Bombshell new claims: Cops redacted Whiskey Au Go Go report

Police have unsuccessfully fought to keep secret explosive inquest claims by the Detective leading the current Whiskey Au Go Go investigation. Now they can be revealed.

The Detective leading the present-day Whiskey Au Go Go investigation has explosively claimed her boss forced her to redact criticism of the 1973 police case in a report to the coroner, telling her to leave those conclusions for “journalists and police haters”.

The testimony relating to an apparent modern-day attempt to downplay the botched Whiskey Au Go Go investigation was heard late last week but was not allowed to be reported by media after a lawyer for the police commissioner applied to State Coroner Terry Ryan for a non-publication order.

However the suppression order was overturned on Wednesday morning after lawyers for The Courier-Mail and The Australian newspapers fought to have the gag order lifted.

Detective Sergeant Virginia Gray leaves the Coroner's Court in Brisbane. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dan Peled

Detective Sergeant Virginia Gray choked up on the witness stand on Thursday as she testified her boss asked her to remove dozens of pages from her coronial report including claims the key suspect was “verballed”.

Det Sgt Gray gave evidence her boss Detective Inspector Damien Hansen told her she needed to dramatically cut back the report because the coroner had specifically made the request of him. Mr Ryan later clarified to the court he had not made such a request.

Under questioning from counsel assisting the coroner Stephen Keim SC, Det Sgt Gray was asked to explain why two reports had been submitted to the coroner one month apart in late 2020.

She said on September 10 last year, she had a meeting with her superiors - homicide boss Det Insp Hansen and cold case boss Detective Senior Sergeant Tara Kentwell.

“I was asked to remove the sections from about the fourth paragraph through to Page 27,” Det Sgt Gray said.

“Det Insp Hansen told me he’d spoken to the coroner the day before and that his feedback was that material should be removed as they didn’t need references to the earlier investigation.”

Detective Inspector Damien Hansen. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dan Peled

The detective said she explained to Det Snr Sgt Kentwell the reasons why she thought the material should not be removed, saying it was “fairly standard” to include early investigation material in coronial reports.

“Det Snr Sgt Kentwell asked could we have it in the material some other way. And we were told it had to be changed,” she said.

“Insp Hansen said there would have to be changes and that he was unhappy with the references in page 10.”

She said those references related to the original interview with James Finch, who was convicted of the Whiskey murder, and other police interviews in general.

“So interviews with, the Finch interview, the incriminating statements that Finch has made to police at various times,” she said.

Mr Keim asked: “That could be used as a source but not the subject of any criticism. Is that what you’re saying?”

“Yes, he was unhappy that there was reference to, or insinuation that they were verballed,” Det Sgt Gray said.

“There was reference to that sort of material shouldn’t be included in the report from the police.”

Mr Keim asked: “Yes was a reason given for that?”

“And that we would leave that to the journalists and police haters,” Det Sgt Gray said.

The drums of petrol used to ignite the blaze at the Whiskey Au Go Go nightclub.

Det Sgt Gray said she had later conversation with Kentwell about her concerns but they couldn’t find a way to resolve the issue.

She told the court she subsequently produced the shorter report as requested but then sent her full report again asking for it to be used.

“Yes, after considering my position and seeking some advice I resubmitted the full report via an email and asked that he reconsider as I believed the material was relevant,” she said.

Mr Keim said: “Yes you complied with what you thought were instructions to you?”

“Yes, and then subsequently wasn’t comfortable with it and after seeking some advice, resent it and, or resubmitted it and requested that he reconsider and send it down in its full form,” she said.

Mr Keim said the coronial office subsequently received both versions of the report but Det Sgt Gray said she was unaware how the decision was made to comply with her request because she never received a response from her superiors.

“Is there anything else that you wanted to tell the court with regard to this matter, with regard to the submitting of reports in different forms?,” Mr Keim asked.

“I guess I was a little bit confused by the instruction because in all the previous contact I’d had with the coroner’s staff … there had been a number of meetings where I had gone into detail as to what was going to be included in the report, and there had never been any issue around having that early material in or having any references to the interview stuff in, so … it wasn’t consistent,” she said.

Mr Keim responded: “So it was quite surprising to you that a person who Mr Hansen seemed to be indicating was the coroner him or herself was indicating you should provide some sort of shorter report excluding that material.”

Following the testimony, coroner Mr Ryan was forced to clarify he was not involved in the alleged request to Hansen to cut the report back.

The Whiskey Au Go Go nightclub after the fire bombing.

After the explosive testimony on Thursday, barrister Michael Nicolson who is acting for the police commissioner said he had sought clarification regarding Det Insp Hansen’s alleged claims the coroner had made the request for the report to be shortened.

He said Det Insp Hansen confirmed “at no stage has he spoken to (Mr Ryan)” but said he had spoken to the coroner’s team prior to the report being submitted.

Mr Nicolson said Insp Hansen claimed he had also received an email from another officer, Acting Detective Sergeant Michael Ackery, requesting the report be cut down.

“It’s an explanation for why (the report) was provided in that format,” Mr Nicolson said.

“Your honour can see from that email there had been a discussion with the coronial team at some stage prior to the afternoon of 9 September where there was a request to cut down effectively .. the report.”

But Mr Keim said that explanation was not accepted.

“It’s not accepted that (the officer’s) statements are necessarily are a correct understanding of the situation,” Mr Keim said.

“I’m not suggesting that wasn’t his understanding but in my submission not everything that is said there is a correct understanding on his part although it may have been his misunderstanding.”

The explanation was also not accepted by the coroner.

The email was tendered to the court and Mr Ryan said his interpretation was that the email was proposing a restructuring of the report, not a request for a substantial change of content.

Barrister Janice Crawford appeared for Det Sgt Ackery on Friday and asked the court to delay the application to lift the non-publication order until the end of the inquest which could be as late as December.

The coroner said that submission was an “unsatisfactory” option.

Defence barrister Stephen Zillman appeared for Det Insp Hansen on Wednesday morning and said he had no submissions to make on behalf of his client.

He reiterated that his client personally had not sought the suppression order and it had been the police commissioner’s counsel who made the request last week.

On Friday, barrister Hamish Clift, who represented the newspapers, said it appeared the suppression order had been made to save the police involved from “embarrassment” or “reputational harm”.

“The principles of open justice prevail over those sorts of considerations in my submission,” Mr Clift argued.

“The same thing could be said of many criminal investigations leading to a trial and the evidence given at a trial and indeed many civil allegations where the evidence could be embarrassing or harmful to reputation which may be unfair to a party if they’re aired in open court but that does not usurp those principles of open justice.”

Defence barrister Chris Minnery, who is representing Vincent O’Dempsey, joined with the newspapers’ application, saying the inquest had already levelled serious allegations at other people but suppressions had not been put in place for them.

“It is also potentially the case that quite a lot of people, including my client, have had some quite awful allegations levelled at them,” Mr Minnery said.

“My client’s legally represented, I’m here, but there are other people who have had allegations thrown at them who are not represented, it’s quite a long list and the allegations are quite terrible.

“I submit the principles of open justice very much support the lifting of that order and support the lifting of that order so that at least there can be open and transparent consideration of all allegations.”