross-examination Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: All right?---I put this in cross-examination in

respect of the period from August 2007 onwards Your

Honour and probably backwards to the extent that I had

suspicions, as borne out by Ms Cressy's diaries,

photocopies of which are in evidence, that appear to who

that she was doing that stuff back in February as well,

February '07. I have maintained at all times what I know

to be true that for the whole of her living at Point Cook

and for the last perhaps six months or so of her living

at South Yarra, she had given up the game for good, they

were the representations that Mr Devries client has

given.

MR DEVRIES: Page 714 Your Honour. "You have alleged in

various court documents, have you, that my client makes

as much as two to three thousand dollars as a prostitute,

haven't you?" And you replied: "I believe that, yes, I

have and I believe it's demonstrated in the diary entries

that I've tendered in evidence."?---Makes - that's as in

this - in this time frame now.

Yes, and also you said in the time frames covered by the

diaries and what time frame do you say is covered by the

diary?---I think there's notations in there covering


Cressy

99

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


28/61

February '07 to August '07.

You have also gone into chapter and verse in at least one of

your documents in this matter about how many clients she

sees and how much she gets per client, haven't you?

---Mr Devries, that's distasteful and indelicate and I

certainly havent done a kiss and tell all into the

detail of all of the story of Ms Cressy had given me

during especially those early years when I met her and

her brothel activities. I've mentioned one example I

think from her intonation or at the time of the Sydney

Olympics, I don't think I've mentioned many more than

that.

You made mention of the number of clients that my client was

allegedly servicing prior to the birth of Illyana, didn't

you?---Which correct me if I'm wrong but that would have

been late '99, first half of 2000.

You're saying 20 clients a day - a week at about $120 a client.

Is that what you have asserted?---It's basic arithmetic

Mr Devries.

Sorry?---It's basic arithmetic Mr Devries, if she's working two

or three or four days a week. You can take the four or

five per day that she was seeing during the period in her

diary which was last year, I don't know that market

conditions have changed, I'm not an economist specialised

in that industry, but presumably they're comparable, '99

to 2007.

You're a participant in that industry yourself, Mr Johnson,

weren't you?---More vile accusations Mr Devries. I never

participated in the prostitution industry as a worker.

You registered, you printed business cards with your

registration number, you created advertising, you created


Cressy

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


29/61

a business, didn't you?---I attempted, as you full well

know, I attempted to play to Ms Cressy's jealous streak,

having exhausted all the carrots, I'd attempted a bit of

reverse psychology on two occasions. I find this has no

relevance whatsoever to any of the issues aimed at

Ms Cressy's claim under 275. I have answered this

already before Mr Justice Cavanough it is vile and

unbecoming of an officer of the court to continue to

throw these vile accusations against another - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, your commentary on the cross-examination is

uncalled for, but what is the relevance of this? You're

seeking to establish your client earned certain moneys in

that capacity, she's given evidence to that effect?

---Yes, Your Honour - - -

- - - in 2002, I think she was earning?---Two thousand and

five, her evidence was, Your Honour.

Well, I think it was 2002, she was working part time?---And

2006.

And 2006, full time, she's given the amounts.

MR DEVRIES: Yes, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I don't know that's the purpose of it is - it

sounds to me that Mr Johnson's doing nothing more than

making the allegations, he wasn't there when she was

earning the moneys. Is that the purpose of the cross-

examination, or was there any some other purpose?

MR DEVRIES: The purpose was to show that she was

bringing - - -

HIS HONOUR: Bringing an income - - -

MR DEVRIES: Income as to - - -

HIS HONOUR: She's given evidence to that - - -

MR DEVRIES: Yes. Would Your Honour just bear with me for a


Cressy

101

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


30/61

moment?

HIS HONOUR: Well, you better ask it directly, Mr Johnson, were

you aware at the time how much money Ms Cressy was

earning in her capacity as a prostitute in the years 1999

to 2007? As distinct from making a guess or an

assumption, are you in a position to give evidence to

that effect?---Your Honour, I was never aware at any time

of exactly what she was earning.

All right?---She would tell me how many clients she'd seen, and

I was aware of what the pricelist was, so I could, on

that basis, do some reversing, any calculations - - -

No, we don't want you to give calculations, you're simply being

asked to give evidence?---Thank you, Your Honour.

I think it was in cross-examination.

MR DEVRIES: Thank you, Your Honour. I put to you, Mr Johnson,

that were it not - were it not for my client bringing her

income into the relationship, the whole financial

structure would have collapsed far earlier than it did

upon your separation? Do you agree with that proposition

or do you disagree with that?---I am trying very hard not

to laugh, because this is a very serious matter, but that

is absurd - - -

HIS HONOUR: Do you disagree with it, do you? That's all you

have to do?---Thank you, Your Honour, I totally disagree.

MR DEVRIES: I suggest to you that the reason, the main reason

it all fell apart in - sorry, just after Easter 2007 was

because your relationship ended and my client ceased

making her contributions to your relationship, both

financial and as homemaker?---I repeat my previous answer

to the previous answer, it's just vile and disgraceful

and I totally disagree.


Cressy

102

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


31/61

HIS HONOUR: You do not have to make commentary, you simply can

deny it.

MR DEVRIES: I want to suggest to you - - -?---Your Honour, as

it's the defence counsel for interrupting, but, Your

Honour, I believe that the plaintiff's (indistinct)

running dangerously close to asserting the defendant has

to disprove the plaintiff's claim, rather - - -

HIS HONOUR: You're out of order, you simply answer the

questions.

MR DEVRIES: I put to you that my client's contributions to the

financial aspect of your relationship were so valuable

that without them, from April, you say, May, she says

2007, that that's what precipitated the collapse of what

I describe before lunch as the house of cards that you'd

erected with your property purchasers?---For the third

time to the same question you've put three ways, I

totally disagree, and it's vile and absurd, it's contrary

to the flow of all the evidence, including the piles of

exhibits.

MR DEVRIES: Now - - -

HIS HONOUR: - - - Mr Devries, the evidence given by your

client as to the income in that capacity is at p.120 of

the transcript, 2002, part time, $40,000 per annum.

MR DEVRIES: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: The 2006 (indistinct) said she completed studies

full time, 70 to 100,000.

MR DEVRIES: Yes?---Thank you, Your Honour. What was that page

reference?

HIS HONOUR: One hundred and 20?---I'm indebted to Your Honour.

MR DEVRIES: I'm indebted to Your Honour. I was just going to

move on to one other very small point, Your Honour. In


Cressy

103

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


32/61

your counterclaim, Mr Johnson, you assert that my client

- so you base your claim on the fact that my client had

no right to have lodged on the title of any of your

properties a caveat, is that correct?---Absolutely.

And you would agree with me that - sorry, I'll withdraw that,

Your Honour, and it's your case that that - because,

according to you, she made no contributions whatsoever in

any capacity whatsoever to the relationship that you may

or may not have had with her?---Your Honour, I'm almost

(indistinct) I don't understand that question.

I'll rephrase the question. You say that you never had a

domestic relationship, that's correct, isn't it?---Yes,

subject to what I said yesterday about the period we were

living under the same roof at South Yarra, in particular,

and I am open to - I expect that reasonable people might,

with different sets of information, draw different

conclusions.

And even in that period of time you'd have to concede that she

made some contributions to the household during that

time?---That's drawing a long bow, Mr Devries. No, Your

Honour.

And you dispute that she hasn't even got an arguable case for

the proposition that you had a domestic relationship from

1998 to 2007?---I've said what I've said about the period

at South Yarra, and I've said what I said about the first

few months at Point Cook. And, subject to that, and

notwithstanding that, yes, I dispute that she has an

arguable case. I think it's contrary to all of her

evidence, it's contrary to the provable truth and it's

contrary to the truth as well that (indistinct).

And you're aware she's also arguing a constructive trust?


Cressy

104

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


33/61

---Yes, I'm aware that she's arguing a constructive

trust.

Now, you gave a lot of evidence or made a lot of references

to the Donald Trump Apprentice program, didn't you?---And

Poppy King, too, yes, Mr Devries.

And Poppy King. You were trying to involve and develop my

client, according to you, in your property ventures,

weren't you?---I was trying to help Miss Cressy

(indistinct) develop over the - - -

An you were trying to do this from time to time as a joint

venture between you and her, weren't you?---Mr Devries,

that's drawing a long bow, that's my area of law, I

submit, not yours.

I'm talking about a joint venture in the property development

arm of your enterprises, Mr Johnson?---I repeat my

previous answer, that's almost funny, Mr Devries.

Almost? Sorry, I didn't hear the word?---I repeat my previous

answer, that's almost funny, Mr Devries. That's almost

funny in these serious circumstances.

Thankfully, Your Honour, my cross-examination has finished.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Now, has your solicitor, or you,

returned that part of the exhibit?

MR DEVRIES: Sorry, I was going to ask - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes, you may.

MR DEVRIES: I'm sorry, Your Honour. No, I think I might leave

it, Your Honour. Discretion being the better part of

valour at this stage.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Now, Ms Sofroniou, do you wish to cross-

examine?

MS SOFRONIOU: Your Honour, may I answer that with one

reservation; I don't wish to cross-examine, I want to


Cressy

105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


34/61

foreshadow that at the close of the plaintiff's case I

will wish to make an application in in the defendant's

case I will wish to make an application instead. My

apprehension is that of course should that application

fail my options to put Browne v. Dunn questions to him

now may have been lost. What I propose to do though is

to nonetheless not cross-examine at this time and it may

be that I will not have to make any application before

Your Honour to, as it were, reopen the defendant's case

to cross-examine. I understand that I may be having to

do that at my risk in any event.

HIS HONOUR: I think you may be having to do that at your own

risk.

MS SOFRONIOU: Certainly. My reasoning being that were I to

put documents of course, as I understand s.36 of the

Evidence Act here, I may in fact be required to go into

evidence, which is something that I'd rather not do.

HIS HONOUR: I don't know that it's right, is it?

MS SOFRONIOU: If I put evidence of a prior inconsistent

statement the court has the discretion to require tender,

and even to require tender at my initiation, and I don't

wish to take that risk.

HIS HONOUR: I take it you're foreshadowing a no case

submission?

MS SOFRONIOU: Indeed, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: And I've never understood the case to be that a

party is shut out from making a no case submission

because documents have been tendered during cross-

examination on behalf of that client. But is that - - -

MS SOFRONIOU: Where I was coming from was from a sort of a

strict common law position, in Queen's case one of the


Cressy

106

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


35/61

risks that was always involved in that procedure was

described as the defendant being put into the cross-

examiner having to go into evidence by virtue of that,

and that's the apprehension that I have raised. Having

said that, the - - -

HIS HONOUR: I must say, my experience of the practice here is

that a party is not shut out from making a no case

submission because that party has cross-examined and in

doing so has tendered through a witness on behalf of the

plaintiff, but similarly a defendant making these

submissions - - -

MS SOFRONIOU: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: - - - tendered documents. The usual practice in

Victoria is to put the party making their submission to

their election, but that election really is only in

futuro.

MS SOFRONIOU: Indeed. And in due course I, of course, would

be arguing that this case might fall within the

discretion not to elect, but - - -

HIS HONOUR: Because of the nature of the allegations made?

MS SOFRONIOU: The nature of the allegations and the nature of

my argument, which is not going to involve detailed, as

it were, trial within a trial submissions. I'm comforted

by that, Your Honour, and I'm happy to proceed on that

basis.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. I haven't heard any submission to the

contrary.

MS SOFRONIOU: Thank you, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I'm just speaking from my practice both at the Bar

and having heard this year a no case submission.

MS SOFRONIOU: I'm aware of it, Your Honour has very usefully,


Cressy

107

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


36/61

if I may say so, gathered the authorities to use as a

starting point. As it happens one comfort that I can

take, which I make by way of submission, is that even if

the documents were tendered then the court can require

it, it doesn't have to be at my instigation, so that

would be another way of getting it in.

HIS HONOUR: I can require what, the tender?

MS SOFRONIOU: The tender, but that doesn't have to be my

tender as it were.

HIS HONOUR: I'm not sure that's right, but as I say my

experience of the practice is that parties are not shut

out from making the no case on the basis that they have

already tendered documents.

MS SOFRONIOU: I am comforted by that, Your Honour, because I

have short questions to put to the witness.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.


37/61

ask the questions, it's my one copy, Your Honour, thats

my difficulty?---That works for me Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Would you like Mr Richards to run a copy off for

you?

MS SOFRONIOU: Yes, Your Honour, that's certainly - I'd be very

grateful if he does.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Richards.

MS SOFRONIOU: While he is doing that I will ask you to look at

this letter please, Mr Johnson, which is one of

15 January 2008. Could you look at that please and read

it?---Thank you.

Let me know when you've read it?---Thank you Ms Sofroniou. May

I have a copy?

Yes, we will make sure that you can have a copy.

HIS HONOUR: That's a letter from whom to whom?

MS SOFRONIOU: That is a letter from Harwood Andrews to

Mr Johnson dated 15 January 2008. Do you agree with me

that you were being informed by Harwood Andrews by that

letter that before they would provide you with

withdrawals of any caveats on properties at that time

they required you to agree that net proceeds of sale of

the properties were to be held in trust?---They informed

me that that was one of their conditions, a negotiating

point, yes, it's in the second paragraph.

You agree also that any notion of meeting with you, as you had

requested, to negotiate required your provision of all

extant contracts of sale and information concerning

outstanding arrears and mortgage commitment?---I'm aware

that that is a condition that is expressed in that

letter, yes.

My suggestion to you is that you didn't provide any such


Cressy

109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


38/61

information of mortgage statements detailing outstanding

arrears and mortgage commitment at around that time,

would you agree?---I would say that I had been trying to

organize a meeting with Mr Hanlon since July 2007.

Things got waylaid, attention was directed to the

children rather than the property situation.

For any reason that there might be - I haven't asked you why, I

am asking you to agree - - -

HIS HONOUR: Ms Sofroniou is not asking you the reason, do you

agree that you did not provide the information referred

to in that letter to Harwood Andrews?---My recollection

is that apart from the specific information for Gibson

Street which I had given in November - I hadn't provided

that level of information to Harwood Andrews.

MS SOFRONIOU: Thank you, I tender the letter.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Ms Sofroniou, is there any need for me to

distinguish between which hat you're wearing - which

client on whose behalf this letter is tendered?

MS SOFRONIOU: For both, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Right.

#EXHIBIT 1 - Copy letter Harwood Andrews Lawyers to

the defendant, dated 15/01/08.

MS SOFRONIOU: Can I please show you this letter, Mr Johnson.

Could you have a peruse of that, you can disregard the

grey shading which was my marking and which in fact isn't

relevant to the questions I am asking you. So I don't

mean to throw you, so have a look through that and let me

know?---Thank you, Ms Sofroniou.

You have had the chance to have a look at that?---No, I'm still

halfway through the first page.

Right?---17 March 2008, It is a good letter, Ms Sofroniou.


Cressy

110

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

1

2


39/61

Could you just have regard, please, to the numbered paragraphs

that you see and in particular do you see at numbered

Paragraph 2B words to the effect, "I must say that I was

shocked to see that Hanlon was present at court on

12 March 2008, and purporting to be instructing solicitor

for Ms Cressy's counsel". Do you see those words?---I

see a lot of words including those ones, Ms Sofroniou.

Yes, I do.

Thank you?---Sorry, may I take you back? There were some

attachments to this letter - - -

I don't require you to look at those. I'm interested in the

wording that I'm drawing to your attention. I've drawn

your attention to the first sentence in 2B. Do you

understand?---I do. I'm just concerned. This was a 26

page communication and it's only the - - -

I acknowledge that, Mr Johnson. Could you now have a look at

Paragraph Numbered 7, which is on the third page of the

letter? And I want to draw your attention to these

words. "I note that Harwood Andrews are it seems

pigheadedly continuing to purport to represent Ms Cressy,

notwithstanding the mounting illegalities of this. (A)

For the record I inform you again that I do not approve

of this". You see those words?---Yes, clearly,

Ms Sofroniou.

You see further down in that same numbered paragraph,

Subparagraph (d) the words, "You cannot seriously lead

Hanlon as purporting to be Ms Cressy's instructing

solicitor. (i) Should you continue to do so I shall

have no choice but to make a complaint". Interpolating

there I'm presuming you mean a legal complaint. "About

you, Richard Peter Anderson, which even at this stage in


Cressy

111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


40/61

these pitiful proceedings is something that I do not wish

to do". Do you see those words, Mr Johnson?---I do and I

also see the words in Paragraphs B and C which - - -

You can come back to those in re-examination?---There's no need

to interpolate, Ms Sofroniou. It's clear.

Could you please have regard to Paragraph 10 which is on the

final page of the letter, and could I draw your attention

to the words, "I am not alone in my condemnation of

Harwood Andrews for acting and acting so unethically and

incompetently. Do not be surprised by the consequences

of this, which is likely to be a substantial hit to your

firm's bottom line". Do you see those words, Mr Johnson?

---I'm indebted to you for pointing them out,

Ms Sofroniou. Thank you.

You signed the letter, "Best wishes, James"?---That is simply

my signature, Ms Sofroniou.

I think you had invoked in the penultimate sentence which

appears in Paragraph 12, "Basic etiquette between legal

practitioners". Do you see those words?---Yes. We've

had those discussions a number of times in the

proceedings. Do you I'm not sure if you were present

at those times.

My suggestion to you having drawn those extracts from the

letter to your notice, is to suggest to you that the

purpose of this letter was an attempt to intimidate

Ms Cressy's lawyers into ceasing to act for her. What do

you say about that?---Not at all. That's not correct.

You had certainly indicated that you did not approve of their

continuing representation of her. Do you agree with

that?---I was shocked that my external legal counsel in

Geelong were taking up her claims and that they seemed to


Cressy

112

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


41/61

not only have the telescope - - -

Sorry, you might be confusing - - -

HIS HONOUR: Just answer the question. Do you agree with

Ms Sofroniou's proposition that you did not agree with

the fact that they were continuing to act for her? It's

a simple yes or no?---Yes, yes, Your Honour. I'm

indebted, Your Honour. Thank you.

MS SOFRONIOU: Given that disapproval I suggest to you that

your meaning by the words in Paragraph 10 that I read to

you earlier, "Don't be surprised by the consequences of

this". Your use of the word, "Consequences", amounted to

a threat. Do you agree with that?---Ah threat is a very

strong word, Ms Sofroniou. I was attempting to achieve

what one of my mentors, a partner in Johnson & ,

(inaudible). I was hoping to open their eyes to the

stupidity of the situation that they were in. They were

being conned by a pro just as I had been.

The subject of the threat or the gist of the threat was that

you were saying that you would take action that would

affect the firm's bottom line, which has resulted in your

joinder of them as parties to these proceedings. Do you

agree with that?---No, I don't. No, that's that's

that's a totally incorrect linkage, Ms Sofroniou.

Could I draw your attention, please, to Paragraph 5 of the

letter where that's on p.2. Where you extract under

Subparagraph (a), "Please advise whether Harwood Andrews

now or at any time claims any interest as mortgage or

otherwise in any of my properties"? Do you see that?

---Yes, Ms Sofroniou.

That was a request that you were making for Harwood Andrews to

explain the basis of the caveat that they had lodged,


Cressy

113

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

1

2


42/61

wasn't it?---Not not just the caveat over the Altona

property but its removal as well. I couldn't

understand - - -

Thank you. I tender the letter, Your Honour, which is from

Mr Johnson to Richard Anderson at Harwood Andrews dated

17 March 2008 and dated if it please the court.

#EXHIBIT H2 - Copy letter from the defendant to Mr

Richard Anderson at Harwood Andrews dated

17/03/08.

WITNESS: Your Honour, it's just my usual request that that's

four pages out of I think a 26 page - - -

HIS HONOUR: If you say there's something that gives those

comments context, you're entitled to tender the balance

of it in your own re-examination?---Thank you Your

Honour.

MS SOFRONIOU: Mr Johnson, in relation to that last request I

drew to your attention, I want to suggest that Harwood

Andrews by their then lawyers by this time, Lander &

Rogers, wrote to you explaining that Harwood Andrews

claimed no interest as mortgagee in any of your

properties. Do you recall that?---I don't specifically

Ms Sofroniou.

To see if it jogs your memory, my suggestion to you is that at

that time, I'm talking about 20 March of this year,

Harwood Andrews told you that any interest they claimed,

was as chargee pursuant to a non-registered instrument of

charge that Ms Cressy had given to Harwood Andrews. Do

you recall being informed of that?---I don't specifically

recall being informed. If you have a letter there, I'd

be happy to - - -

I'm happy to show it to you?---Thank you Ms Sofroniou.

To see if - - -?---I've not looked at this part of the case for


Cressy

114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

1

2


43/61

such a long time.

Please read it and then let me know if you agree with the

proposition I've just put to you that you were so

informed?---I recognise the letter and the gist of the

contents.

No reason to suggest to the court that you wouldn't have

received it around the time it was sent?---There may have

been a hiatus of a week or two or more before I actually

received it so it may have sat unopened for a long time

or sat in a mail box but I did receive it by the second

week of April. I was probably aware of the contents.

Thank you.

I tender the letter

#EXHIBIT H3 - Letter from Lander & Rogers to the

defendant dated 20/03/08.

Your Honour, may I please have access to Exhibit 38 I believe

it is. It should be the letter that Mr Johnson wrote to

Gadens Lawyers. Mr Johnson, I have in my hand Exhibit 38

which is a document that I understand you tendered, a

letter of 11 August 2008 to Ms Sharon Saife at Gadens

Lawyers?---I'm just looking for that attachment now.

If you have a copy of it - - -?---11 August 2008.

That's correct?---Thank you Ms Sofroniou.

In it you make and I'm reading from the caption "Urgent demand

for settlement calculations", there's various requests

that you make of Ms Saife in that letter?---Yes, thank

you.

And I want to draw your attention to p.3 which should begin

with a paragraph numbered six, do we have the same page?

---Yes, Ms Sofroniou.

Now in it as I read it, you have said to the recipient of the


Cressy

115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

1

2


44/61

letter, "I'm sorry but if your clients dare to enter into

any arrangements with Ms Cressy with respect to either of

my properties, notably 2 Dorrington Street, Point Cook as

this is the one she is next moving against, I am sorry

but if your clients are foolish enough to agree to any

proposal put forward by this woman, I will not hesitate

to join your clients as additional defendants in these

proceedings (breach of mortgagee's duties and as

participants in outright fraud).) Do you see those

words?---I do Ms Sofroniou, yes.

In Paragraph 7, could I draw your attention to the words,

"Again I am sorry but if your clients do not provide me

with 100 per cent cooperation in getting my sale of these

two properties to settlement e.g. by providing me with

the financial information I have requested by close of

business today, I reserve all of my rights as regards

your clients including - possibly including your clients

as additional defendants in these proceedings." Do you

see those words Mr Johnson?---I do indeed Ms Sofroniou,

thank you.

They were part of the letter which you caused to be sent to

Ms Saife? I ask because I don't have a signed copy?

---Nor do I. This was sent by my South Yarra office

people on my instructions. I don't think I've ever

signed a copy that's here.

On the assumption that it was sent on your instructions, my

suggestion to you is that here is another instance

whereby in order to achieve a result for which you were

contending, you were threatening the joinder of the

recipient of the letter as a party to these proceedings.

Do you agree with that?---No, I don't.


Cressy

116

1

2

3

4

5

BrothelGate Day 7 PM

Documents

Transcript of BrothelGate Day 7 PM