Perre ‘wanted to send bomb on detective’s birthday’, murder trial told

The alleged NCA bomber wanted to kill his victim on his birthday and sent flowers to the dead man’s widow after the explosion, a prison informant claims.

Alleged NCA bomber Domenic Perre would have sent the explosive to Detective Sergeant Geoffrey Bowen on his birthday “as a double surprise” if he “had the luxury of time”, a witness has claimed.

A former prisoner has further alleged Perre claimed he sent flowers to Detective Sergeant Bowen’s widow, Jane, after the fatal explosion.

On Tuesday, the former inmate – whose identity is suppressed – continued giving evidence in Perre’s Supreme Court trial.

He said that, while serving time together in the mid-1990s, Perre brought him into “the family” but he remained “curious and naive” the bombing.

“I asked Dom did he know who did it, and he tapped his nose three times and smiled,” he said.

“I went to him again to clarify was he serious, what the hell was going on … I asked questions that, in hindsight, I can’t believe I asked.

“Dom said that, if he’d had more time or the luxury of time, he would have done it on Detective Bowen’s birthday which would have been a ‘double surprise’.

“He said he sent flowers to the funeral or to the home of Mrs Bowen when what happened to Detective Bowen happened.”

Diagram drawn by the prisoner while in Custody attempting to replicate the one drawn by the accused. Picture: Courts SA

A replica of the bomb. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Dean Martin

Perre, 64, has pleaded not guilty to murdering Detective Sergeant Geoffrey Bowen, and attempting to murder NCA lawyer Peter Wallis, with a parcel bomb.

Previously, prosecutors have alleged Perre told the former inmate about the bombing during their time in custody and discussed the design of the explosive device itself.

Last week, the inmate told the court Perre had taken him into “the family”, offered him a job and referred to his alleged victim as “that piece of s--- Bowen”.

On Tuesday, the former inmate said Perre’s “demeanour changed” and became aggressive whenever Detective Sergeant Bowen was mentioned.

He said Perre had explained the parcel was addressed to “that piece of s---” in a woman’s handwriting, and designed to look like it contained computer parts to evade security.

“Dom went on to describe the components, how it (the bomb) was able to go through (the NCA building’s) security and made reference to red phosphorus,” he said.

“I had never heard of it before … Dom said ‘it burns hot, damn hot’ and it was ‘more stable’.”

Perre, he said, claimed to have the police under surveillance and “knew more about them than they do about me”.

“He said he made sure he had a vantage point to watch the explosion, saying ‘I was there to watch my handiwork, I wouldn’t have missed it for the world’,” he said.

“Dom said he wished it had been bigger, that his intention was to take out as many files and as many police officers as possible.”

The former inmate said Perre sketched the design of the bomb for him and, hours later in his cell, he replicated that drawing.

Asked why he had made the sketch, which was shown in court, he said it was “for my reference”.

“Even though I was still not, at that stage, completely convinced Dom had any role in this, I was aware it was significant and serious,” he said.

“I was a prisoner, I would probably not be believed, so I wanted to be able to produce things as accurately as I could from the time they happened if I was questioned or decided to come forward.”

In cross-examination, Gilbert Aitken, for Perre, suggested the former inmate had changed his evidence since he first gave a statement to police.

He suggested the man had lied to former lovers, about his military service record, about having medical qualifications and about his name and occupation on social media profiles.

“What you’ve said (in court) is nothing more than a pack of lies... the changes you’ve made are nothing more than a pack of lies,” he said.

The former inmate said that was not the case.

“I certainly understand that’s what you have to say to defend your client,” he said.

“My memory has not improved over time but it has remained steadfast... time has allowed for further details of these conversations.

“(That’s happened) in the same way that a traumatic event may blinker some events that time might allow to have further clarity.”

The trial, before Justice Kevin Nicholson and in the absence of a jury, continues.