Review concludes police investigation was ‘deeply flawed’, ‘unfounded’ and ‘contrary to the available evidence’

A bombshell review by a former police assistant commissioner says Daniel and Catherine Andrews’ crash with a teenage cyclist was covered up “to avoid implicating a political figure”.

• Dan ‘intended to place fault on the cyclist’

A bombshell review of the Daniel and Catherine Andrews car crash has found Victoria Police engaged in “an overt cover-up to avoid implicating a political figure in a life-threatening” incident.

The explosive 36-page assessment by a former police assistant commissioner asserts that the Andrews’ family SUV was “travelling at speed” and on the wrong side of the road when it struck teenage cyclist Ryan Meuleman in a Blairgowrie side street on January 7, 2013.

The former premier and his wife have always insisted that they came to a “complete stop” and “turned right from a stationary ­position” just ­“moments” before being “T-boned” by the bike.

But the expert review, conducted by the state’s former Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and Operations Dr Raymond Shuey, concludes the police investigation which supported the Andrews’ version of events was “deeply flawed”, “unfounded” and “contrary to the available evidence”.

Ryan Meuleman was a teenager when he was struck in a Blairgowrie side street in 2013. Picture: Jake Nowakowski

“The version as provided by Catherine and Daniel Andrews is considered improbable and implausible,” Dr Shuey asserts.

“The truth is still outstanding. It is most probable that the vehicle undertook a sweep turn at speed, cutting the corner and still on the incorrect side of the roadway in Ridley St, 27 metres from Melbourne Rd when the collision occurred.”

“The propagation of a lie” and “a striking deception”, the report finds, began when the driver’s name was recorded as “Catherine Louise Kesik” – Mrs Andrews’ maiden name – in a Traffic Incident System report submitted by police in the hours after the crash.

Dr Raymond Shuey says ‘the version as provided by Catherine and Daniel Andrews is considered improbable and implausible’. Picture: AAP

“This is contrary to the name of Andrews as recorded by police as contemporaneous notes on the form 502, the investigation notes, TAC reports, statements and all other recordings provided,” it says.

“Kesik then becomes the name under which the crash is indexed and retrievable. This irregularity would be a ‘standout’ for supervisors, insurance, legal reviewers …

“It is my opinion that this deception is part of a course of conduct and a component of an overt cover-up to avoid implicating a political figure in a life-threatening crash. Failure by supervisors and reviewers to identify this or seek explanation is inexcusable.”

Dr Shuey’s review, commissioned by Mr Meuleman’s lawyers as part of ongoing Supreme Court damages proceedings into the crash, concludes that “the investigation … does not demonstrate competent professional practice for Victoria Police.”

“The investigators’ failure to follow even a rudimentary examination of the evidence is demonstrated in the hasty and illogical conclusion,” it asserts.

Dr Raymond Shuey’s review was commissioned by Mr Meuleman’s lawyers as part of ongoing Supreme Court damages proceedings. Picture: Rebecca Michael

“The (police) report lacks critical information including measurements, photographs and professional interview techniques. Instead, the investigator has drawn a baseless and unsupported conclusion that fails to account for the available evidence.

“This negligent approach not only undermines the integrity of the investigation but also jeopardises the pursuit of justice and accurate accountability in this case.

“Further, it demonstrates a high level of incompetence or alternatively a deliberate attempt to simplify the crash to rudimentary reporting requirements.”

The Shuey review, based on an analysis of FOI documents, witness statements and his own reconstruction of the incident, also questions the veracity of “collusive” and “unusual prepared sworn statements” given by the Andrews’ in the weeks after the smash and leaves open the possibility that the former premier – not his wife – was behind the wheel.

“The contents of the statements do not match the gravity of the incident … and should not have been accepted by any supervisor, review or audit,” Dr Shuey says.

The Shuey review leaves open the possibility that the former premier – not his wife – was behind the wheel. Picture: David Crosling

“The statements from both Daniel and Catherine Andrews that their vehicle stopped at Melbourne Rd are not consistent with impact consequences, nor the report by (witness) Brad Morgan of the squeal of tyres prior to impact …

“The effective vehicle stopping distance of 19.2m following impact is indicative of a speed of 45km/h prior to impact.”

A police summary of the crash was also omitted from the TIS report provided to Ryan’s lawyers at the time.

“This appears to have been deliberate,” Dr Shuey says.

As an expert in TAC representations, Slater & Gordon should have noted its absence, the review adds.

And while it was a duty of police to provide Mr Meuleman’s family with details of the driver, they repeatedly refused in a move the review says was “designed to conceal the identity of those involved”.

Ryan’s father, Peter Meuleman, on Monday called on Victoria Police to immediately reopen the investigation “into the crash that almost killed my son”.

“Why would police pretend this case is closed when there is so much evidence they haven’t gathered?” he said.

Dr Shuey was a 41-year Victoria Police member with a PHD in international road safety, a long-time president of the International Safety Foundation and a Member of the Order of Australia last year.

He died last month after a health battle linked to exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, just days after completing his report, with Chief Commissioner Shane Patton among those attending his funeral.

Despite the damning findings, Acting Premier Tim Pallas on Tuesday denied that the investigation should be reopened, saying the matter had already been “dealt with”.

“Daniel Andrews, at the time, answered these matters in a comprehensive fashion,” he said.

“The matters were investigated and were seen to have been dealt with and resolved at the time.”

Mr Pallas said police had “made a determination ... and found that the matter requires no further investigation.”

The Meuleman family is suing major law firm Slater & Gordon, which acted for the injured cyclist in the aftermath of the crash, accusing them of failing to conduct “a full and proper investigation into the circumstances” of the accident and breaching their duty of care and obligations to him when negotiating his $80,000 Transport Accident Commission compensation payout.

Slater & Gordon denies the claims and says it will defend the proceedings.

A trial is scheduled for May next year.

Review finds ‘inexcusable’ breaches

An officer from the Rye police station “jumped the call” to take charge of the Daniel and Catherine Andrews car crash scene – two minutes after it had been allocated to another unit in closer proximity, a bombshell review has revealed.

The senior constable stated that she “was closer” to the Blairgowrie street where teenage bike rider Ryan Meuleman was struck, “but was actually at Rye police station doing urgent correspondence, then taking six and a half minutes to leave”, the review by the state’s former assistant commissioner for traffic and operations Dr Raymond Shuey found.

“This raises critical questions as to why ‘the senior constable’ (name redacted) wanted to take over the call and cancel a unit already en route. What external communications via telephone or radio with ‘the senior constable’ occurred in the time from the crash to being en route?”

There are questions over whether a senior constable from Rye police station ‘jumped the call’. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

The review identifies more than a dozen “inexcusable” breaches of standard operating procedures that were committed in the original police probe, including a failure to validate who was behind the wheel when Ryan Meuleman was struck in January 2013.

It also questions why experienced highway patrol officers or the Major Collision Unit were not called “as required by policy, custom and practice” and why Victoria Police hierarchy was kept in the dark about “a public, political figure involved in a serious incident”.

It chronicles how police had been “deceptive and misleading” and “perpetuated a lie” by “falsely” reporting that a breath test had been conducted – and was negative – before changing documents to say that a test had not been given because Mrs Andrews “did not smell of intoxicating liquor”.

The review outlines a “course of conduct and pattern of behaviour” by police raising serious questions about the integrity of the inquiry, including:

• IMMEDIATE acceptance of the Andrews’ version of events “when the vehicle damage, ambulance report and cyclist catapult clearly indicates vehicle speed”;

• SPENDING just 35 minutes at the crash scene “without thorough examination”;

• HASTILY closing the investigation at 6.21pm on the day of the crash; and

• FAILING to isolate the crash site with crime-scene tape or conduct door knocks.

The review also condemned police for stating that the SUV was “drivable” when it was “clearly unroadworthy” and questioned who allowed Mr Andrews to drive it away with a smashed windscreen.

“If police, it is a dereliction of duty, if Daniel Andrews, it is the removal of evidence and in any event dangerous/careless driving at a minimum,” it says.

Another “glaring omission” was the fact “no action was taken or contemplated” against the driver because Mr Andrews’ son Noah was not wearing a seatbelt, it says.

The failure by police “to validate the driver” of “a government vehicle involved in a serious crash” was another “serious omission”, it concludes.

“Witness Jane Crittenden states she viewed Catherine Andrews in the passenger seat after the crash,” it asserts.

The position of the driver’s seat was also not checked.

“In my opinion, this investigative failure is a deliberate omission. It … leaves the question of who was driving unresolved and in dispute,” the review says.

Dr Shuey said police also failed to ask Mrs Andrews why she was driving and if she was familiar with the vehicle’s handling.

Originally published as Review concludes police investigation was ‘deeply flawed’, ‘unfounded’ and ‘contrary to the available evidence’