This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2015/aug/21/sydney-siege-inquest-dpp-solicitor-accused-of-bungling-monis-case-gives-evidence-rolling-report
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Sydney siege inquest: DPP solicitor accused of bungling Monis case gives evidence – rolling report | Sydney siege inquest: DPP solicitor accused of bungling Monis case gives evidence – rolling report |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| 3.50pm AEST06:50 | |
| To set the scene briefly, after Monis’ December 2013 court appearance, the police were unhappy. Detective Melanie Staples, in particular, was refusing to speak with the DPP solicitor, declining even to look them in the eye. Journalists were also present at the court, and may have caught wind of the decision - and the police’s dissatisfaction. | |
| Interestingly, following the decision, the DPP solicitor called the DPP’s media liaison unit. They can’t recall why. | |
| The inquest has also heard that the DPP solicitor told Staples they were disappointed with their performance in court that day. | |
| They can’t recall ever making such a claim, but admit: “I felt under siege and I felt that I was doing the best that I could.” (Yes, they really did use the S-word). | |
| Did they feel disappointed? | |
| I can recall being disappointed with the way things were proceeding. | |
| 3.24pm AEST06:24 | 3.24pm AEST06:24 |
| A fairly damning exchange just now. Before a December 2013 hearing, Monis’ lawyer, Manny Conditsis, put together a detailed, 30-page submission to the court outling why his client should be released on bail. | |
| And yet, in opposing this application, the DPP solicitor relied solely on oral submissions. | And yet, in opposing this application, the DPP solicitor relied solely on oral submissions. |
| Gormly: “Officers at the ODPP do not really have an opportunity to put written submissions together ... you dont have the facilities or the time.” | Gormly: “Officers at the ODPP do not really have an opportunity to put written submissions together ... you dont have the facilities or the time.” |
| That’s correct. | That’s correct. |
| G: But now and again, would you agree, when you see a threatening application, you need to do whatever it is that is necessary to put some written submissions together. | G: But now and again, would you agree, when you see a threatening application, you need to do whatever it is that is necessary to put some written submissions together. |
| No, not necessarily. | No, not necessarily. |
| G: It is encumbent upon you to find any factual information that can be evidence that can be given to the court to counter the effect of evidence that is being given by the applicant. | G: It is encumbent upon you to find any factual information that can be evidence that can be given to the court to counter the effect of evidence that is being given by the applicant. |
| I accept that. | I accept that. |
| And yet the prosecutor provided “no evidence”, Gormly says, just the police statement of facts. | And yet the prosecutor provided “no evidence”, Gormly says, just the police statement of facts. |
| G: Had you made any inquiry, it is likely that there would have been evidence available to tender to the court in opposition to Mr Conditsis’ application. | G: Had you made any inquiry, it is likely that there would have been evidence available to tender to the court in opposition to Mr Conditsis’ application. |
| No. I don’t know, one way or the other. | No. I don’t know, one way or the other. |
| Updated at 3.35pm AEST | |
| 3.13pm AEST06:13 | 3.13pm AEST06:13 |
| 'You had not prepared sufficiently' | |
| Gormly has been circling, and now he swoops. He’s put it to the DPP solicitor that he wasn’t able to cite the police’s evidence about Monis being a flight risk “because you had not prepared sufficiently to enable that information to be available to be provided by the court”. | Gormly has been circling, and now he swoops. He’s put it to the DPP solicitor that he wasn’t able to cite the police’s evidence about Monis being a flight risk “because you had not prepared sufficiently to enable that information to be available to be provided by the court”. |
| Updated at 3.48pm AEST | |
| 3.08pm AEST06:08 | 3.08pm AEST06:08 |
| We’ve heard that on 21 November, about a fortnight before Monis’ bail hearing, the police sent the DPP solicitor some information about their concerns that Monis was a “flight risk”, that is to say, liable to flee the jurisdiction if granted bail. | We’ve heard that on 21 November, about a fortnight before Monis’ bail hearing, the police sent the DPP solicitor some information about their concerns that Monis was a “flight risk”, that is to say, liable to flee the jurisdiction if granted bail. |
| And yet ... when asked by the magistrate during the hearing whether the police had any concerns about flight risk, the DPP solicitor responded: | And yet ... when asked by the magistrate during the hearing whether the police had any concerns about flight risk, the DPP solicitor responded: |
| I have to take some further instructions on that. | I have to take some further instructions on that. |
| Gormly asks, “Had you forgotten the details in the email from the 21st November?” | Gormly asks, “Had you forgotten the details in the email from the 21st November?” |
| I don’t recall. | I don’t recall. |
| This goes to the question of the quality this solicitor’s record-keeping. Did they print out this email before Monis’ bail hearing? Was it included in his file on the matter? | This goes to the question of the quality this solicitor’s record-keeping. Did they print out this email before Monis’ bail hearing? Was it included in his file on the matter? |
| I may not have printed it out, I don’t recall. | I may not have printed it out, I don’t recall. |
| What this does is undermine the DPP solicitor’s claim that they never received the letter from detective Melanie Staples, outlining her concerns with Monis receiving bail. Staples is certain she gave it to the solicitor. The solicitor is equivocating, claiming they “don’t recall” or cannot recollect receiving the letter. | What this does is undermine the DPP solicitor’s claim that they never received the letter from detective Melanie Staples, outlining her concerns with Monis receiving bail. Staples is certain she gave it to the solicitor. The solicitor is equivocating, claiming they “don’t recall” or cannot recollect receiving the letter. |
| It also plays into claims by the police that the DPP solicitor did a poor job of the hearing, failing to nail the case against Monis. | It also plays into claims by the police that the DPP solicitor did a poor job of the hearing, failing to nail the case against Monis. |
| Updated at 3.10pm AEST | Updated at 3.10pm AEST |
| 2.44pm AEST05:44 | 2.44pm AEST05:44 |
| Gormly: Can I put it to you ... that whatever your practice may have been at the time, that the best way for the court to have the bail information, particularly when it was a complex of information, was to provide it to the court in writing and not just do it orally, as was your practice. | Gormly: Can I put it to you ... that whatever your practice may have been at the time, that the best way for the court to have the bail information, particularly when it was a complex of information, was to provide it to the court in writing and not just do it orally, as was your practice. |
| That may be the case. | That may be the case. |
| Gormly: Not all the bail information was provided by you to the court. There is more information in this document [the police letter], is there not, than in your oral submissions to the court? | Gormly: Not all the bail information was provided by you to the court. There is more information in this document [the police letter], is there not, than in your oral submissions to the court? |
| I’d agree with that. | I’d agree with that. |
| The DPP solicitor also concedes they never asked the police for bail information. | The DPP solicitor also concedes they never asked the police for bail information. |
| Updated at 2.47pm AEST | Updated at 2.47pm AEST |
| 2.38pm AEST05:38 | 2.38pm AEST05:38 |
| This is why you don’t throw your notes away: the DPP solicitor has just told the inquest that they binned some of their notes on the Monis matter in November 2014, just a month before the siege. | This is why you don’t throw your notes away: the DPP solicitor has just told the inquest that they binned some of their notes on the Monis matter in November 2014, just a month before the siege. |
| Gormly asks whether the police letter could have been among these documents. | Gormly asks whether the police letter could have been among these documents. |
| No ... From memory it was the notes I had made, a copy of the statement of facts. | No ... From memory it was the notes I had made, a copy of the statement of facts. |
| Are you saying you definitely did not receive the document? | Are you saying you definitely did not receive the document? |
| I can’t put it that high. I can simply say to my best recollection I have not seen that document before. | I can’t put it that high. I can simply say to my best recollection I have not seen that document before. |
| Do you say you may have thrown that away too? | Do you say you may have thrown that away too? |
| If I received it, if I didn’t retain it, I would have handed it back to the police officer. | If I received it, if I didn’t retain it, I would have handed it back to the police officer. |
| Do you think you did that? | Do you think you did that? |
| My best recollection is that I have not seen that document before. | My best recollection is that I have not seen that document before. |
| 2.24pm AEST05:24 | 2.24pm AEST05:24 |
| The key question we’re thrashing out right now is whether or not the DPP ever received the letter discussed below, outlining the police’s concerns about Monis’ being granted bail. | The key question we’re thrashing out right now is whether or not the DPP ever received the letter discussed below, outlining the police’s concerns about Monis’ being granted bail. |
| Counsel assisting, Jeremy Gormly SC, is asking in nine or 10 different ways whether the DPP solicitor would have received the same information orally, whether he may have thrown out the letter by accident, whether he came to discover the information in the letter from other sources etc. | Counsel assisting, Jeremy Gormly SC, is asking in nine or 10 different ways whether the DPP solicitor would have received the same information orally, whether he may have thrown out the letter by accident, whether he came to discover the information in the letter from other sources etc. |
| Much is riding on this. If it can be established that the DPP did receive crucial information regarding Monis, and failed to present it in court, the inquest’s findings are likely to be scathing. | Much is riding on this. If it can be established that the DPP did receive crucial information regarding Monis, and failed to present it in court, the inquest’s findings are likely to be scathing. |
| 2.13pm AEST05:13 | 2.13pm AEST05:13 |
| Our unnamed DPP solicitor is being questioned over a letter produced by detective senior constable Melanie Staples, outlining the police’s concerns with the decision to grant Monis bail in December 2013. | Our unnamed DPP solicitor is being questioned over a letter produced by detective senior constable Melanie Staples, outlining the police’s concerns with the decision to grant Monis bail in December 2013. |
| Staples has claimed that she gave this letter to the DPP on 22 November 2013, and it should have formed part of a challenge to Monis’ bail - one that could potentially have put him behind bars at the time of the Sydney siege. | Staples has claimed that she gave this letter to the DPP on 22 November 2013, and it should have formed part of a challenge to Monis’ bail - one that could potentially have put him behind bars at the time of the Sydney siege. |
| Did the solicitor ever receive this document? | Did the solicitor ever receive this document? |
| I am confident in saying that I have not seen it before. | I am confident in saying that I have not seen it before. |
| Updated at 2.36pm AEST | Updated at 2.36pm AEST |
| 2.00pm AEST05:00 | 2.00pm AEST05:00 |
| DPP solicitor on the stand | DPP solicitor on the stand |
| Good afternoon, a late start to our Sydney siege coverage today. The morning has been taken up by renewed legal wrangling over six key documents, belonging to the Director of Public Prosecutions, that lawyers want examined by the inquiry. | Good afternoon, a late start to our Sydney siege coverage today. The morning has been taken up by renewed legal wrangling over six key documents, belonging to the Director of Public Prosecutions, that lawyers want examined by the inquiry. |
| Finally, we have our first witness on the stand. It’s the DPP solicitor (name suppressed) who had carriage of Man Haron Monis’ charge of accessory to murder in December 2013. | Finally, we have our first witness on the stand. It’s the DPP solicitor (name suppressed) who had carriage of Man Haron Monis’ charge of accessory to murder in December 2013. |
| All throughout the week, police have suggested that part of the reason why Monis was free to stage the siege was because DPP bungled the case against him. | All throughout the week, police have suggested that part of the reason why Monis was free to stage the siege was because DPP bungled the case against him. |
| For the first time, this solicitor will get to give their account. | For the first time, this solicitor will get to give their account. |