Lawyer X: Royal Commission into police informants live updates

A murdered lawyer was among the questionable informants registered, Lawyer X to assist as the royal commission begun.

Commission chair Margaret McMurdo AC. Picture: AAP

Read how the opening of the Victorian Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants unfolded below.

David King 12.29pm: Eight questionable informants revealed

A murdered lawyer, legal secretaries, a legal adviser and a court clerk were among the questionable informants registered by Victoria police, a royal commission has heard.

The opening of the Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants was told that eight people, including Lawyer X, either gave police information or were considered as possible informants, when they may have held legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege.

A court clerk and a legal secretary were registered police informants, while other solicitors were considered but knocked back.

The defence barrister known as Lawyer X, whose conduct sparked the scandal, will assist the royal commission’s investigation, the inquiry was told during its opening on Friday.

Royal Commissioner Margaret McMurdo revealed details about the police informants after considerable speculation “and a deal of misinformation” about their possible identities.

She said police told the corruption watchdog IBAC that “another lawyer now deceased, had previously provided information to Victoria Police”. “Police stated that the deceased police informant referred to in the IBAC material was a practising lawyer but declined to provide any further information as ‘this matter is the subject of an ongoing homicide investigation’,” Ms McMurdo said.

It has been speculated in the media that the deceased lawyer is Joseph “Pino” Acquaro, but the deceased lawyer was not named in the royal commission.

Victoria Police admit six possible informants, in addition to Lawyer X and the dead lawyer, may have held legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege. Police identified concerns about potential conflicts of interest or breaches of legal professional privilege, with only one of the six additional informants. A solicitor who met with police in April 2014 was listed as a “community contact” but was not approved as a police informant given “the risks posed by his profession”.

Ms McMurdo said his file was deactivated in May 2014 without police obtaining any intelligence or information.

Ms McMurdo said a court clerk with “access to information by virtue of their role” was a registered police informer from January 2015 until May 2016.

“Police considered this person ‘was unable to provide substantial intelligence’ and ‘unreliable and too risky to be used’ as a police informant ‘long term’ because of the person’s role,” she said.

Police described another informant, registered from 2009 until 2016, as possibly being a court clerk or legal secretary with a firm who did not appear to be a practising lawyer.

A legal secretary was registered as a community contact, not as a police informant, in 2015.

Ms McMurdo said the fourth person was a solicitor who was also only registered as a community contact, in 2014.

Police described the fifth person as a former solicitor with significant health issues that made them unsuitable and they were never registered as a police informant.

Ms McMurdo said police described the sixth person as “a self-proclaimed legal adviser” who was not a registered legal practitioner and was never registered as a police informant.

Lawyer X — also known as informer 3838 or ‘EF’ — acted as a police informant from 1995 until 2009, calling into question potentially hundreds of criminal convictions.

The royal commission will examine hundreds of thousands of documents as it tries to identify which cases may have been affected by Lawyer X’s conduct.

With AAP

Mark Schliebs 11.18am: ‘Fundamental principles are at stake’

“The significance of the issues involved in this royal commission cannot be understated,” Mr Winneke said in closing. “The legitimacy of our criminal justice system relies on the process being fair and even-handed.

“It follows that the work of the commission is relevant not just to the individuals whose criminal convictions may have been affected by any improper conduct of EF (Lawyer X) and Victoria Police. Much greater and fundamental principles are at stake.”

Chip Le Grand 11.15am: Commission won’t cut corners

Counsel assisting Chris Winneke QC says the Commission won’t sacrifice its investigation to meet its tight deadlines.

“If and when the Commission forms the view that it cannot properly report in the time

available it will request that the government provide it with further time.’’

Chip Le Grand 11.14am: Prosecutors, judges excluded

Even a Royal Commission has limits about where it can dig. Counsel assisting Chris Winneke notes that prosecutors, judges and Victoria’s peak anti-corruption body, IBAC, cannot be compelled to testify or provide documents to the Commission.

This means that the prosecutors who ran cases informed by Lawyer X against her own clients — and the judges who presided over those cases — cannot be hauled before the Commission.

Mr Winneke notes that none of these bodies and public officers are prevented from voluntarily assisting the Commission.

Chip Le Grand 11.07am: Commission’s ambitious timeframes

Chris Winneke concedes the timeframes set out for the Commission are ambitious, particularly given we now know Lawyer X was snitching 10 years earlier than police admitted when the Commission was established late last year.

He says submissions on Lawyer X’s conduct — the first phase of the Commission — are due by 8 March and submissions on the remaining terms of reference by 5 April.

He anticipates that public hearings will commence next month but notes the Commission will be judicious about who is granted leave to appear.

Some hearings may need to be held in private.

“The matters being investigated by the Commission involve sensitive information about criminal activities and police operations,” Mr Winneke says. “In addition evidence received by or presented to the Commission may refer to current or anticipated court proceedings.’’

Mark Schliebs 10.56am: Police to provide details of any further informers

Counsel assisting the commission, Chris Winneke QC, said Victoria Police had been asked for details of other informers who had confidential or privileged information and referred to the six people referred to by commission chair Margaret McMurdo.

“Additionally, the commission has asked Victoria Police as a matter of urgency to provide information as to whether any persons are currently in custody as a result of the conduct of such informers,” he said. “We understand that this information will be provided shortly.”

Chip Le Grand 10.53am: Lawyer X will be forced to appear: Winneke

There has been speculation that Lawyer X could dodge the Commission by refusing to appear. Counsel assisting Chris Winneke is having none of it:

“It is expected that all relevant witnesses will be examined, whether voluntarily, or by compulsion, using the powers available to the Commission,’’ he says.

“The Commission is in communication with EF via her legal representatives and it is understood that she will cooperatively assist the Commission in its investigation.’’

Mark Schliebs 10.47am: Lawyer X conduct ‘highly inappropriate’

Counsel assisting the commission, Chris Winneke QC, said the High Court has made it “very clear” that the conduct by Lawyer X and police was considered “highly inappropriate”.

“The court found that this conduct corrupted the prosecutions that led to those convictions in a manner which debased fundamental premises of the criminal justice system,” Mr Winneke said.

He said respect of legal privilege was fundamental in the justice system

“These are not obscure legal rules but are at the very centre of the criminal justice system,” he said. “These rules are known by all of the participants: the police investigators, the lawyers and the judges. If any of these rights are perverted, there is a very real risk that a conviction will be set aside.”

He said prosecutors have a duty to disclose all relevant information to be used in a prosecution.

“In addition, the prosecution must disclose any information that may undermine the prosecution case. Again, this is a universally accepted protection with our criminal justice system.”

Chip Le Grand 10.45am: ‘There may be more’

We are now hearing from counsel assisting Chris Winneke QC. The Winneke name is a famous one in Melbourne’s legal circles. His dad John Winneke was a long serving judge and president of the Victorian Court of Appeal. He was also, by all accounts, a more than handy

footballer for Hawthorn.

Chris Winneke QC has worked for many years across commercial, civil and criminal law, so he is well placed to dig into this murky business. He says previous reviews of Lawyer X’s activities identified seven former clients whose prosecutions may be unsafe.

“Subsequent and ongoing investigations by the State and Commonwealth Offices of Public Prosecutions with the assistance of Victoria Police has identified further cases,’’ Mr Winneke says. “There may be more.’’

He notes that Lawyer X was first registered as a human source by Victoria Police in 1995, when she was still in law school, and again in 1999, when thing were hotting up across Melbourne’s gangland. She was deregistered in 2009.

Winneke makes clear that it is not only Lawyer X who will be judged by the Commission. “It will also be necessary to examine the conduct of police officers who obtained that information, and that of their senior officers.’’

Victoria Police had three chief commissioners during Lawyer X’s time as a registered informant; Simon Overland, Christine Nixon and Neil Comrie.

Mark Schliebs 10.38am: Six possible informants

Commissioner McMurdo says a court clerk and a person who “may have been a court clerk or legal secretary” were among the six possible police informants who may potentially have obligations of legal professional privilege known to the commission. Both of them were registered as informers, in January 2015 and October 2009, respectively.

Four others — a company legal secretary, another solicitor, a former lawyer and a “self-proclaimed legal advisor” — were not registered police informers. Two were registered as a “community contact”. All four had files “initiated” by police in 2014 or 2015.

Chip Le Grand 10.34am: Justice McMurdo’s open invitation

Commission chair Justice McMurdo has issued an open invitation from the bench for anyone who has information about the activities of Lawyer X to come forward.

She warns the Commission will take a dim view of any individuals or organisations which try to stop a whistleblower from making a disclosure and that no confidentiality cause can prevent someone from providing information to a Royal Commission.

“The Commission would be gravely concerned if an employer or organisation in any way sought to discourage someone with relevant information from coming forward,’’ she says.

Chip Le Grand 10.28am: Inquiry not ‘open-ended’

Anyone who had been hoping that this Royal Commission would delve beyond the activities of Lawyer X into the broader Victoria Police use of supergrass witnesses to secure gangland convictions will be disappointed in the following from Justice McMurdo:

“It is important to keep in mind that the scope of the Commission’s work is tightly defined by those terms of reference. This is not an open-ended, broad inquiry into Victoria Police or even into Victoria Police’s management of police informers generally.’’

Justice McMurdo goes on to make clear that the overriding interest of this Commission is to establish by 1 July whether Lawyer X’s work as a police informant has resulted in miscarriages of justice — in plain words, whether there are people rotting in jail who shouldn’t be there.

This in itself will be a massive task. Justice McMurdo says she expects to receive hundreds of thousands of documents from Victoria Police and almost as many from other sources.

Chip Le Grand 10.17am: ‘These are matters of high principle’

Commission chair Justice McMurdo gets to the heart of why, even at the heart of Melbourne’s bloody gangland war, the ends cannot justify police means in using a defence lawyer as a registered human source:

“Some members of the public may query the outrage expressed by the courts, professional associations and legal academics at the conduct of EF and the police, arguing that it had a positive effect, namely the conviction of serious offenders.

“But, as the courts have explained, these are matters of high principle, fundamental to our democracy. The rule of law requires that everyone, the rich, the disempowered, the poor, the mighty, individuals, governments and their agencies, police officers, and corporations, is answerable to the same laws before independent courts.

“The publicly naturally expects their police officers as well as lawyers to uphold the law and to exercise their considerable power and authority according to the law. When those whom the community entrusts to uphold and enforce the law themselves breach fundamental legal principles, confidence in our justice system and indeed our democracy is seriously diminished.’’

Chip Le Grand 10.14am: Will Lawyer X appear?

The Royal Commission is taking place in a Melbourne hearing room normally used by the Fair Work Commission. The courtroom is jammed with lawyers, journalists, interested parties and rubber neckers.

Mystery surrounds if and when we will see an appearance by Lawyer X. We are now hearing from Justice McMurdo, who will outline the scope of the Commission.

Chip Le Grand 10.07am: Lawyer X hearing begins

We are underway in the Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants, with the letters patent being read. This morning’s hearing in Melbourne is expected to take about an hour. We’ll hear from Commission chair Margaret McMurdo and counsel assisting Chris Winneke QC.

The first stage of the Commission will be a deep dive into the case history of a prominent defence barrister registered as a police informant, off and on, from 1995 through to 2009. The Commission will call her EF. You already know her as Lawyer X.