Ex-SAS soldiers accused of war crimes being ‘embarrassed’ by AFP, lawyer Dave Garratt claims
The lawyer for eight of the ex-SAS soldiers accused of war crimes is “annoyed” at the Australian Federal Police, claiming they are trying to embarrass his clients.
Gold Coast
Don't miss out on the headlines from Gold Coast. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Ex-SAS soldiers accused of war crimes are being purposefully “embarrassed” by Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigating, their lawyer claims, including detentions during school runs.
Howden Saggers Lawyer managing director Dave Garratt said he was “annoyed” at their tactics which included detaining one soldier dropping his child off at school.
He was detained so a search warrant could be conducted of his home for a crime that occurred, Mr Garratt said.
The claims were made during a wide-ranging interview with Mr Garratt, a former soldier selected to serve in a specialist reconnaissance/sniper platoon within the infantry doing tours of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In his legal career he continues to fight for his former colleagues, representing a number of ex defence force personnel.
Mr Garratt spoke at length with the Bulletin about what he believes is unfair treatment the ex-SAS soldiers are receiving from the Australian Federal Police, why he is not a big fan of bikie cases and how he became the lawyer on-call for the Brisbane Broncos.
Gold Coast Bulletin (GCB): What drew you into law?
Dave Garratt (DG): What drew me into law was probably the simple facts of I first got interested when I was in the Army.
I was obviously involved and had colleagues involved in incidents that there was those certain legalities around. Whether they acted in accordance with the rules of engagement, acted lawfully.
I noticed some of them had … not been hung out to dry … but hadn’t been provided the best advice.
GCB: You have represented a number of defence personnel, probably one of the most notable was Chris Carter. Can you tell me a little bit about that case and the outcome? (Former soldier Chris Carter was acquitted in November 2017 of murdering his ex-wife and her partner after he argued self-defence.)
DG: Chris Carter was probably one of the most satisfying results. It’s not many lawyers that have had the privilege to be able to get a double murder acquittal. We went into that trial, no expectations, we had our own case to run. And ultimately we were in the hands of the jury.
I was so fortunate to work with David Brustman QC from the Melbourne bar. I think the day Chris got into the witness box was probably the most intense courtroom sort of atmosphere I’ve ever been in.
It was when Chris Carter was giving evidence and how emotional was. When the verdict came down, I remember sitting there writing down in my notes and sitting next to David Brustman and they said count one murder, not guilty, in the alternative manslaughter not guilty – I was just was in a bit of a daze. And then they said again for the second victim, count one not guilty, the alternative, not guilty as well on the manslaughter, it was just unbelievable shock more than anything else.
I have been lucky enough to keep David Brustman’s closing address. He and I speak very regularly. He and I now represent eight of the Special Air Service Regiment personnel who are being charged with alleged war crimes. He is my go-to man for something of that serious nature.
GCB: Do you know what Mr Carter is up to now?
DG: I know they’ve got themselves at a farm. Him and his partner – probably the strongest lady, Angela – she stayed with him through that. My understanding is they got married, they are now both grandparents and they’re living a nice happy life out on a farm. I think he’s got a landscaping business. I wish them both well, and it’s just amazing how the family unit held together.
GCG: You mentioned you are representing a few SAS members with the war crimes. Is there anything at this stage you can tell us about that?
DG: The AFP are doing their ongoing investigations. They have conducted a few search warrants. I have been a bit annoyed at how my clients have been treated so far.
These guys aren’t your average sort of (accused). They are not going through the Southport Courts or anything like that. They are highly intelligent individuals. Most of them have a couple of degrees. They have done 10 to 12 operational deployments.
A couple of weeks ago one of my clients was detained outside of his kids’ school – dropping his kids off – for the purpose of a search warrant of his house.
Now the allegations against these guys are from 12 years ago so, in my view, there is no need to detain him for the purpose of a search warrant to take him back to his house while he was doing the school drop off.
All that was, was them trying to embarrass my client for no purpose whatsoever.
I served with these guys and I take it personally. There is other ways for the Federal Police to do their job without purposefully going out and embarrassing a father doing his kids’ drop off.
It would be different if he was an armed robber or a methamphetamine addict.
He is studying a masters in psychology. Most of them have MBAs. They are no fools. So for them to be treated how they are it’s a pretty poor reflection on the government and how they are investigating these allegations.
GCB: Do you think the investigations are going to continue much longer.
DG: To give credit to the AFP they are extremely thorough in what they what they’re doing.
I keep my clients updated weekly. There is distance between them. Every bit of information I find out I pass onto them and vice versa.
My biggest thing is I just want them to be able to try and get on with their lives, because we just we don’t know where this is going to come to fruition. It may never. The allegations may never be substantiated but I know that they are doing quite a thorough investigation on it.
GCB: Has the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial had any effect on what’s been happening to your clients?
DG: Not really. They are two completely separate matters. I can’t comment about Ben Robert-Smith’s trial, in regard to that, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment.
GCB: Another former defence personnel you represented in a high-profile case was Shane Gibbs (Gibbs was found guilty in 2021 of choking his partner in their Gold Coast home). Can you tell me a little bit about him and that case.
DG: Shane was an extremely interesting case where he went to trial for domestic violence offence and after trial he was ultimately found guilty. The Attorney-General appealed his sentence and he didn’t serve actual time. The appeal was dismissed.
Shane was an extremely interesting client having been shot in the chest when Mark Donaldson won his Victoria Cross in Afghanistan in 2008. He suffered from extreme PTSD from multiple deployments.
I’m definitely not excusing the offences he was charged with and ultimately found guilty of because of his PTSD.
I definitely think the courts, especially the Court of Appeal, got it right in regards to him not serving actual time.
GCB: It seems to be a common theme with former ADF members who end up before the courts that they have some kind of mental health issues. What kind of needs to be done in that space to ensure these guys are looked after and their mental health is looked after.
DG: We are very lucky compared to our forefathers in regards to World War I veterans, World War II veterans and especially even the Vietnam veterans – my father was a Vietnam Veteran – all they had was the RSL.
They didn’t have the ex-service type organisations we have. There is a lot of help out there. It’s up to the individual to break through that stigma they have. That they won’t speak up.
They won’t break through their own self-pride to go and get that help. What I find – and this is just me personally – my issue with the services organisations is we have probably too many and there’s a lot of infighting between representatives from those organisations.
Everyone wants government grants. Some are ultimately funded by donations. For me personally we need to start streamlining the organisations.
GCB: You also represent a lot of Broncos players when they come before the courts, how did that relationship start?
DG: One of my best mates is the welfare development officer, Adam Walsh, – who is ex-SAS – and has been the welfare development office there for many years now – he’s extremely well respected, by the club and by the NRL players.
He comes in whenever they’re in trouble, or even just come to him personally for their own sort of issues that they’re going through.
Sometimes I provide advice to them not just generally about criminal law stuff, but in regards to other parts of the law. So, it’s a relationship him and I have built.
I’ve represented a number of players that have gone through the courts and some have achieved really good results.
I gave an example the other day. I actually felt just as satisfied with the way Anthony Milford was exonerated or had his assault charges dropped, as he did not deserve them. It was just the right decision for those assault charges to be discontinued against him.
GCB: Can you tell me a little bit about that Milford case? (Assault charges were dropped against the former Broncos playmaker earlier this year.)
DG: Obviously, there’s a lot of media attention.
I knew from the minute I got the CCTV footage he had no case to answer with respect to charges of assaulting any females or assaulting anyone.
Whilst all armchair sort of legal experts can look at and say oh, we pushed him, pushed her. I guess being a lawyer, you know the defences, available to him.
I have instructions from him from the minute that that happened, and those instructions never changed whatsoever.
So to get the ultimate outcome was fantastic for him. I really feel sorry for him that he lost the contract he had with Souths (NRL club) and the absolute amount of money lost because of these charges that ultimately he should have never been charged with. I felt for him and his family in respect of that.
GCB: What was Milford like when his charges were dropped?
DG: He was extremely happy. He was more relieved for it for his partner as well. For the simple fact that having two young daughters is very taxing on them.
His poor partner had received vile abuse via social media. He had as well. He was more relieved that he knew from the outset he wasn’t guilty of what was alleged to have happened.
If anything, he was the victim of the racial slurs that were made against him.
That’s the worst thing about CCTV footage is that it doesn’t pick up the actual what it is said. It was funny when it came time to go through court, the CCTV footage was people would have a different view form the outset if they were able to hear what was said on that footage.
GCB: You also helped out Kotoni Staggs when his sex tape was released without his consent.
DG: I was involved from the minute, it sort of got released. Kotoni was on the Gold Coast here.
He came to my office and I took him across the road (to the police station) and I made a police statement with him.
Again, everybody wants loves to jump on the bandwagon and then slag off you know, have a go at a footy player.
In that instance he did nothing wrong, that was a private recording between him and another party that should never been disseminated.
Everybody has seen it and I feel sorry for him and his family.
I remember speaking with his family more about what we could do about it and I remember it was within a couple of days, it was on one of those porn video sites and I was writing to them to have it taken down.
He was very disappointed, very upset. He had no idea that it was sort of coming. If he had the time again, I’m sure it would never have been recorded but hindsight is a fantastic thing.
For him to have this to be put all through the media for something he hadn’t done. It’s a perfect example of these footy players are held to a higher standard. If that was just the average bloke down the street no one could have cared about his sex tape.
GCB: You represented Susie Forte for the death of her husband, Brett Forte, a police officer who was killed when wanted man Ricky Maddison fired at his police car during a pursuit in the Lockyer Valley, west of Brisbane, in May 2017. (Maddison was later shot by police and died after 85 attempts to have him surrender in a siege). What was the inquest like, especially such a high profile matter?
DG: From the minute we took that matter on from the outset, I knew it was going to be quite an intense matter. I wasn’t her first lawyer, so she had some concerns about how her representation proceeding.
The inquest was quite taxing on myself and the team as a whole.
It’s an ongoing saga now … I shouldn’t say saga … it’s an ongoing matter now.
I’m elated for Susie. She has been finally been able to get a platform to have her say.
It wasn’t through the coronial system or the coronial courts, through the media she has been able to have her say and get it out there about what she’s been through since Brett’s death – she has been through such a horrible time.
To be able to represent Susie has been probably one of the highlights of my career – being able to help someone and help achieve some closure for her.
Nothing she does or says is going to bring Brett back but not that she has been able to have a platform and here her voice is quite special for myself and for David Funch and her barrister.
GCB: You also recently had the Lauren Grainger matter for her involvement in the kidnapping of teacher Anthony Stott before his death, which was a complex case. (Mr Stott was held captive at the Cudgera Creek farm for several hours and allegedly hit with a golf club. He was killed by a truck when hit by it on nearby stretch of highway. In early September, Grainger was found guilty of specially aggravated kidnapping of Stott.)
DG: Complex is probably a bit of an understatement. One of the most bizarre cases I have ever been involved in. To this day, I have questions. She was ultimately found guilty (of specially aggravated kidnapping). It was strange to say the least.
I don’t know if we will know what happened at that farm house or what Mr Stott was suffering from. It was an extremely sad case.
It was a hard case for us to run because, having Mr Stott’s family in the back of the court it does take it’s toll on you.
But you also have a duty to your client to put their case forward.
Part of the case was Mr Stott was suffering from some sort of condition, did some strange acts prior to turning up at that farm house.
While you don’t want to tramp on a man’s grave, you’ve got to put your case to a jury about his behaviour. That was extremely difficult to do.
The jury ultimately made their decision and Miss Grainger will be sentenced later his year.
GCB: What is she like as a person because all the facts seem just so bizarre?
DG: Lauren is a lovely lady. She reminds me of the lady you go to a barbecue and she is the one that is waiting on people hand and foot. She never lied to us.
She never made anything up. She was completely honest form day dot.
And she had never been exposed to the court system so having to take her back to completely how things work.
Unfortunately with anyone who comes before the justice system for the first time and is convicted of an offence this will live with her forever.
GCB: In the past you have represented a few bikies.
DG: Yea, it’s been awhile since I’ve done bikie work. I think the war crimes has taken over. It’s something I have never really got too interested in.
Coming from the Army and working in small close teams and working with some of the hardest, resilient, toughest individuals, myself overseas, the whole bikie sort of world doesn’t impress me if that makes sense.
I don’t find them intimidating. I’ve dealt with some very tough individuals myself, so getting into the bikie work wasn’t something I really sought out.
GCB: You do these cases which are quite high profile but then you still do some Legal Aid work. Is there much difference between the high-profile case and the Legal Aid case?
DG: I don’t differentiate between the two. The simple fact to me a case is a case. Everyone – doesn't matter whether they are a NRL star, whether they are a high profile person or they are a Legal Aid person who walks in off the street looking to lodge a Legal Aid application – I don’t differentiate between any of them. I would run the case how I would run any case. To me it’s not about the money. The common misconception out there that there is big money in criminal law. There is not. I don’t know any rich criminal lawyers at all. The whole thing that criminal lawyers make a lot of money is unfortunately a complete fallacy.
More Coverage
Originally published as Ex-SAS soldiers accused of war crimes being ‘embarrassed’ by AFP, lawyer Dave Garratt claims
Abortion laws in Qld: 40 years of fights and tears
The abortion debate in Queensland has always strongly divided opinion. This is our history. SPECIAL REPORT
Python panic: ‘Anaconda sized’ snake on the loose
A massive “anaconda sized” python is on the loose on the Qld-NSW border, with its owners keen to see their sneaky family pet slither back home.