Alleged NCA bomber Domenic Perre’s lawyers say the only new evidence comes from self-interested informants
Lawyers for accused killer Domenic Perre say those who claim to have heard him confess are motivated by their own interests and may not be telling the truth.
The only new evidence against alleged NCA bomber Domenic Perre comes from “a conga line” of informants “motivated by self-interest”, his counsel has told a court.
Perre’s lawyers on Monday suggested their client’s ability to defend himself had been “usurped” by the Adelaide Magistrates Court.
Gilbert Aitken, for Perre, said the court was wrong to reject a subpoena that required the Department for Correction Services to hand over its records for seven prisoners.
He said that, without the subpoena, Perre could suffer a miscarriage of justice similar to the “Lawyer X” scandal that rocked Victoria’s courts.
“There are seven individuals who say Perre confessed to them that he was responsible for the bombing,” he said.
“On any reading of their statements, we would say it’s a conga line of informants who are motivated by self-interest.
“It follows that they are as likely to tell the truth as they are unlikely to do so, depending on where their perceived interest lies.”
Perre, 61, is accused of murdering Detective Sergeant Geoffrey Bowen and attempting to murder lawyer Peter Wallis in the March 2, 1994, explosion on Waymouth St.
He was charged at the time but the case was dropped – a coronial inquest found Perre was likely responsible.
On Monday, Mr Aitken said he wanted all of the Department’s records for each of the seven prisoners.
That would allow him to cross-reference their movements with Perre’s to see whether or not they could possibly have heard any alleged confession.
“I’m seeking to track down all the records that relate to the so-called interactions between these individuals and Perre,” he said.
“I also want to know their access to witness protection programs, applications for bail and parole assessments.
“Many of these people are in (Yatala Labour Prison’s high-security) G Division, many of these people have absolutely no connection to the defendant.”
Lisa Dunlop, prosecuting, said granting the subpoena would require the Department to unearth “40 years” of records about the prisoners, two of whom “are dead”.
However, Mr Aitken said state law made it clear the Department and the prisoners could oppose the subpoena, not the DPP.
He said the court should grant Perre’s application and then hear argument against it, not exercise its discretion and reject it before any complaint had been raised.
“I’m simply asking the process be followed,” he said.
Magistrate Greg Fisher said he would consider the application and reserved his decision to a date to be set.