Independent review of Tas Police announced after prison covert listening device ‘bungle’

Tasmania Police will undergo an independent review in the wake of revelations the force left a covert listening device recording at Risdon Prison continuously for two months.

TASMANIA Police Commissioner Darren Hine has announced the force will be subject to an independent review in the wake of revelations it illegally left a surveillance device recording continuously at Risdon Prison for two months.

Commissioner Hine said police respected the Supreme Court of Tasmania’s decision to exclude evidence against Sue Neill-Fraser’s former lawyer, Jeffrey Ian Thompson, after finding the material had been obtained under an invalid warrant.

“While this was a technical breach of legislation and Tasmania Police did not listen to any other conversations not covered by the warrant, we acknowledge the importance of our community having trust and confidence in our organisation,” he said.

“As such, we have taken immediate steps to address the issue identified and a review of procedures to ensure there is clear guidance to police officers in relation to the use of surveillance devices has been completed.”

Commissioner Hine announced an independent review would be conducted by former Solicitor-General Michael O’Farrell SC “to ensure appropriate processes have been followed”.

He said a resulting report would be made public.

Commissioner Hine also said while the two surveillance devices were active for two months, “the only occasion it was monitored” was on June 16, 2017, during the targeted conversation between Mr Thompson and prisoner Stephen John Gleeson.

Jeffrey Ian Thompson arriving at the Supreme Court in Hobart. Picture: Sam Rosewarne

He also noted Gleeson pleaded guilty to the crime of perverting the course of justice as a result of that conversation, and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

The commissioner’s comments came amid a number of calls for an independent inquiry into the matter, with critics slamming the revelations as “extremely disturbing”.

Greg Barns SC, the chair of the Prisoners Legal Service Tasmania, said while he welcomed news of an independent review, he was concerned it was being done at the request of Tasmania Police itself.

“We are concerned to ensure the terms of reference are broad enough to ensure that if there has been any unlawful downloading of material, that is identified and those individuals whose privacy has been breached will be notified,” he said.

Rosalie Woodruff, the Greens spokesperson for Justice, said “Tasmanians also need clear, detailed explanations of what changes will be made”.

“Police will have digitally captured many sensitive and privileged conversations between clients and their lawyers, and potentially other parties including psychiatrists, psychologists, and religious guides,” she said.

“These secret open-ended recordings have the potential to erode trust in police and the state’s justice system. As a consequence of this bungled process, evidence in relation to serious allegations has not been allowed to be admitted to court. This is a lose, lose situation for justice.”

The Australian Lawyers Alliance called for a commission of inquiry into the matter.

“The findings indicate that Tasmania Police engaged in a gross violation of confidential communications between inmates of Risdon Prison and their legal representatives,” Fabiano Cangelosi, Hobart barrister and spokesperson for the ALA, said.

“Such conduct had the capacity to undermine the administration of justice.”

Covert listening devices illegally left at prison

COVERT listening devices set up at Risdon Prison, which secretly recorded a conversation between Sue Neill-Fraser’s former lawyer and a potential witness in her second murder appeal, were installed unlawfully under an invalid warrant.

The devices, it can now be revealed, also recorded all conversations in a prison meeting room over the course of two months – not just the one targeted by the warrant.

Supreme Court judge Michael Brett has now revealed his reasons for discharging the criminal case against lawyer Jeffrey Ian Thompson on August 8, over two counts of perverting the course of justice.

It can now be revealed the case against Mr Thompson was dropped after Justice Brett found evidence against him was not legally obtained by Tasmania Police.

Mr Thompson had pleaded not guilty to both counts and was due to stand trial before the case was abandoned with a nolle prosequi.

It can now also be revealed the surveillance devices allegedly were left recording continuously and “would have recorded all conversations conducted in the meeting room” over the course of two months until they were removed on August 17, 2017.

Jeffrey Ian Thompson. Picture: SAM ROSEWARNE.

According to a series of five judgments in the case that Justice Brett has now published, in June 2017, the recording devices were installed in a meeting room to record a conversation between Mr Thompson and Risdon Prisoner Stephen John Gleeson – who was said to have been a witness at the time Neill-Fraser’s partner, Bob Chappell, disappeared.

It was alleged that Mr Thompson wanted Gleeson to identify a particular man as a person who Mr Gleeson had seen with a homeless girl, Meaghan Vass, at the time of Mr Chappell’s disappearance.

Police had made the application for the 90-day warrant after tapping a phone call between Mr Thompson and Colin McClaren – a crime writer and former detective – in which they discussed the upcoming meeting with Gleeson.

Then during the meeting, it was alleged Mr Thompson used “words and actions” to indicate to Gleeson the person on the photoboard he wanted him to identify.

In a judgment from March this year, Justice Brett found the warrant invalid and made in error because it failed to properly specify the alleged offence in respect of which it was issued.

In a subsequent judgment from July 28, Justice Brett ruled the evidence obtained by police must be excluded from the case against Mr Thompson – because the desirability of including it was outweighed by the importance of protecting the privacy of other lawyers and their clients in unrelated conversations.

He said those other conversations, completely unrelated to Mr Thompson’s case, were protected by legal professional privilege.

“Such protection is fundamental to the integrity of and public confidence in the administration of criminal justice,” he said.

Jeffrey Ian Thompson (left). Picture: MATT THOMPSON

He said an intentional covert recording of a private conversation between a lawyer and a witness in a professional prison meeting room involved a “significant intrusion” into the privacy and professional privilege of that conversation, and if not lawfully authorised, “represented a grave contravention of the law by police”.

A technical services officer accepted he had capacity to turn the devices on and off to prevent them recording except at times relevant to the investigation, but said they were left on in case “technical issues arose” or if there was insufficient time to get into the prison to access the equipment prior to a scheduled meeting.

Justice Brett said he did not find that explanation “persuasive”.

“ … Police were always going to have significant notice of any relevant conversation and be able to gain risk-free covert access to the relevant room with the cooperation of the authorities,” he said.

“It is obvious that any meeting between Gleeson and any person of interest would need to be schedule with prison authorities well in advance … I think it is far more probably that pressure of work simply meant that it was easier to leave the devices running than to switch them on and off before and after each relevant conversation.”

Justice Brett said the upshot was that “there would have been many sensitive and privileged conversations between lawyers and their clients, and perhaps other private conversations, which were completely irrelevant to this investigation” that were recorded.

However the judge noted the mistake in the warrant had been “inadvertent”, with police believing they were acting lawfully and after having made a genuine attempt to obtain the relevant lawful authorisation.

He also accepted police did not monitor or download other conversations – although “clearly there was that potential”.

Justice Brett also said the magistrate was not told the surveillance devices had been used to record continuously, which was “a matter of significant concern”.

A suppression order over other elements on the case remains in-force for the time being.

Revelations of Risdon Prison recording device slammed

REVELATIONS a secret recording device was left continually running in a Risdon Prison meeting room have been denounced as “extremely disturbing” by advocates.

Greg Barns SC, chair of Prisoners Legal Service Tasmania, described the revelation as “stunning” and called on a “full independent inquiry” into the matter.

“While His Honour Justice Brett acknowledged that it had not been a deliberate strategy on the part of police, it is a fundamental right of every person that their conversations with their legal representatives are confidential,” he said.

He said the prison visiting area was also where prisoners spoke with their psychologists and psychiatrists, and that it was again “deeply disturbing” those conversations were recorded.

“The Prisoners Legal Service will now contact as many prisoners as it can who it saw during that period to discuss this issue.”

His sentiments were echoed by Rosalie Woodruff, the Greens spokesperson for Justice, who also described the fact the device was left recording for two months as “extremely disturbing”.

“Police will have digitally captured many sensitive and privileged conversations between clients and their lawyers, and potentially other parties including psychiatrists, psychologists, and religious guides,” she said.

“These secret open-ended recordings have the potential to erode trust in police and the state’s justice system. As a consequence of this bungled process, evidence in relation to serious allegations has not been allowed to be admitted to court. This is a lose, lose situation for justice.”

Follow @ambervwilson