Cath Burn: Deputy Police Commissioner knew top cops were investigated by anti-corruption unit, documents reveal

EXCLUSIVE: Cath Burn knew that police officers who are now among the state’s top cops were investigated by an anti-corruption unit even though there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

• TOP COP BURN’S SECRET INTERVIEW REVEALED
• BURN GIVEN THE JOB OF NSW’S TOP TERROR COP

DEPUTY Police Commissioner Cath Burn knew that police officers who are now among the state’s top cops were investigated by an anti-corruption unit even though there was no ­evidence of wrongdoing, ­according to explosive NSW Police documents.

Ms Burn was also aware an undercover police officer was wired with a microphone and sent to try to catch them out.

Deputy Police Commissioner Cath Burn. Picture: Jane Dempster

According to the documents, the head of one of the force’s major squads was targeted by the Special Crime Unit in 2002.

Ms Burn is recorded as saying that although there was no evidence against him, an investigator known as “C” was sent to see what he could come up with.

“I think he (C) didn’t make any specific allegation against (the officer),” Ms Burn said during an investigation into the SCU’s practices.

“I think it was C’s belief that, um, he didn’t have any specific information that he was a corrupt officer. It’s like I said … have a go … you know, see what we could come up with.”

Ms Burn said yesterday she could not comment about any of the interviews by order of the NSW Ombudsman.

Ms Burn was C’s boss while she was at the Special Crime Unit, a secret internal ­affairs unit set up to find corrupt police. Its methods were the subject of a number of investigations, including Strikeforce Emblems, the findings of which have never been released.

It is now part of a four-year inquiry by the state Ombudsman’s office, which has been accused of bias in its investigations of former deputy commissioner Nick Kaldas — a long-time rival of Ms Burn.

Ms Burn was also aware an undercover police officer was wired with a microphone and sent to try to catch them out.

In the interview with investigators, Ms Burn denied another officer, who is now a respected superintendent, was targeted because he got a job over another officer who was a friend of the unit’s boss John Dolan.

She also denied sending C 11 times to investigate one officer — a denial that was contradicted by evidence from a staff member. “See, this is where it gets difficult and blurred. I mean ... what are you saying an integrity test is?” Ms Burn said, documents reported.

Questioner: “Well, that’s what we want to know.”

Ms Burn: “Yeah, that’s oh, oh surely there is no way we did 11 integrity tests on (an officer known as) DS. So um, whether 11 comes from the fact there were 11 meetings, I don’t know.”

The former officer, now a Sydney lawyer, is preparing to sue the NSW government over claims he was unfairly targeted.

DS’s case officer, who was working for Ms Burn, said during the investigation: “They pushed C into him on 11 occasions … I had that brief and … it scared the daylights out of me.”

LAWYERS BATTLE IT OUT OVER KEY REPORT

Miles Godfrey

PUBLICATION of the bombshell Operation Prospect investigation into the police bugging scandal remains in doubt, with a judge expected to rule this morning whether or not the highly anticipated ­document can be released.

Former deputy commissioner Nick Kaldas is seeking a temporary injunction blocking publication of the Ombudsman’s long-running investigation into internal bugging operations carried out against a large number of police officers, including Mr Kaldas, ­between 1999 and 2001.

The operations, which have split the force at its most senior echelons, were carried out by a team of police including current deputy commissioner Catherine Burn.

Former deputy commissioner Nick Kaldas.

Commissioner Andrew Scipione worked in the same unit as Ms Burn. Mr Kaldas retired in March.

Supreme Court Judge Peter Garling is due to rule on the temporary injunction this morning, ahead of hearings pencilled in for February or March when the Supreme Court will be asked to rule on a more permanent injunction, blocking elements of the report relating to Mr Kaldas.

Ombudsman barrister Jeremy Kirk told the court Mr Kaldas was “right at the centre of the report” and it would be difficult to exclude him.

If Justice Garling does not grant the temporary blocking order today, the Ombudsman could table the report to parliament, which would have the power to keep it under wraps.

Another option would be for the report to be released today, with lawyers for the Ombudsman’s office arguing it is in the public interest.