ROYAL COMMISSION INTO WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY CORRUPT OR CRIMINAL CONDUCT BY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN POLICE OFFICERS COMMISSIONER: G.A. Kennedy AO QC Held at Perth on the 15th day of October, 2002 Counsel Assisting Mr P. Hastings QC Appearances Mr W.M. Bryant. Copyright in this document is reserved to the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia. Reproduction of this document (or part thereof, in any format) except with the prior written consent of the Attorney General is prohibited. .15/10/2002 3148

B1/1 POLICE AT 9.49 AM HEARING COMMENCED: KEVIN WILLIAM REILLY: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hastings? MR HASTINGS: Thank you, Commissioner. I wish to resume examining Mr Reilly. EXAMINED BY MR HASTINGS QC (Continuing): MR HASTINGS: Mr Reilly, yesterday when I was asking you about a number of these calls which mention figures, namely 30 and 35 and so forth, and I suggested to you that they represented likely prices of ecstasy tablets, you said that your experience was that in Kalgoorlie they were selling for anything up to $80, to your knowledge. Do you remember that?---Yes. The implication being that my suggestion to you that the figures being mentioned were consistent with ecstasy prices and your view being that that was simply not the case. I did suggest to you in the same series of questions that you were talking about street prices, and when dealing at a wholesale level in bulk the prices were likely to be around the 30 to 35 dollar mark. But you again rejected that proposition, I think, did you not?---Yes. I just want to show you some statistics, if I may. The first document is barcoded D1015549. 1015549. These are tables from a publication of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. In a report entitled, "Australian Illicit Drug Report, 1998/99" - and when the document comes up you will see that the table discloses drug prices referenced by state and territory for particular periods. If I can just scan to the top for the moment. No, the other way. No. Go the other way. To the top. (TO WITNESS): Just to put you in the picture as to what the columns are, you'll notice that across the top the table is headed, "Drug prices by state and territory, July-September 1998" which is not quite the precise period we're talking about, but we will come to it. And then the various columns are headed by reference to the drug, the quantity and the various states, one of which is Western Australia, which you'll notice is the fourth across. So if we go to the bottom of the page, thank you, you'll see that the information discloses that for ecstasy, which you can't read very well but you can - - there's the MDMA entry three lines or four lines from the bottom. Your price, based on your Kalgoorlie experience, is roughly correct in that for one tablet or capsule, the information was that the cost of the tablet was 50 to 70 dollars. However, if you go to the next line you'll see that information - - or two lines down, for the sale of .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3149

B1/1 POLICE tablets in quantities between 100 and 1000 the prices were 25 to 30 dollars. And if we go to the next page, please, which you will see from the top is part of the same table and on the same system, records drug prices for October to December 1998, very close to the relevant period, and again if we can go to the bottom of the page where the MDMA figures are shown, they are the same; that is for one tablet or capsule the price is 50 to 70 dollars but for bulk sales of 100 to 1000 the prices were 25 to 30 dollars. Now, for the sake of completeness we can go to the next page but it in fact has no information for Western Australia. It's the same system referable to January to March 1999. If we go to the bottom of the page there was no information disclosed for Western Australia. Thank you. Those figures of 25 to 30 dollars for bulk sales of 100 to 1000 seem to have a very striking similarity to the figures that you and your brother were talking about, do they not?---All I can give you is my experience. My experience is $80. MR HASTINGS: Yes. Or so you say?---And if you interview some ecstasy dealers in Kalgoorlie - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3150

B2/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - ecstasy dealers in Kalgoorlie, you might get - - their figure may be very close to mine, which I'd say would be over $60. MR HASTINGS: Right. Well, I've just shown you the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence figures which indicate that for bulk sales of 100 to 1000, the figures were 25 to 30, which were the very figures that you and your brother, Michael, were talking about; what do you say about that?---I'm saying we weren't dealing in drugs. I see. What do you say about the coincidence in figures?---That's just about it. Coincidence. Just a fluke?---Yes. Thank you. Have you thought any more overnight about the business that you and your brother and Silvio might have been involved in during this period in January 1999, about which I asked you questions yesterday?---No. You mentioned yesterday that you have discussed this with your brother previously. Have you also discussed it with Detective Sergeant Cinquina?---I can't recall discussing it with him, no. I see. Do you know whether he has an explanation for the business that you, he and your brother, Michael, were involved in?---I don't know. As I said, I haven't been a police officer for 4 years, and I've put this behind me. Yes, but you still have contact with the other people involved, don't you?---Yes. I see them. Yes. What, are you saying you don't discuss the matter?---I'm here to answer your questions. Yes?---And I haven't discussed that particular issue with Silvio, no. Never?---I may have done some years ago. Right, and did that assist you then to work out what it was that you were involved in, with him and your brother?---No, but the only other time is when I was interviewed by Internal Affairs, and I can't remember what I told them. Well, you weren't asked about the ecstasy hypothesis, were you?---I can't remember now. The questions asked of you then related to the alleged dealings with K1 and Trifon, weren't they?---It was mainly about that, yes. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3151

B2/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Right, and no one asked you at that time about the possibility that you were engaged in ecstasy trading?---I can't remember if these phone calls were discussed then. Right. You, of course, were a detective senior sergeant in the police service?---Yes. Your brother, Michael, was a detective senior sergeant, was he not?---Yes. Cinquina is a detective sergeant in the Police Service?---Yes. You're seriously saying that between the three of you, notwithstanding the fact that there is a transcript of every word you spoke on the phone, you can't come up with any recollection of what it was that you were engaged in, in that January period in 1999?---I can't assist further than what I have. Are you saying that between the three of you, with about 60 years' accumulated police experience, each of you at least at the rank of detective sergeant, you cannot come up with one suggestion as to the business that you were discussing on the phone?---I've already spoken about it, and I can't assist you further. I see. I might pick up where we were yesterday, which you might remember was on the 10th of January, when the trip to Perth was cancelled, followed by some calls on the morning of the 11th of January 1999, one of which seemed to relate to the suggestion that some money be put back. You'd called it "stuff" and Mr Cinquina, however, referred to it as "money". I suggested to you yesterday that that was a reference to money which had been found in the gun locker in the police station, and you correctly pointed out that it was Mr Cinquina's locker in which the money was found. You, too, had a key to that locker, did you not?---I didn't have a key to that locker, no. You had access to a key, though, didn't you?---Not to - - not to that locker, no. Why not? You were the officer in charge of the support unit, were you not?---Yes. And he was one of your men?---The particular locker that Silvio had is an older-style. Yes?---And I recall that I had a master key to all the gun lockers. That particular locker, I didn't have a master key - - I didn't have a key to it. That was Silvio's. That was the one - -?---There were a number of lockers that I didn't have a key, I believe. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3152

B2/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: I see. You mentioned yesterday that from time to time, Detective Sergeant Cinquina had access to trotting club money, I think, did you not?---Yes. That's because he had a position, did he, at the trotting club in Kalgoorlie?---He worked down there at the bars, I believe. He managed the bars - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3153

B3/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - managed the bars. MR HASTINGS: And were you referring to the fact that from time to time when he closed the bar, he would have a float that he would have to take care of?---I think he had the weekly float, yes. But that never amounted to anything like $13,500, did it?---I don't know what it would have - - I don't know what it would have taken. But you know that it never amounted to - -?---I don't think it would have. - - anything like - -?---No. No. All right. Well, if I can move from there on to the next call which is barcoded D1003160, which took place, again, on the morning of the 11th of January, the Monday, at 12.17 local time and I'll invite you to listen to that. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a recording of you speaking to your brother Michael?---Yes. At a point halfway down the first page, you said that you would ring him back that afternoon and give him a number to ring you on. Do you see that?---Yes. Why would you ring him on the telephone and then give him another number to ring you on?---I'm not sure what was happening then. Is that because you were looking for a secure line on which you could have a conversation with your brother?---I can't recall why that was then. Is there any other reason you can advance for why you would establish a telephone connection with your brother and then give him another telephone number for him to ring you on, if it wasn't to ensure that your conversations were secure and not being overheard?---What phone call - - what phone did he ring me on? Well, it doesn't matter. You said to him "I'll ring you back this arvo and give you a number to ring me on"?---It depends where I was. It depends where you were going to be. You're talking about doing something that afternoon?---Well, if I had have been at home I'd probably say "Ring me at home." .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3154

B3/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Yeah. But if you were ringing him, having made a telephone connection, why would you need to give him a number, another number, to ring you back on?---It's - - it's that long ago, 4 years, I don't know. I see. Have you got a better explanation than the one I put to you - namely, that you were trying to establish a secure line on which to talk so that you couldn't be overheard?---I may well have wanted to talk to him about something. If you were engaging in an entirely innocent conversation, there'd be no need to take those sorts of precautions, would there?---As I said to you, I - - it's that long ago, I can't recall what was going on. However, if you were to get down to the details of a drug transaction, then of course it would be logical to endeavour to ensure that the line was not being overheard. Would you agree with that?---I'll just say again what I've been saying all along. It was not to do with any drug transaction. I see. Well, what were you talking about in the balance of this conversation?---I'm not sure what it was now. It's 4 years ago. Yes. Well, you'd agree, would you not, by reference to the last recorded statement on that page by Michael, that it was something that involved a number of items - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3155

B4/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - a number of items, one of which had been tested and the quality wasn't very good. Would you agree with that?---That's what it appears to be. Right. Does that give you any hint or clue as to what the nature of your business might have been?---No. It would fit the drug transaction though, wouldn't it? ---I can only say again that it was nothing to do with drugs. Yes, I know what you say?---I'm not involved in that. But you'd agree, wouldn't you, that that terminology would fit a transaction involving the sale of drugs, one of which had been tasted for quality?---I'm not going to agree with that because that's not - - that's not what was happening. And if we can go over the page, please. Michael then says, well, he'd given a couple to a friend because, he says, "I just wanted to make sure, you know." Do you know what he wanted to make sure of?---I don't know. He then went on to say, "What can happen is, um, instead of three do one", and it turns out he's talking about 300 and 100. Does that give you a further clue as to the nature of the business you're discussing?---No. Would it have been 300 encryption cards?---I don't know what it's about. Three hundred computers?---I don't know what it's about. You are trying to help the Commission to ascertain the facts, are you?---It's 4 years ago and to me it's not clear what we were talking about. Right?---It's all over the place. Well, it's a pretty consistent pattern, isn't it? One call flows into the other, doesn't it? The transaction that was to take place on Monday morning for which Silvio Cinquina was to come to Perth had been called off. On the Monday morning you have a number of calls with Michael about which - - you are obviously discussing the business which had been cancelled. You've reached the point here where Michael is telling you that instead of doing 300 of these items the other side were talking about just doing 100. That's a nice, clear sequence of conversations. What's confusing about it?---It's 4 years ago. I see. You apparently thought that 100 wasn't enough because you said, "A lot of stuffing around for one." Do you see that?---Yes. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3156

B4/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: I don't suppose you can assist us by coming up with a view as to what business 100 required a lot of stuffing around for?---There's not enough information there for me. All right, and then Michael comes back and says, "Well, you can either do that or 5000." That clue doesn't help you any further in coming up with an identification of the business that you were conducting?---No. Was it mining equipment? Something to do with mines?---I don't know what it was about. Blocks? It might have been mining blocks?---I don't know what it's about. I see. It's pretty clear, isn't it, that Michael was telling you that the seller of the ecstasy tablets was either going to do 100 or 5000. That's what the conversation was about, wasn't it?---It's nothing to do with ecstasy tablets. All right. Let's move on the next one, which is barcoded D1003161, which is a further conversation on the morning of Monday, the 11th of January. Not the morning; it's by then 1518 hours local time. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between yourself and your brother, Michael?---Yes. It would seem, would it not, that you had been at home - would you agree with that - when you made contact with him?---Yes. Because you said, "I'll wait here at home with it." Correct? ---Yes. And you were asking Michael to ring you - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3157

B5/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - Michael to ring you back; correct?---Yes. Was there any reason why you couldn't proceed to discuss your business with him then and there, having made telephone connection with him?---I'm not sure what it was about, but it was something that we wanted to discuss in private. I see. What was that?---I can't remember. A personal matter, perhaps?---I don't know. What was it in private that you needed to discuss with Michael?---It's 4 years ago. I just don't know what it was. And in the end you suggest to him that he go and ring from a public, do you not? Meaning a public telephone?---Yes. Why would you be asking your brother, a fellow police officer, to go to a public telephone to ring you?---It was something that was private. Something I wanted confidential. But that was 4 years ago and I can't tell you what it is. Well, what was it that was private and confidential?---I'm not sure what it was. What business have you ever done with your brother, fellow detective senior sergeant, that was private and confidential that you couldn't discuss on a phone from your home?---Maybe to do with an inquiry or investigation. May have wanted some advice off him. What inquiry or investigation have you and Michael been jointly involved in in recent years?---I just wanted some privacy. It might have been about some investigation about me; could be about anything. I see. And why couldn't you discuss that on your ordinary phone?---Maybe because I thought that it was being monitored and I wanted complete privacy, because I don't like other people listening to my phone calls. What if it was being monitored? You'd have had nothing to hide, would you?---I know, but certain things you want to discuss in privacy. I see?---You should have a right to privacy. But you weren't being investigated, to your knowledge, in 1999, were you?---Yes. You'd been before the ACC some time before that?---Yes. I believed I was being investigated by them. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3158

B5/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: I see. Have there been other occasions when you've asked your brother to go down to a public telephone to ring you?---May have happened. I can't remember. Of course, it would make sense if you were engaged in discussions about a drug deal that you didn't want your phones to be - - your phone to be monitored, and you ask him to go to a public phone, wouldn't it?---This was nothing to do with drug dealing. I see. My invitation stands, Mr Reilly. If you ever find any part of these conversations which is inconsistent with the ecstasy hypothesis, do bring it to my attention. You understand that, don't you?---This is nothing to do with ecstasy. Yes. I know that you say that. I'm inviting you to demonstrate in what way any of these calls is inconsistent with you being involved in ecstasy trading. You understand that, don't you?---Yes. Let's move on to the next one, which is D1003164. Well, I'm sorry. Just - - perhaps I should play the ones that preceded. I'm sorry. Can I have D1003162? This again is a call on the 11th of January. The last call was at 1818 Eastern Standard Time. This one's at 1836 Eastern Standard Time, just a few minutes later. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that you talking to your brother, Michael?---Yes. It seems a bit unfortunate Michael was standing outside a public telephone waiting to get on when you rang him; would you agree with that?---Yes. You must have been impatient to talk to him?---Yes. Was there some urgency about the business that you wanted to discuss?---Depends what I was doing at home. I might have been going out or something. I see. Because if you were going out it wouldn't stop you using your mobile phone though, would it?---I don't know what it's about. Can we have the next one, please, which is D1003163? This is again on the afternoon of Monday the 11th of January, just a minute or two after the last call. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3159

B6/2 POLICE AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Is that you talking to Michael again?---Yes. He seemed to have progressed to the point where he was in the phone box, would you agree?---Yes. And you seem to be somewhat impatient; do you have any recollection of why that was?---No. Thank you. If we go to the next one, which is D1003164. This is at 1859 hours Eastern Standard Time, which is approximately 20 minutes after that last short call, again, on the afternoon of the 11th of January. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that you speaking to your brother, Michael?---Yes. Do you know what you were talking about?---No. It's clear that you had had a discussion between the last call, when he announced that he was just in the box, and this call, isn't it?---Yes. Because 20 minutes earlier, you'd been at the point where you were still rather impatiently waiting for him to ring you, and he'd said that he was about to, because he'd just made it to the front of the queue and was then in the telephone box. You've now rung him back 20 minutes later, having had this private conversation, apparently. You'd agree, wouldn't you?---Yes. And, of course, you can't remember now what that private conversation was about?---No. And does this call refresh your memory, as to what it might have been about?---No. Do you think it might fit in with the call you had earlier with Mick, when he told you that one of the problems over the transaction which had had to be called off was the fact that there was either 300 to be involved, or 100, or either that or 5000. Do you think that's a continuation of the same discussion?---As I said, I don't know what we were talking about. It's pretty clear that it is, isn't it?---No. This is a follow-on from that conversation you had earlier that morning?---No, I just don't know what it's - - what it's about. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3160

B6/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you to agree that it's pretty clearly a continuation of the discussions you'd had with your brother that morning, whatever that was?---There's just not enough information there. It's not clear. All right. And your statement, "You gotta try and secure the whole lot of them" doesn't give you any sort of prompt as to what you might have been discussing?---No. Whole lot of what? Encryption cards?---I don't know what it - - we were talking about. Mine blocks? Fence blocks?---I don't know. It's 4 years ago. All right. "The whole lot", according to the earlier conversation, was 5000. Was there any occasion when you were going to engage in a transaction involving 5000 items?---As I said to you, I don't know what we were talking about. Right. But apart from that, was there any occasion when you and your brother, Michael, were involved in any discussion about doing a transaction in a lot of 5000?---I can't recall. Of course, it may well again fit the ecstasy hypothesis, do you think?---Again, I say that it was nothing to do with dealing in drugs. Do you see anything in this conversation which was inconsistent with the ecstasy hypothesis - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3161

B7/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - ecstasy hypothesis?---As I said to you, it's nothing to do with that. You don't want to answer that question?---Pardon? You don't want to answer my question? Is that it?---It's not that I don't want to answer you. I'm telling you. It's nothing to do with that. I know what you say. I want you to now answer the question - whether you can point to anything in this conversation which is inconsistent with the allegations I have been making about you and your brother Michael discussing an ecstasy deal?---There is nothing - - there is not enough information there. All right. Would you listen to this call please, which is barcoded D1003166? This again is a call on Monday the 11th of January, but in the evening at 8.10 pm and is, I think, between you and Silvio Cinquina. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3162

B8/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between you and Silvio Cinquina?---Yes. The majority of it was a discussion about a recently concluded race, was it not?---Trotting meeting. Trotting meeting. And then towards the end you referred to the fact that you had had a talk to Mick, did you not?---Yes. You can go over to the fourth page, page 11, while you're on it, thank you. "I had a talk to Mick." That was a reference to the fact that you'd been talking to your brother Michael earlier on this day, as we have seen from the earlier calls, was it not?---Could've been another Mick. Oh, I see. Mick who?---Could've been Mick Porter. Right. Any other Mick?---Not that I can think of. But it certainly could've been your brother, Michael, couldn't it?---I may have spoke to Mick but I can't see about this - - I actually don't know which Mick it was. Right, but in fact you had been talking to your brother Michael earlier that day?---Yes. And do you know what you were referring to when you said that this person Mick was going to send a Christmas present?---No. Looks like it's about a couple of hundred dollars. If it was your brother Michael was he sending Silvio Cinquina a late Christmas present?---It's more likely that Mick had a couple of hundred dollars to do with one of the horses. I see. So it wasn't a Christmas present?---No, just an expression, I suppose. It's an expression you used, isn't it, as a code?---No. And you used it on other occasions too, didn't you, when something was to be sent?---It talks about a present, it talks about $200. That's all I can really say to you. But your term "Christmas present" is a code you use to refer to some item, the name of which you don't want to give? ---No. It's like a previous occasion when something was sent up on the Air Wing flight on the 30th of December which you described as a "Christmas present"?---It could've probably been a Christmas present. Yes?---Christmas is on the 25th of December. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3163

B8/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Right, but the fact is, as this example demonstrates, you used the term "Christmas present" as a euphemism to refer to something the name of which you didn't want to say?---Well, I've used it there as a couple of hundred dollars. No, it's not. It's just "a couple"?---Oh, Silvio said, "It's a hundred bucks." Yes, and you said, "No, no, no, nothing like that. Just a couple"?---I don't know what it's about. Could be tablets?---No. I see. It would fit pretty well, wouldn't it?---All I can say to you is it's not - - nothing to do with that. You've just had a series of conversations earlier that day with Michael following the cancellation of the transaction for which Silvio was going to come to Perth. You then speak to Silvio, tell him you've had a talk to Michael and something is going to be sent to Kalgoorlie. He says, "It's a hundred bucks." That could refer to the fact that at one point in your discussions with Michael it looked like you'd have to take only 100 instead of 300, which was going to be a waste of time. Do you think?---No. And he might have thought that was 100 tablets, do you think? ---No. And you said, "No, no, no, it's just a couple" and that is one or two to enable some samples to be handed over so people could test them?---No. Is there anything in that which is inconsistent with what I've said?---We're talking about a hundred bucks, we're talking about Mick, probably Mick Porter. We're talking about horse racing, talking about the races for the horses. It's probably down the Foundry at the TAB. Yes, but when Silvio says that he thought it might be a hundred bucks, you say, "No, no, nothing like that. Just a couple." Do you think it was just a couple of dollars? ---Maybe. What, two dollars?---No, maybe "a couple" means a smaller amount. Well, you said, "Just a couple." He said, "A hundred bucks." You said, "No, no, nothing like that. Just a couple"?---I don't know. I don't know. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3164

B8/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: I see. All right, if we can go on then to the next call, which is on the following day, the 12th of January. That's barcoded D1003167. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3165

B9/1 POLICE AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between yourself and your brother, Michael?---Yes. I don't suppose you have any idea of what you were talking about?---Oh, some of it he was talking about Crime Stoppers. Right. And the rest of the business that you were discussing?---Don't know. No idea who "the blokes" were that you were asking about?---No. Could be the drug suppliers, do you think?---No. No idea who Michael Reilly was speaking about when he said, "I'll see him later on today"? Don't know who that person was?---No. Bit further down the page, when you said, "The sooner you get it the better, that's all", no idea what "it" was?---No. And when you said a couple of lines down, "Do you know that number you gave me the other day - - " I'm sorry. That was Michael Reilly, sorry. If I can just go back a bit, you said, "The sooner you get it the better, that's all." And then you said, "No worries. All right. And then we'll decide." You've no idea what that was referable to?---No. And then if I can go over please, when Michael said, "What else is happening?" you said, "Not much. I've got everything ready to get going. That's - - like, sometimes those things don't last. It's a window of opportunity." What window of opportunity was it?---I don't know. There's not enough information there now for me. I see. Notwithstanding the fact we've now heard about 25 phone calls all talking about apparently the same thing. There's just not enough information for someone of your investigative background?---It's not clear. That was 4 years ago. Right. And you've no idea about what was "ready to get going" as you said?---No. Could be you had the cash all ready? The money that Silvio was going to have to put back when his trip was cancelled on the Monday?---No. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3166

B9/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Could be you had a buyer ready in Kalgoorlie?---No. Could be that you were worried that unless the opportunity was then taken, the opportunity would be lost?---Well, whatever we're talking about, yes, but it was nothing to do with drugs. In any event, whatever it was you were still anxious to get on with it, weren't you?---Yes. Thank you. Can I go to the next call, please, which is D1003169? This is another call on the Tuesday the 12th of January at 1537 local time. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3167

B10/2 POLICE AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that you talking to Silvio Cinquina?---Yes. Any clues there as to what the business being discussed was?---No. There's not enough information. Do you know what "that stuff" was that you were referring to?---No. Got any possible suggestions?---No. Have you got a better suggestion, then, than the one that this was a continuation of the ecstasy discussion?---It's nothing to do with ecstasy. Yeah, but have you got a better suggestion? Better explanation?---I can't remember what it was. It's 4 years ago. Yes?---But it wasn't drugs. I see. What was it?---I can't remember. What business did you have with Silvio Cinquina, involving "stuff"?---It's 4 years ago. What business transactions have you ever done with Silvio Cinquina involving any sort of stuff?---I don't know if it's a business transaction. It was - - "get that stuff"; it might have been paperwork. I don't know. I see. Paperwork, do you think?---I'm not saying it's paperwork. Well, what is it?---If I knew I'd tell you, but I don't know. I can't assist you. Well, what business have you ever done with Silvio Cinquina, full stop?---He's my 2IC at the detectives office. Yes. Apart from police business, what other business have you done with him, of a commercial nature?---It could well have been police business. Well, just answer my questions; apart from police business, what other commercial transactions have you ever had, ever, with Silvio Cinquina?---I may have had a few, but I can't - - Well, just give me a hint?---It might have been something to do with horseracing. I don't know. Well, horseracing, good. What else?---Employment at mines. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3168

B10/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Yes? Blocks? Encryption cards? Any of those other possibilities you've raised?---I don't know. Have you ever done business with Silvio Cinquina in relation to any of those commodities?---What commodities? Blocks, encryption cards, computer parts, computers?---Not that I can think of, no. Well, what was the stuff you were talking about here, then?---As I said, it could be something relating to police work. What sort of stuff would you get in the course of police work?---Could be paperwork. I'm not sure. I see. Why wouldn't you say "papers" then?---(No audible response.) The "stuff" wasn't a reference to the ecstasy, was it?---No. That you wanted to get finalised before Silvio went on leave, or went away?---No. To Esperance?---No. And if we can go to the top of the next page, when Silvio said, "But we won't have all of it then" was that a reference to the fact that you still hadn't arranged with Michael to secure a supply of the ecstasy?---No. But what you did say is, "But what I'm saying is, if it's okay on Thursday, we will get the rest on Friday". Do you know what that meant?---No. Was it a reference to the previous conversation you'd had with Silvio, when you were talking about the Chrissy present - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3169

B11/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - the Chrissy present and a couple coming up to Kalgoorlie, which would be a sample of the ecstasies which, if they turned out to be satisfactory, would be the green light to accepting the rest of the load on the Friday?---It's got nothing to do with drugs. All right. In any event, at that stage whatever this business was, was still on foot, was it not, because there was an expectation that the transaction could be done on the Friday? Would you agree with that?---It appears to be, yes. If I can go to a call on the next day? This is barcoded D1003170. This is on Wednesday the 13th of January at 8.15 am local time. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that you talking to Michael Reilly?---Yes. Do you know why he couldn't talk to you on the phone that he contacted you on?---Something he wanted to discuss in private. I see. Do you know what that private business was?---No. It's another example, is it not, of you and he speaking on a telephone in circumstances in which you apparently didn't want to be overheard?---We wanted privacy, yes. And again, I don't suppose you can specify why it was that you needed privacy at that time?---No. Or what business it was that you wanted to discuss, that you didn't want the risk of being overheard?---No. I can't remember going back that far, because we had so many calls now from public telephone boxes. Right?---I've lost track of it. But why were there so many from public telephone boxes?---Between then and now? Because I've been under investigation. My phones have been monitored. What about at this time, though, in January 1999?---I was under investigation. I don't know. I wanted privacy. In any event, whatever this private business was that you had with Michael, it was still ongoing, was it not, because you needed to talk to him in a secure - - on a secure line?---He wanted to talk to me about something in private. I don't know what it's about. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3170

B11/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: All right. Can we go then to a call a couple of days later on the 15th, which is barcoded D1003216? This is on the 15th of January, the day before the raid. This call was late in the evening, or at least at 2246 Eastern Standard Time, which is 1946 local time. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3171

B12/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between you and your brother Michael?---Yes. The evening of the 15th of January 1999 was a situation in which you were somewhat troubled, were you not, because of the number of calls you had been receiving from a female person? ---Yes. And you had been making inquiries throughout that day in order to identify the person who had been making the calls? ---Making inquiries to find out what was going on, yes. And one of the prospects that you were concerned about was that you may have been the subject of some investigation, was it not?---I could've been the subject of some integrity check, yes. Yes, and you speculate in this call, do you not, with your brother Michael as to who might be responsible for controlling the female who was approaching you?---That was one option, yes. Yes, and you spoke earlier of one of the bases for your wanting to speak to your brother Michael in circumstances in which you might be overheard as being the prospect that you may have had your - - or may be under investigation. Remember saying that on a number of occasions when I - - ?---Yes. - - asked you why you needed your brother to go to a public phone, etcetera?---From the other - - yes, body, yes. Well, this was a very point at which you were most acutely conscious of the fact that you may have been under investigation, wasn't it?---Yes. You didn't have any qualms about speaking to your brother Michael - -?---I - - - - on a phone here?--- - - spoke to him on a private line afterwards. Yes, but in this conversation you went on at some length about what was happening without asking Michael to go to a public phone or making some other arrangements to ensure that you weren't being overheard?---I didn't really go into much detail here. It was quite a lengthy conversation, wasn't it, about who might be responsible, whether it was the NCA or whoever? I thought your position was that on those occasions that was where you wanted to ensure that your conversations were private?---Should've been. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3172

B12/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: What I suggest this call demonstrates is that the only reason you went off to have private conversations with your brother was when you were dealing in drugs?---No. And the fact that you may have been the target of an investigation was not a reason why you needed to talk to your brother - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3173

B13/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - talk to your brother in a secure line?---No. There's only one line in this that I want to ask you about at this time. That's on the second page, which is now in front of you. Having raised with Mick a number of issues concerning the circumstances in which the female had approached you and what Farrell was doing or could do to assist, then at about point 4 on this page you said: "Yeah. But anyway, Mick, those other - - those other

things are going all right." Do you see that?---Yeah. That was a reference to the other transaction that you had been discussing with your brother, Michael, throughout that week, was it not?---I don't know what it was about. Have you got any idea - - ?---No. - - what you were referring to about those - - "those other things going all right"?---No. It was clearly a separate matter, wasn't it, to the - - ?---Appears to be, yes. - - female incident. And given that I've already indicated to you from the calls that have been played that you'd had a sequence of calls with your brother throughout the week, it would seem to be clearly referable back to those calls, would it not?---Maybe, but there's not enough information there for me to decipher what we were talking about. Well, what I suggest to you is that at the very least it indicates that whatever business you had been developing with Michael during the week, that was still something in which you were interested as late as the evening of the 15th of January; would you agree with that?---I don't know. Could have been a completely separate issue. Because - - do you know what happened to this transaction or this business that you had been discussing with Michael during the week once the raid occurred on the morning of the 16th of January?---I don't know. If it was private business between you and Michael which was legitimate, there's no reason why the intervention of the ACC and the IAU on the morning of the 16th of January should have stopped it, was there?---I think so. Why?---Well, my whole life was changed around. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3174

B13/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Yes. But what would that have to do with any legitimate and private business - - ?---Well, the whole - - - - that you had with your brother?---You go through something like that, it consumes you completely. Yeah?---Yes. Of course it would make a big difference if it was an illegal transaction that you were involved in?---No, it wasn't. The last thing you would do is keep going with an ecstasy deal once you'd been raided by the ACC?---It's got nothing to do with that. Well, what happened to this transaction that you've been discussing with Michael throughout that week?---I don't know. I don't know what it was about, but I know as soon as that happened the life changed completely. Right. Have you ever discussed with Michael Reilly since whether he went on with the business he'd been discussing?---No. He had his own worries. Do you remember having a discussion with him after the raid on the morning of the 16th to determine whether you would go on with this transaction that you'd already been planning?---No. Of course, the sudden termination of that arrangement would again fit in with the ecstasy hypothesis, wouldn't it?---It's nothing to do with that. Right. I've reached the end of the calls that I was going to take you to in relation to the alleged ecstasy deal. Have you been able to point to one single line in any of the conversations that I've taken you through which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that I put to you?---There's just not enough information there for me to tell you what we were talking about. Just answer my question, please. Have you been able to point to one single line - - ?---Well, I - - - - in any of those calls which is inconsistent with the allegation that I have put, that you and your brother were involved in the planning of an ecstasy deal?---That is - - there is nothing there because it didn't take place. I see. Well, as I indicated to you at the beginning of examining you about these calls, the context in which I took you through them is that there is a significant prospect that a submission will be made that the Commissioner should form the opinion that you and your brother were involved in an .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3175

B13/1 POLICE ecstasy transaction. Is there anything that you want to say now against that proposition?---All I can say is it's nothing to do with that. MR HASTINGS: I see. Leaving aside the calls, is there anything else you want to say about the allegation which is made?---It's false. Nothing else?---No. I want to go now to the other matter concerning the allegation of your involvement in the theft of the morphine tablets from - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3176

B14/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - morphine tablets from the person referred to as K1. You know the person I'm referring to, do you not?---Yes. That is a matter about which you've been asked questions previously, is it not?---Yes. And in particular, by Internal Affairs during the interviews with you in October 1999?---Yes. And in general terms, what is your explanation for your association with that matter?---General terms as - - I received some information - - From?---From Chris Trifon. Yes?---A search was carried out by my brother. Yes?---And my brother told me what happened at the house, and that's about it. Apart from passing the information on to your brother, did you do anything else yourself to assist in the investigation?---From memory, I think I might have checked out a few details that were supplied. And what was the information that Trifon gave you?---That someone was under threat, think someone was going to rip him off of some drugs and he pressurised me - - or made a case that it was urgent. What was your association with Trifon at that time?---He had supplied some information to us. Was that in relation to the man, Mancini?---I didn't know for sure it was him at the time, but later I found out he was involved in it, yes. Right, and that was to do with an allegation that some drugs were to be brought across to Perth from Adelaide, was it?---Yeah, 1 pound of heroin, I believe it was. In the end result, Mancini was arrested before you were able - -?---The information was passed on to the Drug Squad and I think they already had an operation on it. At some point, did you discuss with Trifon the fact that he might himself be involved in the transportation of the drugs?---No. For how long had you known Trifon up to the point when he provided you with the information about K1?---He was - - I met - - I knew him; I saw him at the races. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3177

B14/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: In Kalgoorlie?---Yes, and he gave us that information. Right. For how long had you known - -?---I hadn't known him very long, no. Well, the search of K1's premises took place on the 26th of June 1998. How long before that had you known Trifon?---I don't know. I couldn't tell you. Was it a year or 2 years or 5 or 10?---I don't think it was that long. Had you met him in 1998?---I - - I met him - - I think it was in 1998, yes. How were you introduced to him?---I was at the races and I think he came up with maybe another police officer. Who?---I think it may have been Gavin Farrell, but I'm not positive about it. Was Trifon then living and working in Kalgoorlie, as far as you knew?---I think he had a business. Right. Did you know where that was?---I later found out it was in Boulder Road. In what sort of industry was he involved?---Security doors or something like that. And how did it come about that he provided information concerning the Mancini activity?---Think he may have spoken to Gavin and Gavin told me, he wanted to have a meeting, and the information was passed on to Drug Squad. How long before he gave you the information about K1 was that?---I don't think it was too - - too long a period of time. Had Mancini been arrested before he gave you the information about K1?---I think so. Not sure on that. Where did he give you the - - well, where were you when he gave you the information about K1?---I think he rang me and he might've come to the office. I think there was a bit of - - maybe more than one meeting, where he came - - kept coming back asking me - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3178

B15/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - coming back asking me to assist him. MR HASTINGS: Did it take a while for the story to emerge, that he wanted to convey to you, or was he able to walk up to you - -?---I can't - - - - and give it to you in one session?---I can't go back to that and tell you now. No. I wouldn't be able to tell you how it happened, but I was interviewed at the time and I - - and I also went and gave evidence in the Industrial Court not long afterwards, and answered a lot of questions about it. I answered them, but to go back to that now, it's very difficult. When Trifon gave you the first information about Mancini, he was acting as an informant, was he not?---Yes. Did you register him?---At that time, no. Why not?---Well, first of all, you have to make some inquiries into his background. Also there has to be some formal arrangement between the two and he has to accept to enter into that relationship; that he has to be a registered informant. Yes. So did you explore those matters with him?---To my knowledge, he didn't want to become a registered informant. Did you ask him?---At that particular time, I don't think it went into - - into that - - I went that far with him. I was still seeing how he was going. Did you make a record of the information he gave you about Mancini?---I may have written something in my occurrence book, but I think there was information passed to Drug Squad. So there would be a record. Did you make a record?---I may have - - probably made a record in my occurrence book of seeing him. When he came forward with the information about K1, did you make a record of that information when he gave it to you?---That information was recorded at Crimestoppers, and I probably would have put something in my occurrence book. All right. Are you saying you did, or probably did?---I don't know, because I haven't got that book. Where is it?---I don't know. It was last at my office. I see. And a search could never find it?---I've never been back there to look for it. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3179

B15/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Mm. But you know that a search has been made?---I don't know. You know that - -?---It was there when I left. You've been told, have you not, that a search was made and it could not be found?---I haven't been told that, no. In relation to your journal, did you put a journal - - make a journal entry about your discussion with Trifon?---I did make - - I may have made a record in my occurrence book. I haven't got that occurrence book. I can't check it. I usually - - throughout the day, you make notes about what you do. Mm?---If I did speak to him and I passed the information on, I may well have put it in my book. Well, we may be talking about the same book by different names. How many books did you keep as a record of your duties in 1998?---I had a diary. A diary?---Yes. Not a journal, not an official - -?---I had - - - - publication journal?---I had a journal up to a period of time and then I kept a diary. And what's the occurrence book you're talking about?---My journal. So in 1998, how many records - - how many books were you maintaining?---One book. Your diary?---I had a diary, but prior to the diary I had an occurrence book. You had a diary in 1999, did you not, because you were able to produce that when - -?---That was my latest one. Yes - -?---My journal - - What about in 1998? Did you keep a similar style diary with dates - - printed dates on the top and so forth?---I had a journal. Yes. Did you have a diary? Can we just deal with one at a time? In 1998 did you have a diary of the same style - -?---I had a diary - - - - that you kept in 1999?---I had various books at various stages. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3180

B15/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Well, let's talk about 1998. In 1998, did you maintain a printed diary - -?---A journal - - - - of the same style that you had in 1999?---No. I had a journal. Right. Apart from that, did you have an occurrence book?---A journal. That's what I call the occurrence book. Right. So there was one book in which you placed records during 1998?---Of my personal - - Your police - -?--- - - day to day - - - - duties?--- - - tasks? Yes. Yes. And where do you say that book was when you last saw it - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3181

B16/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - last saw it?---At the CIB office. In Kalgoorlie?---With all my other journals. I see, and you've been told, have you not, that a search of the office couldn't locate it?---I've only been told that I have failed to produce it and I have told them that it was last seen - - I last had it at the office. Yes. The reason you were being asked to produce it was because it couldn't be found in the office. You understood that, didn't you?---All I can say it that's where the book was last. I haven't been back to that office since. In any event, if you did make a record of what K1 told you about - - what Trifon told you about K1 it would've been in your journal for 1998. Is that right?---It may have been. If you made an entry?---Yes. Having received the material or the information from Trifon was there some delay before you passed that on to your brother or did you communicate that to him directly - or immediately, rather?---I can't remember. Why did you choose to give that information to your brother as distinct from some other police officer or police unit? ---Well, eventually I got to Crime Stoppers - I think Trifon may have wanted a reward. My brother said he was going to do it and I needed someone to do it straight away. Right?---And he agreed to do it, so I thought I was doing the right thing because the matter was being attended to straight away. Was there some reason why you couldn't inform the Drug Squad or somebody else - - ?---I may well have rung them. - - who may have been directly involved in that type of work? ---All I wanted was someone to go out and do the job. Trifon - I felt I owed him a favour that way. He'd given up a pound of heroin. But your brother Michael was in a non-operational role, was he not?---I don't think there is any non-operational role in the CIB. His job was to manage Crime Stoppers?---My experience is that they had to go out and do other jobs. I see?---At one stage I knew there was a team of detectives at Crime Stoppers with a task of just going out and doing jobs, .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3182

B16/4 POLICE which then later stopped, but I know for years that Crime Stoppers went out and did inquiries. MR HASTINGS: Did you not think you could contact the nearest police station to where K1 lived to ask for their assistance? ---Look, I don't know. I was asked all those questions over 3 years ago and I gave what answers I could then. Right?---To the best of my knowledge. So what's your recollection now as to why you didn't ring the nearest police station to ask them to go out to K1's premises to check on his welfare?---I can't recall now. Did you communicate the information to your brother on the day that he went out on the raid or the day before?---I can't recall. Having communicated the information to him was that it as far as you were concerned? You had no need to be further involved in the matter?---The only recollection I have is that Trifon pestered me a bit as to what happened and he was also concerned as to another person that may - - whose identity may become known. When did he pester you?---Around the time of the raid. Did you do something as a result of him pestering you?---I can't recall the full details now. What was the basis upon which you accessed the computer and made some checks about K1?---I may have had a look to see where people were. I might have passed that information on to my brother. I can't remember. Once you had passed it on to your brother at Crime Stoppers the matter was effectively in his hands, was it not?---Yes. And you presumably went about your business without the need to be concerned about what was happening in Perth?---I monitored it, I believe, because Trifon was asking me how things were going - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3183

B17/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - how things were going. MR HASTINGS: When you say "monitored", what does that mean?---I think I spoke to my brother as to what actually happened up there. After the event?---Might have been during the event, after the event, I can't remember. Why did you need to be involved during the event?---I can't recall exactly how it happened. After you communicated the information to your brother, did he get back to you to give you a report on what he'd found out before he went out to do the job?---Can you repeat the question? After you communicated the information to your brother, did he get back to you before he actually went out to K1's premises?---I can't remember. There would have been no need for him to speak to you again, would there?---I can't remember the circumstances going back that long now. You received some information from Trifon, you passed that on to your brother?---Yes. You had no further information to give?---I'd have to go back and have a look at all the detail. Why do you need to go back and look at the detail?---Because I can't remember the sequence of events; the ins and outs of what happened. If it was a simple task of you receiving information from a person and passing it on to the appropriate authority, what need was there for you to remain further involved in the matter?---I don't know to what extent I was further involved, because I can't remember back that far. I'm just asking you in principle whether there was any need for you to maintain an interest in the matter once you'd passed it on to your brother?---It depends on the circumstances of each matter. Every matter's different. Yes?---Every job's different. Well, in this situation where you - - ?---Everything's not so simple as it first looks. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3184

B17/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - where you'd received information about a job in Perth, given that you were in Kalgoorlie, what interest did you maintain in the matter once you'd passed it on to the relevant authority to pursue?---Well, I had an interested party, who was the informant, who was asking me questions about what happened to the other person up there that was involved. Of course, you would have had an interest if the plan had been to go out to K1's premises and take the drugs from him - - ?---No. - - in order to sell them later?---That's not correct. That would be a reason why you'd be anxious to know how the job was going, wouldn't it?---That's not right. Another reason why you'd be anxious to assist as much as you could to ensure the job went smoothly?---I've explained my actions at length. Did your brother tell you that on the morning of the search he'd gone out to the area in which K1 lived to have a look around?---I can't remember the details. I'd have to go back to my evidence I gave, and whatever else I could find. Well, some of these matters were - - ?---It's 4 years ago and I can't recall it. Some of these matters are fresh in the sense that they were not available at the time and you were not asked about them then, so I'm giving you the opportunity to deal with them now?---I can't recall that. Do you have any recollection of your brother ringing you from the area shortly before he went in to the premises?---No. As best one can tell, Messrs Michael Reilly, O'Keeffe and O'Reilly entered the premises at about 1 pm. According to the telephone records your brother rang you at 12.56 pm, which is some 4 minutes before going in to the premises. Do you have any recollection of that?---No. Is there any possible reason that you can think of now why your brother Michael would need to talk to you just before he went in the door?---If he rang me he may have rang me requiring further information; I don't know. Why would he ring you if he's already out there and ready to go in the door some 4 minutes later?---I don't know. What need did he have to speak to you for further information?---If I was asked that 4 years ago I would have given you an explanation. I can't remember now. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3185

B17/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Well, the computer records indicate that shortly after that call, you - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3186

B18/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - shortly after that call, you accessed the computer, seeking information about V1?. Do you have any recollection now why you needed to access the computer at 1302 hours?---With respect to who? I'm sorry, K1?---K1? K1?---No, I can't recall, but there would have been a reason. Something to do with the operation. I see?---Or the job. And do you know why Michael Reilly had to ring you to do a computer check?---I don't know if he rang me for that reason. As I said to you, I don't know the details. Well, it seems to me an extraordinary coincidence that at 1256, there's a record of a call between him and you, and then at 1302, you then access the computer in relation to details of K1?---It's 4 years ago. Yes?---I may have checked something out for my own information, but without knowing the full details, I can't tell you that. Well, it might be one thing, if it required further information from your informant, Trifon, but when it was just a question of accessing the computer system, anybody in the Police Service with the relevant clearance could have done that, couldn't they?---I can't remember why I did that. And for example, Michael Reilly could have got someone in his office to assist with access to the computer, could he not?---Depends on why - - why I did access the computer. Well, one reason - -?---As I said to you, I can't remember. One reason might be to keep it in-house, so that the fewer people involved in the matter the better, because the plan was to rip off K1's drug supply?---No. It would seem that you continued to access the computer in the period that followed, because again at 1313 hours on the same day, you accessed the computer in relation to K1 again. Do you have any recollection of why you did that?---No. And at 1318, you are recorded as having further access to the computer on K1. Do you know why you did that?---No. 1319, you did it again, all with respect to what appears to be the same vehicle and the same person. Any recollection of that?---No, not unless I was making records. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3187

B18/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: 1320 and 1321, you had further access to the computer system in relation to K1. Do you have any recollection of why you did that?---Might have been making notes in my journal. I don't know. About what?---Just details. After the job was over, did Michael Reilly ring you, to say how it went?---He did ring me a number of times, I believe, and told me what actions he had taken. The phone records indicate that at 1330, 1.30 pm, he again telephoned you from the area in which K1 lived. Do you have any recollection of that?---No. The call, in fact, was recorded at 1331, and at 1332 hours, you were recorded as ringing Trifon. Do you have any recollection of why - -?---No. - - while the job was in progress, or had just finished, Michael Reilly rang you and then you rang Chris Trifon?---No. The records also indicate that at 1334, you then rang Michael Reilly back. Do you have any recollection of that?---No. Do you have any recollection of getting further information from Trifon while the job was in progress, or about to happen?---I can't remember the full details now. Then, at 1405, it would seem that you rang Michael Reilly again. Do you know why you rang him?---I don't know. Was it to see how the job was going?---I can't remember back that far. Do you have any explanation for why you seem to have such a contemporaneous involvement in the job - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3188

B19/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - involvement in the job, even though your function was primarily to hand it on to Crime Stoppers for their discharge?---I told you. Because that's where - - the information originated from our office and I had an interested party there. And then it seems that shortly after 3 o'clock Trifon rang you. Do you have any recollection of speaking to him then?---No. That was at about the same time that a 000 call was made complaining about what had happened at the home of K1. Do you have any knowledge of - - I withdraw that. You know that a complaint was made almost instantly about the way the search had been conducted?---I've heard something along those lines - - A call - -?--- - - that the police attended. A 000 call was made, in response to which two uniformed officers went out to speak to K1?---I've heard about it, yes. And you're aware of the evidence of Trifon, that he became aware of what had happened at the search and complained to you?---I can't remember. It seems that you then telephoned your brother on a couple of occasions in the hour that followed the 000 call. Do you have any recollection of why you continued to contact your brother once the job was over?---I can't remember why I rang him, no. It had got a bit messy. Do you have any recollection of it all getting a bit messy?---No. Did you become aware that a complaint had been made about what had happened - -?---I know now - - - - on the day?--- - - there was, but I can't remember when I found that out, no. Did you become aware later that day that a complaint had been lodged that some tablets had been stolen?---I can't remember when I actually found that out. Because the phone records indicate that you spoke to your brother Michael again at 3.30 pm. Any recollection of what you discussed then?---No. The records indicate that you then spoke to him again at 3.42 pm. Any recollection of what you discussed then?---No. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3189

B19/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: And there's a series of calls later again in the day, at 5.07 pm. Any recollection of what you said to him then?---No. There was indication that at 6.12 pm he rang you. Any recollection of what you discussed then?---No. At 6.33 you're recorded as speaking to him again. Any record - - any recollection of what you said then?---No. Have you got any recollection generally of why there were so many calls between you and your brother on this day?---It would be to do with the job, most probably. Once the job was over, what function did you have then?---How can I answer what we were talking about then, 4 years ago? Well, you know the nature of the job. You received some information from Trifon. You passed it on to Crime Stoppers. Accepted there may be some need to clarify something - -?---I don't know - - - - before the job happened?---I don't know if I actually spoke to my brother. There's a record there - - Yes?--- - - of a call from my brother to my phone. Whether or not I answered that phone - - is it my mobile phone? From your mobile to his mobile?---Michael's mobile? Who was using Michael's mobile? Right?---Who actually answered the other side of the phone? What, it was just a coincidence - -?---What were we talking about? Were we talking about other matters, personal matters? I see?---Were we talking about work matters? Were we talking about other work matters? Were we talking about this job? I don't know. It was just a matter of coincidence, was it, that there happened to be so many calls between you on the one day?---(No audible response) Is that what you're saying?---I'm - - I'm not saying that at all. I said some days I can talk - - talk to my brother on a number of occasions. Mm?---Sometimes I don't speak to him for weeks. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3190

B19/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Commissioner, I wonder if we might just adjourn a few minutes early? There's just an editing issue I just need to attend to. COMMISSIONER: Yes. We'll adjourn until five to twelve. Thank you. AT 11.25 AM HEARING ADJOURNED .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3191

B20/4 POLICE AT 11.56 AM HEARING RESUMED: COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hastings? MR HASTINGS: Commissioner, might I tender the tables from the report of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence that I referred to earlier? They are tables 11.17, 11.18 and 11.19 of the Australian Illicit Drug Report 1998-1999 from the ABCI, and they are barcoded D1015549. COMMISSIONER: Yes, the pages from the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence Illicit Drugs Report 1998-1999, the pages numbered 11.17, 11.18 and 11.19 barcoded D1015549 will be exhibit 496. MR HASTINGS: Thank you. EXHIBIT 496 Mr Hastings DATE (Unstated) Extract from Australian Illicit Drug Report 1998-1999 MR HASTINGS: Mr Reilly, after the search had been made of the premises of K1 - as you acknowledged earlier, there had been some controversy because K1 complained and uniformed officers came out and so forth - what was your understanding of the outcome of all of that activity?---Today? I'm sorry?---I can't recall when I found that out. What was your understanding of how it all ended up? First of all, were there any drugs seized and retained, to your knowledge?---After the whole - - I believe that something was found there, but it was lawful because it was prescriptions and no further action was taken. Right, and so the matter had come to an end within a day or two after the 26th of June 1998?---I can't remember when the inquiry was completed on it. Well, allowing for some uncertainty about the precise time, within a relatively short period of time as far as you were concerned the matter was over and done with?---I don't know how long it took to complete the inquiries. Well, leave aside how long it took. As far as you are concerned, eventually - - ?---Eventually, yes. - - you thought the matter had come to an end; it was finished?---Yes. Right, and the allegation by Trifon that later in the year there were negotiations over the sale of drugs taken from K1's .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3192

B20/4 POLICE premises you deny, do you?---Can you repeat that question? MR HASTINGS: You deny, do you, the allegations made by Trifon that - - ?---Yes. - - later in 1998 there were negotiations over the sale of morphine tablets taken from K1's premises?---Yes. I won't go through all of the telephone intercept material but we'll go to the 30th of December 1998. That happened to be the day when the interception of your phone commenced. It's also at a stage at which according to Trifon negotiations had been taking place with Gavin Farrell over the sale of the drugs to a woman and on the 29th of December Trifon says he was told by Farrell that the deal would have to take place in Kalgoorlie. You understand that's the general effect of Trifon's evidence, do you not?---Yes. And, of course, one has to then add to that version the fact that the two payments which I think had been given to Trifon by the IAU prior to that point he had stolen and had not handed on as he had claimed he would to Gavin Farrell. You understand that, do you not?---You mean Gavin Farrell never received any money. Well, certainly insofar as Trifon had been given money to give to Farrell in relation to the possible supply of drugs we know now that Trifon had retained the money himself and had not passed it on. You understand that?---Yes. And, of course, that presented something of a difficulty for Trifon presumably because on the one hand he was dealing with Farrell, he says, which would involve him paying over some money for some drugs and at the same time he had misrepresented to the IAU that he money he had been given he had given to Farrell to progress the alleged supply of the drugs, but indeed he hadn't; he had pocketed the money himself, so you can appreciate, I would imagine, that Mr Trifon had put himself into a difficult position - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3193

B21/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - into a difficult position. You understand that?---Yes. And if we move to the 30th of December, as I said, the point had been reached that, according to Trifon, he had been told by Farrell that the deal would have to take place in Kalgoorlie. Farrell, of course, was by then in Perth, as was Trifon. It would follow from that scenario that for the deal to take place in Kalgoorlie the drugs would have to be in Kalgoorlie as well. And hence it is I want to take you to some calls on the 30th of December, the day when your phone commenced to be intercepted, and invite your attention to the various communications which took place on that day. One background matter is that it is now clear that you, before that, had been to Mr Clark, or Constable Clark of the Air Wing and approached him to bring a parcel from Perth to Kalgoorlie on your behalf, had you not?---I know that he brought a parcel up, yes. Right. And the records would indicate that that happened, and Mr Clark's statement says that happened on the 30th of December; do you agree with that?---Yes. Presumably you had approached him before that day in order to arrange for him to pick up the parcel?---I can't remember exactly how the arrangement happened. In any event, Constable Clark's records indicate that on the 30th of December 1998 he flew from Kalgoorlie, leaving at 0831 hours - 8.30 in the morning - and landed at Jandakot at 10.25 in the morning, and that he then departed Jandakot at 1643 - - 1623, I'm sorry, and landed at Kalgoorlie at 1833. Again, using that background, I'll ask you to listen to some calls on this day. The first is barcoded D1003078, and it's a recording of a call between you and your brother, Michael, on the 30th of December at 12.36 local time. You might listen to this. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between yourself and your brother, Michael?---Yes. In the beginning when you said, "The guy hasn't replied yet, so I'm just waiting for that," was that a reference to the fact that you were waiting for the pilot to advise that he was back with whatever it was that was being brought up from Perth - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3194

B22/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - brought up from Perth?---I've got no idea what we were talking about. I see. You were able to work out what the rest of the conversation was about, weren't you?---Yes. It was about a police operation which was - -?---There's more - - there's more information there. I can - - I can get something from that. Right. Maybe because that was a legitimate conversation and you had no hesitation in being specific, whereas when you are talking about something illegal, you deliberately became imprecise?---No. Just the way I was talking. I see, but you don't have any trouble working out, from the information you've provided, that there was a job involving some bikies and what happened about that?---Yes. And that, of course, was a legitimate part of your police function?---Yes. All right. I take you on to the next call, which is barcoded D1003075. Same day, 30th of December, recorded at 1639 hours local time. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between yourself and your brother, Michael?---Yes. In the latter part of the first page, when Michael says, "We need to catch up with that other bloke, he's just - - he's going to be arriving there soon; let me know", and then, "Let me know when you've got it", that seems to be a reference to the pilot, does it not, who would be arriving back in Kalgoorlie shortly with something?---Maybe. And do you know what "it" was?---I'm not sure. It might have been the package. The Chrissy present?---I'm not sure. It might - - might've been, yes. Were you expecting a Christmas present from your brother on the 30th of December?---I can't remember what I was expecting, but I know I went and collected something, a parcel from Constable Clark. All right, and what was in the parcel?---It was 4 years ago. I'd have to go back to information I've given previously to check that. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3195

B22/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: What's your recollection now?---I haven't got any recollection of it. Well, your explanation generally was that it was a Christmas present, was it not?---Well, it was around Christmas time, so I may have said that. I'd have to check. I don't think anyone ever asked you what was actually in the Christmas present. Do you know now what you received for Christmas?---I can't - - I can't remember now, no, without going back and checking. And do you know why you would have used the Air Wing to transport a Christmas present from your brother in Perth to you in Kalgoorlie?---Happens all the time. What, Christmas presents are being flown all over the State, are they?---Packages, anything. What about Christmas presents?---I - - I've had things brought up before, and it just happened to be that. Is that what the Air Wing - -?---There's nothing unusual about it. Is that a function of Air - -?---It happens - - all the police officers have things brought up on the Air Wing. That's a police officer's right, is it, to have their Christmas presents distributed by the Air Wing?---You can ask a favour of Clarky to bring something up for you. He'll bring it up. Doesn't matter what it is. Was there some reason why - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3196

B23/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - some reason why Mick Reilly could not have given you your Christmas present by some other means?---This was a convenient method. Why couldn't he have put it in the mail?---He could have done. Why didn't he?---Because this was more convenient. What, to go out to Jandakot, wait for the plane to come in, give it to the pilot, then when it got to Kalgoorlie you have to chase him all night, waiting for him to land, then you go out and get it from him at his home? That's more convenient than putting it in the mail, is it?---Well, it was convenient for us, yes. Is it more convenient than putting it in the mail?---Well, I got it straight away. Yeah, having made about six phone calls and having gone out to Clark's home at night to find it?---That's the way it happened. That's more convenient than putting it in the mail, is it?---Well, I went to meet the plane or afterwards and I - - I would have just got it straight away. I know I went later to Clarky's house because I think he was flying out the next day. What was the urgency about getting it so quickly?---I think he was flying away the next day. I'm not sure now. Well, why couldn't it have gone in the post?---Well, it might have been another week before I got it. Why couldn't it have gone in the post?---Well, it could have gone in the post. What was the urgency about getting your Christmas present - -?---Well, it was convenient - - - - when it was already 5 days late?---It was convenient. I see. And you can't remember what your Christmas present was?---No. Pyjamas or something?---I'm not sure what it was. You've got no idea?---Well, I might have said what it was 4 years ago, but now I can't. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3197

B23/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: I don't think you were ever asked. I'm asking you now, what - -?---Well, I can't remember. - - did you get for Christmas - -?---I'm answering you - - I'm answering you - - - - that required the resources of the Air Wing to get it from Perth to Kalgoorlie?---It was obviously a Christmas present. Mm. Do you know why Michael Reilly needed to be advised when you got it?---I'm not sure. Just to make sure that it got there on time. In case your present went astray?---No. What was - -?---I can't - - - - the urgency?---I can't recall why, now. What was the urgency which required Michael Reilly to be informed once you'd received your present?---We're going back 4 years. I don't know. All right. Because it'd make a lot more sense if this was the morphine tablets being sent up in a small package, wouldn't it?---There was no drugs coming up. Morphine tablets which your brother Michael had taken from K1 and which were to be sold in Kalgoorlie by you to Trifon?---No. That would fit quite neatly, wouldn't it?---It's ludicrous to think we'd put that on the plane where it could get intercepted and looked at. Intercepted - -?---If I was involved with something like that. Intercepted by whom?---I suppose getting looked at. By whom?---What I'm saying is, we would never - - we haven't done it, okay? We'd never do it like that. Mr Reilly, you just said it would be ludicrous to put it on the plane when it could be intercepted?---If I'm - - if I'm - - Who would intercept it?---If I'm bringing drugs to Kalgoorlie, I'm going to put drugs on a police plane? That's ludicrous. You just said it was ludicrous because they would be intercepted. Who would intercept them?---No, I'm - - I'm saying your own commonsense suggests you wouldn't do that. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3198

B23/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: What, we can disregard what you just said, can we?---What - - what I'm saying is that I believe it'd be ludicrous, if I was engaged in something like that, to put it on a police plane. Some might - -?---I'm just saying that to you. Some might think that it's a more secure way of doing it than putting it in the post?---I don't think so. No one's ever going to search your Christmas present on a plane, are they - an Air Wing plane?---I don't agree with that. Who's going to search them?---Anything could happen. Who's going to search a package being sent - -?---What we're doing - - - - by one police officer to - -?---What we're doing is going into hypothetical things all the time. All I can tell you is the truth. You said - -?---Okay? There was no drugs in the package. You said police did this all the time, send their parcels all over the state with the Air Wing. Why is anyone going to pick out a parcel coming from Detective Sergeant Reilly to Detective Sergeant Reilly and search it? It's a nonsense, isn't it?---There's no way you'd do something like that. It is a nonsense, isn't it?---I can only go to what drug dealers do. Drug dealers - -?---Drug dealers send drugs to Kalgoorlie. They'll send them up by various means. They put false names on it. There's my name on a package from Mick. They find drugs in it. You know? Hook, line and sinker, you're gone. Drug dealers - -?---So to think you'd do something like that - - Drug dealers don't - -?---Come on. - - normally have the resources of the Air Wing to send their packages around, do they?---(No audible response) Let's move to the next call, again on the 30th of December at 1915 hours. It's barcoded D1003076. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3199

B24/1 POLICE AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between you and your brother, Michael?---Yes. Do you know what you were talking about?---Obviously about the plane. Had something on it?---Yes. A "blue thing", would you agree?---Can I have a look at that page? Second page, thank you. Mick says: "Oh, yeah. I know when it lands. You should be able

to find it. It's a blue thing anyway. Go and chase him up and let me know."

WITNESS: Must be a blue plane. MR HASTINGS: I see. You don't think it was a blue parcel?---No. In any event, this was a further call about securing whatever had been brought up on the Air Wing by Constable Clark, was it not? Wasn't it?---About a parcel coming up with Constable Clark. Yes?---Yes. And this is the Christmas present, is it not?---Yes. Do you know why you seem to have this degree of anxiety to get your hands on the Christmas present?---All I can say is maybe Clarky was taking off to go somewhere else. So what difference would it - - ?---Could? pick it up. What difference would it make?---Well, I don't know. I'd have to go back to that time - - Right?--- - - but he could have been gone for 1 or 2 weeks. I don't know. Would that have mattered if it was only a Christmas present which was already 5 days late?---There must be some reason. Maybe it's for my wife. Maybe there was a special reason to take it round there. Or maybe the reason was that it was something about which you were particularly concerned; like the morphine tablets from your brother?---No. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3200

B24/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Then there's a further call, if I can have this, please - D1003077 - which is recorded at 2011 hours local time. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation with your brother, Michael?---Yes. It seems to be about again getting whatever it was that Constable Clark had brought from Perth - - ?---Yes. - - doesn't it?---Yes. You seem to have to go to some trouble to get it, did you not?---I just went around and got it from his house, yes. No, you didn't. You had to go into your office first, get his phone number and then ring him, apparently, and then go and get it from his home?---That's what I did, yes. Right. Again, quite an extraordinary amount of effort to get your hands on a Christmas present - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3201

B25/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - your hands on a Christmas present?---I told you what my explanation was for that. And it wasn't a Christmas present at all, was it?---It was. But it was a joke. Michael says it's a nice Christmas present, and you both laugh at the idea of describing it as a Christmas present?---No. And it's the same code that you used in the call that I showed you this morning, wasn't it? Christmas or Chrissy present?---There's nothing - - there's nothing untoward about saying that. But in any event, it was clear - -?---That's what - - that's what the call's about. It's about something that was sent to me in Kalgoorlie. Yes?---It's not drugs - - But not a Christmas present either, was it?---It was around Christmas time. It was a Christmas present. I'm only going on what Mick said, "Christmas present". It wasn't anything else. But what happened when he used - -?---I'd have to go back to see what I said originally, of what it was. It'd have been something for the family, for sure. But when he described it as a Christmas present, you both laughed, because it was a joke to refer to it as a Christmas present, wasn't it? Let's listen to the call again. Could we have that played again, please? AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: It's clear, isn't it, that when Michael referred to it as a Christmas present, you both laughed?---Is there something wrong with laughing when you're talking to your brother? No. It's a mutual recognition of the fact that he'd just make a joke by referring to the parcel as a Christmas present, because it wasn't?---I don't know. Probably just in a bit of high spirits. I don't know. I might have been down the pub all night. I don't know. No, you'd been chasing Mr Clark all over Kalgoorlie, trying to find him?---I don't know what was there. I'd have to go back to find out exactly what I said at the time. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3202

B25/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Don't worry about what you said. I'm asking you what you said on the 30th of December?---Yeah, that's what it is. It says "Christmas present". That's what he sent up. Well, why was that funny?---Just the way I'm talking to my brother. Yeah, but why was it funny?---Oh, you know; come on, it's four years ago. What is funny in someone saying, "It's a nice Christmas present"?---Oh, the thing's just stupid, isn't it, the way we're going on? What?---My brother wants to laugh or want to talk about something like that - - You both laughed?---Yeah. Because you both knew it was a joke?---Oh, laughter is infectious. You both knew it was a joke to refer to the parcel as a Christmas present?---I tell you that it's not - - nothing. It was nothing to do with drugs. Well, you give me a better explanation as to why it was funny, when he said it was a nice Christmas present?---It probably was a nice Christmas present. I don't know. Well, why was it funny?---It just - - I'd have to go back to that time, wouldn't I? Because it was the same code that you used later in January, when Christmas is long gone. It was a term that you and Michael used when you were exchanging - -?---No. - - or delivering drugs, wasn't it?---(No audible response.) Wasn't it?---No. I think in all the records, the phone records, indicate that you made 11 attempts to communicate with the pilot on the evening of the 30th of December. Assuming that to be the case, can you explain why you made 11 attempts to get your hands on a Christmas present?---I was trying to find out where Clarky was. Yes?---If he's arrived okay - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3203

B26/4 POLICE WITNESS: - - - arrived okay. MR HASTINGS: I see. Check on his health?---Just - - just that - - well, I went around there. Sometimes you do those sorts of things. What - make 11 phone calls?---Was that 11 phone calls from my mobile to his mobile? Yes. Well, not to his mobile, and his home?---To his home? And his home. Mobile and home?---That's - - that's - - No, I'm reminded they're all to his mobile, I'm sorry? ---If that's how many calls I made, that's how many calls I made. It would seem to indicate that you were quite anxious to get your hands on the parcel, would it not?---I can only tell you the reason - - because if I didn't - - I'm only surmising that if I didn't pick it up that night he could be gone again in the morning. I don't know if he did fly out in the morning but I'm only guessing. I might just tell you and invite your comment, although these transactions or activities don't involve you direct, that on the same day that this parcel was sent from Michael to you, Michael also contacted Geoff O'Reilly by telephone, Geoff O'Reilly of course being relevant because he was one of the party who went out to K1's premises on the 26th of June, and if the allegation is correct that's when drugs were stolen, while he was there, one would expect, of course, he would have a vested interest. Do you have any understanding of why Michael Reilly communicated with Geoff O'Reilly on the same day that the parcel was being sent to Kalgoorlie?---No. And similarly the records indicate that Michael Reilly spoke to Paul O'Keeffe on the 30th of December, Paul O'Keeffe being relevant because he too had been one of the members of the party that went to K1's premises on the 26th of June and again if the allegations were correct that some drugs were stolen, one would expect that he would also have a vested interest in their sale. Do you have any explanation for why Michael Reilly would be speaking to both O'Reilly and O'Keeffe on the day that the parcel was being sent to Kalgoorlie?---No. Of course, you recognise as an experienced investigator that as a circumstantial case that would be quite a neat package, would it not, of activity on the 30th of December, given the allegations of Trifon that the deal was to take place in Kalgoorlie and that there were these series of interconnecting communications between the key players in what had happened on .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3204

B26/4 POLICE the 26th of June? You would appreciate the force of that, wouldn't you?---No. I don't think so. MR HASTINGS: Why not?---It never happened. Yes, but why is there not some force in the circumstantial connection between these matters that I have put to you based on your experience as an investigator?---Trifon alleges what at what time? That the drugs were to be sold in Kalgoorlie. He said that on the 29th of December, the day after there had been these series of events which I've just referred you to involving the sending of a parcel from Michael Reilly, one of the searchers on the 26th of June, to Kalgoorlie and Michael Reilly communicating with the other two participants in the search on the 26th of June?---You know the evidence of Trifon can be completely disregarded. Yes, and that's your answer, is it?---So when you look at it, a Christmas present came to Kalgoorlie and that's exactly what happened. Right, and the connection between Michael and the other two participants on the search on the 26th of June, on the same day, just a matter of complete coincidence, do you think? Was it?---They know each other. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3205

B27/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: The New Year's Eve of 1998 was a busy time in Kalgoorlie, was it not? You've already referred to it in passing in the earlier context of your dealings with C - - C9, and I think you've already indicated that there had been some apprehension of bikie-related violence in Kalgoorlie on New Year's Eve - - ?---Yes. - - in response to which a taskforce or a small force had been sent to Kalgoorlie from Perth in order to control that activity?---Yes. What I want to do then is move on to the 2nd of January and ask that you listen to this call, which is barcoded D1003081, which was recorded at 1845 hours on the 2nd of January. Perhaps just before that's played, can I just ask you this: had you had any ongoing contact with Trifon after the events of the 26th of June or thereabouts?---I think he left Kalgoorlie. Yes?---I think I saw him once in Perth. I was at a restaurant and I saw him there. And every now and again he'd ring me up. Right. Did you see him in Kalgoorlie again after he left?---I don't think he came back to Kalgoorlie. And what was the nature of your ongoing communications with him? Was he continuing to supply you with information?---Oh, he rang me about I think some moneys that were owed. I can't remember exactly. About horses, and just chit-chat. Did he continue to give you information about criminal activities?---He may have spoken about certain things. I can't recall now. Did you ever have any business dealings with him of a commercial nature?---After he left? Yes?---At what particular time? Well, after he left Kalgoorlie?---There was a - - something he was looking at prior to leaving Kalgoorlie, and the only other thing I can remember was, he was talking about his horse getting syndicated back at Kalgoorlie. Right. What was the thing he was looking at before he left - - ?---Oh, prior to that was over some nuggets that I had access to. And what was the nature of your dealings with him about that?---Friend of mine had a large amount of nuggets which I had at the police station one day, and he was talking about purchasing it bulk. My friend's business was closing down, he had a natural nugget shop, and he had about - - oh, would have .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3206

B27/1 POLICE had about 80 or 90 thousand dollars' worth of nuggets at the office. People who attended Kalgoorlie often used to select one for a chain or something, and they were I think at that stage around 25, 30, 32 dollars a gram, and whatever I got I used to give back to the - - my friend, who was a gold dealer. The reason I used to do that was because it saved someone going down to his office, opening up, taking the safe out - - taking the nuggets out of the safe. But anyway, his business closed down and he eventually sold all his stock. MR HASTINGS: All right. And you had the 80 or 90 thousand dollars' worth of nuggets in your office?---At one stage, yes. In the police office?---Yes. I see. Where did you keep them?---Would have brought it over from his business and probably might have put it in the safe overnight, or I probably would have taken it back to him that day. For how long did you keep them?---I used to go over there every now and again and pick them up. Why didn't you send people over there to do business over there - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3207

B28/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - to do business over there?---No, because most of the time it was police officers or visitors. Yes?---Maybe two or three, and it just - - you just don't go and pick a nugget. You select from a range. Depends on weight, that sort of thing, and at that time, I think his business was actually closed, he was working in another profession, so it was more convenient, and that's what he asked me to do. I see. Well, why couldn't these people go and deal with him direct?---I said some of them were police officers, and as he was working, it was more convenient. But he had the gold nuggets in a place where he worked, presumably, where you had to go to get them?---Yes, but I would maybe - - maybe sometimes I'd keep them for one, two, three days. Well, even so, at the beginning of that period, you would have to go to him to get the gold - -?---Well, I had them there that day. I can't remember exactly what the scenario was, but often any visitors that'd come to Kalgoorlie would ask for some sort of souvenir and if they were interested, I'd show them. I'm sure they did, but why couldn't you refer them to this person?---Well, sometimes we did go over to his office. That particular time, he asked me to take them, because he might have been busy, but often we used to go to his office or sometimes he'd give them to me. How many occasions did you have the stash of gold nuggets in your office?---Over a period of years, every now and again. Depending if the need arose. What was in it for you?---At that stage, I didn't get anything out of it. What if the gold nuggets had disappeared or been stolen? You would have been responsible, would you not?---Yes. But without any possible profit to you?---Yes. Who was this person?---Can I write it on a piece of paper? Yes. And if he had a business name, could you write his business name as well?---I'm not - - I'm not too sure about the business name, but I think it's right. I'll tender that, Commissioner, which has now been barcoded D1004639. Could that be a confidential exhibit, access restricted to officers of the Commission and counsel assisting? .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3208

B28/2 POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. The document bearing the names just written on by the witness, barcoded D1004639, will be exhibit 497C, confidential, and accessible only to officers of the Commission and to counsel assisting. EXHIBIT 497C Mr Hastings DATE 15.10.02 Confidential - Document written by witness listing two names Barcode D1004639 MR HASTINGS: What happened to the supply of nuggets in the end?---I don't know, I think I would have sold some and gave them back to him. And did Trifon ever purchase any of these nuggets?---No. But there was an occasion, was there, when you showed them to him?---Yes. Was he to buy the lot or make a selection from them?---Oh, he was talking about buying the lot. What was the cost of an average individual nugget?---Depending on the gold price, but - - and it depends on the nugget. Well - -?---Usually they go for around about $30 a gram. Yes, what was the size of the nuggets?---It depends. It might - - but if you were buying, oh, is it d'or? gold, or just straight gold, it goes on the gold price of the day, per gram. Yes, so what about these nuggets? What was the average cost of a nugget?---Well, it depends. Some of them were large, some of them were small. Depends where they're located, as to - - their presentation's like. Well, apart from - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3209

B29/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - apart from that possible transaction which didn't materialise with Trifon did you do any other business with him?---He spoke to me about his horse but that never eventuated. All right. Now, would you listen to this call, please, which is D1003081. This is the 2nd of January at 1845 hours. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a recording of a conversation between yourself and Gavin Farrell?---Yes. Was "the bloke" that you were talking about Trifon?---It may be him because of "sliding doors". The "sliding doors" clue indicates that, does it not?---Well, he had a business, yes. All right, and when Farrell was talking about Trifon wanting to get "half of those things" to what was that a reference? ---I can't recall what it was. The gold nuggets?---I don't know what it was. Was there ever any suggestion that Trifon would come up and get half the gold nuggets?---Four years ago - I can't recall what it was about. Well, you couldn't remember 4 years ago when you were asked in the Internal Affairs interview?---I was asked about 9 months after the event. Yes, and you couldn't remember then?---No, I couldn't. What, your memory suddenly went in the space of 9 months, did it?---A lot had happened to me over that time. Yes. I see. What?---Well, what happened to me in the Police Force. What, you resigned?---Yes. And then commenced proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission to be reinstated?---Yes. And all of that just made your memory a blank, did it? ---No, this particular conversation - I can't recall what it was that we were talking about. But you couldn't recall - - ?---It may have been the gold nuggets. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3210

B29/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: You couldn't recall in October 1999 when you were interviewed, and this was a critical series of communications, wasn't it?---Well, I couldn't, could I? And you couldn't come up with an explanation then, could you? ---I don't know what I said then. Well, you didn't have an explanation, did you? You couldn't remember what it was all about, you said?---Is that what I said then? Yes?---Well, I can't remember. I see. But why couldn't you remember 10 months or 9 months after the event?---It's a fair time. I see. Having heard the call, are you able to reconstruct what it was about?---No. Does it jog your memory about some transaction with Trifon in which, to use your words, "he's fucked around with them too much"?---No. A transaction in which someone had done him a favour but he never lived up to his part? Do any of those clues jog your memory?---No. Of course, it would fit in with the Trifon allegation that at some point he had said to Farrell he wanted to do the morphine tablet transaction in two lots, wouldn't it?---It's got nothing to do with drugs - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3211

B30/3 POLICE WITNESS: - - - do with drugs. MR HASTINGS: It would fit in though, wouldn't it?---Well, it wouldn't because it's nothing to do with it. In its terms, you would recognise, as an experienced investigator that when Farrell said "He wanted to know if he could get half of those things or something" that would corroborate very precisely Trafon - - Trifon's allegation that at one point he said to Farrell he wanted to do the morphine tablet transaction in two lots?---There's not enough information in that call for you to say that. I see. But you can't come up with any other explanation for what you and Farrell were talking about?---Four years ago? No. And you never could?---Nine months later? No. All right. Let's go on to the next one, which is D1003065, again on the 2nd of January, just a few minutes later. This one is at 1648 - - I'm sorry, 1848 hours; 3 minutes after the last call. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between you and Gavin Farrell?---Yes. It seems to follow on from the last call 3 minutes earlier, does it not?---Yes. Because you commence by saying "When he said that to ya, is he getting you to bring anything up?" That seems to flow quite logically on from the call which you just had with Farrell, does it not?---Appears to. And does that assist you in any further explanation of what it is that you and Farrell were talking about?---No. It would seem that Farrell doesn't seem to know much about the transaction, would it not?---(No audible response) Because when you said "Is he getting you to bring anything up?" and he said "Yeah. That's what - - yeah" and you said "Half?" and he said "Yeah", he then said "But I don't know what that is. That's all." You'd agree, wouldn't you, that it's reasonably clear that Farrell didn't know what the details of the transaction were?---Well, it's not that clear to me. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3212

B30/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: I see. Well, it might become clearer later perhaps. In any event, it seems clear that what you finished with was a request for Farrell to get Trifon to ring you. Do you agree?---(No audible response) Because you say "Well, tell him - -"?---Yeah. "- - to ring me"?---If that is - - if we're talking about Trifon, yes. And Farrell says "All right. I'll get him to do that right now"?---Yes. Because several minutes later, that was at 1848 minutes past - - on the 2nd of January at 1854, 6 minutes later, there's a call between you and Trifon, I suggest, which is D1003082. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3213

B31/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between you and Chris Trifon?---Yes. Apart from the beginning where it's clear you were talking about racing - - do you agree with that?---About some horses, yes. Or a horse. You don't have any trouble working that out, do you?---No. Because the conversation is quite precise. Horses are referred to by name; correct?---Yes. Prices are referred to, and winning bets are referred to in any event?---Yes. However, during the rest of the call do you know what you were talking about?---I'd have to go back to what I said at the particular time. What you said was you couldn't remember?---And I can't remember now. I see. Could it have been the gold nuggets?---I don't know what it was about. The gold nugget arrangement doesn't fit this conversation, does it?---I don't know what this is about. The gold nugget business that you have described does not fit this conversation, does it?---It may have something to do with it. In what way?---We're talking about some - - I - - actually, I don't know what we were talking about. Yes. You say - - ?---If there was more information there I could tell you. There's not enough information there. I'm just asking you at the moment to agree that the gold nugget business that you described previously, where Trifon came into your office and looked at a pile of gold nuggets, does not fit this conversation, does it?---I can't - - I don't know what this - - was said. Yes. You keep saying that?---It's hard for me to decipher what it's about. Just answer my question, please. You understand the question, don't you?---Yes. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3214

B31/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Your description of the business that you had with Trifon concerning gold nuggets does not in any way fit in to this conversation, does it?---It doesn't appear to, no. No. Nor does the horse racing syndicate fit in to this conversation, does it?---Well, it may do. I don't know. How does that conversation possibly relate to a proposal to syndicate a horse?---He may be bringing up some money for it. I don't know. Yes. What about taking the others back again? What does that mean?---It might have been arranging papers for the horse, I don't know. You'd again agree, as an experienced detective senior sergeant with many years' investigative experience, that this call corroborates Trifon's evidence very squarely, does it not?---Look, we had nothing to do with any morphine tablets. Just answer my question, please?---You can - - you can look at something and then you can let your imagination run away with you. You don't have to use too much - - ?---This had nothing to do with it. You don't have to use too much imagination here, Mr Reilly. Trifon gave evidence that he had made a proposal to Farrell that he would come up with half of the money on behalf of a female, and that proposal was being put to you in this call, wasn't it?---Could have been with him paying that debt that he owed - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3215

B32/2 POLICE WITNESS: - - - that debt that he owed. MR HASTINGS: And it's pretty clear - -?---I don't know. - - that whatever business is being conducted involves a female, doesn't it?---He mentions a female, yes. Right. What possible business did you have with Trifon which involved a female participant?---I don't know. It could have been - - I think the horse might have been owned by his wife, or his girlfriend. I don't know. But we worked out this is not a horse conversation, haven't we?---It may be to do with a horse. I don't know what it's about. But the terms of the conversation don't fit any sort of horse syndication transaction, do they?---Maybe. "Give him six and I'll arrange for him to take the others back again." How does that fit into any form of horse syndication discussion?---It may be the papers for the horse. I don't know. Oh, I see?---Syndicate members; I don't know. Right. So, how would half the payment result in something to be done with half the horse papers?---I don't know. Do you know why Trifon would have to be careful?---I don't know. That's just the way - - manner in which he talks. I see. Wouldn't need to be particularly careful, would he, in relation to a legitimate horse syndicate arrangement?---I don't know why he said that. He'd have to be careful, of course, if he was involved in a drug transaction?---There was nothing going on between us and Trifon. Have you got a better explanation for why Trifon said he had to be careful, too?---This is not clear to me what that's about. I'm sorry, I can't help you. Thank you, Commissioner, I notice the time. Is that a convenient point? COMMISSIONER: Yes. We'll adjourn till 2 o'clock. AT 12.58 PM HEARING ADJOURNED .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3216

B33/4 POLICE AT 2.01 PM HEARING RESUMED: Mr R.C.F. Hofmann appeared on behalf of Geoffrey Robert Page. MR HASTINGS: Commissioner, if it is convenient, might we interpose Mr Geoffrey Robert Page, who will be relatively short? COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HASTINGS: Mr Page has enthusiastically taken up a position in the witness-box already. COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hofmann? MR HOFMANN: Thank you, Commissioner. If it pleases you, I appear on behalf of Mr Page and seek leave to make that appearance. COMMISSIONER: Yes, leave will be granted, Mr Hofmann. MR HOFMANN: Thank you. MR HASTINGS: Mr Hall will examine Mr Page. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Can I have your full name, please, Mr Page? MR PAGE: Geoffrey Robert Page. COMMISSIONER: Do you have any conscientious objection to taking an oath on the Bible? MR PAGE: No, your Honour. COMMISSIONER: Thank you. If you would take the Bible and read out the oath aloud, please. GEOFFREY ROBERT PAGE sworn: COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you. Sit down, please. EXAMINED BY MR HALL: MR HALL: Mr Page, I think you are a director of a company called VIP Security Industries Pty Ltd. Is that right? ---That's correct. And that company is in the business of providing private investigator services?---Partly. What other work does it do?---Security alarm systems, that type of thing. .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XN 3217

B33/4 POLICE MR HALL: And one of the other directors of that company is Mr John Reilly?---No, that's not correct. He was previously one of the directors?---He was a former director. Right, and he is the brother of Kevin Reilly?---That's correct. How long have you known Kevin Reilly?---We joined the police force together in 1974. That's where I first met him. And you've continued over the years to maintain a relationship?---I'd say we've been - - had a long-standing friendship, yes. And you've continued to be a friend?---Yes. Has VIP Security Industries does any professional services for Mr Reilly?---Yes. In recent times?---I'm not exactly sure of the date but within the last couple of years we've done some alarm work at his home in Kalgoorlie and at the Foundry Hotel. What about any private inquiry agent type work? Have you done any work of that sort for him?---No, I have not. Now, on the 16th of January 1999 you flew to Kalgoorlie. Do you recall?---I'm not positive of the date but if that's the date that this whole issue started - - It was - - ?--- - - at Kalgoorlie, yes, I did. The date that the Internal Affairs Unit - - ?---Yes. - - effected searches on the - - ?---That's correct. - - station and other places. And I think you went there with a lawyer?---I didn't go there personally with a lawyer. I did meet a lawyer - - Right?--- - - in Kalgoorlie later that night. What were the circumstances of you flying up to Kalgoorlie? How did it come about?---I received a phone call some time during the day from Kevin Reilly. Mm hm?---And I suggested that he might need a hand and I offered to fly up there and - - A hand with what?---I beg your pardon? .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XN 3218

B33/4 POLICE MR HALL: A hand with what?---He was in trouble, obviously, and he had police Internal Affairs and the Anti-Corruption Commission searching his home and he sounded pretty distraught when I spoke to him on the phone. So I offered to go up and see if I could help him out. Right. Did you have anything particular in mind?---Not really. Not initially when I spoke to him. I just thought he was a good friend, he'd been a friend of mine for a long time and I thought he needed - - needed someone up there to help him. Did you give him any advice as to how he should respond to the inquiries that were being made?---I can't recall exactly what we said. You know, we're talking about 3, 3½ years ago. There was probably a lot of things said that night but I can't recall exactly what I said to him. All right, and when you got up to Kalgoorlie you met up with Kevin Reilly?---I did eventually, yes. Whereabouts?---At a hotel somewhere. I don't even know the name of the hotel. The Sandalwood?---No. I met him at a hotel somewhere else in town and we went back to the Sandalwood. Right, and I think you and he both stayed the night at the Sandalwood, didn't you?---That's correct. Did he have anything with him? Any books? Any documents? ---Not that I recall. And I suppose you don't recall what you discussed?---Obviously the incidents of the day would've been discussed but as to exactly what was said I've no idea. I was more there as a friend arranging to meet with a lawyer there and I went and got Kevin's wife so she could talk with him as well. Now, if I can bring you to some more recent events - - - .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XN 3219

B34/2 POLICE MR HALL: - - - to some more recent events, on the 25th of July this year, it was a Thursday, and do you recall meeting Kevin Reilly?---No. There was an occasion when he flew down at short, if any, notice and met with you?---I don't have any clear recollection of - - I've met him quite a few times over the past few years, when he's come down, but I'd certainly have no - - made no mental note of the 25th of July. Do you have any recollection of making telephone contact with a man called - - in fact, I think there's a list of code names. I think it's C1. Yes, C1?---No, I don't know that name. Do you have a bore at your property?---Do I have a bore? A bore?---Yes, I do. Did you make contact with somebody regarding some services that you wanted in regard to your bore?---Yes, I did. And how did that come about?---That was a friend of Kevin Reilly's. All right, but how did it come about that you made contact with this person about your bore?---I'm not exactly sure how it came about. I - - I don't know the person. Kevin must have mentioned, if he knew I was looking for someone, that - - wanted something to do with a bore or whatever, he knew a driller. I'm not sure exactly how I came to ring that person. Obviously it came through - - through Kevin. All right. So, was Kevin with you at the time that you were discussing the bore?---Yes, he was. He - - we were in my office, I think, when I made the call and we ended up travelling to Thornlie where this person was working on a - - on a private bore. In whose car did you travel?---My car. Right, and before travelling to Thornlie, you'd spoken by telephone with the person?---Yes. And what did you say?---I can't recall the conversation, but obviously it was something to do with him doing some work on my bore. Did you mention to this person that his name had been recommended to you by Kevin Reilly?---I can't recall what I said to him at the time. .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XN 3220

B34/2 POLICE MR HALL: And what was at Thornlie? It was a job he was working on, wasn't it?---Yes. He was - - he had a drilling rig in the front yard of a house there and he was working on it. And your home is in Kelmscott, I think, isn't it?---That's correct. Hadn't you initially asked him to come out to your home in Kelmscott?---I think I asked him that when I was talking to him at the Thornlie address, and I gave him my business card, from recollection. I wrote my home address on the business card. Right. So, you didn't ask him, before going out there, on the telephone, that you wanted some work done urgently and could he come to your house, in Kelmscott?---It certainly wasn't an urgent matter and I can't remember the exact nature of the call. Obviously it would have had something to do with him doing some work on a bore. Well, if it wasn't an urgent matter, why did you go out to where he was working?---I don't know. What was the nature of the work that you wanted him to do?---My bore pump, submersible pump, is burnt out, and it's down the bottom of a 160 foot bore. Right?---Needed a drilling rig to get it out. Why did Kevin Reilly go with you?---I don't know. You'd have to ask Kevin Reilly. Did he show any interest in speaking to this person, before you went? Did he say that he wanted to speak to - -?---He may have. I don't know. But you didn't mention that, to this person on the phone?---Not that I recall. Didn't mention that Kevin Reilly was with you, or was coming with you to Thornlie?---I don't know whether I did or not. I may have. When you arrived at the Thornlie address, the person whose name I've pointed out to you as the code C1, was working on the bore in the front garden?---Yes, I believe so. You got out? You were in the driver's seat?---Yes. You got out?---Yes. And went over to C1?---Yes. .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XN 3221

B34/2 POLICE MR HALL: And said, what?---Again, I don't know the exact nature of the conversation. I went and spoke to him, perhaps about the bore, perhaps said Kevin was in the car. I'm not exactly sure what it - - what I said and how - - how it came out, but - - So, you may well have said, "Kevin's in the car - - -" .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XN 3222

B35/3 POLICE MR HALL: "- - - in the car." And isn't it the case that C1 then went over to the car, got in the car, and spoke to Kevin Reilly?---Yes. But not in your presence?---No. You stayed over near the bore?---Yes. And spoke to - - I think there was another person there?---I was watching for quite a while, what was happening. I couldn't get too close. There was an older gentleman working on the bore and there was a lot of water and mud around, and I was dressed similar to this. Mm hm?---Eventually, the older man came over towards where I was at the front of a vehicle, a truck, drilling rig, and I recall him asking me where his son was. And his son was in the car with Kevin Reilly?---Yes, and I pointed that out to him. Right. So it was apparent to you that Kevin Reilly wanted to have some space to talk to C1?---I didn't really think about it. But you gave him that space?---Um - - You stayed out of the way while they talked?---No, I wouldn't have said I stayed out of the way. I was just watching what was going on with the drilling rig. How long were they talking for?---Five or ten minutes, maybe. And you - -?---Perhaps - - - - stayed by the bore that whole time?---The other fellow came back and I think that's when I gave him my business card with my address on it. All right. Did you ever engage him to do the work that you needed to have done?---I made a time for him to come up and have a look at it and give me a price on the job, basically. We - - I think it was agreed the following Saturday morning and he didn't front. I gave him a call on my mobile or my home phone - I'm not sure which. I gave his mobile a call. I had the number. Left a message, but I never heard back from him. Did you ask Kevin Reilly what the nature of the conversation was that he and C1 had had?---No. I presumed he was probably trying to get me a - - a good job on the bore. .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XN 3223

B35/3 POLICE MR HALL: Well, if he was, you would have asked him that, wouldn't you?---I may have asked him that. I - - you know, we're going back to July. I can't remember what I said. Didn't it occur to you that you were being used to arrange a surreptitious meeting with C1?---Not at all. But you asked no questions of Kevin Reilly?---No. Well, I may have asked him some questions, I don't know, but I certainly didn't have the impression it was a surreptitious meeting. Did you - - on this occasion that Kevin Reilly was in Perth, had you known that he was in Perth prior to him turning up at your offices?---From memory, I picked him up from the airport. Did you?---I did, on a number of occasions. You know, it's hard to say whether I did on that one - - Do you - -?--- - - but I don't remember him ever turning up at my office without notifying - - Do you know what the purpose was for him coming to Perth?---No idea. Did he tell you anything about C1, other than that he worked in the drilling industry?---I think it was mentioned at some stage that he was from Kalgoorlie, but that's - - I really don't recall - - You'd never heard his name come up in conversation prior to that?---I didn't know his name. I may have seen it if he gave me a business card or something like that. I really - - but it's not a name that stuck in my mind. You then drove back to your office?---I think so. I don't know. I may have dropped Kevin somewhere. I may have - - we may have gone back to my office. I'm really not sure. Right. But your office is in Cannington?---Yes, it is. And you've driven there together?---Driven to - ? You've driven - -?---Thornlie? - - to Thornlie together?---Yes. He didn't have a vehicle. Right. And as far as you can recall, you went back to Cannington?---I'm really not sure. And you don't have any recollection of what you discussed in the car afterwards?---No. .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XN 3224

B35/3 POLICE MR HALL: You mentioned earlier about doing some work for Kevin Reilly in respect of the Foundry Hotel. When was that?---Some time in the last couple of years we did some work on an alarm system up there. Right; fitting an alarm system to the hotel?---There was already one fitted, I think. There was a bit of adjustment or something like that. Right. But it was he that engaged you to do that work?---I think it would have been, yeah. Right. What did you understand his position to be in respect of that hotel?---I'm not really sure. I - - I heard he had something - - something to do with the hotel. I think I read in the paper today that it was in his wife's name. So - - All right. During the time you were there, did you see him at the hotel, working?---I didn't go to Kalgoorlie to do the work. I'm not a technician. You sent - -?---I had sent an employee up there. - - someone else. But you've been up there on many occasions?---Oh, I've been up there on a few occasions - - - .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XN 3225

B36/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - on a few occasions. I wouldn't say that I've seen Kevin working in a hotel. MR HALL: Did you have any understanding of what his role was in respect of that hotel?---Not really. I think he's talked about doing some paperwork there, but I'm not really sure exactly what his role was. All right. I've got no other questions of Mr Page at this time, sir. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. MR HALL: He could be released. COMMISSIONER: Mr Hofmann, are there any questions you wish to ask your client? MR HOFMANN: Just a few minor matters, if I could, thank you, sir. CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR HOFMANN: MR HOFMANN: Mr Page, you said that you and Kevin Reilly had been friends for a number of years. I understand that you would meet often. How often over the years from, say, over the last decade have you met on social occasions?---Many, many times. How many times in a year?---If I go to Kalgoorlie I would stay at his house. If he comes to Perth we would catch up for a drink or a meal or something probably - - nearly every time he came up. And what was your link of friendship, if we can put it that way? What interest did you share?---Obviously just a long-standing friendship through the police force. We've worked together, we originally lived near each other. Did you used to fish together? Things of this nature?---Yes. I think we have fished together a couple of times. All right. Well, I want to move on because I understand you've known each other a long time and spent - - and you've been questioned about a meeting you had in Thornlie with a driller, C1. Okay. You obviously remember this event?---Yes. Who recommended this man as the driller?---Kevin Reilly. And Kevin had been in Kalgoorlie?---Yes. And the driller you say was from Kalgoorlie?---I think Kevin mentioned he was from Kalgoorlie. .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XN XXN 3226

B36/1 POLICE MR HOFMANN: All right. And so having recommended - - Kevin Reilly having recommended this driller to remove the submersible pump, you've been asked why you went to Thornlie?---Yes. Do you have any recollection why you met on site at Thornlie rather than somewhere else?---Not really, other than the fact that he was working there that day and - - All right. And then I think you said you arranged for him to meet you on a Saturday and he didn't show up?---That's right. And just lastly, when Mr Reilly and C1 went off into a car and they were on their own, to the best of your ability what did you think - - at this point in time what did you think they were chatting about? You know, at that point of time, what did you think they were chatting about?---I thought probably he was saying something about doing a job for me or - - or whatever. I wasn't really sure what he was talking about. Had you discussed the price?---No. Price wasn't even mentioned. All right. So that was your belief, you say - - ?---Yeah. - - that they were chatting about?---Yeah. Nothing else, sir. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Thank you. Do you have any questions? MR HALL: No. I've nothing, sir. NO RE-EXAMINATION COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Page. You're free to go now?---Thank you, sir. WITNESS WITHDREW MR HOFMANN: With your leave, sir. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HASTINGS: Mr Reilly, would you come back, please? KEVIN WILLIAM REILLY: EXAMINED BY MR HASTINGS QC: MR HASTINGS: Mr Reilly, before lunch I made some rather sweeping assertions that during your interview with Internal Affairs you had not come up with any precise explanation for .15/10/2002 PAGE, G.R. XXN; REILLY, K.W. XN 3227

B36/1 POLICE the nature of the business that you had been doing with Trifon as discussed on these calls. Feel free to correct that general assertion if you can point to some part of the interview in which you claim that you did give an explanation?---I haven't read those interviews for some time. MR HASTINGS: Well, I don't expect you to do it now, but I'm perfectly happy to correct my earlier assertion if you can demonstrate to me that indeed during the interviews, or indeed during your Industrial Relations Commission evidence you ever gave any explanation as to the nature of the business you were doing with Trifon?---I'd have to read them. I want to take you now to the next call, which was on the 3rd of January 1999, which is barcoded D1003083. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3228

B37/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Was that a recording of a conversation between you and Silvio Cinquina?---Yes. In the call, you refer to Gavin having rung you yesterday. That would seem to be a reference back to the call we played earlier this morning, on the 2nd of January, between you and Gavin Farrell, would it not?---I don't know. Can you think of any other Gavin who rang you on the day before the 3rd of January?---Gavin rang me. Could well be Gavin, yes. Right. Did you know any other Gavins?---I'd say it probably is Gavin, yes. Right. And then Cinquina responded with a reference to "that Chris bloke"?---Yes. You understood that as a reference to Trifon, did you not?---Appears to be, yes. Right. So, it's clear from this call that Silvio Cinquina had some interest in the matter that you had discussed with Gavin Farrell, involving Chris Trifon, would you agree?---Yes. And does that provide you with another useful bit of information to enable you to identify the business that you had with Trifon?---Doesn't assist me. Because it's now not just a matter between you and Trifon, but it seems to involve Silvio as well?---Something that relates to Silvio, yes. Right. Can you think of any business you've ever had with Trifon which involved Silvio Cinquina?---Can't recall. No. He went on to say, "I want to go down to that place, the office with the brick wall". Where was that?---That was a - - all I can think of is, we used to meet in the car park of the police station, but I used to live in the police house which has got a 10-foot brick wall around it and often we used to - - I used to go to the back gate to meet him. Well, that wasn't an office, was it?---No. Right. Which is the office with the brick wall?---All I can think is it's down at the police station. I see. But it seems from what you said at the end that the office where you worked was at a different place, because towards the end you say, "All right, I've just got to go and .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3229

B37/2 POLICE grab something from the office and I'll go down and meet you there", so it seems as though you had to go to the office and then go to this other place which had a brick wall?---I might have had to meet him in the car park. I don't know. MR HASTINGS: What, the car park was an office with a brick wall, was it?---With the brick wall later. Maybe I was meeting him down by my old house. I don't know. But that's what we used to call it. That wouldn't have been an office, would it?---No, but sometimes "the office" was a reference to the pub. To the pub?---Yeah. So, it might have been the Foundry Hotel?---No, more likely the Exchange. The Exchange Hotel has got a brick wall, has it?---No, but I - - I'm saying sometimes I use the term "office" to refer to the pub. Right, but this is an office with a brick wall, apparently?---I don't know. I think maybe he picks me up downstairs or something like that. I suppose the more significant issue was why you would need to refer to a place so obliquely. Can you explain that?---No. Was this a further example of your technique, of being deliberately vague about places and items in order to avoid detection?---This is just the way we spoke. At this time, I think Cinquina was on holidays, was he not?---I can't remember. In any event, he was a serving detective sergeant - -?---Yes. - - working in the Kalgoorlie Police Station?---Yes. Where you worked?---Yes. Right. Was there any reason why the two of you couldn't meet to discuss what had happened with Gavin Farrell and Chris Trifon in the police station?---Depends where we're going. We might have been going to the pub. Well, he wasn't going anywhere. He was at home playing Monopoly with the kids?---Mm. And you were the one luring him out - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3230

B38/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - luring him out. Is there any reason why you couldn't meet and discuss - - ?---I can't recall. - - your affairs in the police station?---I can't recall going back this far. Well, there wouldn't be any legitimate reason why you couldn't discuss anything in the police station. Was there?---I don't know why I - - where we went to or what happened, no. Can you think of one possible legitimate reason why you and Cinquina could not meet in your office and discuss your business?---He might have been going to the pub. He wasn't going to the pub. He was staying at home playing Monopoly with his kids and you had to go to the office to get something. Why couldn't he have met you there?---Really it's not clear enough for me. I don't know. The obvious explanation is that you were involved in some illegal enterprise. The last thing you wanted was to talk about that in the police station, wasn't it?---No. Well, give me another explanation as to why you couldn't discuss this matter with him in the police station?---I couldn't. Why didn't you?---I chose not to. Why?---I don't know. In any event, there was a problem, it would seem, because you said, going back a bit, "Something's going on there." Do you know what that was?---Don't know. It's clearly as a result of your discussion with Gavin Farrell on the day. Was it not?---Appears to be. All right, and if we go back to what Gavin Farrell had told you on the previous day, he had mentioned that there was a proposal to do something in halves. Do you remember that? "The bloke from the sliding doors wanted to know whether he could get half of those things or something"?---Yes. And apparently that was a bit of a problem, it would seem by your message to Mr Cinquina in that - - ?---That's what I said, yes. - - you said, "Something's going on." Do you know what the problem was?---No. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3231

B38/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: I suppose the problem could be the fact that it was all getting a bit complicated because it had been proposed as a short, simple deal in which the morphine tablets were going to be sold in one lot and all of a sudden Farrell is reporting that Trifon wanted to do it in two lots and Trifon then tells you that there's a problem with the female. That seemed to be the problem, didn't it?---No. All right. Well, let's go on to the next call, which is barcoded D1003089. This is a call on the next day, which is then the 4th of January 1999 in the evening at 1907 local time. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3232

B39/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between you and Gavin Farrell?---Yes. It's clear from that call, is it not, that Farrell by then had arrived in Kalgoorlie?---Sounds like he's in Kal, yes. Because you'd said, "When did you get in?" and he said, "Just now" and then he talked about popping down to the Foundry for a drink?---Yes. You can use those clues to conclude that, by then, Gavin Farrell was in Kalgoorlie, can you not?---Yes. On the top of page 2, you said, "Did you catch that guy?" Do you accept that that is a reference back to your earlier conversations with Farrell and Trifon, whereby it seemed to be arranged that Farrell would bring half of something to Kalgoorlie?---I said, "Did you catch that guy?"? I don't know what it was about. Well, you'd accept, would you not, from the calls we've already played that when the proposal for half was made, that the arrangement then seemed to be that Gavin Farrell would bring the half of whatever to Kalgoorlie and take half of whatever else was involved back with him?---I don't know what we were talking about. I don't know if that was in relation to it. Right. Did you have any other business with Gavin Farrell at that time?---I can't recall exactly what we were doing, but we - - And I suggest what you learnt here for the first time was that Trifon in fact was proposing to come up himself, because until then, the arrangement had been that Farrell would be the middleman who would bring something up and take something back. Do you agree with that?---I don't know what we were talking about there. Because then you go on, after a little interruption by Mr Bev Birnham, to say, "I thought he was going to do it with you or something?" and Farrell said: "Yeah, he was - - he's - - he'll be here tomorrow and

I'll do it through - - through then. All right?" And that was a reference back, was it not, to the arrangements which had been made previously, that caused you to think that the deal was to be done through Farrell?---I don't know what we were talking about. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3233

B39/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Right. You've got no idea of what that transaction was, which was to be done through - -?---No. - - Farrell?---No. All right. Do you think you told anyone during your Internal Affairs interview what you said, what the transaction was?---I'm not sure. I may have done. Well, feel free to check. And then, I suggest, after some minor irrelevant conversation about something to do with Farrell and Birnham towards the end of that page, you then said: "Is that - - is that thing that your mate's going on

about, is that still - - or is he - -" And then Farrell said: "No - - oh, yeah. No, no, he's definitely coming up." I suppose you've got no idea what that was about?---No. And Trifon says that that was in the context of him having made an arrangement with Farrell that he, Trifon, would come to Kalgoorlie to do the deal, a position which he had to take because at that time he'd pocketed the Internal Affairs' money and couldn't give any money to Farrell. You'd agree, would you not, that all of this conversation would support Trifon's version?---No, there was - - we had nothing to do with that. But this conversation would support, corroborate, Trifon, would it not?---This could be to do with anything. Yes? But, given what Trifon said, this conversation would corroborate him, wouldn't it?---No, we had - - we were not doing anything like that with Trifon. Put your detective's hat on and look at it objectively. As a detective senior sergeant of your experience, you would agree, would you not, that in the light of the allegations made by Trifon, this conversation would corroborate his account - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3234

B40/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - corroborate his account?---I'd have to have more information to know what was happening, and there's no information there that you can come to that conclusion. All right. Well, let us move on to the next call which is D1003090. This is again on the 4th of January and is just after the last call between you and Farrell. This is between you and Cinquina. It was timed at 1941 hours on the 4th of January, local time. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between you and Silvio Cinquina?---Yes. It would seem that you discuss some rate result - - race result at the beginning. Did you not?---Yes. You don't have any trouble working out that that was the matter being discussed?---Yes. And if I can just go over the page, in the latter part of the conversation you seem to be talking about a job, a police job, that you were doing, do you not?---Sounds like it. Well, the upshot seems to be that you went to the hotel to borrow a vehicle that you could use for surveillance?---It says that, yes. Right. Who was Leo?---Leo was a person I know from another pub. Right. And it seems that someone wanted you to get a vehicle that you could use to carry out surveillance in relation to an armed robbery from the airport. Would you agree with that?---Something like that, yes. All right. Can I just go back to the previous page? When you told Mr Cinquina that Gavin was going down to the Foundry, that was a reference to Gavin Farrell, was it?---Yes, it appears to be. And then Cinquina said that he might go as well. He said: "If I can get rid of them upstairs from the members

early enough, I might go down there." Do you know what that was a reference to?---(No audible response) His job at the trots perhaps?---Maybe. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3235

B40/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: What did you understand his job at the trots to be?---Oh, he had some administration job there. Bar manager?---Something to do with that, yes. Mm. And what he seemed to be indicating was that he would have to clear the members out from some area and if he did it early enough he might go to the Foundry. Is that what he seems to be indicating?---Maybe, yes. Did you give approval for Cinquina to occupy the position at the trotting club?---I was aware of it. He had that - - I know he was working there for some time before I went to - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3236

B41/1 POLICE WITNESS: - - - before I went to - - MR HASTINGS: And he continued - - ?---I was aware of it, yes. Did you give approval to it?---Yes. Did you give that approval in writing?---No. Did he seek your approval?---He would have told me he was - - he was doing it. He was aware - - I was aware that he was doing it, yes. But was it simply tacit approval, was it, because you were aware of it and you didn't stop it?---I couldn't see how it was interfering. No. But did he ever formally ask you for authority to carry out that form of secondary - - ?---I think he might have already had the job. Right. And for how long did you understand he'd been working at the trotting club?---I'm not sure exactly. Was it a commitment that involved him being there on each occasion that there was a meeting - a race meeting - at the trotting club?---I don't know if he personally had to be there all the time, but I'd say most of the time he would be there. Was it a paid position as far as you knew?---I'm not sure. Was that the position in respect of which from time to time he had possession of the float?---Yes. All right. Thank you. Now, if I can go on to a call which is barcoded D1003093, which again is on the 4th of January at 2230 hours, although it's recorded as being on the 5th of January at 1.30 Eastern Standard Time. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that you talking to Silvio Cinquina?---Yes. Given the calls which precede this, you'd accept, would you not, that the reference to "Gav" as the person you just saw was a reference to Gavin Farrell?---Yes. Whom it had been discussed you might see at the Foundry hotel, earlier?---Yes. Right. So we can deduce, can we, from the beginning that you have just been to see Gavin Farrell at the Foundry hotel and you're now telling Silvio Cinquina about it?---I've seen Gavin somewhere, yes. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3237

B41/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: And Farrell has told you that he - - someone - - that is, someone other than himself, obviously, is "coming up tomorrow"?---Yes. That was a reference to Trifon, was it not?---Appears to be, yes. It's also clear, as I foreshadowed earlier, that Farrell was not fully acquainted with the nature of your business with Trifon. You'd agree, wouldn't you?---Yes. Because you go on to say he wants to know what it's all about. "He said, 'How much is it?' you know, and all this,"

and you go on to say, "I said there's two lots of six. I thought, bugger it; I'll tell him. He said, 'What is it?' and I said, 'Oh, you don't want to know.' And he said, 'Yeah. I don't want to know who's involved.'"

Does that provide you any assistance in recollecting or concluding what the nature of your business with Mr Trifon was?---Trifon was always trying to set jobs in Kalgoorlie. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3238

B42/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Right?---Certain groups of people. I think this may have been in relation to that. Right. Well, it's something that involved two lots of six. There's a further clue?---No. No what?---It doesn't - - I think it's to do with a couple of people that may have been dealing in Kalgoorlie that he was setting up but the "two lots of six" doesn't mean much to me. Well, how does "two lots of six" indicate that there might be two people in Kalgoorlie that he's trying to set up?---No, there's a group of people. Two groups of six people?---No, no. I didn't say that. I said this may be in respect to a job that he had been trying to set. I thought you said earlier when I asked you that following the K1 search job Trifon had not provided you with any further criminal information?---No, he did ring up quite a bit about people. I see. What, and now you remember that there were two - - ? ---When I see this I have some recall about some people prior to when he left but also when he was away - - I think even when I saw him at a restaurant in Perth where he mentioned a particular group of people. All right. Who were they?---It was a group of Slavs that lived in Kalgoorlie at the time. Names, please?---I can't remember the exact names. I think it had something to do with his nephew. Right?---Or someone's nephew. And what was he alleging? That these people may in some way be involved in drug dealing?---Yes. All right, and did you make a record of the intelligence that he gave you?---There may be something in my journal, yes. Did you do anything about the information he gave you?---I don't know whether it progressed. All right. Well, what do you understand the reference to "two lots of six" being?---I can't remember. How has that suddenly prompted your memory that Trifon may have been providing you with information about drug dealing in Kalgoorlie?---Because I know he rang me a lot at the police station on the main line, my office. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3239

B42/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: All right?---Kept saying he was coming up, kept asking me if he was coming up would anything happen to him - this sort of thing. All right. This is not him ringing you, of course. This is coming through Gavin Farrell?---Mm. Was there some reason why Gavin Farrell was not in the loop previously in relation to the information which Trifon was being provided?---All I can think of is if it's a job in Kalgoorlie then there's no real need for Gavin to know, but he's a police officer, so maybe - - I don't know. Right?---I can't see a real problem. And we know from the phone calls which have been intercepted that there was quite regular communication between Gavin Farrell and Trifon from the 24th of December on, in which various information was provided by Trifon to Farrell. Is there some reason why Trifon would not have told Farrell about this job in Kalgoorlie?---May have done. Is there some reason why you didn't want Farrell to know? ---I can't remember what it was about. All right, but is there some reason why you were reluctant to tell Farrell?---If I - - if I knew the reason I'd tell you. I don't know. Is there any reason in principle that you can think of why Detective Sergeant Farrell, as he was by then, should not be told something about what Trifon was telling you?---Maybe because it's not in his area. I don't know. Well, you clearly didn't want him to know, did you?---I can't recall what it was about. How can I answer? Because you said, "I thought, 'Bugger it. I'll tell him'", obviously indicating with some great reluctance you provided some information to Farrell about what Trifon was talking about?---Many operations. Didn't need to know. In the end I've decided to tell him. You then go on to say, "All I said to him was that if he fucks us around this time that's it." What did you mean by that? ---Maybe, you know, just don't use him any more. You then went on to say, "I reckon he's still fucking us around, mate. I reckon - - he reckons the other party is going to come up with him." What was that a reference to? ---I'm not sure. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3240

B43/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Because it'd fit pretty well with the fact that Trifon had been telling Farrell that in relation to the proposed morphine tablet deal, he was acting on behalf of somebody else?---I don't know what it's about. Doesn't seem to fit very well with your suggestion that there might have been some activity involving Trifon providing information about drug-dealing in Kalgoorlie, does it?---I don't know. It might have been his wife coming up. I don't know. His wife's taken a restraining order out against him, apparently?----Oh, yeah. Maybe his girlfriend. So we can count the wife out?---Maybe his girlfriend. All right. Why do you think his girlfriend would be coming up with him?---I don't know. And then you say, "We've got to be careful over this one." Have any recollection of why you said that?---Probably got to be careful with him as an informant. You'd certainly have to be careful if you were involved with Trifon in a drug deal, wouldn't you?---It was nothing to do with that. When you say "this one", it carries the inference, does it not, that you'd done this before?---Maybe this job. Maybe "one" means job. Or maybe you'd been involved in drug trading with Trifon before?---No. In any event, Cinquina seems to be indicating that he was of the view that Trifon wouldn't come. Do you see that, in the last passage on the page? "I don't reckon he'll come up, mate. You know what he's like. He won't come up"?---Yes. And then, if we can go to the next page, please? Does that seem to be a correct transcription of that statement by you, "You know, the other day I looked at these little changes"?---I'd have to listen to that again. Yes. Perhaps could we just have the last part again, please? Oh, run it, it's only short. We'll have the whole call. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3241

B43/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Do you think "changes" is the right word in that passage?---I couldn't work that out. No. I don't think it is, so I won't go into that in any detail. Perhaps if I move on, then, to the next call, which is barcoded D1003094, which is 14 minutes after this call which we've just heard between you and Silvio Cinquina, and seems to be between you and Trifon. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3242

B44/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Was that you talking to Trifon?---Yes. This call was at quarter to eleven at night. Was there some reason why you were talking to Trifon at that hour?---I can't remember why. You rang him, it would seem?---Yes. Is there any legitimate reason why you had to do business with Trifon so late at night?---I can't remember why we - - what we were speaking about. It seems to indicate that you're bringing him up to date on your conversation with Farrell - -?---Yes. - - would you agree?---Yes. And you refer again to the fact that you were concerned that Farrell seemed to be seeking information about your business with Trifon?---A job that may be happening, yes. It might be that. It's also clear, is it, that Trifon is indicating that he was coming to Kalgoorlie the next day?---Yes. Right. As far as you can remember, was that essential for taking this business further?---Look, I can't remember exactly what the job was. Well, insofar as he was giving you information about some drug dealers in Kalgoorlie, was it necessary for him to come to Kalgoorlie in order to take the job further?---Must have been. So that if he didn't come, the job would fall over?---Most probably. On the second page which is now in front of you, you discuss the fact that Farrell had been asking you questions and Trifon gives you some advice by saying "Oh, just don't - - don't fall in with him, eh." In other words, he's saying to you, isn't he, that you shouldn't fall for the approaches by Farrell seeking information?---Yes. Why would a person like Trifon be giving you advice?---I don't know what it's about. It's about some job. Yes. Did you have any qualms about the integrity of Detective Sergeant Gavin Farrell?---No. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3243

B44/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Is there any reason why he couldn't be trusted with information concerning your police duties?---No. He'd worked in Kalgoorlie, had he not?---Yes. He would know people in Kalgoorlie?---Yes. He would know people involved in the drug trade?---Yes. He'd be someone who might be able to assist you, might he not, with his knowledge - -?---Yes. - - of people in Kalgoorlie?---(No audible response) Correct?---Yes. So there's no logical reason why Detective Sergeant Gavin Farrell couldn't be entrusted with information that you were receiving from Trifon about drug dealers in Kalgoorlie, was there - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3244

B45/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - in Kalgoorlie, was there?---I'd have to have further information to work it out. Of course, it would be different if you and Trifon had a deal going in relation to morphine tablets and it was something which you didn't want Farrell to share. That would be different, wouldn't it?---Nothing to do with that. The reference to "playing like a detective" is a joke, isn't it?---I'm not sure what was - - what was being meant by that. It certainly amused Mr Trifon anyway - - ?---Yes. - - because he laughed after he said it?---Yes. And your response was, it was a bit hard; in other words, to play like a detective?---Because I am a detective. Yes. But that would be a completely nonsensical response if in fact it was a police job you were talking about, for him to suggest that you should "play like a detective" and you say, "It's a bit hard." This would be a nonsense, wouldn't it?---That's what was said. Yes. But it would be a nonsense to say that if what was involved was a police job?---No. What would make a lot of sense, of course, would be a situation in which you were in fact involved in illegal activity involving the sale of drugs, and with a delicate sense of humour Mr Trifon suggested that you "play like a detective", in which case your response of saying, "It's a bit hard," would make a lot of sense when what you were doing was carrying out the very drug trading which you were supposed to investigate?---No. It's not right. And when you said on the last page - if we can just go over to that, please - that you've been put on the spot because Farrell was asking amounts and that sort of thing, does that assist you to recall in any more precise way what was being discussed?---No. Does it enable you to explain any further why it was that travel - - that Farrell should not be told that sort of information about amounts and so forth?---No. It would make sense, of course, if you were dealing with Trifon in drugs and he wanted to know how much was involved; then you'd be reluctant to tell him, wouldn't you?---It was nothing to do with dealing in drugs. In any event, the outcome of this call is that Trifon is indicating that he will be in Kalgoorlie the next day, is he not?---That's what he's saying, yes. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3245

B45/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Right. Thank you. Can I go to the next call, please, which is D1003095, which is timed on the evening of the 4th of January 1999 at 2252 local time, which is some 8 minutes after your last chat with Trifon? We heard this call the other day because there's a passage towards the end which I suggested had some relevance to the ecstasy hypothesis. What I want to do now is to ask you about the earlier part about which I didn't ask you yesterday. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3246

B46/2 POLICE AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that you talking to Silvio Cinquina?---Yes. Was there any reason why you had to ring him at 10 to 11 at night, to bring him up to date on your recent conversations?---I don't know. Depends where he was. It's clear, is it not, that you were ringing him to bring him up to date on what you had discussed with Trifon on the phone and what you had worked out with Farrell earlier, when you met him?---It's something to do with Trifon, yes. And on the second page, in the middle, there's a reference to something to do with Trifon's nephew, is there not?---Yes. And you say something to the effect that: "To tell you the truth, is - - he's coming up here

because he said that his nephew up here, going - - doing a bit of business and he wants to tell us about it."

Is that something on which you base your recollection that Trifon was providing you with information about some people dealing in - -?---Yes. - - drugs in Kalgoorlie?---Yes. That's part of it, yes. But that was a smokescreen, wasn't it? That was to put Farrell off the track?---No. Because you were irritated by the fact that Farrell had managed to glean some information about the business that you were doing with Trifon?---I'm not exactly sure, but it's about some job that he was setting up and it might have compromised the operation. All right?---Or something to that effect. But that was separate to your business with Trifon, though, wasn't it?---Something to do with Trifon setting a job. All right. I suggest, however, your business with Trifon was to do with something else, and that was just a ruse that you were giving by way of a distraction for Farrell, to put him off the scene a bit?---No. Because your real business with Trifon was in pills - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3247

B47/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - was in pills - p-i-l-l-s?---I don't know what the job he was setting up was about. All right. It wasn't a job. It was a direct transaction between you and Trifon, wasn't it?---No. How was Gavin Farrell lying?---I don't know. Just go back to the first page, if we may - because you go on to say that, "Gav was fishing." That's a reference to Gavin Farrell fishing, is it not, for information?---Maybe, yes. And then you go on to say, "The only thing he got out of me was the amount because he said, 'Oh' - - I said the amount and he goes, 'Oh, yeah, you told me that' so I knew then Gav was lying." What did Farrell lie about?---I'm not sure. Why would Detective Sergeant Gavin Farrell be lying to you? ---Obviously, he might've known something about the job that was being set. I see. Why would you have to put a fellow detective in the position where he would be telling you lies about a job? ---I don't know what it's about. It's about pills, isn't it?---It's 4 years ago. I don't know what the job was about or what the ins and outs - - what was happening at that particular time. Well, you don't have to guess here because the commodity is identified, because at the bottom of that page you refer to the fact that Farrell had apparently asked you what it was and at the top of the page he refers to the fact that it was pills, so that Farrell knows that you and Trifon are engaged in some activity involving pills?---Might've been a job that Trifon was setting up. I see. If it was that why would you have said to him, "You don't want to know", which is what you seem to have said next?---I don't know. Why would Farrell not want to know about some job you had on? ---I don't know. This is 4 years ago and I don't know what I said in my interview, and I'd like to have a look at that. Well, feel free to have a look, but I suggest that at one point you were actually asserting these were "prills" - - weren't they? P-r-i-l-l-s. Is that an explanation you still offer?---No. Why at some point did you think it was "prills"?---It may have been. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3248

B47/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Did you ever have - - ?---At that particular time. - - any transaction with Trifon involving prills?---Well, "prills" is a type of nugget. Well, it's not a type of nugget at all. It's small granules of gold which is a by-product of the gold manufacturing process, is it not? It's not a nugget?---Which I showed to Internal Affairs. What?---Place - - that's - - they sell prills. Yes, but prills are not nuggets, are they?---No. You've explained earlier, and you seem to be going back to it, that at some point you had possession of your friend's eighty or ninety thousand dollars worth of nuggets. They were not prills, were they?---No, but there were some amongst them that were encased in glass which I think were prills. I see. So is that your explanation now, that you may have been dealing - - ?---No, I said I don't - - - - with Trifon in prills?---I don't know. Because this is not the word "prills" at all. It's "pills", isn't it?---Looks like "pills", yes. And what I suggest on a previous occasion is you threw "prills" in as a decoy to deflect attention away from what the real transaction was?---No. In any event, I come back to the question of why it is that Farrell could not know, he being a detective sergeant of police, what the job was that you were engaging in with Trifon?---I don't know. I can't go back that far. Do you know what you meant when you said in the middle of the second page, "All I've got to say, to tell you the truth is" - - no, I'm sorry, just before that. Two statements up, attributed to you. "I told him, 'Is it on or not?' He goes, 'Yeah.' I'm thinking all the time he's - - 'Things being done, Silv?' and Silvio says, 'Oh, yeah, I know what you're saying.'" Do you know what you meant by that?---No. And later down that page you go on to say, "So you know what I mean. Now Gav is getting to know, and he didn't need to, because of that idiot", and Silvio said, "Exactly. We'll never do anything again with this bloody idiot." Again that seems to indicate you had done something with this person Trifon before, does it not - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3249

B48/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - Trifon before, does it not?---As an informant, yes. I see. And why - - just why was it so disastrous that Farrell would get to know, because of Trifon's conduct, what you were up to?---All I can think of is the integrity of the operation. In circumstances - -?---Being conducted in Kalgoorlie, it should be kept in Kalgoorlie. I see?---I also say that "he's going to point it out" so he was obviously going to point out a house or something. All right?---I don't know what that means. And does that mean that you didn't have sufficient confidence in the integrity of Detective Sergeant Farrell to trust him with the information about the job you were doing?---No, but all I can think of is that if it's another office, whatever happens at one office is kept within that office. Was that your general approach to police work?---The operation? Well, what you just said, that if a job - -?---Only the people involved in the operation needs to know, yes. Was that your general approach - that if a job was being done by an office, then that information ought to be confined to that office?---It depends on the job. In any event, it's clear, is it not, that the plan still is that Trifon would come to Kalgoorlie the following day?---Yes. All right. Thank you. Well, let us turn to the following day and it's a fact, is it not, that Trifon did not come to Kalgoorlie the following day?---Well, I didn't see him, from memory. Can we listen please to the call which is barcoded D1003096? This is a call at 11.13 local time on the 5th of January 1999. Again, this is a call which I played to you yesterday in the context of the ecstasy allegation, but there's a part at the beginning which I will ask you about now. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between you and Michael, your brother?---Yes. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3250

B48/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: At the beginning you commenced by saying "Still waiting for that person." And then "I don't know. He's playing silly buggers again, but he's supposed to be here today." And then there's a reference to Porchey who was there. Porchey of course is a reference to Gavin Farrell, is it not?---Yes. And the person who was "supposed to be there today" was Trifon, was it not?---I don't know who it was. Well, it follows on from the conversations of the evening before when you'd spoken to Trifon and others in relation to Trifon's attendance at Kalgoorlie - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3251

B49/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - attendance at Kalgoorlie on the next day, which is this day, the 5th of January. And you'd accept, would you not, that when you were telling your brother about a person who was "supposed to be here today" in the context of Gavin Farrell, that must be a reference to Trifon?---It may be. Well, can you think of anybody else who could have possibly - - ?---I don't know. It's 4 years ago. Right. Well, using your detective skills, can you find out from the clues you've been given any other possible person who might have been the subject of that reference?---I don't know. You accept that it could be Trifon, don't you?---I may have been speaking to him. I don't know. I honestly don't know who it was when I was - - And it would indicate - - ?--- - - talking to Mick. It would indicate, in any event, that your brother, Michael, had an interest in what was happening with that person?---Whatever I was speaking to Mick about. I'm sorry?---Whatever I was speaking to Mick about. But I don't know what I was speaking to him about. Right. If it was Trifon it would seem that Mick Reilly has an interest in that matter. Does he not?---I don't know who it was. Who else could it have been than Trifon?---I don't know. It's 4 years ago. All right. Who else was involved with Farrell at that time who you were expecting in Kalgoorlie on the 5th of January?---I don't know. I don't know if - - if Gavin came up with any other people. You're playing games, Mr Reilly, are you not?---I don't know. It is perfectly clear from the sequence of calls that I have played you that on the evening of the 4th of January you had a discussion with Trifon, you had a discussion with Farrell, you reported to Silvio Cinquina the fact that Trifon was due in Kalgoorlie on this day, the 5th of January, didn't you?---I spoke to Mick about someone coming up. I don't know who that person was for sure - - Who else - - ?--- - - when I was talking to Mick. Who else could it have been?---I don't know. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3252

B49/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Mick Reilly, of course, had an interest in Trifon, didn't he?---I don't know. I don't - - Trifon had been the person who provided the information which enabled him to go out to the premises on the 26th of June 1998?---I don't think Mick knew Trifon. I see. But he was aware that that's where the information came from?---Most probably. I don't - - I don't know if I told Mick where the information was coming from now. I'd have to go back and look at what I've said at that particular time, and look at the Crime Stoppers' report. Right. And of course, given the sequence of events that I've already indicated, going back to the 30th of December when Mick Reilly sent you a parcel via the Air Wing, in the context of Trifon coming to Kalgoorlie, it would be relevant, would it not, for you to be reporting on Trifon's expected arrival?---There was no drugs. I didn't ask you that?---No. And I suggest the reason that you're reporting to Mick Reilly the likely arrival of Trifon is because he had an interest in Trifon's trip to Kalgoorlie because the purpose of it was to buy the morphine tablets which Michael Reilly had stolen from the premises of K1 on the 26th of June 1998?---No. Can you come up with a better explanation for you reporting to Mick than that?---I don't know who I was talking to Mick about. Can I take you then to the next call involving you, which is barcoded D1003122, which is a call intercepted at 1658 hours local time on the 5th of January? .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3253

B50/2 POLICE AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was that a call between you and Gavin Farrell?---Yes. Mr Farrell's given evidence that he returned to Perth on this day after an early delay because the flight was held up for some reason and was back in Perth by the time of this call; is that your recollection?---I can't remember. It would seem to indicate from its terms, would it not, that Farrell had already left Kalgoorlie?---(No audible response.) Given that you said at the beginning, "Gav, what were you saying before you left"?---I don't know. Maybe he - - he was talking to me somewhere. I don't know. All right, and it seemed to involve a conversation about the expected arrival of somebody, did it not?---Something about someone at 10 o'clock. Was that in relation to the projected arrival in Kalgoorlie of Trifon?---I don't know. All right. Can I move to the next one, please, on the next day? It's barcoded D1003124. This is on the 6th of January at 10.23 am local time. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION MR HASTINGS: Was this between you and Farrell?---Yes. I obviously have to correct what I said earlier. I think it's this day, on the 6th, that Farrell actually left Kalgoorlie, after some delay in the morning, but in any event, do you accept that the conversation relates to the whereabouts of Trifon?---I'm not sure. Someone you referred to as "dick features"?---It may be Trifon. I'm not sure. Is there anyone else at that time who you referred to with similar affection - -?---I can't remember 4 years ago. It may have been Trifon. All right. You had referred to him in similarly disparaging terms in the few calls back, had you not?---I do - - I did refer to him like that, yes. And do you accept that this conversation reflects the fact that Trifon had not turned up on the 5th of January as he had said he would, and that it caused you some irritation?---I'm not sure. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3254

B50/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Do you have any other explanation for the call?---No. All right. Can we move on, please, to D1003105? This is a call later, on the 6th of January, at 1748 local time. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3255

B51/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Was that a conversation between you and Gavin Farrell?---Yes. It would seem by then Farrell had in fact returned to Perth, would it not?---Yes. Do you accept that at the beginning of the call you spoke to him about Trifon?---Talks about someone. It may be Trifon. Well, you used your - - no; I'm sorry. It's Farrell using the usual term of endearment for him by calling him a "dickhead", which seems to be a recurring theme to describe Trifon, would you agree?---Yes. And it's clear again, isn't it, that the person, Trifon, was missing in the sense that he'd been expected in Kalgoorlie and didn't front?---It may be about that, yes. Right. After Farrell had described him as a "dickhead" you said, "Hope he's not dangerous, that's all." Why would you have said that?---I don't know. It would make sense, of course, if there'd been a proposed dealing in drugs which looked like falling apart - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3256

B52/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - which looked like falling apart, and you were concerned that you'd been exposed to Trifon, who could cause you some harm. That would make sense, wouldn't it?---Nothing to do with that. But it would make sense, wouldn't it?---It may be that he's dangerous because he's abusing his position as an informant. I don't know. Why would he be dangerous doing that?---Well, he - - Makes more sense, doesn't it, that he'd be dangerous - -?---It might be - - relationship for other - - other - - other things, I don't know. I see. What I put would make sense, wouldn't it, that if he'd been party to a drug deal with you which fell apart, he would be dangerous because he would have the capacity to cause you some harm?---I was doing no drug deal with him. But it makes sense, though, doesn't it?---I said I was doing no drug deal with him. In the rest of the call, you seem to be talking about, first of all, buying some bricks. Do you agree with that?---Yes. There was no difficulty understanding that conversation, was there?---Appears to be - - to do with bricks and building a wall. All right. And there, where it seems to be an innocent conversation, you didn't use "stuff" or "things" or "it". You referred to the commodity by name, bricks, did you not?---And block, yeah. And the block, being a block of land?---Well, you can work it out to be a block, yes, of land. Because there's enough information there. So, where you have an innocent and legitimate conversation, you seem to have no difficulty speaking with sufficient precision, so that 4 years later, you can look at the call and work out what you were talking about?---Well, there's enough information there for you to - - to gain something out of it, yes. Right. That seems to be something of a contrast to the other calls I've been taking you to. You seem - -?---There might be a lot of other dialogue or narrative, similar, where you can work it out. All right?---It's got nothing to - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3257

B52/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: And the conversation goes on, talking about various locations within Kalgoorlie, does it not, as possible places in which you could - -?---Yes. - - build a house? About a quarter of the way down page 12, which is now on the screen in front of you, you refer to someone called Dowchey, is it?---Yes. Who was he?---I'll write his name down for you, if you want? Thank you. Might Mr Reilly be given a piece of paper, please? Was he someone engaged in criminal activity?---I think he has been charged in the past, but I don't know to his - - extent nowadays. What is your association with this man?---I think I may have had a couple of jobs involving him, but I've had quite a - - I think a few jobs regarding his son. Mr Farrell obviously knew of him as well?---Yes. Have you arrested this person?---No. Have you investigated him?---I'm not sure. I'm not sure if I have. He has a lengthy criminal history, going up to 1998, does he not?---Not sure if in my early days I could have investigated him. Was he someone with whom you socialised?---No. I tender the piece of paper on which Mr Reilly has written the name. It's barcoded D1004640. COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR HASTINGS: And might that be a confidential exhibit, access restricted to counsel assisting and officers of the Commission? COMMISSIONER: Yes. The paper on which Mr Kevin Reilly has written a name, barcoded D1004640, will be confidential exhibit 498C, and will be accessible only to officers of the Commission and to counsel assisting. EXHIBIT 498C Mr Hastings DATE 15.10.02 Confidential - Piece of paper with name written on by witness K. Reilly Barcode D1004640 MR HASTINGS: Can I go to the last page please? On this page, there is reference by Farrell to, "The other bloke rang - - who rang from Melbourne." Do you see that?---Yes. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3258

B52/2 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Who was that?---I don't know. Mr Farrell said, when he gave evidence, that it was Dave Waters - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3259

B53/3 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - it was Dave Waters, a Victorian policeman?---Yes. Could that be to whom he was referring?---I don't know. Do you know any other bloke from Melbourne that you've discussed with Farrell?---I can't remember now. Four years ago. I know a few people in Melbourne. Do you know Dave Waters?---I know Dave Waters, yes. A Victorian police officer?---Yes. All right. What has been your association with him?---I've met him. He comes over for the Kalgoorlie Round with some other members of the Victorian CIB. Apart from meeting him, have you had any other involvement with him?---Um, I think I've been to Melbourne and gone out and had a couple of drinks with him. All right. Have you done any business with him?---No. Do you know what you meant when you asked Farrell "Oh, yeah. Any good?"?---No. It clearly indicates that you had some expectation that something might come out of a communication with the Melbourne person, does it not?---I don't know what we're talking about then. Has Waters ever assisted you in inquiries in Kalgoorlie?---I think I might have known him when I was in the Armed Robbery Squad as well. So there would have been some liaison there. All right. Have you ever done any favours for him while you were in Kalgoorlie, while you were - - in the course of your duties?---I can't remember. Well, you would remember, wouldn't you, if you were asked to do something for a Victorian police officer in Kalgoorlie?---Oh, things like that happen all the time. I can't remember any - - Have you ever been asked to do anything improper on behalf of Waters?---No. All right. Can I move on then to the next day, the 7th of January, by which time I suggest it was clear that Trifon was not coming to Kalgoorlie. I'll ask you to listen to this call which is barcoded D1003108. No. In fact, I won't ask you that because it's one I played to you earlier which I suggest was talking money - 30 and so forth - with Silvio Cinquina. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3260

B54/3 POLICE Can I move to the next call on the same day, the 7th, which is barcoded D1003110? It was intercepted at 1642 hours local time and it is a call I've already played to you, because it has some talk about "25 and 30" etcetera. Towards the middle of the call there's some additional information which I will seek from you. AUDIO TAPE PLAYED TO COMMISSION .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3261

B55/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: If I can go to the second page of that transcript you will see that after some earlier conversation about something that was going to be between 25 and 30, etcetera, towards the bottom of the second page, about four statements up, you say, "That other bloke hasn't fronted. It's a waste of time there. Absolute waste of time." That was a reference to Trifon, was it not?---I don't know. Well, if we follow the conversation through and pick up the clues on the next page, the person is clearly a mate of Farrell's, is he not?---Farrell knows him, yes. Well, "he's mates with Porchey"; point 4 of the page. Do you see that? Michael says, "But does he - - ah, he's mates with Porchey though, isn't he?" And Porchey says he doesn't want any more to do with him because of the way he's not cooperating. There's no doubt in your mind that this is a reference to Trifon, is there?---I don't know for sure. Well, we've just been through a series of calls in which it was clear that Trifon was due in Kalgoorlie as a result of some arrangements made with Farrell, aka Porchey. Trifon didn't appear, and this is clearly a report by you to Mick Reilly about the fact that Trifon hasn't turned up, isn't it?---I don't know who we're talking about. Do you have anyone else you can suggest who was a mate of Gavin Farrell's of sorts who hadn't turned up in Kalgoorlie at about that time?---It's 4 years ago and I don't know what we're talking about - - Right?--- - - then. Do you seriously dispute the fact that you were talking about Trifon?---I don't know who we're talking about. Do you dispute that you were talking about Trifon?---Yes. So this was not Trifon?---I don't know who it was. I see. If it was Trifon, and I suggest it clearly was, do you know why Michael said, "Makes it embarrassing with those other blokes, you know"?---I don't know. It would make sense, I suppose, if he's referring to the two other people who came out and stole the morphine tablets from K1's premises, who had an interest in the sale of them?---No. And there'd been a plan to sell the tablets through Trifon for which purpose the tablets had been sent to Kalgoorlie. And then it seems to be falling apart because Trifon didn't turn up with the money?---No. .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3262

B55/1 POLICE MR HASTINGS: Then it would be somewhat embarrassing for the other two blokes involved, wouldn't it?---That didn't happen. And Michael Reilly, I suggest, is clearly concerned - if I can go to the - - oh, no; it's the top of that page - where he - - concerned that this person might be working for someone. Do you see that in about the fourth passage down? "Or he's working for someone." That would reflect some concern, would it not, that the person who didn't turn up might be working for some law enforcement agency?---I don't know what he's talking about there. That would fit though, wouldn't it?---I don't know what he was talking about. And then you said, "No. I spoke to Porchey." We know this much, do we not, that that's a reference to Gavin Farrell?---Yes. There's no other people you know by the nickname Porchey?---No. Right. So you're saying that you'd spoken to Gavin Farrell and that you hadn't told Farrell about anyone else. Could that have been the fact that because you were reluctant to tell Farrell anything about the Trifon deal, you were assuring your brother, Michael that you hadn't told Trifon or Farrell of Michael Reilly's involvement?---I don't know what we're talking about. That would make sense too, wouldn't it?---It's too confusing. I just don't know what we're talking about. You'd be anxious to keep Michael out of the frame as much as possible?---I don't know what we were talking about. When you said at the top of the page, "If we put away - - " and Michael says, "He might just front up any day of the week anyway," and you say, "If we put away, and if it happens it happens," couldn't that be a reference to the fact that you were then in possession - - - .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3263

B56/4 POLICE MR HASTINGS: - - - then in possession of the tablets in Kalgoorlie and were suggesting if you just put them away for a while, if it started to happen later on then you'd be able to go on with it?---No. Again you would agree, would you not, in the context of Trifon's assertions that he was in the course of doing a deal with you over the purchase of the tablets using Farrell as an intermediary this would be strong corroboration of Trifon's account?---I wasn't doing anything unlawful with Trifon. But putting your detective's hat on you would agree, would you not, that this sort of conversation would be strong confirmation or corroboration of Trifon's allegations?---I wasn't doing anything with Trifon unlawfully. No. I see. Does that mean you don't want to deal with my question?---I'm dealing with it. No, you're not. I'm asking you whether you agree, using your experience as a detective, that this conversation is significant corroboration of Trifon's allegations about you? ---Trifon's got no credibility. But he's backed up by this though, isn't he?---He can say what he likes but nothing was going on. Commissioner, is that a convenient time? COMMISSIONER: Yes. We will adjourn now until 9.45 tomorrow morning. WITNESS WITHDREW AT 3.58 PM HEARING ADJOURNED UNTIL 9.45 AM WEDNESDAY, 16TH OCTOBER 2002 .15/10/2002 REILLY, K.W. XN 3264