District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lazar; R v Constantinidis [2020] NSWDC 3 Hearing dates: 22 – 23, 25, 30 July 2019, 1, 5, 6 – 9, 12 – 14 August 2019. Date of orders: 24 January 2020 Decision date: 24 January 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Traill DCJ Decision: See: [451] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – judge alone trial – act with intent to pervert the course of justice – joint criminal enterprise – offer to pay Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) Cases Cited: R v Beckett (2015) 325 ALR 385 Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 Texts Cited: N/A Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Ian Lazar (Accused) Achilles Constantinidis (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Ms Wilkins SC (Crown) Mr Brewer (Accused) Mr Vasic (Accused) Mr Hill (Commissioner of Police) File Number(s): 2014/00320266 - R v Ian David LAZAR; 2016/00013067 - R v Achilles CONSTANTINIDIS Publication restriction: Restricted – names of some witnesses restricted, portions redacted Judge Alone Trial Judgment The Accused 1. On 22 July 2019, Achilles Constantinidis and Ian David Lazar (together, "the accused") pleaded not guilty to a charge of intending to pervert the course of justice, contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900. The Indictment 1. The indictment is as follows: between 7 August 2012 and 30 September 2012, at Sydney in the state of New South Wales, [the accused] did an act, namely offer to pay [Witness B] to improperly influence Detective Senior Constable David Roberts in respect of an investigation, with intent thereby to pervert the course of justice. Elements of the Offence 1. There are two elements in relation to the offence. 1. The accused did an act or made an omission 2. With intent in any way to pervert the course of justice 1. The definition of pervert the course of justice includes obstructing, preventing, perverting, or defeating the course of justice or the administration of the law. The meaning of "perverting the course of justice" was considered in R v Beckett (2015) 325 ALR 385; 90 ALJR 1; (2015) HCA 38, where it was held that it extends to actions done with the "intent to frustrate or deflect the course of judicial proceedings that the accused contemplates may possibly be instituted" (at [7]). The offence is made out if the accused did an act or made an omission intending at the time in any way to obstruct, pervert, prevent, or defeat the course of justice. 2. The act the Crown relies upon is an offer to pay Witness B to improperly influence Detective Senior Constable David Roberts in respect of an investigation. The Crown does not have to prove that the act relied upon did in fact pervert the course of justice, however the Crown does have to prove an intention to do so. Definition of Joint Criminal Enterprise 1. The Crown also relies on the doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise in respect of both the accused. 2. A Joint Criminal Enterprise exists where two persons reach an understanding or arrangement amounting to an agreement between them that they will commit a crime. The agreement need not be expressed in words, and its existence may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence that are found proved on the evidence. The agreement need not have been reached at any particular point in time before the crime is committed, provided that at the time of the commission of the crime the participants have agreed that the crime should be committed by any one or both of them. 3. The circumstances in which two persons are participating together in the commission of a particular crime may themselves establish that at some point in time an agreement has been reached between them that the crime should be committed. 4. It does not matter whether the agreed crime is committed by only one of the participants in the Joint Criminal Enterprise, or whether they both played an active part in committing that crime. Both of the participants in the enterprise are equally guilty of committing the crime regardless of the actual part played by each accused in its commission. 5. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the crime which was the subject of the joint agreement was in fact committed. It therefore must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each of the essential facts or ingredients that make up that crime was committed, regardless of who actually committed them. Further in respect of a particular accused, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that he or she was a participant in the commission of that crime as part of a Joint Criminal Enterprise with one or more persons. Judge Alone Trial 1. On 7 February 2019 the Court ordered, pursuant to s 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, that the accused be tried by Judge Alone. 2. Pursuant to section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, a Judge who tries proceedings for the prosecution of a person on indictment without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury as to the guilt of the accused person and such a finding has, for all purposes, the same effect as a verdict of the jury. The judgment of the Court in such a case must include the principles of law that I as the Judge apply and the findings of fact on which I rely. 3. In Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250 the High Court stated that it is necessary for the Judge to expose the reasoning process linking the principles of law with the findings of fact and justify the process and ultimately the verdict that they have reached. 4. I am required, as the trial Judge, to take into account any warning, direction or comment in considering my verdict that any law would require to be given or made to a jury in such circumstances. There are general directions that I must take into account. These are fundamental rules designed to ensure that an accused person receives a fair trial, according to law. General directions 1. In compliance with subsections 133(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, I remind myself of the principles of law to be applied. I now set out those principles. Beyond reasonable doubt 1. Having brought the charge it is the Crown who bears the onus of proving the charge. The high standard to which such a charge must be proved is the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Presumption of innocence 1. In addition to the fundamental principle that the Crown must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, it is necessary to bear in mind a number of other principles. Each accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the charge brought against him unless and until the evidence satisfies the tribunal of fact that each and every element of the relevant offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 2. If the evidence fails to satisfy the Court beyond reasonable doubt of any or all of the elements of a particular offence charged then the presumption of innocence continues and a verdict of not guilty on that count must be returned. 3. If there is an explanation consistent with the innocence of both the accused of the charge, or if the Court is unable in the circumstances to determine whether a particular element has been proved, then the accused must be found not guilty accordingly. The evidence before the Court must be approached with an open and unbiased mind. The Court must proceed logically and rationally without acting capriciously. 4. It is necessary to bring into account in assessing the evidence the common sense of the Court, and to deliver any verdict according to the evidence. It is necessary to recall that the accused do not have the burden of adducing any evidence. They do not have to disprove the Crown case, it is for the prosecution to prove its case and to do so beyond reasonable doubt. The abovementioned principles of law must be applied to the facts as I find them to be. Murray direction 1. In this case, the Crown relies largely on the evidence of Witness B. There is also evidence from other witnesses and telephone intercepts, however, the only evidence in relation to the arrangement or offer to pay Witness B comes from Witness B himself. It is therefore necessary to scrutinise the evidence of Witness B with great care. I accept it is necessary to be extremely careful in assessing the evidence of Witness B in order to prove the case to the required standard, beyond reasonable doubt. I give myself a Murray direction in respect of Witness B. I would also assess his evidence to enquire whether there is any independent evidence to support his evidence generally, such as from the other independent witnesses, telephone intercepts, and CCRs. Witnesses 1. It is for me to assess any witness who has given evidence in the trial and decide whether the evidence of the witnesses is reliable. I note that the reliability of any witness's evidence depends upon two quite different but sometimes overlapping considerations: one is the witness's honesty and the other is the witness's accuracy. The honesty of a witness involves considering not only what the witness said (or perhaps did not say) but also the impression that the witness made upon me. 2. I have heard the submissions of the Crown; and of Mr Brewer and Mr Vasic, Counsel for the accused. I have considered all the submissions and given them such weight as I think they deserve. I note that in no sense are those submissions evidence in the case. 3. I note that as the tribunal of fact I am expected to use my qualities of reasoning, my experience, my understanding of people and human affairs, and my common sense. 4. I acknowledge that I have very important matters to decide in this case, important not only to the accused, but also to the community. I must, as the judge of the facts, act impartially and dispassionately. I must not let sympathy or emotion sway my judgment. 5. As the sole judge of the facts I must not act capriciously or irrationally. I am obliged to determine all relevant issues of fact according to the evidence that has been presented during the course of the trial. That evidence includes the oral evidence of the witnesses called in the trial and the exhibits placed before me. I will refer to significant portions of the evidence central to the issues that have arisen in the trial and set out the evidence the Crown relies upon in proof of each element of the counts in the course of giving these reasons for judgment. 6. I note that in relation to accepting the evidence of a witness I am not obliged to accept the whole of the evidence of the witness. I may if I think fit, accept part and reject part of the witness's evidence. Inferences 1. I remind myself that I may, in my role as Judge of the facts, draw inferences from the direct evidence. Inferences may be valid or invalid, justified or unjustified, correct or incorrect. I may only draw an inference adverse to the accused from proven facts if such an inference is the only reasonable inference that can be properly drawn from the proven facts. In a criminal trial, I remind myself that I must be satisfied of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Amongst other things, that means that I should be extremely careful about drawing any inference. I should examine any possible inference to ensure that it is a justifiable inference. I should not draw any inference from the direct evidence unless it is the only rational inference in the circumstances. 2. Where knowledge or intention is to be inferred from the evidence, I must be satisfied that the conclusion as to the accused's knowledge or intention is the only rational inference available. Burden of proof 1. This is a criminal trial and the burden of proof of guilt of the accused is placed on the Crown. That onus rests upon the Crown in respect of every element of the charge. There is no onus of proof on the accused at all. It is not for the accused to prove their innocence but for the Crown to prove their guilt and to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I warn myself that suspicion, nor even grave suspicion, is not a substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. 2. It is, and always has been, a critical part of our system of justice that persons tried in these courts are presumed to be innocent, unless and until they are proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Unless the Crown succeeds in proving each and every one of the essential ingredients or elements of a charge beyond reasonable doubt, then the accused must be found "not guilty" of the charge. 3. The words "beyond reasonable doubt" are ordinary everyday words and that is how I understand them. If, at the end of my deliberations, having taken into consideration the evidence both for the Crown and in both the accuseds' case in respect of any matter which the Crown must establish to make out its case, and after also taking into consideration the submissions made to me by the Crown and both counsel for the accused in their address, I am not satisfied that the Crown has established any one of these essential matters beyond reasonable doubt then it is my duty, as I have said, to bring in a verdict of "not guilty", because the Crown will have failed to do what the law requires it to do. 4. I remind myself that it is vitally important that I clearly understand that both the accused must be found "not guilty" if their guilt has not been proved to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt. It follows from this, of course, that if I am left unable to decide whether the Crown has proved its case in relation to any such essential ingredient, if I have a reasonable doubt in respect of that matter, the accused are entitled to the benefit of that doubt and I must find them "not guilty". Accused did not give evidence 1. Both accused did not give evidence in the trial, though a number of exhibits were admitted in the accused's case. There are a number of important principles I must keep in mind about the fact that the accused did not give evidence in the witness box in response to the Crown case. 2. An accused person may always, by giving evidence or calling other evidence, make a response to the case presented by the Crown by way of an explanation for the whole or an explanation for a part of the Crown case, but there is no obligation on him or her to do so. 3. Although an accused person may give evidence in relation to the whole or any part of the Crown case, he or she may equally elect to give no such evidence, nor call any other evidence in that regard. He or she is entitled to say nothing at all and have the Crown prove his or her guilt. I direct myself that as a matter of law, the silence of the accused in court and their election not to give evidence cannot be used against them. 4. The election of the accused not to give evidence about aspects of the Crown's case does not constitute an admission by them and no such conclusion can be drawn from that fact. Nor must such an election be used by me to fill in gaps in the evidence led by the Crown, if I perceive there to be gaps, nor to bolster a Crown case if, in my assessment, the Crown case is weak. A defective Crown case gets no better simply because an accused person does not give evidence. 5. It is of fundamental importance that I bear in mind throughout my deliberations that the accused do not have to prove anything. Each accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. 6. I remind myself that the Crown does not have to prove every single fact in the case beyond reasonable doubt. The onus, which rests upon the Crown, is to prove the elements of the charge. Evidence called at trial 1. When considering my verdict, I have reviewed the entirety of the transcript of the witnesses called at trial, re-listened to the entirety of the recordings from the listening devices [Exhibit H], and reviewed all exhibits. The following is a summary of the evidence the Crown relies upon. If I do not refer to any specific evidence or telephone intercept it does not mean that I have not taken it into account. Witness B 1. Prior to the calling of Witness B, Mr Hill on behalf of the Commissioner of Police made an application, which was supported by the Crown, that a number of Crown witnesses have their names suppressed. In a separate Judgment dated 25 July 2019 (and published but restricted), I determined that a number of the Crown witnesses would be referred to by letters of the alphabet. [Annexed is an index of the names of witnesses and their corresponding substituted letters.] 2. Witness B was the most important witness called in the trial. It was on his and his wife's evidence, together with the telephone intercepts, that the Crown sought to prove the elements of the offence by demonstrating that the accused offered to pay and did pay Witness B to improperly influence Detective Senior Constable David Roberts in an investigation, with intent thereby to pervert the course of justice. Witness B was given an undertaking by the Attorney General under s 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, which states if he cooperates with the criminal proceedings against the accused, and if his evidence is the truth, the Attorney General undertakes that the evidence which Witness B gives, the fact that he does, and the evidence tendered as a result, will not be used in proceedings against him, except in respect of falsity of his evidence [Exhibit A]. 3. The Crown also tendered a criminal history of Witness B [Exhibit B]. Witness B has a very lengthy criminal history dating from July 1991. He has convictions for supply prohibited drug, possess prohibited weapon, stalk/intimidate and with intent to cause physical or mental harm, a number of traffic matters, Police pursuit, custody of knife in public place, larceny, destroy/damage property, dishonestly obtain property by deception, aggravated assault with intent, driving armed with weapon, and numerous other convictions. 4. Witness B made an induced statement to the Police offering them assistance. He stated that the reason he offered assistance to Police is that the accused borrowed money on his wife's house. He said, "We had no idea we had fraudulent documents. We ended up losing it. We ended up on the street so that was my motivation" [T 84.30 – 35]. He said, "we basically lost everything." 5. Witness B said he met Constantinidis in about 2007 or 2008. He said he did everything for him, including debt collecting, and personal errands - if Constantinidis needed something, he would get it for him. 6. The evidence Witness B gave in relation to the charge is critical. I will refer to it in some detail. Conversation with Constantinidis at Winsdor 1. Witness B said he spoke to Constantinidis in 2012 at his house at Windsor. Witness B said the accused rang him and told him to come over to his house to see him. Witness B went with his wife. The following questions and answers are important in relation to the alleged request to Witness B made by each accused to pervert the course of justice. I will set them out verbatim: Q. I want to ask you about some events in August of 2012. Did you speak to Al in relation to anything to do with a gold bar in 2012? A. Yes, I did. Q. Do you know what month it was? A. No, I don't. I don't know what month it was. Q. Where were you when you spoke to him? A. At his house. Q. And A. Windsor. At Windsor. Q. How did you come to be at his house? A. He rang me and told me to come over and see him so I - I went. Q. Did you go there with anyone? A. Yeah. I always had someone. Yep. Q. Who did you go with this time? A. [Witness D]. She's my wife. Q. Was she present during your conversation with Al? A. No. Q. Can you tell us what Al said and what you said during that conversation? A. He said to me that Ian Lazar was in a bit of a - he's - he's got dramas. He's - he's going crazy. I said, "What, what's wrong?" He said, "A Detective by the name of Roberts is giving him a hard time and, yeah, someone - we need to put a stop to it." So, yeah, he asked me if I knew any - any people high up. I said, yeah, I did and he said, "Can we sort it out?" I said, yeah, of course we could. Q. Just pausing there, did he tell you what trouble Ian was in? A. Yeah. It had to do with the - the gold bar that was found with [Y] in the car when they got pulled over. I think Ian put his hand up and said it was his. Q. So he asked if you knew anybody high up, and what did you say? A. Yeah, I did. Q. What did he say about that? A. He was pretty pleased. He said - well, we mentioned Police, you know..(not transcribable)..and he goes, "Do you know any people high up in the" - you know, basically in the Police force - that meant Police force - and I said, "Yeah, I - I do," and, yeah, that's where it started from. Yeah. CROWN PROSECUTOR: Could we just put on the record, your Honour, that the witness was then tapping his left shoulder with two fingers when he said, "that meant the Police force"? Q. How did you know that meant the Police force? A. It was something that we've - we - that we had sort of come up with so we don't talk in case the place was bugged. 'Cause they were very paranoid. Q. Was there any conversation specifically about what he wanted you to do in relation to Roberts? A. Yeah, so - yes. Yes. Q. What did he say? A. He told me, "Do whatever it takes. Break his legs, break his arm. Do whatever it takes, just get rid of him. Get him out of the way." Q. Did he say anything else about what you could do? A. Yeah, possibly get him sacked. Q. I'm sorry? A. Possibly get him sacked. Q. Get him‑‑ A. Sacked. Q. Did you actually have any high up contacts in the Police force at that time? A. No, I never. Q. Have you ever had any high up contacts in the Police force? A. No, I never. Q. Were you intending to follow his request and do something to Roberts? A. Nup. Not at all. Q. Did you have any conversation at that time with Al about money and whether the job would cost anything? A. Yes. We - we did talk about money. There was - there was money already owed for other jobs and, yeah, we did speak about money. Q. You said money was owed for other jobs. A. Yeah. Q. You're talking about wages owed to you. A. Wages, yep. Q. After you'd had that conversation with Al, did you telephone Ian Lazar? A. Can you repeat that, sorry? [T 85 – 86] (Emphasis added) McGillicuddy phone call 1. Witness B said in relation to the phone call he made to Lazar (referred to as the McGillicuddy call) that he had disguised his voice. I summarise the contents of the McGillicuddy call later in my judgment. 2. It is important to note that when Witness B gave evidence in court on 25 July 2019, he was slurring his words. He said he'd been on Lyrica medication. In fact, he fell asleep during the playing of Exhibit C (the McGillicuddy call) [T 89.16]. In court his evidence was difficult to understand. Witness B said that he was trying to disguise his voice, saying, "I would lower the tone of my voice. I - I will try whatever I - I thought that would be right… I think at the end, some sort of English accent but I don't know if it worked or not." [T 91.11 – 21]. In my view his evidence in court on 25 July 2019 sounded remarkably similar to his voice in Exhibit C (the McGillicuddy call), which I remarked at the time, when the recording was played in court. Conversation with Lazar in North Sydney 1. Witness B said that after the McGillicuddy phone call, he spoke to the accused Lazar in Walker Street or Berry Street in North Sydney, next to his unit. The conversation with the accused Lazar is important so I will set it out in full. This conversation can only be on 22 August, as by the morning of 23 August, Detective Roberts was taken off the case. 2. Witness B said: "That [Y] got pulled over in the car with two underworld figures from Melbourne and [Witness A] somewhere in North Sydney. I think they had a gold bar on them. Apparently it was thrown too - they were in the car and [Y] ended up with the - with the bar. Police pulled them over and - and - and that - and the cop - the - the cop - the - the bar was confiscated by the Police." [T 94.40 – 47]. 1. The accused Lazar told him it was his gold bar and he wanted to get it back. Witness B said in court at T 95.22: Q. So tell us what Ian said A. Ian said to me: "He's put his hand up for the bar; the Police have been hassling him. They want him to come and do a statement and he's trying to ignore him. Trying his best to keep away from them." He goes: "You know - it's got to - something's - something's got to happen. It's got - you know - something's got to happen, we've - we've got to get this copper either offside or do something about it." Q. And what did you say? A. I said: "No problem, what do you want me to do?" And he said to me basically similar things that Al said to me. … [T 95.37] A. Okay. He said to me: "Do whatever it takes." He - he - "Whatever it takes. Break his leg. Maybe get a couple of guys from Bankstown." He said to me "Arabs basically" and then "Do - do - do what they have to do. He - he doesn't care." Q. And what did you say? A. I said "Yeah, sure, no problem. We sort it out." … [T 96.17] Q. What, if anything, did Ian say about involving any other Police officers? A. He - he said to me: "Maybe, if you can speak to the coppers that I know to sort something out. Maybe kick him out of the job? Demote him." And I said: "Yeah, I can do that." Q. Was there any discussion about payment for this job? A. Yes, there was. I did tell him - well, I did - I did tell him "It's Ian - yeah, we need - I need some sort - sort of payment" and I told him that "You're a bit behind on - on other issues, they're not going to act on it if I get somebody to front." I don't know what particular day it was but I ended up picking up - I think it was somewhere around 49,000 or 50 something thousand dollars off him at one stage. Yeah, on the other - there was another time I picked up - I think, about the same amount of— … [T 96.38] Q. So you had two separate payments? A. Yes. Q. Who gave you the money? Who handed it over to you? A. Ian. Q. And when he handed over the first lot of money, did he say anything that? A. Yeah, he said, "Make sure you let them know it's from me." 1. 53 ­­­Witness B said he got the first lot of money at his unit in Ryde, Putney. He remembers the accused coming over one particular time. He opened the door and Lazar was walking down the corridor and threw a stack of money at Witness B [T 97.10 – 15]. Q. Where were you when you got the second wad of money? A. I can't really recall. Yeah. I'll - I'll - I'll be lying if I tell you. I can't really recall. Q. And what form was it in? A. Cash. [T 97.16 – 18] (Emphasis added) At this point, Witness B indicated that the bundle had been approximately 8cm high. 1. Witness B said he had a discussion with the accused Lazar before meeting him in the coffee shop about whether he had connections with the Police. He said, "I said to him, "Of course it is. I've got some high - high profile people in the Police force." Witness B then said that what he had told Lazar was not true. He said after the meeting at the club coffee shop, where he discussed the gold bar issue with Lazar, there was a follow-up conversation. Witness B described the conversation as follows [T 98.36 – 45]: Q. This issue of the gold bar and the problems he was having A. Yeah, there was - there was - obviously, there was - there was a follow up conversation. He said to me - I don't whether - whether - well, could have been in his office or at my - I'm not sure. I said - it was about a week or about a week and a half after I had taken the money off him. And I said, "So what's going on? Have you found anything?" I said, "Why didn't you just ring the Police station and see what Police is still there?" So the next day, he come up to me and said to me - he winked at me. He high fived me and hugged me. He go, "Between - between you and my dad, we're untouchable." I said, "See?" He goes, "The copper" - which is Roberts - "he's gone. They've moved him." (Emphasis added) 1. Witness B was unable to say what order the conversations with the accused Lazar were in. 2. Witness B said he thinks he made the McGillicuddy call the same day he spoke to the accused Contantinidis [T 87.38]. There is no dispute between the parties that the McGillicuddy call was made on 22 August 2012 at 7:39 am. Later in his evidence, Witness B said he was not sure when he had the conversation with Lazar, and whether it was before or after the McGillicuddy call [T 99.5]. 3. Witness B said that the accused Lazar used the phrase "in the courts", "every time we spoke about something sinister", and that "in the courts" meant "basically a drama. You got to sort it out" [T 99.29]. 4. Witness B said his job with Lazar was as a personal bodyguard and that he first met Lazar in 2008 and had known him for seven or eight years before the gold bar incident in 2012. Witness B said that he worked for Lazar mainly through the accused Contantinidis, and that "I think they came up with some of sort agreement that I work direct with Ian." [T 103.27]. 5. Witness B also stated that he received a letter of comfort from the Police in relation to a serious driving offence. Cross-examination 1. In cross-examination by Mr Vasic, on behalf of the accused Constantinidis, Witness B was asked about a criminal matter he had in the Local Court on 25 November 2013, in which Witness B was discharged under section 32 of the Mental Health Act 2007. Witness B accepted that he told a psychologist that he had been left with a memory impairment after undergoing a particular operation in May 2010 and being denied oxygen to the brain. Witness B said he was stabbed 42 times, and the oxygen loss was during the blood transfusions. Witness B said he was in a coma for three months. He said that no doctor actually said that he had suffered from oxygen loss, however a nurse told him it was possible. He denied having a memory impairment. 2. Witness B also admitted to being a user of drugs, in particular OxyContin. He admitted to taking OxyContin during 2013, but said he was not taking it during 2014 [T 113.50]. 3. Witness B made an induced statement to the Police on 27 November 2014 in relation to the gold bar. He said his main motivation for providing the statement was that the accused Lazar "ripped off" his wife, Witness D, of $225,000. It was suggested to him that he had not mentioned the accused Constantinidis doing anything to him in that statement, he said, "Al and Ian done it together, I know that for a fact. I know that for a fact, they ripped me off, all right? They conned me and my wife in, yeah? And me and my wife signed a statement, just that one piece of paper, to - for a - to withdraw a caveat that they think we had on it. There was no caveat on there and they ripped us off, very simple, very simple. I hate what they've done. I don't hate them, I hate what they've done. They left us homeless." [T 107.10 – 17] 1. Witness B agreed that there was nothing in paragraph 5 of the statement referring to the accused Constantinidis, however he said, "But Al had something to do with it…. Because it started with Al, Al is the one that had the documents, he's the one that had the paper, he's the one that started it" [T 117.19 - 39]. During the course of giving evidence, Witness B got very emotional and upset, and spoke directly to the accused Constantinidis in court. He agreed that he was upset with both the accused. He said on a number of occasions that the accused had left "us homeless, both of them took our money" [T 118.30]. 2. Witness B agreed that in his statement of the 27 November 2014 he said, "My daily routine was to attend Ian's North Sydney office between 10:00 am and 12:00 pm each day. During one of the conversations I had with Ian, he told me that a person known as [Y] was in a car with [Witness X] and two other guys. Ian and I had a conversation with him about the gold bar, and I said to Ian 'Was it yours?', to which Ian replied 'Yes, it was, he owed it to me'" [T 119.17]. At paragraph 37 of that same statement, Witness B said, "Ian told me there was a Policeman trying to get a statement from him about the gold bar. Ian did tell me the name of the Policeman but I can't remember his name now". Witness B agreed that was in his statement. This is important as at the time of making the statement on 27 November 2014, Witness B could not remember the name of Detective Senior Constable David Roberts. However during the course of the trial his wife, Witness D, remembered the name Detective Roberts mentioned in a conversation she overheard between Constantinidis and Witness B, and provided an additional statement to the Police. I will refer to the credibility and reliability of Witness D and her statement later in my Judgment. 3. Witness B was referred to his statement and read paragraph 37 of the statement aloud in Court: "Ian did tell me the name of the Policeman but I can't remember his name now. Ian told me this Policeman kept ringing him religiously every day and Ian needed to go into the Police station. Ian was worried about having to go and speak to Police. Ian said to me 'Do you know somebody that can help us?' I said, 'Yes. So he said, 'Do you have any high contacts?' I said, 'Yes. Do you know - what do they want done?'" 1. Paragraph 40 of the statement says, "I got back to Ian about a week later because I saw a pot of gold sitting there" [T 121.10]. Witness B agreed that there was nothing in the statement about the accused Constantinidis approaching him. Witness B says "That's what it says. But he had everything to do with it. He's the one that spoke to me at his house in Windsor. He knows it. He knows it." [T 122.1]. 2. Witness B made a further statement to Police on 17 March 2015. Witness B agreed that on 11 July 2014 he was pulled over for a random breath test but failed to stop, drove at speeds up to 185 km/h, collided with two cars, and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's license. He was on bail in relation to that matter when he spoke to Police on 27 November 2014. He was still on bail for that matter when he spoke to the Police again on 17 March 2015. In the statement of 17 March 2015, he agreed that he had said in mid to late January 2015 that he had started to get "hassled a lot by Police". He said, "In February there was one incident and four times in March this year. When I say hassled by Police, I have been stopped at gun point where the roads were blocked off and there have been heavily armed Police. I've been asked by Police if I am carrying a firearm or if I have there is a firearm in the car" [T 125.20 – 27]. 3. In cross-examination by Mr Vasic, Witness B said he believed that the Police block had been orchestrated by Constantinidis as their mothers live five houses away from each other, and he was visiting his mother and coming to deliver milk when the Police blocked off the streets and told him and his wife to get out of the car at gunpoint. He said he continued to blame Constantinidis for this, saying "I believe that Ian Lazar and Al Constantinidis are behind this because what I have made a statement to Police about" [T 126.5]. It was suggested to Witness B by Mr Vasic that that was his motive in providing a statement. Witness B said his motive was that both accused had robbed him and his wife and left them homeless. In an outburst in court he spoke directly to the accused Constantinidis and said, "That's my motive. I was warm to them. I was warm to both of them for - I'm sorry he is loyal, and I used to call you Dad, Al, remember? That's the Dad you were to me. You robbed us". [T 126.15]. It was clear from his words and his actions in court that Witness B felt a great deal of animosity towards both accused and blamed them both for the loss of his wife's house. 4. Witness B admitted that he was charged on the 24 February 2015 with possessing or having in his custody a knife in a public place, and shortly after that he made the statement dated 25 May 2015. He did not recall asking for a letter of assistance from the Police in relation to that offence. 5. Witness B agreed in cross-examination that the first occasion he spoke to Police about his conversation with the accused Constantinidis regarding the gold bar was on 25 May 2015 [T 137]. Witness B agreed that at around the same time, he was involved in Supreme Court litigation in respect of his wife's property. It was suggested to Witness B that at that time there was a negotiated settlement with the National Australia Bank for a mortgage of $100,000. It was suggested to Witness B that he had demanded $100,000 from the accused Constantinidis, which Witness B denied, saying, "why would I demand that much? They owed me in excess of $1 million, that was owed to me." [T 138.42]. He agreed that he was demanding money almost every week from both accused, and again he said that the accused Constantinidis robbed him. He said Constantinidis owed him and his wife, he said, "yes I blame him, he did it" [T 139.30]. Witness B clearly blamed both the accused for the situation that he and his wife were in in respect of his wife's house. He agreed that was the case at the time of making a statement in 2015 to the Police. He stated, "I had a few problem[s] with him. He owed me money plus they borrowed money on [Witness D]'s house. That's the issues I have" [T 141.10 – 11]. Further, when questioned "Was it the case that at that time you believed that Mr Constantinidis had forged some sort of signature?", Witness B answered, "I still believe it." [T 141.13 – 15]. Witness B became very animated when speaking about the loan on his wife's house and was adamant that he and his wife had not signed anything, and that it was both the accused that obtained the loan. 6. Witness B admitted that in his statement of the 27 November 2014 he did not mention to Police that the accused Constantinidis had anything to do with the $225,000 loan to Witness D. In respect of the conversations in relation to Detective Senior Constable Roberts, Witness B agreed he did not mention tapping on the shoulder, did not mention breaking legs and arms, and did not mention "just get rid of him" or "get him out of the way". He agreed that was not in his statement. Witness B said the accused Constantinidis said "fix it whichever way you can". 7. Witness B was cross-examined about driving away with Constantinidis' Lexus car on 31 January 2014, and in April 2014 going with his wife to Constantinidis' house and banging on the front door. He said that at the time of making a statement to Police on 25 May 2015, both accused owed him $800,000 [T 145.12 – 16]. On 31 March 2015, Witness B was charged with larceny and a malicious damage offence. On 11 December 2015, he went to Parramatta Local Court and on that date he made another statement to Police and obtained a letter of assistance in support of his sentence proceedings. It was suggested to Witness B that he had never had a conversation with the accused Constantinidis in respect of Detective Senior Constable Roberts. Witness B denied that suggestion. 8. Mr Brewer vigorously cross-examined Witness B. Mr Brewer took Witness B through his prior convictions, and suggested he was a stand over man, to which Witness B replied, "if you say so" [T 151.31]. 9. An issue that arose in cross-examination was the time period that Witness B had known the accused Lazar. It was suggested to Witness B that he had met the accused Lazar late in 2012. Witness B said that he first met Lazar 7 or 8 years prior to 2012. Witness B agreed that he decided to inform on the accused Lazar, as he had something to do with stealing his wife's house [T 152.25]. Witness B did, however, agree in cross-examination that he and his wife had never lived in the house, saying, "we had no money to live", and agreed that was different to the scenario of being thrown into the street [T 155.5 - 12]. It was suggested to Witness B that the first time he met the accused Lazar was an occasion where there was an altercation over a car park in 2013, which he denied [T 157.26]. 10. It was suggested to Witness B that at no time did the accused Lazar have a conversation with him about the gold bar, which he denied [T 162]. Witness B said at the time of the McGillicuddy call he had known the accused and had been employed by him for five years [between 2007 until the end of 2013]. He said, "[o]n and off, yeah. But it was mainly through.. Al." [T 164.43]. 11. In cross-examination Mr Brewer read portions of Witness B's statement dated 27 November 2014 regarding the conversation with the accused Lazar. Witness B agreed he said in his statement that, "Ian said to me, 'Do you know somebody that can help us?' and I said, 'Like, who?' and he said, 'Do you have any high contacts?' and I said, 'Yeah, I do. What do you want done?'" Witness B recounted that Lazar said, "He said, 'Can you tell your people to speak to the higher Police officer to talk to the Policeman who's ringing him to tell him to lay off or can I point out to you and you might have to ring the Police station and see if he's there and wait for him and maybe the boys could sort him out?'" [T 166.1 – 10]. Witness B agreed that is what he told the Police and he agreed that he understood that "he wanted to have the Police officer banished". 12. Mr Brewer carefully took Witness B through his Police statements and pointed out the inconsistencies between what he said in court in examination-in-chief, his previous seven statements, and his evidence in two Committals. It was submitted that there were many inconsistencies, and during the trial was the first time the witness had said anything about Detective Senior Constable Roberts' "legs being broken", and "arranging boys from Bankstown" who were "Arabs". When it was put to him that he hadn't mentioned those matters in his statements, Witness B said, "There was a lot of other - there was a lot of other occasions where I had done certain things for him and, you know, Arabs from Bankstown and - and stuff like that was mentioned so it wasn't the first time." [T 169.25 – 30]. Mr Brewer put to Witness B that he had slipped up when he said those things and the witness said, "I remember clearly he told me to do whatever it takes, break legs, do whatever it takes to stop Mr Roberts, the copper" [T 169.50]. Witness B said he was sure he put in the statement about breaking legs and he said both the accused said that to him. Witness B said, "Al said it to me and he said it to me" and pointed at the accused Lazar [T 170.24]. 13. It was suggested to Witness B that Exhibit E (being the Payroll Advice) was a false document and Witness B did not work for the accused Lazar. Witness B denied both suggestions. Exhibit E states that Witness B was on an annual salary of $143,130 from Commercial Mortgage Trade. The dates of the Payroll Advice were from 21 September 2013 to 15 November 2013. 14. Witness B was asked about being involved with the accused Lazar in 2013 when he was charged with assault, and it was again suggested to him that that was the first time Lazar and Witness B actually met. This was denied. Witness B agreed he was charged in relation to the 2013 assault, but he could not recall what he was charged with. Witness B was charged at the time with assault occasioning actual bodily harm in the company of Lazar, but the charges were withdrawn on 21 October 2013. Witness B also agreed that Lazar paid for his legal representation. It was suggested to Witness B that from that point on in 2013 he was associated with Lazar. Witness B denied this and said his association with Lazar was well before that date. 15. Mr Brewer drew Witness B's attention to a statement he made on 8 February 2018, in particular paragraph 5, where Witness B said "Ian had come over to our apartment and it was evening. [Witness D] was also there." He agreed that it was his apartment in Porter Street, Ryde, which he rented in early 2013. He said, "All three of us were out on the balcony. This would have been within the first couple of weeks that I met him. I believe I was making Ian feel safe because of the connections with Police and in Ian's words he felt untouchable because of my connections and his father's connections. Ian told me that his father has coppers and judges in his pocket." [T 176.20 – 29] (Emphasis added). It was suggested to the witness that he had met the accused Lazar in a coffee shop, where he was introduced as "Harry" in about November 2012 [T 177.13]. He denied this. Then he was asked: "Why did you say it to the Officer in Charge of this case on 6 February 2018? Why would you be saying that?" (referring to the meeting on his balcony in January 2013, being in the first couple of weeks that they met), Witness B replied: "A. Why? Because initially I was - I wasn't - they wanted to keep the meetings between me and Ian scarce. He didn't want anybody with a criminal record around him so I'd have to work through Al before I got to work with Ian" [T 177.17 - 21] By the time this statement of 8 February 2018 was made, Witness B had made his induced statement in 2014. So there was no need to tell the Police he had only just met Lazar a couple of weeks earlier. He had no need to protect Lazar in 2018 and minimise his connection with him, as 4 years earlier he had given the induced statement setting out all his criminal activities with the accused Lazar. If this evidence is accepted then it is inconsistent with Witness B's contention that he was working in Lazar's office between 10:00 am – 12:00 pm each day in 2012. 1. Mr Brewer also cross-examined Witness B in relation to a statement he made to Constable Brookes from Sydney Police in respect of the assaults he was charged with, together with the accused Lazar. In a statement made on 4 January 2013, Witness B told Constable Brookes that he had only known the accused Lazar for a couple of months. Re-examination 1. In re-examination, the Crown asked Witness B about being paid the sum of $200,000. He said he was paid by a solicitor of the accused Lazar. Witness B said that it was for odd jobs and for folders that he gave to the Police [T 187.45], and that one of those jobs was the gold bar incident, which occurred in August 2012 [T 188.5]. Witness B said the first amount of money he received was in Lazar's office, and he explained that he had said it was at Ryde in evidence in chief because when he first gave evidence in Court on 25 July 2019, he was dosed with morphine 20mg Lyrica, and Panadol Forte, was drugged out, and fell asleep. He was asked by the Court whether he had had any Lyrica on the day of re-examination whilst giving evidence, and he said he had not, just Buprenorphine. 2. Witness B was re-examined on the issue of how long he had known Lazar prior to the gold bar incident. Witness B said he had known Lazar since 2002. On 27 November 2014, Witness B made a statement to Police and said, "The first time I met Lazar was in Lithgow Correctional Centre. I was in the visitor's room with another inmate, and I was introduced to Lazar. Lazar was visiting Ralph Quinlan at the time" [paragraph 8]. He said this was in 2002. 3. Witness B said he did a job for Lazar involving locating an owner of property in Thailand. He referred to that job in his statement of 27 November 2014. Witness B said he had given a number of folders to Police, relating to jobs he had done prior to the gold bar case and one of them involved the property in Thailand. He said that the accused Lazar had given him those documents, and that the job relating to the property in Thailand was a couple of months or a month before the gold bar job [T 457.37]. Those documents were marked Exhibit Q. Witness D 1. The Crown also relies on the evidence of Witness B's wife. A non-publication order was also made in respect of her name and I have given her the pseudonym Witness D. Witness D was called to give evidence on 8 August 2019. She said that she first met the accused Constantinidis in about 2012 or at the end of 2011. Visiting Constantinidis at his home in Windsor 1. In 2012, Witness D said she visited the accused Constantinidis' home at Winsdor with her husband, Witness B. She said she went with her husband to his back office, and there the accused Constantinidis and her husband had a conversation. She said that at the time, the accused Constantinidis was in a panic, and was talking about a problem with a Policeman. She said that her husband then told her to go out of the room. She said she went outside and sat at the back of the office on a veranda, and heard them talking about a gold bar and a problem with a Police officer. She said she heard the name of the Police officer as "Robinson - Roberts - Robertson, Dave - David". She said that at that stage of the conversation she decided to go for a walk [T 368.30]. During examination-in-chief, I was having trouble hearing her evidence and asked her to speak up. She said, "Dave Robertson or Roberts, it was, I know Dave Robertson, that's what I heard it as." [T 368.40 - 45]. She said she did not hear the accused Constantinidis say anything else, as she went for a walk. 2. In cross-examination Witness D was asked about the conversation she allegedly overhead between Constantinidis and her husband. She said she made a statement on 7 August 2019, after the trial had commenced and the day before giving her evidence. She said in that statement, "I wish to add to my statement. In paragraph 4, I mentioned that Witness B had a conversation with Big Al at his place in Windsor. I believe this conversation took place prior to Witness B calling Ian Lazar". [T 374.31 – 34]. McGillicuddy call 1. Witness D also gave evidence about a further conversation (the McGillicuddy call) she overheard with her husband after their visit to the accused Constantinidis. She said it was maybe a month after and in 2013, but she could "not recall right now" [T 369.7]. She said she was at home at the time, and was in and out of the dining room. In respect of the McGillicuddy conversation, she said "It wasn't so much what he was saying, it was because of the accent he was trying to put on, it was like a - it was stupid, like, his sort of broken English and like a Pommy accent and American and I was like, "What?" That sort of stopped me and yeah, it was just weird and I listened for a little bit and then he - I was laughing a little and he told me to get out." [T 369.37 – 41]. 2. She was asked, "Did you hear anything at all of the conversation?", she answered "He said, "You won't be having any more problems… and he said the guy's name and that's when I laughed and he went, "Out"." [T 369.43 – 45]. She said she made a statement in relation to the McGillicuddy conversation on 18 January 2018, six years after the conversation. She further said that she heard her husband say to the accused Lazar that "he won't be dealing with this case, like he won't be hearing from him - from him anymore and like he just apologised on behalf." [T 371.17 – 19]. She said she was unsure of the year of the conversation, but "it would be 2013" [T 372.36]. Cross-examination 1. The witness, whilst giving evidence, became very distressed. She was asked in cross-examination: Q. How did you come to make a statement? [referring to the statement of 7 August 2019] A. Because - I don't know. I can't answer you that. I don't know. I'd rather not answer. Q. Sorry, you'd rather not answer? A. Yeah, because right now I'm, like, I don't know. I can't tell you why I wrote - I don't know. I just - I thought that's what you have to do and refresh things, because I'm reading stuff I have to go over things and sign, I don't know, to say that I made that statement. I'd rather not answer, to be honest. I don't know. … A: My husband told me. You'd have to ask him who contacted him. [T 377] 1. Following a discussion with Counsel while Witness D was outside the courtroom, Witness D came back to the witness box and said she could not give any further evidence as she had personal issues. The witness seemed to be slurring a lot, and at times incomprehensible [T 378.15; T 350.18, T 380.49]. The Court was informed by the Crown that the witness was not on medication, rather that her bottom row of teeth were rotten and her top row of teeth were implants, and she had learnt to talk the way she did out of self-consciousness. Further, the Court was informed that it was an anniversary of a family bereavement involving her former husband, and she was too distressed to continue her evidence [T 381]. The Court adjourned to allow the witness time to compose herself and come back the next day. 2. The Court was informed by the Crown on Friday, 9 August, when the Police had attended to pick Witness D up to come to court that morning, that she had injuries to her hands and feet, she was bleeding, and needed immediate medical attention. The Court is uncertain as to the cause of her injuries. She was unable to continue her evidence until Monday, 12 August. 3. In cross-examination Witness D said that whilst the name of Detective Senior Constable Roberts did not appear in her statement of 18 January 2018, she did say the name Roberts to the Police officer who took her first statement. She said, "I told back on the original statement and I have no idea why they didn't put it in". She was adamant that she said the name Roberts in her first statement. Mr Vasic cross-examined her as follows: Q. Well, I suggest that nowhere in your statement dated 18 January 2018 is there any reference to the name of the Police officer. What do you say to that? A. Well, I did tell them back then. I did. Q. And I suggest that you didn't tell any Police officer the name. A. But I did back then. Q. Did you told Detective Schusler just on 7 August 2019 the first name of the Police officer? A. I told back on the original statement and I have no idea why they didn't put it in. Q. You told him the first name as well back in the original statement you-- A. I told him - yeah, I told him, yeah, both - like, his name, yeah. Q. Okay. Just last week did you tell Detective Schusler, who was the officer taking a statement, the first name of the Police officer? A. I'm not sure if I told him, but I said his name, yeah. Q. But what, sorry? A. I did say his name, yes. Q. His first-- A. Full name, yeah. Q. First and last name? A. Yes. Q. And have a look at your statement. Where does his first name appear? A. Obviously it's not here, but I did say his name. Q. It's not there. A. Yeah. Q. So the Police officer that you say-- A. Well, it's a typo error, isn't it, because I did say his name. Q. Okay. So, that must be a mistake by the Police officer, not by you? A. Well, it must be because so is the date. I never said a date. Q. Did you know David Roberts? A. No, I didn't. Q. A Police officer - more specifically, a Police officer by the name of David Roberts? A. I didn't, obviously, no. Q. Did you interact with the Police officer by the name of David Roberts in 2000? A. My ex-husband did, yeah, not me. [T 409] 1. In respect to the property Witness D owned with her ex-husband in Bass Hill, Witness D was extremely reluctant to answer any questions. She said she owned the property with her ex-husband. Her ex-husband died and she wanted to sell the property. There was a dispute with the bank, and it seems that both accused then became involved. This no doubt forms the crux of the animosity between the two accused and Witness B and Witness D. 2. Witness D was cross-examined at length in relation to the dealings of the property. She was a very evasive witness. It was abundantly clear that she blamed both accused for the loss of the house, and for referring her to a secondary mortgage lender. I accept there was a great deal of animosity between Witness B and Witness D towards each accused relating to the house and other moneys allegedly owed to Witness B. 3. In cross-examination by Mr Brewer, Witness D agreed that she had a criminal record relating to drugs, shop lifting, and possessing a prohibited weapon. She also agreed she had made an induced statement to the Police. She said she first met the accused Lazar on the day that her husband Witness B and the accused Lazar had a fight in the foyer at Berry Street, North Sydney, on 4 January 2013. Findings in relation to Witness D 1. The statement of 7 August 2019 was the first time Witness D recorded the name Dave Roberts, which I was informed by the Crown was the reason the further statement dated 7 August 2019 was taken. In the statement, Witness D stated that she had overheard a conversation between the accused Constantinidis and her husband Witness B, and that she now recalled the name of the Police officer. In evidence-in-chief, she said the wrong name, saying Robinson and Robertson. Witness B said he could not recall the name of the Police officer in his induced statement of 2014. The conversation with Constantinidis was purported to have occurred in August 2012. Witness B said that he made the McGillicuddy call shortly after, if not the same day, he had the conversation with the accused Constantinidis. This conversation between Constantinidis and Witness B is crucial to the Crown case. The Crown informed the Court that she and her solicitor had had a telephone conference with Witness D on the previous Friday in the middle of the trial, and Witness D had mentioned the name Roberts during the conference. The Crown then asked the Officer in Charge to take a further statement from Witness D. The Crown informed the Court that the witness "didn't seem to be on the ball" [T 378.24]. The Crown said that because of the frame of mind the witness was in, she asked the officers to give her a couple of days to wait to see if she had anything else she wanted to say about the matter [T 378.25 – 30]. 2. The name of Detective Roberts was clearly an important factor in the case and if Witness D had told the Police officer who took her first statement the name Detective Roberts, the Police would have recorded the name in her statement. Witness D also changed her evidence in cross-examination and said, "I heard it the first time down the hallway, just the name of it. And then I heard the full thing - full name when I was sitting out in the porch." [T 408.48 – 49]. In the statement she made to Police on 7 August 2019, she said "I was interested in the conversation with big Al for two reasons. The first is I knew a Police officer named David Roberts who I interacted with back in 2000." In evidence in court she said she didn't actually know Detective Senior Constable Roberts at all, it was somebody she believed her ex-husband knew. The statement made in 2018 does not mention the name Detective Roberts. In the 2018 statement, Witness D says after she left the room, "I didn't hear anything more". I find that evidence Witness D gave in respect of overhearing the accused Constantinidis speaking to her husband about Detective Roberts is not reliable or credible. In my view, Witness D's recent retrieval of memory which enabled her to identify Detective Senior Constable Roberts by name is a recent invention to assist her husband, as Witness B did not remember Roberts' name in his first statement. It is extremely unlikely that Witness D would remember Detective Senior Constable Roberts' name 7 years after hearing the name in an overheard conversation in circumstances where she did not know and had not met Detective Senior Constable Roberts, and had not mentioned his name before in her previous statements. 3. I also do not accept the evidence of Witness D in respect of the McGillicuddy call. I find that the witness was an unreliable witness, and her evidence does not lend support to the critical conversations alleged by Witness B with either the accused Constantinidis or Lazar. Other Crown witnesses relating to gold bar Witness A 1. Witness A was called to give evidence in respect of the gold bar. She said that she was a passenger in a car with Y and another person, C, when the car was stopped by Police on 8 August 2012. She was in the back seat with Y at the time the car was stopped. She said earlier that day she had gone to her mother's house, where her husband had placed gold bars in speakers. Her husband, X (who is a well-known underworld figure and is now deceased), told her that they were Y's gold bars, but she wasn't to give them to him all at once because Y would go on "benders". Y spoke to Witness A, and convinced her that he needed the money for legal fees, and shortly after that conversation she went to her mother's house and retrieved the gold bars. She said that she travelled with Y into the city to cash them in. In the city, Y met the accused Lazar. At the time she was sitting inside a café, and did not know who Lazar was. Y had told her he was meeting the accused Lazar. Witness A has now since met the accused Lazar. 2. She said when Y came back from his meeting with Lazar he only had one gold bar with him. She then went with Y to Sheraton on the Park to meet a lawyer. After that they went in the car with C. C is a family friend, and was the driver of the car. She said they were stopped by Police between 20:00 pm and 21:00 pm, and the gold bar was in the car. She said prior to being stopped by the Police, Y got a text message and became fidgety and was arguing with C, and Y said that he was going to jump out of the car. Witness A thought she should hand the gold bar back to him, as she did not want to take it with her. She handed it back to Y without C knowing, and he put it in his laptop bag. The highway patrol Police stopped the car and searched it, and found the gold bar. After they left the scene, they drove to an apartment block next to Luna Park in North Sydney. She said Y got out of the car and went to speak to the accused Lazar. She could see the accused Lazar talking with Y for about 15 minutes. 3. After the incident she said she attended Balmain Local Court regarding the gold bar, and Detective Senior Constable Roberts identified himself to her. After the Local Court, she had a meeting with the accused Lazar and Y. At the meeting, the accused Lazar said Detective Senior Constable Roberts was being like a dog with a bone and wouldn't let it go, and that he was being very territorial about the gold bar [T 278.1 – 5]. She said she had other meetings with the accused Lazar, and Y was present at every meeting. At another meeting she recalled the accused Lazar saying, "Detective Roberts got demoted apparently and moved". She recalls the conversation while she was on her balcony, with Y on speakerphone. She said she could hear what was being said. She said Lazar said, "Apparently Detective Roberts had been demoted and moved to a country Police station." [T 279.14 – 15]. 4. I found Witness A to be a credible and reliable witness. Her evidence was not really in dispute and is supported by other evidence. Senior Constable Hayden Thew 1. Senior Constable Hayden Thew gave evidence that at approximately 20:50pm on Wednesday, 8 August 2012, he was in an unmarked Police vehicle in Annandale and saw a black BMW swerve onto the incorrect side of the road to avoid a speedbump. He pulled the car over, searched the car, and found a gold bar. He was told by Y that "A mate gave it to me to sell" [T 298.15]. Y said that the mate he was referring to was Ian Lazar, and they had a conversation on Thursday, 9 August with the accused Lazar in relation to the gold bar. Senior Constable Marie Vial 1. Senior Constable Marie Vial gave evidence that she was in an unmarked Police car at 20:50 pm on Wednesday, 8 August. The purpose of calling her was that she noted the serial number of the gold bar in her notebook, which was tendered by the Crown and marked Exhibit M. Duval Johns 1. The Crown also called Mr Duval Johns. Mr Duval Johns was a master jeweller, and had known the accused Lazar for approximately 25 years. Approximately eight years ago, the accused Lazar asked him if he wanted to buy gold, and he thought there was a mention of a gold bar. He said to Lazar, ""If you've got some gold bar or whatever, why don't you take it to ABC Bullion Company?" [T 295.11 – 12]. He told Lazar that if he took it there, they would give him a better price. The Crown asks that the Court draw an inference that Lazar had a motive for not wanting to give the Police a statement in relation to the gold bar, the motive being that the gold bar was the proceeds of crime. There is no evidence Mr Duval was referring to the same gold bar, however an inference can be drawn that the accused Lazar knew or suspected the gold bar was stolen. Eddison Diez 1. Eddison Diez was the account manager for Ian Lazar. He worked for Lazar from 2009 – 2013. He went to Thailand in January 2011 and visited Lazar. This witness was called by the Crown to meet the Defence contention that the accused Lazar did not meet Witness B until the end of 2012 or the beginning of 2013. His evidence only went to the timing of when Lazar met Witness B. Mr Diez had no contact with Witness B, however had connections with a person called Ken Gale and his transgender partner. Mr Diez never met Witness B, despite being the accused Lazar's account manager during the relevant time. Dennis Mirosavic 1. Dennis Mirosavic was called on behalf of the Crown on the issue of when the accused Lazar met Witness B. Mr Mirosavic met the accused Lazar in late 2010, and commenced working with him on 10 January 2011. He stopped going into the office and working for him at the end of 2012. Mr Mirosavic gave Lazar a resignation letter on 10 January 2013. Mr Mirosavic said he did not meet Witness B, but he said he was involved in the Jacobsen case, and heard the accused Lazar saying on the phone that Witness B was not allowed to come up the stairs, and that he would meet him outside. He thought that conversation was before May 2012. 2. Mr Mirosavic made his statement to the Police on 2 August 2019. His evidence does not corroborate Witness B's evidence that he was Lazar's bodyguard and working in Lazar's office from 10:00 am – 12:00 pm on a daily basis. In cross-examination, Mr Mirosavic said he had a falling out with Lazar. He also said that he was in a civil dispute with Mr Lazar in 2011. This witness was unreliable as to dates and never met Witness B. I put little weight on his evidence. Raed Rahal 1. Raed Rahal gave evidence on behalf of the Crown. He was, at the time of the gold bar incident, the accused Lazar's solicitor. The accused Lazar waived privilege in relation to the telephone intercepts and conversations with Raed Rahal, Barbara Coorey and other solicitors. 2. Mr Rahal gave evidence that in August 2012, at the request of Lazar, he handed over volumes of material to Detective Senior Constable Roberts. Mr Rahal also gave evidence in respect of Witness D being provided with a cheque on 14 June 2012, which she signed a receipt for in his presence. The cheque was advanced to her in the amount of $221,000. Mr Rahal said that he advised Lazar in respect of Detective Senior Constable Roberts. He also said at the time of those calls that Lazar was suicidal, manic, and depressed. He said he advised Lazar that he was under no compulsion to provide a statement to Detective Roberts. 3. Mr Rahal also said he met Witness B, and thought it was late 2012. Mr Rahal said that the accused Lazar was paying Witness B money regarding a deal relating to a property in Alexandria, and another deal involving a tugboat. He also said that there was an amount of $200,000 paid into a trust account of Macquarie lawyers. He was asked: Q. Do you know what that payment was in respect of? A. Memory serves me correctly, it was because there were threats being made to Al and by [Witness B] requiring – Q. What kind of threats, do you know? A. My understanding was physical harm threats suggesting that he was going to do certain things to him if money wasn't paid back and that's the basis of that payment. [T 343.25 – 37] 1. Mr Rahal said he also received instructions from the accused Lazar to lodge a complaint in respect of Detective Roberts [T 346.25]. 2. Mr Rahal was also asked questions in relation to an assault involving Witness B in 2013. Mr Rahal also said that there were complaints made to Police by Lazar regarding Witness D. Detective Sergeant Craig Simons 1. Detective Sergeant Craig Simons was called in his capacity as a member of the Professional Standards Command to inform the Court that he had searched the official records and did not find a complaint made by either accused against Detective Senior Constable Roberts. Officer in Charge Detective Senior Constable Dianne Erhardt 1. Detective Erhardt prepared a table of phone numbers (Exhibit O), relating to the phone numbers listed in the Call Charge Records of Constantinidis' phone ("CCRs") (Exhibit P). Detective Erhardt also marked a number of calls in the CCRs by highlighting them in yellow, which she said were relevant to the proceedings. The Crown relies on the CCRs as being calls made from Constantinidis to Witness B, and vice versa, from 18 August 2012 to 25 August 2012. The Detective explained that there are duplicate entries in the records, and there was a technical reason why the calls repeat on the records when a call goes to a different carrier. The telephone intercepts were played through Detective Senior Constable Erhardt. 2. In cross-examination, Mr Vasic asked Detective Erhardt whether Constantinidis had any criminal convictions in New South Wales; he had one conviction on his federal record [T 481.1 – 5]. The conviction in 1996 was for "Failure to attend before taxation officer when and as required". A fine was imposed. Detective Erhardt said Lazar had no criminal convictions. 3. Detective Erhardt also gave evidence that Witness B produced documents to her during the course of the investigation. The documents were produced in cardboard folders [MFI 12]. She said Witness B made his first statement on 27 November 2014. The statement was an induced statement and related to a number of matters of which the gold bar was one. Detective Senior Constable Roberts 1. Detective Senior Constable Roberts did not give evidence at the trial. The Officer in Charge gave evidence that Detective Senior Constable Roberts was extremely ill, and unfit to attend Court. A medical certificate stating that Detective David Roberts was suffering a severe medical illness was tendered to the Court (Exhibit K). By agreement Detective Roberts' statements were also tendered (Exhibit L). 2. The redacted version of Detective Roberts' statements can be summarised as follows: Detective Roberts stated that in August 2012 he was detached to Leichardt Detectives Office, and was allocated to investigate the seizure by Police of a gold bullion from Y on 8 August 2012. Enquiries revealed that the gold bullion was valued at approximately $50,000. Detective Roberts confirmed that he had numerous conversations with the accused Lazar, and there were some telephone conversations with Lazar on his work landline, which were not recorded. Detective Roberts produced an email sent to him by Lazar on Thursday 9 August 2012, at 15:43, which stated "From my point of view, I am only interested in the money that this character [Y] has owed various entities for four years over two properties… In terms of your request for me to make a statement in relation to the ownership of the gold bar in question, I confirm I will be making the necessary legal claims one has to make in order to recover my money. I have spoken to my lawyer on the basis that you require me to make a statement, which I am happy to do, but he is not available tomorrow. Could you please let me know your next convenient day so that I am able to come to the meeting with legal representation to ensure that I am not in any way prejudicing my legal entitlement and claim on the gold bar that you have seized from [Y]". Detective Roberts said that he drafted a statement for Lazar, based on the information Lazar had provided, with a view that he would complete the statement when he came in. Detective Roberts said he had a conversation with Detective Sgt John Flores from the Fraud and Cybercrime Squad, and as a result of that communication, he suspended the investigation into the gold bar. 3. [REDACTED] Telephone intercepts 1. Evidence relating to the telephone intercepts was tendered through the Officer in Charge Detective Senior Constable Dianne Erhardt [Exhibit H]. 2. The Fraud and Cybercrime Squad were investigating Ian Lazar in relation to other matters and had a lawful telephone intercept on his mobile phone. Tendered by the Crown were some of the calls, which occurred between 4 July 2012 and 23 August 2012. Some of these calls pre-date the seizure by Police of the gold bar. The earlier phone calls and texts are predominantly between the accused Lazar and Y, to demonstrate their close relationship. 3. After the seizure of the gold bar by Police on 8 August 2012, there are telephone calls between the accused Lazar, various Detectives including Detective Thew and Detective Senior Constable Roberts, Lazar's lawyers - Mr Tabchouri, Raed Rahal and Barbara Coorey, the Balmain Detectives, and the accused Constantinidis. The accused Lazar was a prolific user of his phone, by voice and text. None of the 227 phone calls tendered in volumes 1 and 2 of Exhibit H and G, besides the McGillicuddy phone call, were between the accused Lazar and Witness B. The calls do not refer specifically to Witness B's involvement by name. The telephone intercepts do however paint a telling portrait of the relationships between the accused Lazar and those he spoke to, and his state of mind at the time. 4. I have listened to each telephone intercept on numerous occasions and have reviewed each of the transcripts. The following is a brief summary of some of the more relevant telephone intercepts, interspersed with the times and lengths of calls relating to Constantinidis' phone from the CCRs calls [Exhibit P]. Although I do not refer to all of the telephone intercepts, I have taken them into account. It is important that I refer to some of the telephone intercepts in more detail than others, to support my findings of fact. The underlining in the telephone intercepts is my emphasis. All tab references refer to Exhibit G, which is the transcript of the intercepted calls. 8 August 2012 – The day of the seizure of the gold bar by Police 1. On 8 August 2012 at 19:46 [Exhibit G, tab 13], Lazar rings Y, organising to meet up. At approximately 20:50 on 8 August 2012, the Police stopped the car with Y, Witness A, and C, and the gold bar was seized. The car was pulled over in Annandale. Witness A then said that Y met with Lazar at an apartment block next to Luna Park. This, she said, was fairly late at night. There are numerous text messages between Y and Lazar, and at 21:31 at tab 18, Y rings Lazar asking to catch up for a coffee, telling him the matter is very urgent and cannot wait till the morning. They arrange to meet at Milsons Point near Luna Park, and Lazar texts Y an address. This meeting is supported by the evidence of Witness A. 9 August 2012 1. On the 9 August 2012, there are text messages between Y and Lazar. Y asks if Lazar is okay, and receives a text about Lazar's personal circumstances. The morning of 9 August 2012 at 00:35, there is a text message from Y to Lazar: "sorry bro to bust your nuts ill bigtime make it up to you!!!" This, I infer, related to Y telling the Police that Lazar owned the gold bar. 2. At 8:09 am [Exhibit G, tab 43], Lazar rings Vodafone, seeking the number for the Australian Bullion Company. He then makes a series of phone calls to the Police to make enquiries into whether Police can tell if a gold bar is stolen or not [Exhibit G, tab 47]. Lazar speaks to Chatswood Detectives Megan Burke and J Locke [Exhibit G, tab 49], and gives an explanation to Detective J Locke as to how he came about the gold bars. He says he was given two gold bars. He names Y and asks, "how does one verify if something is stolen - a gold bar is stolen" [Exhibit G, tab 49, p 6]. He tells the Detectives that he gave the gold bar to Y yesterday, and said, "I bumped into him in the city yesterday. And then I thought he was trying to con me. And then I demanded that he come straight away otherwise I said, I said I'm going to go to the Police and report him" [Exhibit G, tab 49, p 10]. He told the Detectives he gave Y one gold bar, because he did not trust him with two. 9 August 2012, 10:18, tab 50 1. On the 9 August 2012 at 10:18 am, tab 50, Lazar texted Y: "It's not right you took my goods and I have to waste my time trying to recover what is mine. Its like you did it on purpose. You said you had a buyer for me and I generously offered you a commission". 9 August 2012, 10:25, tab 51 1. At 17:00, Lazar sent another text to Y saying, "Mate I haven't seen you in years. I bump into you and say sorry you didn't pay my mortgage of 250 K I lost. I give you another go and more headache. Anyway I will deal with who holds my goods. It's a headache I don't have time for". 9 August 2012, 10:26, tab 52 1. At 10:26, Y responds "I agree with all what you said it's a totally shit go man… I feeling like a complete fucking idiot and a loser!" 9 August 2012, 12:01, tab 59 1. Detective Senior Constable Roberts calls the accused Lazar and asks Lazar to ring him back on the landline. 9 August 2012, 12:51, tab 60 1. Shortly thereafter at 12:51, Lazar texts his solicitor Rahal and says, "Cops have called me over something I'm not even involved in. I need help". There follows a series of phone calls to his lawyers. 9 August 2012, 13:55, tab 65 1. At 13:55 on the 9 August 2012, the accused Lazar rings Detective Roberts and gives a long explanation of his association with Y, why he owed him money, and asks for the gold bar back. Detective Roberts says, "it could be six months, 12 months.. could be two years mate" (before Lazar can get it back). There follows further discussions about Y, and how much money he owes the accused Lazar. Detective Roberts is clearly sceptical of the explanation given by Lazar, and on a number of occasions he says, "do you really think anyone is going to believe that?" He says, "if you come in and ah, you know tell me some truths mate, then you know I'll be very, I can be a very reasonable bloke, you know what I mean?" Lazar says, "look I've got – I can say this: I've done nothing illegal so I'm not worried about the illegalities of it. My only concern as I said to you, is, was discussing things I don't want to be involved with 'cos they've got nothing to do with me. All these other parties that I've never even met, seen or heard of except by reputation, that you're telling me have used my name in some format. So that's my, that's my primary concern". This was not true, Y was well known to Lazar. 2. Detective Roberts then questions Lazar about what he told the Police that morning, and Lazar says, "I told the truth… I thought I was actually robbed because I thought he'd ripped me off because… see the money or the gold if he did sell it, so ah, I didn't believe him until I met him at a coffee shop and, its in all my text messages, on my phone records you can pick up in two seconds. You can see the messages, there is nothing sinister there… I didn't believe him until I, I saw the card, that lady's, the lady's name on the card that I mentioned to you". It seems Y provided a card to Lazar from a Police officer following the seizure of the gold bar. Detective Roberts says to Lazar, "this is going to be investigated no matter how big or small it is… it's gunna be investigated right to the nth degree, mate… if you come in with lies tomorrow, then ah, mate it's going, its going to be much worse for you... Have a good think about it between now and then though, mate." 3. Immediately after this phone call with Detective Roberts, the accused Lazar texts his lawyer Tabchouri, and rings Raed Rahal [Exhibit G, tab 67] to express his concern. 9 August 2012, 14:31, tab 68 1. On the 9 August 2012 at 14:31, the accused Lazar rings his solicitor, Tabchouri, and says, "I've got a situation… in terms of, um, a Detective has called me up this morning in relation to, um, me coming to see them and, ah, he wants me to talk to him about, about the gold bar which is a kilo, um, so it's all legal… a guy got stopped last night who is connected to some criminals. I don't even know the whole story; it doesn't even make sense. Long story short the guy told them the truth that – which is the truth - it belonged to me, right, and he was selling it on my behalf, right? And so that's the truth, right?" The accused talks about Detective Senior Constable Robertson and says, "a - he doesn't believe me and he's trying to get me to say it wasn't mine and its actually theirs, and I'm, and I'm somehow being threatened and heavied by the people, whoever, you know, these other guys associated with it. Which is not actually right?". 2. He is asked by Mr Tabchouri, "So have you got evidence of where you got the gold from?" Lazar answers, "They've got the gold bar, yeah. Its not stolen… or anything like that, you know what I mean? I checked all that stuff before I, before I accepted it. I mean it's, there's, the gold bar's not stolen or anything like that." He was asked, "how did you come to have it?" Lazar says, "it was given to me as security by a party, but they are saying that's bullshit and we're going to find out it was not given to you as security, it belongs to the bloke, um, who had it, who, who alleged, who was saying, he was saying he was selling the bar". Lazar is then asked how they could prove that, and he responds, "a guy called Y. And you know, I haven't seen him for over four years. He owes me two hundred and fifty grand. He was, you know, my position is that he was selling it and I was going to give him a commission so I can get the money in… They're trying to prove that it belongs to them. Apparently he is connected, which I didn't know, to some very heavy people." He tells Mr Tabchouri that Y is a "fraudster" and a "crook", "but at the end of the day he still owes us 450 or 350 from 4 to 5 years ago… The issue is I don't want to avoid the Police because I've got nothing to hide but they, but they want me to say something that, that, ah, you know, is not the position... I don't really want to see them at all. How do I avoid seeing them without - can they subpoena me?" Tabchouri says, "but you want to get your gold bar back don't you?", and Lazar says, "… It's going to take two years, [Detective Roberts] says, you can come in I'm a reasonable guy, you don't have to get involved… I just don't think I'm gonna believe this cock and bull story that you've given a gold bar to this bloke to sell". Lazar says, "the thing is, I can't prove the actual ultimate, ah, origin of it. It's is not illegal, it's not stolen because I checked the numbers, I rang the Australian Bullion Company and all that sort of stuff when I first took it, so I'm not worried about that side of it, but I don't want to be embroiled in stuff that I shouldn't have to be". 3. Mr Tabchouri (sol) then advises Lazar he can prepare a statement, and send it to the Police. Lazar thinks that is not a good idea. 4. The accused Lazar then calls Balmain Detectives and leaves a message for Detective Roberts. There is then a series of text messages between Lazar and Y. 9 August 2012, 17:15, tab 77 1. At 17:15 on 9 August 2012, the accused Constantinidis is speaking to the accused Lazar, and at the same time Lazar calls Leichardt Detectives and leaves a message for Detective Roberts. He continues to talk to Constantinidis and then he also asks to speak to Constable Thew on another call. Lazar makes a number of phone calls attempting to speak to Constable Thew. 9 August 2012, 20:49, tab 80 1. At 20:49 on the 9 August 2012, Constable Thew returns the calls from the accused Lazar. Constable Thew informs the accused Lazar that he met Y the day before. Constable Thew says that Y told him the gold bar was Lazar's. Lazar says, "he is a liar. I mean, you can't believe a word the guy says. There is a whole history with myself and him, I haven't seen him for probably four years…" Lazar then goes on to give an explanation about his relationship with Y. Constable Thew says, "Y is claiming that you've - you've provided him with this bit of gold so that he can sell it and make 10%". Lazar says "Ah, there's a bit more to the story there", and then gives another explanation. Lazar tells Constable Thew that he hadn't seen Y for over four years as Y was behind bars, that Y had robbed him, and that Y takes amphetamines. Lazar told Constable Thew that he deals with distressed mortgages, and that Y had introduced him to 4 people, and one of them was a mining guy, and that Y refused to pay the lawyers, then Y introduced him to another person who owned a big finance company. Lazar goes into a very detailed account of his involvement with Y, including other deals and frauds, and says that Y owed him money. 2. Lazar tells Constable Thew that it makes sense to him that Y had relationships, and could buy gold. Lazar says, "I've been out of this business for a long time, I used to be a gemologist by trade, and that's why I take gold, I take diamonds for extra security". Lazar told Constable Thew that he was pissed off, that he had met Y at 8:00 that morning, and Y had shown him the Police card. Constable Thew asks Lazar if the gold bar was his, and Lazar says, "yeah well its ours, it was taken as security". Constable Thew says, "so basically we're going to keep it unless you can provide receipt of ownership" [Exhibit G, tab 80, p 10]. Lazar tells Constable Thew that he lost a settlement that day on a mortgage with $17,000 default interest in a property because he had been relying on the money (from the gold bar). He says, "can I start an action to get my stuff back? How do I get my stuff back?" Constable Thew asks about the gold bar and says "how did he get it off you in the first place?", and Lazar says, "oh I gave it to him to sell". Lazar tells Constable Thew that he just wants his gold bar back, and wants his money. He tells Constable Thew that he is suffering from the GFC. 3. Lazar refers to Detective Senior Constable Roberts [Exhibit G, tab 80, p 14]. He says, "I was speaking to another bloke today in your department who is trying to tell me it's gonna take, you know, you know, two years… it's ridiculous. I mean, that's ridiculous… so what can I do to get it back?" Detective Thew says, "we need some sort of, um, proof of ownership, some receipt of purchase or something like that; some proof". Lazar says, "I didn't buy it, it was part of some sort of collateral mortgage security, so that Suncorp Metway would… sell off a property in Windsor". Detective Thew again says, "so we need some sort of proof of ownership". Lazar says, "it's not mine personally, obviously I'm the sole director. When I say "I" I don't want to mislead you, it belongs to the company, of which - the company has lent money to a third party. But I'm the sole director. So ultimately me, but it's not me personally". Detective Thew says, "well we're gonna need something like that before we can release it, and we are going to have to get a statement from you saying that on such and such a date I handed over possession of that piece to Y." 4. In this conversation, Lazar tells Constable Thew that he has known Y for 10 years, and that he is aware that Y was facing fraud charges. There is then a discussion about Detective Roberts, and Lazar wants to know who in the Police he should deal with, so they don't double up. He expressed that he was dissatisfied with what Detective Roberts had told him, that it could take about two years to sort it all out. Detective Thew told Lazar that the Police had to be satisfied with documentation before they can give it back to its rightful owner. Detective Thew tells Lazar to send the documentation to him at Leichardt Police station - obviously at this stage Constable Thew is not aware that Detective Roberts had carriage of the matter. Then Lazar makes a complaint about Detective Roberts and says, "so, the other thing he was trying to say - that there were other people involved and other people in the car - and he was trying to say it just didn't make sense to him" [Exhibit G, tab 80, p 25). This phone call was lengthy. I have attempted to summarise the most salient parts. 10 August 2012, 8:57, tab 85 1. On 10 August 2012 at 8:57 am, Lazar calls the accused Constantinidis and recounts the conversation he had with Detective Thew the previous evening. Lazar discusses with Constantinidis what he is going to do, saying "I'm embroiled in something for no reason. Absolutely no reason" [Exhibit G, tab 85, p 3]. He tells Constantinidis he has got so many dramas, and will call him back. 2. On 10 August 2012, there are a number of text messages between Y and Lazar. The messages seems to be regarding a business deal. 10 August 2012, 10:45, tab 90 1. On 10 August 2012 at 10:45 am, Lazar calls Rahal Raed, his solicitor. He recounts his version of the conversations with Detective Roberts and Constable Thew. There is a discussion about why Detective Roberts would be in court, and Rahal says perhaps they mean chambers, to get a warrant. Rahal explains the process to Lazar, and Lazar says that all he really cares about is getting his gold bar back. Rahal said once the Police finish their inquiries and conclude the item is not stolen, they can return it. 10 August 2012, 11:29, tab 91 1. At 11:29 on 10 August 2012, tab 91, Detective Senior Constable Roberts rings the accused Lazar. Detective Roberts arranges a time to meet Lazar to talk about the gold bar. Lazar tells Detective Roberts that there was another Police officer he spoke to, Detective Roberts says, "I've got carriage of the matter at the moment, so just scan those documents to me". Then Detective Roberts says, "mate, the other thing you might want to consider, I told you, you know my thoughts, you know what I believe you should be telling us mate when you come in, and that's the truth… If you've got dramas with people mate, you might want to think about speaking to us on another level too mate, you know what I mean?" [Exhibit G, tab 91, p 4]. 2. In my view Detective Roberts did not believe what Lazar was saying, and by saying "you might want to think about speaking us on another level" he was telling Lazar to inform on Y or others in the car. At the time, Y was well known to the Police. There is an inference that can be drawn that Detective Roberts thought the gold bar was the proceeds of crime. 15 August 2012, 17:37, tab 124 1. On 15 August 2012, Lazar rings his solicitor Barbara Coorey and tells her his version of his relationship with Y, and that he was putting together documents to take down to the Police station to prove ownership of the gold bar. 16 August 2012, 10:04, tab 130 1. On 16 August 2012, 10:04 am, Detective Senior Constable Roberts calls the accused Lazar. Detective Roberts tells Lazar that he wants to see him in the next couple of days. Detective Roberts tells Lazar to meet him at North Sydney Police Station, and Lazar says that is fine. Lazar gives an explanation to Detective Roberts about Y, and says he didn't really know who Detective Roberts was the other day when he was speaking to him. In relation to Y, Lazar says, "he owes us over $1 million, and I'm going to continue chasing him in any way I can to try and get my money… So whatever, whatever else he's doing or involved in or anything, I couldn't care less, but ah, for the record I mean there's no, you know, you mentioned about standovers and stuff like that, he's not exactly a standover guy, we just want our money…" Detective Roberts says "yeah, no fair enough mate, why did he put you in the shit mate, why did he load you up with the gold bar?" Lazar says, "I'm actually pissed off I didn't keep it. I was stupid because he was going, he reckoned he had a retail price, I'm so dumb that I actually, I actually gave it back to him". Detective Roberts says, "are you going to stick to the story that you gave him the gold bar, hey?" Lazar says "no listen, he gave it to me and pissed off, and I gave that back to him... 'cause he can get someone to get a retail price, because I said 'look I'd only give you $35,000 off the debt.' I said, 'mate that's all I'm going to give you.' And then I gave it back to him… he was going to give me the money, 'cause he owes me so much money". 2. Lazar's explanation is corroborated by Witness A, who says she retrieved two gold bars from the speakers, gave them to Y who then met with Lazar. Y took the two gold bars to the meeting and Lazar gave one back to Y. Y had one gold bar when he got back in the car. 3. Lazar says, referring to Y, "I've got a contact that he is desperate to meet who is a very, very big coal miner, so I said, 'mate I'm not going to help you or introduce you to anyone, especially, you know, with all your history, you know, of substance. I'm not going to help you with anything because I'm not in the mining game you know, unless you start paying some of your fucking money back. So that's how the gold bar thing came up you know" [Exhibit G, tab 130, p 5]. Detective Roberts says, "well, if that's the case, you probably won't need a solicitor with you mate, I'll sit down and grab a statement off you… the best course of action for you buddy is to tell the truth". Lazar says, "I've told you the truth, and I'm printing off the documents, all the loan statements, I'm happy to give them to you". 4. Lazar tells Detective Roberts that Y is on "massive charges", and Detective Roberts says "I've got to say, I'm very pleased with your change of attitude mate". Lazar says, "well it's not a change of attitude, I didn't know who you were, I couldn't talk properly, I'm in a small office… The issue I've got to look after is my financial interest. That bar was given to me, it's mine, I still say it's mine. It was not stolen, I checked it was not stolen, otherwise I wouldn't deal with it. He owes me money, and if there's 50 bars, I'd try to take 50 bars, so how do I get it back?" Detective Roberts says, "I'll make some enquiries, and keep you updated, then make an arrangement to meet at North Sydney Police station the following day". 5. I infer from this call that Detective Roberts was aware of Y's criminal history and wanted Lazar to give him information regarding Y. 16 August 2012, 10:47, tab 131 1. At 10:47, tab 131, Constantinidis calls Lazar. Constantinidis asks Lazar if he spoke to "him" (referring to Detective Roberts). Lazar recounts a version of the conversation he had with Detective Roberts that is not quite accurate – Lazar says Detective Roberts told him "mate, you'll have a stress free weekend if you come in tomorrow", and that Lazar said, "mate can you talk to my lawyer". At this stage he says, "I've got so many settlement dramas, its not fair, I'm tired of losing money… I've spoken to Rahal, and we're going to see him next Tuesday". Lazar says, "I just can't deal with all this trouble". 16 August 2012, 13:51, tab 136 1. Constantinidis calls Lazar. There is a discussion about paying money to Witness D. Lazar says she has received a lot of money: $12,000, $5,000, $3,000, $2,000. "She's received money right?" This conversation seems in part to relate to a caveat on her property [Exhibit G, tab 136, p 7]. 2. I infer from this phone call that the accused were speaking about Witness D's property. As Witness D was the wife of Witness B, I also infer that Lazar knew Witness B at this time. 16 August 2012, 18:43, tab 141 1. At 18:43 on the 16 August 2012, Lazar rings Constantinidis, and tells him that Rahal tried to call Detective Roberts, and he didn't answer his phone, and he was concerned that Detective Roberts was thinking he would see him the next day. Constantinidis advises Lazar to email Detective Roberts, or leave a message. 2. They speak about other issues with the press. They also talk about a Police raid on Lazar's lawyers in Melbourne. 16 August 2012, 19:30, tab 142 1. On 16 August 2012, at 19:30, Lazar calls Constantinidis to talk about other issues, including the fraud squad, and the senator (which relates to an unrelated matter). Then Lazar tells Constantinidis that Rahal could not get hold of Detective Roberts, and he was concerned he might just rock up at Lazar's house. Constantinidis says to tell Detective Roberts he is not available. Lazar says, "please don't joke with me, I'm not stable". 16 August 2012, 22:57, tab 143 1. At 22:57, Lazar rings Rahal, and asks him if he is going to ring "this dickhead in the morning" (referring to Detective Roberts). 17 August 2012, 7:53, tab 145 1. On 17 August 2012 at 7:53 am, Detective Senior Constable Roberts calls Lazar and says that the meeting is for 10:30 am at North Sydney. Lazar tells him that his solicitor tried to ring him, and that he has an unrelated drama. He then says, "I've been set up by a dirty piece of shit that's been going for three years, who owes me a couple of million dollars, I'm in to court with. You know, he went to the media yesterday". Lazar says he will get his solicitor to ring him, Detective Roberts says, "if he doesn't ring me see you at 10:30". 17 August 2012, 8:10, tab 146 1. At 8:10 am, the accused Lazar speaks to his solicitor Raed Rahal about Detective Roberts. Lazar says, "I don't have the headspace today to deal with this bullshit" - i.e. to deal with the matter. Rahal tells him that Detective Roberts is persistent, and asked him to speak to Lazar. He says their position is not changing - they want to take a statement. Rahal tells Lazar he told Detective Roberts that they had other matters on that were more concerning. Detective Roberts told Rahal that Lazar gave him a bullshit story to start with, and then told him the truth. There is discussion about the previous phone call, and further discussion about Detective Roberts being persistent. 17 August 2012, 10:22, tab 150 1. At 10:22 am, Detective Senior Constable Roberts calls Lazar, Lazar tells him that he is dealing with other matters in Melbourne, putting out bushfires and trying to save his business. Lazar says that this all has nothing to do with the gold bar matter. Detective Senior Constable Roberts says, "mate, it looks to me like you're stuffing me around buddy." Lazar says, "well mate if you read the Melbourne Age then you can believe I'm not stuffing you around, there are allegations of fraud and you know the money that I was owed from this piece of shit who…" Detective Roberts says, "mate this is a half hour statement, mate, a half hour statement." Lazar agreed that it might be but he is trying to save his business. Lazar says, "[a]s I said to you I am happy to come and see you I've got nothing to hide so I don't care but you know I've got another issue which has nothing to do with this right now. You've no idea what I'm going through at the moment…" Detective Roberts says, "I'm trying to reduce your stress buddy", and Lazar says "well I don't stress on this, I couldn't care less I've got stress on other things trying to keep my reputation and my whole business, that's my stress at the moment…" Detective Roberts says, "if you leave it.. I'm treating you as witness, the longer you leave it the less likely you'll be treated…" Lazar says that he just cannot do it today. Detective Roberts asks when Lazar is going to be able to do it. Lazar says, "as long as I can get all my problems out I can do it, say Monday or Tuesday. I've gotta try and save my business. Go and check the Melbourne Age.. I'm gonna do it, because 100 per cent I want my bar back, I've just got other dramas at the moment…" Detective Roberts and Lazar make an appointment for the following Tuesday. 17 August 2012, 10:25, tab 151 1. At 10:25 am, Lazar calls Barbara Coorey, his solicitor, and tells her that Detective Roberts is bullying him, and gives her a version of his previous conversation with Detective Roberts. He says to his lawyer, "he's rung me, I don't see any point to piss him off, I've got nothing to hide with him he knows he doesn't care about me anyway… I don't really think he cares because the reality is he doesn't… he knows, ah that I can help him. Like in other words, I'm not involved in whatever he is investigating. He knows that it's got nothing to do with me. He knows that and he needs my signature to help, ah, whatever, whatever… I cannot believe what shit I've got to deal with in my life for no reason instead of trying to make money…" 20 August 2012, 13:14, tab 165 1. On 20 August 2012 at 13:14, Lazar calls Constantinidis and they discuss Detective Roberts. He says to Constantinidis, in summary, that he knows there is a process involved that his lawyer has told him, "but it is not right and its not fair that I don't get a chance to just give my documentation and squash it". He then complains about Detective Roberts not answering him. Constantinidis tells Lazar that Detective Roberts does not have to answer Lazar's calls, and that Lazar is no different to 5 other investigations he is doing. Constantinidis says, "you can't have it your way. These are authorities. Why do you wanna go pushing the envelope? Why do you wanna go sticking your nose out? To get it chopped off?" Lazar says, "I've got nothing to hide, that's why". He says he wants to hand documents over to him and Constantinidis says, "well why don't you ring the fucking Commissioner. What do you want to do?" Constantinidis is not accepting Lazar's complaints. Volume 2, Exhibit G, 20 August 2012 – 23 August 2012 20 August, 22:09, tab 171 1. On 20 August 2012 at 22:09, the accused Lazar sent a text message to his solicitor Rahal which reads, "see you at 9-ish. [REDACTED]. You need to hand the paperwork over and ask for a draft statement. [REDACTED]. You need to tell him what happened with Nikki. I will provide statement shortly. Talk in the morning". 21 August 2012, 7:10, tab 173 1. On 21 August 2012 at 7:10, solicitor Rahal sends a text to Lazar, saying "The cop will charge you out of spite Ian. Trust me I know how these people work. If you are not there then he will find something to charge you with. You are better off just getting this thing out of the way". 21 August 2012, 7:12, tab 174 1. At 7:12 am, Rahal sends another text to Lazar: "Have you spoken to the cop today already? You may not want to come out to North Sydney simply to collect the documents, we need to let him know what is going on." 21 August 2012, 7:12, tab 175 1. Lazar sends a reply text to Rahal that reads, "I had a meeting last night. Anyway I will see you at 9:30?" 21 August 2012, 7:13, tab 176 1. A further text was sent by Lazar to Rahal, "We have to call him or I was told you." 21 August 2012, 7:13, tab 177 1. At 7:13 am on 21 August 2012, Rahal calls Lazar to speak about the meeting with Detective Roberts. They have a discussion about when and where Rahal is to meet Detective Roberts, and about giving him the documents, and asking the Detective to prepare a draft statement. The solicitor and Lazar agree to meet, so Lazar can explain everything to him, and Rahal can drop off the documents to Detective Roberts. Lazar tells Rahal to go without him. Rahal tells Lazar that he should speak to the Police or cooperate, because he might get charged. Rahal says, "you know, they're very spiteful some of these pricks, and this guy comes across as being a pretty spiteful prick, believe me". 2. Lazar then says, "Yeah but I believe he's got a meeting with his um, with his… other people". There is an inference that can be drawn that Lazar was referring to Detective Roberts meeting with Senior Police. 3. There is a lengthy discussion between Lazar and the solicitor about what to tell Detective Roberts. Lazar wants Rahal to tell Detective Roberts about his issues with his wife, the baby, and the termination. Rahal asks Lazar for the name of the Detective, and whether he should drop into Leichardt or see him in North Sydney. 4. This is an important phone call. I have listened to it on a number of occasions. In the call, Lazar was very careful about what he was saying to Rahal. He told Rahal, "I had a meeting". He also told Rahal this via a text [Exhibit G, tab 175]. I infer the meeting directly relates to Detective Roberts, as it was raised in the telephone call and said in a way that implied it was related to Detective Roberts but that Lazar could not openly discuss the meeting with Rahal on the phone. 21 August 2012, 7:51, tab 178 1. On 21 August 2012 at 7:51 am, Lazar calls Constantinidis and they have a conversation about what the solicitor Rahal has said. Lazar recounts his whole conversation with the solicitor. He says to Constantinidis, "Rahal reckons, if I don't go… he said that ah, just to spite me, they'll charge me." He says, "this character will, will like charge me if I don't go. But I'm not going. I'm listening to what you, what your advice…" They discuss what to do. Constantinidis advises Lazar to send the lawyer only, and [REDACTED]. 2. In this phone call Lazar is concerned that the Police will charge him out of spite and says to Constantinidis, "Please this is important, what do I do?" Constantinidis says to Lazar, "…I explained to them what you had said to me, that they would, you know, arrest you out of spite. I said, 'can he just do that?' He said no. He said, 'He's got to have a, he's got to get his charge sheet ready. He's got to… report'". 3. Lazar asks Constantinidis if he is sure he should only send Rahal. Constantinidis says, "Raed's got to appear cooperative…" Lazar says, "Are you sure 'cause otherwise it can become catastrophic for me". The conversation ends with Lazar saying, "I just hope you believe it is what it is", and Constantinidis replying, "…it's a hundred percent". 4. This conversation is also important. Lazar is concerned he will be charged. It can be inferred that Constantinidis is taking advice from Witness B regarding whether or not Lazar should speak to Detective Roberts. The very next call Constantinidis makes is to Witness B at 8:14 am [Exhibit P, CCRs, p 11]. Immediately after the call to Witness B (which lasted 21 seconds), Constantinidis makes another call to Lazar [Exhibit G, tab 179]. 21 August 2012, 8:19, tab 179 1. At 8:19 am, Constantinidis calls Lazar back after speaking to Witness B. Constantinidis reassures Lazar that not attending the Police Station with Rahal is the right thing to do. Lazar says that Rahal is on his way to him to pick up the paperwork. Lazar asks if Rahal should just head there with the paperwork? Constantinidis says, "Yeah you shouldn't tell him you're not coming, that's what they said". Lazar then says he will ring Detective Roberts and make an appointment. 21 August 2012, 8:20, tab 180 1. Lazar then rings Rahal, and Rahal tells him that Detective Roberts thinks Lazar is coming. Rahal then says, "I'm telling you mate, I don't know who you've spoken to, but I have a sense right down to my bones… he'll charge you" [Exhibit G, tab 180, p 2]. Rahal gives Lazar some wrongheaded advice, and says "I understand that, but if um, it's not going to be very difficult for him to just put a charge through on suspicion. I mean, they're allowed, they've got the power to do that now… the onus is on everybody else to prove the legitimacy of items, not Police" [Exhibit G, tab 180, p 2]. Rahal then says he is heading to Detective Roberts now to give him the documents. 21 August 2012, 8:21, tab 181 1. At 8:21 am on 21 August 2012, Lazar calls Constantinidis. They discuss what Rahal is doing, and Lazar tells Constantinidis that the Detective said, "mate, as long as he comes down and he is treated as a witness otherwise he won't be. Mate, I'm fucking telling you, fuck, I am fucking tell you that Raed says Police have powers to do anything… these guys have the powers to do anything" [Exhibit G, tab 181, p 2]. Constantinidis says to Lazar, "Well I'll ring him, let me ring him and I'll tell him to ring you. I'll get someone to ring you direct… I'll ring them to ring you direct". Lazar's voice sounds panicked at this point. Constantinidis asks Lazar, "what time does he want you there?", and Lazar says, "I don't know, like in an hour or so. But it means I've got to, I've got to go and have a shower and stuff." 2. Immediately after this call, at 8:23 am, Constantinidis calls Witness B and has a lengthy discussion with him for 445 seconds. After that call at 8:46 am Constantinidis calls Lazar. 21 August 2012, 8:46, tab 182 1. At 8:46 am Constantinidis calls Lazar and says, "I've spoken to him", and Lazar says "It's totally contradictive to what you, what you believe." Constantinidis says, "He said to wait 15 minutes". There follows a series of text messages between Rahal and Lazar talking about meeting Detective Roberts. Lazar asks what time the appointment is, and Rahal says, "no appointment. Just walk in." 21 August 2012, 9:21, tab 187 1. At 9:21 am, Constantinidis calls Lazar. Constantinidis tells Lazar, "the other guy just rang me. Apparently they're talking now… so just wait for five minutes. Because I was pushing them for time." The conversation seems to relate to Detective Roberts and whether he has a full day of meetings. Lazar says, "He told Raed to show up at any time". Constantinidis tells Lazar to just wait. 2. The next phone call Constantinidis makes is at 9:29 am, to Witness B. This phone call lasts 6 seconds. 21 August 2012, 9:30, tab 188 1. At 9:30 am, the accused have another conversation. Lazar tells Constantinidis that he is with his solicitor, Rahal, at the moment, and he hasn't made a time to see Detective Roberts. Constantinidis asks to speak to Raed. Lazar says, "Do you want me to ring from the office number or this number", and Constantinidis says the office number. The very next call on the CCRs is Lazar's office number 8081 8000 calling Constantinidis [Exhibit P, p 12]. The conversation lasts for 410 seconds. Immediately after that call, Constantinidis calls Witness B at 9:38 am for 17 seconds [Exhibit P, p 12]. 2. At 9:43 am, Lazar's office phone calls Constantinidis for 42 seconds. These calls are not recorded as there were no telephone intercepts on Lazar's office phone number. 21 August 2012, 9:42, tab 189 1. At 9:42 am, Detective Roberts rings Lazar, and asks him if he is on his way in to the Police Station. Lazar tells Detective Roberts he is going to the doctor to get a prescription, and then is coming in. When asked if he is with his solicitor, Lazar says, "no, I'm waiting for him. He is in the area, he's running late. I had to go to [REDACTED] to get some medication". Lazar tells Detective Roberts he will be in around 10:30. 2. At the time of this conversation, Lazar's solicitor had already come to his office and spoken to both Lazar and Constantinidis. 3. From 9:45 to 10:09, Constantinidis calls Witness B seven times [Exhibit P, CCRs] and these calls last for varying lengths of time. 21 August 2012, 10:02, tab 190 1. Lazar calls Constantinidis, who says "I'm just on the other line… Yeah I'm talking to them." At this time the CCRs indicate Constantinidis is on a call from 10:01 am to phone number 0414309977, for 442 seconds. Constantinidis then calls Witness B at 10:09 am, and Lazar at 10:10 am. The Crown has not adduced any evidence as to the subscriber of the phone number 0414309977. 21 August 2012, 10:09, tab 191 1. At 10:09 am, Lazar rings Constantinidis. The conversation relates to Detective Roberts, Lazar says he is at the doctor's. Constantinidis asks Lazar if Detective Roberts rang him direct, he says, "I've been asked to ask you specifically, did he ring you direct". Lazar then tells him about the conversation. He says, "Yes he did, in front of Rahal". I infer Lazar is talking about Detective Roberts. The conversation continues as follows: Constantinidis: Mate, they just cannot believe he's been told not to contact you, right, and they cannot believe that he is. Like they're gonna, the guy's gonna fuckin' get fired. Lazar: And I told him I've got to go to the doctor and I, and I might be there around 10:30, although I haven't spoken to the lawyer yet. I don't know what (unintelligible), you know? Constantinidis: Mm. He seems, he seems to have gone off the fucking rails. (Long pause). See, the thing is, you know, they've, they've been there, you know, on Friday and had a look. So it's not as if there's, there's something – unless, you know, unless he took information away from the station, took it home. And… Lazar: Well he probably did. [Exhibit G, tab 191, p 3]. 21 August 2012, 10:17, tab 192 1. At 10:17 am, the accused speak to each other again. Constantinidis is quite upset and says, "they said there is nothing that you can be charged with not even obstruction… I said to them that you received 100 fucking texts of harassment. Ah, your wife's overseas, just, you know, went there to have an abortion for a baby that's not yours; you had to move out on the weekend; you're literally living out of a can and, you know, there's boxes everywhere. And your, you know, your stress levels have gone through the fucking roof. Your… account manager's walked out…" Lazar says, "it's all the truth… why did the guy ring me again?" (referring to Detective Roberts). Constantinidis says, "I - they don't know. They're obviously doing something from their end.. he's obviously saying that he's not bothering you at all, cos they told him that he's not to contact you. But you don't want…to fuck at that level, it doesn't matter who the fuck you are… I've said to them, 'Look maybe you guys go fucking get him…and say you want to talk to him'. You're better off talking to them and whatever and then they can say they're talking to you because of their connection and their case". Constantinidis seems to be referring to speaking to Police, who can talk to Lazar, and can talk to Detective Roberts and take him off the case because of "their" case. This is an interesting conversation, because this is precisely what did occur. Senior Police in the Fraud Squad took Detective Roberts off the case because they were investigating him for fraud. 2. The accused discuss Lazar's stress and [REDACTED]. They then discuss Detective Roberts, and how he should not be calling Lazar direct. Constantinidis asks what Rahal thinks, and whether Rahal was there when Detective Roberts called Lazar. Lazar confirms Rahal was present when Detective Roberts rang him [Exhibit G, tab 192, p 5]. Lazar says Rahal said that Detective Roberts "he's allowed to ring me because I'm a witness - that's the point, I'm a witness therefore he is allowed to call me" [Exhibit G, tab 192, p 5]. Constantinidis says, "but he can't force you to do anything and he can't force you to give a witness statement… If he's harassing you to the point where it's intimidation, that he is trying to threaten you, you know prosecuting you if you don't give a statement. You are not allowed to do that". It seems that Lazar is at the doctors at the time of the call, because he asks for a comprehensive report [REDACTED]. 3. At 10:33, 10:47 and 10:49 am, Constantinidis calls Witness B [Exhibit P, p 13]. Also there are two calls from Lazar's office landline to Constantinidis at 11:00 and 11:07 am. 21 August 2012, 11:12, tab 193 1. At 11:12 am on 21 August 2012, Constantinidis calls Lazar. Lazar tells him he has just left the doctor and asks, "Did you speak to anyone?". Constantinidis says "Yeah, I've spoken to them twice. Just hang in there. They're just waiting for their senior to make contact and to instruct - I've, I've actually asked for them to ring you to, you know…contact you themselves direct. So they said just wait until they – they're sorting something out between them" (Apparently from the conversation at this time Rahal was going to drop off the documents to Detective Roberts, [REDACTED]). 21 August 2012, 11:36, tab 194 1. At 11:36 am, Lazar rings Rahal. Rahal tells Lazar that Detective Roberts is still adamant that he wants a statement that day. Detective Roberts said to Rahal, "well I just want him to give me something along those lines, even if it's a notebook statement that I get from him, whatever he is". Lazar says, "did you tell him I need the money? I want my gold bar back cos it's mine". Rahal says, "Detective Roberts says 'I haven't completed my investigations yet'" Rahal says he told Detective Roberts that Lazar was going to the doctor, and that his doctor was talking about [REDACTED]. Lazar says, "did you tell him how bad what's happened to me? Did he give a shit?" Rahal says, "not really. Rahal says that the Detective threw in a comment saying, "I don't think Ian realises that somehow he's in the middle of something that really he has no idea about what it is, but it's not good" [Exhibit G, tab 194, p 3]. Lazar says, "but I'm not involved in anything. I don't know anything". There is a lengthy discussion about what Detective Roberts said. Lazar says, "all I want to do is get my money back that I'm owed for four years. I've done nothing wrong. I get embroiled in all these things innocently to get my money back… I get offered a form of currency which is legal and I have dramas". 2. Rahal tells Lazar that Detective Roberts needs him to introduce the documents, Lazar says "they're simple loan agreements and mortgage documents – they're all stamped, they're all registered - how hard is it to work out". Rahal says that Detective Roberts is not going to issue warrants and subpoenas and all that shit. 3. Lazar says, referring to the gold bar, "it belongs to me, I stupidly gave it back to him. It was given to me as payment. It's not stolen, why can't I get it back". Rahal recounted what Detective Roberts said – that he could not possibly be satisfied that it wasn't stolen. Lazar responds, "because I rang up 100 dealers. I rang five of them". Then Rahal tells Lazar, "reading his body language and the way he's responding – if you do not give him something as a witness, this bloke will spitefully take the matter to a different stage". 4. Then Lazar asks what his physical appearance is, and Rahal says that he is big, strong, well-built, and that "he's one of those blokes – he's a meathead... he acts like - he sounds like a meathead, he looks like a meathead, and believe me, he will act like one accordingly. Just out of spite, I can just see it" [Exhibit G, tab 194, p 11]. Lazar is getting increasingly upset, and says he can't think straight, and [REDACTED]. Rahal tells Lazar that he has passed everything on to Detective Roberts, but that the Detective needs this statement to move it along [Exhibit G, tab 194, p 13]. Rahal says he was adamant that he was going to try and see Lazar that day. Lazar tells Rahal to, "keep your phone on, give me 15 minutes I'll call you straight back". In my view, Rahal's advice was making Lazar more anxious that he would be charged. 5. At 11:44, Constantinidis calls Witness B. 21 August 2012, 11:46, tab 195 1. At 11:46, Lazar rings Constantinidis, and passes on his version of what Rahal told him about the meeting with Detective Roberts - that is, that Detective Roberts is adamant he wants a statement from Lazar that day, "otherwise he will turn me from a witness into something else. He reckons that I'm embroiled in something that I don't know anything about". Lazar tells Constantinidis that Detective Roberts is adamant that he is going to see him today, to which Constantinidis says, "he can get fucked". Lazar then passes on the physical appearance of Detective Roberts, and says, "if I don't give him what he wants I become part of whatever else he's doing. I'll be part of it, I'll be party to it. I don't even know what he's talking about." Lazar tells Constantinidis that Detective Roberts didn't care about the documents, and didn't care about his medical condition. He said, "I don't know what our lawyers are doing but obviously they can't do much". 2. Lazar sounds panicked and says, "This guy is going to try and come to me. He's going to come to me today to try to see me." Constantinidis says, "I'll fuckin' deal with it". Lazar says, "When?", Constantinidis yells at Lazar and says, "NOW! What do you think I'm fucking doing? Sitting around here? For fucks sake…" 3. Immediately after this call, Constantinidis calls Witness B at 11:51 am and 11:57 am [Exhibit P, CCRs]. 21 August 2012, 11:57, tab 196 1. At 11:57 am on 21 August 2012, Detective Roberts rings Lazar. Lazar tells him that he has got a lot going on, that he is not mentally well, and gives the Detective many reasons why he cannot make a statement. He tells him that it is not that he doesn't want to, and that he is in a mess and trying to run his business. Lazar says, "I don't even know what day it is today." Detective Roberts keeps pressing him, and says, "I know… things are going on in your life buddy, but I'm not going to stop". He tells him he will come and get a statement from Lazar. Lazar continues to tell the Detective he is not coping, and this is demonstrable in his manner of speaking. Lazar seems to be crying whilst talking to Detective Roberts. 2. Lazar then says, "the biggest worry with this story is I need liquidity. I've got so many people who owe me money and I can't get my money back, and I need that money. And that's what I need, I need that bar back so I can get money back into my bank and pay bills" [Exhibit G, tab 196, p 9]. Detective Roberts is adamant he will not stop until he can get a statement, and he says, "well mate, if you're, if you're not cooperating with me, mate, if you're not cooperating with me, how do you expect any cooperation in return?" Again, Lazar says he is in a state, but Detective Roberts doesn't let up on him and says, "well I will call you back in about an hour or two hours". Lazar responds, "well mate, depending on what happens you might have to come to [REDACTED]." Detective Roberts says that that is okay. Lazar is crying and says, "I can't cope". Detective Roberts says, "well mate, it sounds like you've got to get your shit sorted out, mate… I'll leave you alone for a couple of hours and give you a call later on". Lazar seems to continue crying. 21 August 2012, 12:03, tab 197 1. At 12:03, immediately after the phone call with Detective Roberts, Lazar rings Constantinidis and tells him that Detective Roberts had just rung him, giving him two more hours. Lazar is not crying at the start of this phone call, and seems suddenly much calmer. Lazar says "I can't cope, I was crying on the phone to him…he fucking realised that fucking at the end of the day I'm not avoiding him. The reality is I don't, I can't deal with him, I can't deal with anything. I've got so much pressure I… burst into tears on the phone with him, you know, 'cause I was thinking about other things… so he - he actually realises that I, that you know, fucking I'm in a fucking mental state. And anyway I told him [REDACTED], and he says he's not going to go away". Constantinidis says, "[REDACTED] he's not even allowed to contact you". 2. Lazar recounts more of the conversation and says, "I just don't understand why I'm being harassed." Constantinidis is very upset and says, "I've never, I have never – have you ever in your life heard of anything like this? This is the most bizarre fucking thing… you could ring his fucking superior and fucking file a complaint". Lazar tells him that Detective Roberts said he is not letting up, Constantinidis says, "well you're not going to see him without Rahal", and he says "if he ambushes you, you are entitled to have a representative there". Constantinidis tells Lazar to ring his boss. Lazar says to Constantinidis, "can you do something?" Constantinidis says, "I am doing everything". 3. Then there is reference to a caveat and email, but this topic is not discussed in detail. Then Constantinidis says, "I'll ring you in the next 15 – 20 minutes… Mate, I have rung and rung. What do you want me to do? I'm becoming a pest." Lazar says, "But have you had contact?" Constantinidis says, "Yes! Yes, of course I have", and says he will ring Lazar back. 4. The CCRs show the following calls from Constantinidis to Witness B: at 12:30, at 12:38, and at 14:43 [Exhibit P, CCRs]. 21 August 2012, 14:58, tab 198 1. At 14:58, Detective Roberts rings Lazar. Lazar returns Detective Roberts' call, and Lazar says, "I just don't want you to think I'm bullshitting. My frame of mind is just not right today". Lazar tells him he is on Xanax and has to go to rehab, and Lazar has a long conversation about all his troubles, including his ex-wife, the abortion, and other investigations. Lazar sends Detective Roberts an email [REDACTED]. 2. Detective Roberts does not let up on Lazar regarding obtaining a statement, and says, "well I aim at getting a statement from you first thing in the morning, buddy". It is clear by this stage that Lazar is very stressed and Detective Roberts is not going to stop pursuing him for a statement. 3. At 14:58, 14:59, and 15:00, Lazar calls Constantinidis on his office phone. Witness B calls Constantinidis but the call does not connect. At 15:07, Lazar calls Constantinidis from his office phone. At 15:08, and 15:38, Witness B calls Constantinidis. The last phone call is for 525 seconds. At 16:11, Constantinidis calls Witness B. 21 August, 16:18, tab 199 1. At 16:18 on 21 August 2012, Lazar calls Constantinidis. Constantinidis tells Lazar, "they're on the war path, and something's being done this afternoon, right? That's all I can say to you now… They're trying to address the issue." There is then a conversation about 'caveats' and money clearing. This may or may not relate to a payment for the Detective Roberts matter. 2. At 16:33, Witness B calls Constantinidis, there is no connection. At 16:59, Constantinidis calls Witness B. At 17:07, Witness B calls Constantinidis for 175 seconds. At 20:06, and 20:14, Constantinidis calls Witness B. At 20:16, Witness B calls Constantinidis. 21 August 2012, 20:51, tab 200 1. At 20:51, Lazar calls Constantinidis. He says, "Fuck, what a day… Did you reach further contact with your friend?", and Constantinidis says, "only to stay up. They'll ring me later. Lazar says, "You know I'm helping them on so many different positions on such high levels… you believe that they were fuming…" Constantinidis says "You don't want to hear language like that". 2. Lazar refers to the conversation he had earlier with Detective Roberts, and says "the only reason he calmed down was when I emailed him the, ah, the medical records… when he was ringing me, mate, I was just fucking beside, I was just, I'd had enough of everything… I'll be honest with you, I'm not, I mean, I'm not embarrassed to say it… I was actually crying right?" 3. Lazar goes on to talk more about his conversation with Detective Roberts. He also speaks of $30,000. During the phone call Constantinidis receives a call from Witness B and the call with Lazar was disconnected. The Crown asks the Court to draw an inference that this call from Witness B relates to Detective Roberts. 4. At 20:57, Witness B calls Constantinidis. The CCRs indicate the conversation went for 1468 seconds. At 21:22, Constantinidis calls Witness B and they have another lengthy conversation. It is important to note at this stage that Constantinidis is not making calls to anyone else besides Lazar and Witness B [Exhibit P, CCRs, p 20]. 21 August 2012, 21:40, tab 201 1. At 21:40, Lazar calls Constantinidis. This conversation lasts 481 seconds. There is an inference that can be drawn that the accused talk about Witness B in this phone call, and it is a precursor to the McGillicuddy call, made early the following morning. Constantinidis says, "I got a phone call also from the people we are expecting, they, you might even get a call tonight, they're not sure - just to ask you about the intimidation and what Raed heard and whatever. I just said 'Don't take my fucking word for it', I said 'Hear it yourself', so that's being contemplated at the moment". Lazar says, "Why are they so adamant to hear from me". Constantinidis responds, "Well, because I think they want to bloody well –they're contemplating whether to get Raed to lodge a formal complaint." Lazar says, "well, what good will that do?", and Constantinidis, "'cause they could bury this prick once and for good." Constantinidis says, "they're so annoyed, you can't behave like that mate". Lazar says, "it's Gestapo tactics", and Constantinidis says, "you know, you can't do it! Just because he thinks, you know, his nose is onto something. Stick your nose up your arse. There is a difference between getting the facts and being fair and like having a vendetta about something, you know?" Lazar says, "yeah, like the other character seems to be fair, he just doesn't understand what's going on, he is trying to get the information" (this may be referring to Constable Thew). Constantinidis says, "they were very upset about that. They don't like internally what's going on", and Lazar asks "they feel sorry for me?", which Constantinidis confirms. There is a further lengthy conversation about Lazar's issues. 2. Immediately after the above call at 21:50, Constantinidis called Witness B and they speak for 142 seconds. 22 August 2012, 7:39, tab 202 (McGillicuddy call) 1. This call is the McGillicuddy call. There is no dispute in the trial that Lazar is speaking to Witness B in this phone call. The contents of the conversation can be summarised as follows: 2. Witness B introduced himself as Detective Sergeant Superintendent McGillicuddy, which was, I understand, a fictitious name. Witness B says, "our mate, a mutual friend if you know what I mean. We heard what's happening with you. We know one of the officers at Chatswood has been giving you a hard time." The accused Lazar corrects him and says that it is Leichardt, Witness B asks if it is Robinson, and Lazar responds that it is David Roberts from Leichardt. Lazar clarifies his name, and says "He does not stop habitually harassing me, ringing me." Witness B says, "I want you to understand this very clear - there is no shadow of a doubt that he can't charge you for any reason… I'm on your side and I think you know the team that works with us… that helped you out before, if you know what I'm talking about". This is perhaps a reference to another matter. 3. Witness B tells the accused Lazar that if Detective Roberts has threatened him today, not to go for an interview with Detective Roberts – "You do not go on any circumstances or any time at all". Lazar tells Witness B that Rahal was present when Detective Roberts "was threatening me", and that Rahal heard everything. Witness B speaks to him about giving a statement, but Lazar says he doesn't want to do one, saying, "when he kept pushing me and pushing me I said, 'Look I'll do it when I'm ready'". Witness B tells Lazar that the law is on his side, and "you've got some very, very, very powerful people on your side too… we'll do whatever we can, whatever we can, right? Without making waves to attract any attention". Witness B says, "I don't want you to stress 'cause if you stress, it causes [me] anxiety and I'll get, I'll get the Big Man calling my friend, my friend who gives me the headache…" Witness B in his evidence said that the Big Man is Constantinidis and "my friend" is Witness B. 4. Witness B tells Lazar that he will call Lazar back later on a separate number, and then that he will give Lazar a separate number he can call Witness B on. He says, "in the next couple of days we'll meet up… I'll give you the number in person". Lazar tells Witness B that the phone Witness B is talking on is no good. The Crown asks the Court to draw an inference that Lazar knew his mobile was being taped from what he said in other calls to Constantinidis. Lazar also seemed to know that his office phone was not taped by Police. This raises the question as to who gave him the information that only his mobile phone was being listened to by Police. Presumably only the Police would have this information. 5. Witness B then tells Lazar to put in a complaint (regarding Detective Senior Constable Roberts), and that he is in control now. He then says, "If he rings you today and if he [threatens] - rings you one more time, okay? I will call you, but actually, you will call the Big Man [Constantinidis], you know who I'm talking about? The Big Man will talk to my associate… which is a mutual friend of [both of ours]?" (presumably he is talking about himself). "He will come and see me in person and then... he will deal with it swiftly [accordingly] and quietly and I promise you this much, you'll never hear from him again." 6. At page 10, Witness B refers to Lazar's father and says, "we know [you have a great] father." This reference to Lazar's father is similar to the conversation Witness B said he had with Lazar in person after Detective Roberts was taken off the case. Witness B also refers to Raed Rahal by name, and says that Rahal has to "come in and become a witness", and then, that Witness B "will send you to a lawyer in particular…that will take orders from me. Okay?" 7. Witness B then says that they are going to be interviewing the wrong man today, and Lazar says "I don't know why you got the wrong information, but anyway, lucky you've got the right person now. So you know who we're talking about." There is further discussion between Witness B and Lazar about who the correct Detective is, and how the gold bar situation arose. Lazar says he has proof that the item (the gold bar) is not stolen, and Witness B says, "if you could get one handy for us and I'll get one of my guys, probably… pick it up from you today, ah just so um, we have it on our file…because ah, when, when we approach this guy, um, he's not [approachable] about um, [in certain] circumstances, you understand?" 8. Witness B goes on to tell Lazar that he plans to approach Detective Roberts about a totally different subject, and about the "third party talking about you, and um, and how you're involved with helping our guys in something major… we've got our ways, don't worry." Witness B tells Lazar to "relax, take care and look after yourself", and tells Lazar he knows that Lazar "went to hospital and got a divorce". 9. At page 16 [Exhibit G, tab 202], Witness B says, "Mate, I heard - I mean, ah, the guy [Witness B] that talks to the Big Man [Constantinidis], is a very good, a very good mutual friend of mine. That's the main reason why we're doing this and he told me and he was, actually he was really pissed off… about the circumstances, so um, there are certain, ah arrangements we can make to make you [comfortable]." Witness B talks about how they are going to go through a third party, and how they have done a similar thing on two other occasions. Witness B says, "so, leave it in my hands.. if for any reason he rings you and threatens you, you ring the Big Fellow, okay? And then he will ring my friend, and my friend will ring me, and then we take precautions". 22 August 2012, 7:55, tab 203 1. At 7:55 am, a few minutes after the McGillicuddy call, Detective Roberts rings Lazar and tells him he is coming over to get a statement from him. Lazar tells him he is still in bed, and will call him within the next 40 minutes. Detective Roberts is persistent and says, "I'm getting a statement from you this morning, okay? Did you hear what I said? I don't want you to get your solicitor to call me or anything like that", and Lazar says, "well I have a lawyer, and the lawyer can call you. I'm not well. I'm asleep. I've told you I will deal with it when I can, I'll give you a call in the next 40 minutes". Detective Roberts says, "well, then you give me a call, mate, then I'm coming over to get that statement, okay?" Lazar says, "please don't talk to me like you're threatening me, cos you're sounding like all the Lebos who threaten me for something. I've done nothing wrong". Detective Roberts responds that he is not threatening with anything, "all I'm doing is telling you that I'm going to want this over and done this morning, mate". Detective Roberts is very persistent. 22 August 2012, 7:58, tab 204 1. At 7:58 am, Lazar rings Constantinidis immediately after he has spoken to Detective Roberts, and tells Constantinidis that he has been on the phone for 35 minutes with a guy (McGillicuddy/Witness B), and he says, "somebody who you know probably right? Or you know of right?" Then Lazar refers to the McGillicuddy call and how McGillicuddy had the wrong Police station for Detective Roberts (Chatswood not Leichardt), and Lazar says, "someone rang me up, it sounded like an Indian name… he sounded like he was Indian". Constantinidis says, "Indian name. I think he's a prosecutor." Lazar says, "I don't know who the fuck it is who rang me up. I don't know who the guy is. I don't know, all I know is that the phone didn't stop ringing on private number, you know the bloke." Constantinidis says, "yeah, he said it was going to be a private number". 2. Lazar then gives his version of what Detective Roberts said to him in the call recorded at tab 203. Lazar says Detective Roberts told him he was not to ring his lawyer, and that he told Detective Roberts not to threaten him. Constantinidis says, "he rang you and said he is coming to fucking get you?" Lazar says, "yeah, basically, he goes 'I'm going to come to you, mate, I will be coming whether you fucking like it or not. He told me don't ring your lawyer." Constantinidis says, "you better report this cunt", and then towards the end of the conversation, Lazar says, "he thought [referring to McGillicuddy/Witness B], the Indian guy thought it was the guy from Chatswood." Constantinidis says, "someone's on the phone. Let me answer it. Just wait." Another phone can be heard ringing. According to the CCRs, Witness B was the caller on the other line. At 8:02 am, Witness B called Constantinidis and the call goes for 16 seconds. 3. After the conversation with Constantinidis, on 22 August 2012, at 8:04 am Lazar texts Rahal, "urgent please emergency". 4. Immediately after the call at 8:03 am (which went for 27 seconds), Constantinidis calls Witness B at 8:04 am, and they have a 573 second conversation. 22 August 2012, 8:05, tab 206 1. On 22 August 2012 at 8:05 am, Lazar rings Rahal, his solicitor, and tells him he got a call from a bloke (Witness B/McGillicuddy) and that he spoke to him for about 20 minutes. He says, "in relation to - you know who we spoke about yesterday, you know? With the other guy?" Then Lazar says, "that was fine, that was all good because apparently they have said he thought he was dealing with a different person". This in my view confirms Lazar is talking about the McGillicuddy call, as Lazar thought "they" had the wrong person in that phone call. 2. Then Lazar says that he had 20 missed calls while he was talking to that person on the phone, so he rang the number back and it was Detective Roberts. Lazar gives an account of his phone call with Detective Roberts, about what he says were threats, and Rahal says, "are you really sure you just don't want to give this damn thing - get it over and done with?" Lazar says, "I've been told not to" (by Witness B/McGillicuddy). Rahal says, "I mean this guy is not going to give up, you can just tell he's going to be the type to fucking charge you can just tell. How about you speak to the other solicitor and make sure that they're confident of what they're saying, cos otherwise I really think that if we are going to give a statement that's got no warning attached to, that's given in circumstances where he's telling you you're only a witness, he certainly can't use that against you later on". Again Lazar says, "can you speak to the, to the other bloke - and see if they're confident of what they're saying needs to be done, because you not dobbing anyone in, and you're not saying anything that didn't happen. It certainly doesn't help them take the case any further". 3. Lazar says, "How can he tell me not to talk to a lawyer". Rahal says, "Oh mate, I've had some of them ban fuckin' lawyers from coming before they took the interview. Believe me this is how they work." 22 August 2012, 8:11, tab 207 1. At 8:11 am, Lazar rings Constantinidis. Constantinidis tells him he is on the other line (the CCRs indicate that this call was with Witness B), and he says, "The person that just spoke to you right? He's got an English accent?" Lazar says, "no not English, it sounded, you know.. Pakistani". It is important to note from the CCRs [Exhibit P] that prior to this call Constantinidis had been on the phone to Witness B for 573 seconds at 8:04 am and had received no other calls. 2. The phone call continues and Constantinidis says, "I'm not mentioning names right? But the thing is that the other clown [Detective Roberts] is just being hunted right now. You're not to do anything, you just stay where you are, right?" Constantinidis tells Lazar, "they want you to lay charges, they want you to ring Raed". Lazar says, "the guys gonna try and charge me." Constantinidis says, "he can't. Charge you with what?.. Unless his guys come and fucking get you, if he anywhere even comes near you - that's all trying to be put to bed now". 3. Unfortunately for Lazar, the advice he is getting from his solicitor makes him more anxious. He says, "I am just shocked by what Raed's telling me. He said it sounds like the bloke is going to charge me if I don't do what he wants. He's seen things like this happen every day". Constantinidis tells Lazar to "stay put for the minute". 4. An inference can be drawn that Witness B spoke to Constantinidis about the McGillicuddy call and told Constantinidis that the person who called Lazar had an English accent, as Witness B said in evidence he put on an English accent. Witness B was on the other line to Constantinidis at the time of the call. 5. Immediately after the call at 8:14 am, Constantinidis calls Witness B. The length of the call was 2080 seconds. There is no evidence as to the contents of the call, however an inference can be drawn that it relates to Detective Senior Constable Roberts. 22 August 2012, 8:19, tab 208 1. At 8:19 am, Lazar rings Constantinidis and asks him whether he wanted Detective Roberts' mobile number. He gives Detective Roberts' mobile number to Constantinidis. Then there is a conversation about the McGillicuddy call again. Constantinidis says, "what this guy is saying is you put your feet up for an hour and just watch the fucking TV. They're just going to pick him up and get to the fucking bottom of it, because you know, this is a person that rang you, you don't fuck with" (referring to Witness B/McGillicuddy). Then there is a conversation about whether he was Indian or Pakistani, and Constantinidis says, "I said Indian" - so they both agree it was an Indian not English accent. Constantinidis tells Lazar to calm down, that the person he was talking to told him to just cross his feet. Lazar tells Constantinidis he will ring Rahal and ascertain if Detective Roberts is from Balmain or Leichardt. 22 August 2012, 8:25, tab 210 1. Lazar calls Rahal to ask whether Detective Roberts was from Balmain or Leichardt. Rahal says Balmain. 22 August 2012, 8:26, tab 211 1. Lazar rings Constantinidis and tells Constantinidis that he was right, it was David Roberts from Balmain. Lazar says to Constantinidis "he's fucking threatening me", and Constantinidis says, "he's threatening you, but the guy just asked me.. he said 'he hasn't said I will charge you, has he?'" Lazar says, "no.. but Raed is imputing that he will if I don't do what he wants". Constantinidis says, "well he can't force you to give a statement, it's illegal", and Lazar says, "that's what Rahal said - I either be a witness or if I'm not going to be a witness I could be a defendant… I just want him to leave me alone so I can work". Constantinidis says, "I hear you and you just do as you're told from this person [Witness B/McGillicuddy]". There is a discussion about having the wrong person, and Constantinidis says that they have checked it and "they knew it was Balmain… he cannot touch you." 2. Lazar continues to be upset and says, "I've gotta try and get money". There is further discussion about Detective Roberts, and Lazar expresses his concern that Detective Roberts is just going to "rock up". I take this to mean arrive at his premises to take his statement. Constantinidis tells Lazar to sit tight and he'll get back to him. Lazar says he will wait for Constantinidis' call. 22 August 2012, 8:30, tab 212 1. At 8:30 am, Lazar rings an employee Darren Thorley, his accountant, and tells him about Detective Roberts, and why he is stressing him out. Lazar then asks him what time he is coming in, and when he does whether he can do a fast clearance with a cheque. There is no evidence as to the amount of the cheque, or to whom the cheque was made out to, or whether it was cash. No banking records were tendered by the Crown. The Crown, however, relies on this phone call because it refers to Detective Roberts and the gold bar. 22 August 2012, 8:35, tab 213 1. At 8:35 am, Lazar rings Constantinidis. Constantinidis assures Lazar that the other person said to tell him to stay home and put his feet up for an hour or so, "'cause he is obviously doing what he's doing from his end now". Lazar asks Constantinidis, "do I ring the other guy [Detective Roberts] and tell him to leave me alone? And I'm not going to see him without a lawyer? And Raed can't see him until later today - or something like that?" Lazar wants to know if he should ring Detective Roberts and tell him he is not going to come in this morning, and will try and come in later with Raed Rahal. Constantinidis says, "yes, say your lawyer's in court right? Which he is, isn't he? And you can't see him until you contact your lawyer." and Lazar says, "and you're saying by that time the other matter will be dealt with?" Constantinidis says "100%". The Crown asks me to infer the "other matter" was Witness B dealing with Detective Roberts. 22 August 2012, 8:38, tab 215 1. At 8:38 am, Lazar rings Detective Roberts. Lazar tells him he is not coming in or signing anything without a solicitor present. They speak about his solicitor, Rahal, and Detective Roberts says he is the one that he has met, "he knows I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes or his eyes, mate". There is a discussion about Y, and whether Lazar is cooperating with the Police, and Detective Roberts says he is not trying to trick Lazar, he just wants a very simple statement, and wants to meet Lazar at North Sydney Police Station that morning. Detective Roberts says, "All I'm asking you… to cooperate with Police, okay? Because the alternative is not real good, okay?" 2. Lazar is adamant that he doesn't want to do anything without his solicitor present, and Detective Roberts says, "let's get this thing sorted out this morning", and Lazar says that the minute Raed rings him, he will ring Detective Roberts back. 22 August 2012, 8:55, tab 216 1. At 8:55 am, Lazar rings Constantinidis [Exhibit P, CCRs, p 21]. Lazar tells Constantinidis that he rang Detective Roberts anyway, and that Detective Roberts was friendlier and told him, "let's wrap it up this morning, hey". Lazar said he told Detective Roberts, "I can't get hold of my lawyer", and that they had both agreed Y was a grub. Lazar recounts his version of the conversation to Constantinidis. 2. Lazar then expresses his fear to Constantinidis that he would get charged, and Constantinidis says he won't, saying, "You don't know. I will do anything it fucking takes to take this prick down. You've got no idea". Lazar says, "Mate, he's like the Gestapo". Constantinidis says "it's preposterous, no one can talk to someone like that, you're going to lodge a complaint - you know they've gone out to brief another lawyer for you because they want to use Raed as a witness" (this is what Witness B told Lazar in the McGillicuddy call, that he was going to get him a lawyer of his choosing). Lazar says, "who are you using, Elias [Tabchouri]?", and Constantinidis says, "maybe not, someone else in town. This is ridiculous, they want you to lodge a complaint, this guy's gonna end up in Timbuktu. Mate, you can't go bloody well stick your thumb up at your chain of command… All I know is the guy is fucking threatening you". 3. They discuss how Detective Roberts is acting like a "Leb", and Constantinidis said "that's what I told him, he said good on him". Lazar asks Constantinidis, "but what is stopping this person from just coming to me?", Constantinidis says "he can't, Ian, unless he's got evidence." Lazar says, "I'm not worried about any of that, because there's nothing there". Constantinidis says "he can rock up but you don't have to see him, say 'I'm not giving you a statement and I'm not doing it without my solicitor'". 4. At 9:48 am, Constantinidis rang Witness B, and they talked for 812 seconds. Just prior to this call at 9:49 am, Constantinidis received a call from Lazar's office phone. This call was not recorded. The call was for 278 seconds. 22 August 2012, 9:51, tab 217 1. At 9:51 am, Lazar calls Detective Roberts, and asks him if he can do a draft statement for him. Detective Roberts says that is not a problem, and says, "I'll type out one based on what you've told me". Lazar says, "how do I get my property back? I've got enough evidence to prove that I checked everything properly - that everything wasn't hot, otherwise I wouldn't go near it, because I'm obviously not going to trust this idiot [Y]. How do I get what's mine? I need money, I need to do settlements, I need liquidity…" Detective Roberts tells Lazar "it can't be done overnight, it's something that your solicitor is going to have to make representations." Lazar says, "there's no bullshit between us… I theoretically, conned a conman to trying to, you know, get money from what he owed me which, stupidly – as I said I could kick myself for giving it back to him". Lazar then tells Detective Roberts he was going to give Y $35,000 off his debt, as Y told him he could sell the gold bar for more, and he could get it for probably $46,000. Lazar said he checked the Internet price, and it's about $47,000 - $46,000, meaning it was a $10,000 difference. 2. Detective Roberts then asks Lazar questions (presumably for the statement) about where Lazar met Y that night, when he met him earlier, where the gold bar was, what day it was, how long he had known Y, and in what capacity. Lazar gives him a history of their relationship and Y's background, he tells Detective Roberts that Y had $50 million worth of properties, but that they were bullshit evaluations and Detective Roberts says, "he's got nothing now". Lazar says, "he's either got nothing or he's pretending to have nothing". Lazar goes into more history about properties they had in Ipswich. 3. Detective Roberts asks Lazar what his job description is, and he says "I buy defaulting mortgages from banks… I buy debt". Lazar gives Detective Roberts an outline of his business, and how he used to lend money. He tells Detective Roberts when he first met Y, he was lending with a company called SMSCF, backed by National Australia Bank, and said "we're a lender in the form of buying bank security, I'm a lender who buys mortgages from banks." He said prior to that, he was a gemologist by trade and dealt in stones, diamonds, and gold. Lazar says, "and what about this thing, how do I get it back?" Detective Roberts says, "you have to make representations through your solicitor, we will consider that, get advice from our legals and act on it". Lazar says, "you said to me two years the other day", and Detective Roberts says, "I said it could be up to 2 years". Detective Roberts then tells him, "if you've got a good solicitor, include all relevant details in their reps, as reps will be acted on". Lazar says he will talk to him at 14:00. 22 August 2012, 10:26, tab 218 1. Lazar calls Constantinidis. Lazar asks Constantinidis if he should ring Alexander (who is later revealed to be a solicitor). Lazar asks if Alexander knows anything about it, and Constantinidis says, yes he does. They talk about having three names, Constantinidis says "they don't want you to sign anything or go anywhere". 2. There are numerous telephone calls during this period between Witness B and Constantinidis. At 10:52 am, Constantinidis calls Witness B; at 10:54 am, Lazar calls Constantinidis from his office phone, and at the same time Witness B is trying to call Constantinidis; at 10:56 am Constantinidis calls Witness B back; at 11:00 am Lazar calls Constantinidis from his office phone; at 11:28 am Witness B calls Constantinidis and they speak for 428 seconds; at 11:40 am Lazar calls Constantinidis for 177 seconds; and at 11:44 am Constantinidis calls Witness B for 135 seconds. In between these calls are numerous calls from the office phone used by Lazar at North Sydney. Most of the phone calls from Constantinidis during this period are to and from Lazar's office phone, interspersed with calls to Witness B. 22 August 2012, 12:06, tab 219 1. At 12:06 pm the CCRs indicate Lazar called Constantinidis and they spoke for 231 seconds. Lazar tells Constantinidis he cannot get hold of the lawyer (referring to Alexander), Constantinidis tells Lazar, "he is going to ring you". He becomes annoyed with Lazar for being so impatient, saying that the meeting is not until 14:00, it is only 12:00, and that the solicitor said he would call Lazar by 13:00. At page 3 of the transcript Lazar says, "what about this character [Detective Roberts] who just keeps going to keep habitually ringing me… he's gonna rock up…", and Constantinidis says, "Alexander will tell you they want you to lodge a complaint". Lazar says, "okay that's a separate issue in a different matter. I accept that." Then Constantinidis says, "as soon as you do that, he can't come near you. They're going to fuck him, they're going to fuck him. I don't know what, what his fucking agenda is, but he is not doing what he's fucking told.. it's just unheard of. You're a member of the public, you haven't done anything, you haven't been accused of anything, he is gonna demand that he fucking takes a statement, does this and does that - who the fuck does he think he is". 2. They then talk more about Detective Roberts, and Lazar's [REDACTED]. At page 5, Constantinidis says, "Jesus Christ you're gonna crack… you fucking crack and it's fucked for everyone… did Rahal get in touch with you? Why doesn't he fucking ring you - he is the one causing the problem the son of the bitch". 3. At 12:52, Lazar's office phone calls Constantinidis for 328 seconds, and at 13:51, Lazar's office phone calls Constantinidis for 22 seconds. These calls are not recorded. 4. At 13:51, Constantinidis calls Witness B; at 13:52 Constantinidis again calls Witness B and they talk for 22 seconds; at 13:53 Constantinidis calls Witness B again and speaks to him for 117 seconds; at 14:30, Constantinidis calls Witness B; at 14:26 Lazar's office phone calls Constantinidis for 212 seconds, at 14:33 Constantinidis calls Witness B; and at 14:38, Lazar calls Constantinidis. 22 August 2012, 13:48, tab 220 1. Lazar calls Constantinidis because he is concerned the lawyer hasn't called him back. He asks Constantinidis whether he should ring Detective Roberts, and tell him that the lawyer has not rung him back to give an explanation. Constantinidis advises Lazar not to call him saying, "The more you're talking to him [Detective Roberts], the more you're making him familiar with you". There is also a discussion of whether Darren (the accountant) has come to work. 2. At 15:34, Witness B calls Constantinidis and at 15:39, Constantinidis calls Witness B and has a lengthy call of 272 seconds. Again at 15:54, Constantinidis calls Witness B for 409 seconds, and at 16:03, Witness B calls Constantinidis for 251 seconds. Interspersing these calls are many phone calls between Lazar and Constantinidis that are not recorded [Exhibit P, CCRs, p 27]. At 16:30, Constantinidis calls Witness B and speaks to him for 772 seconds. At 17:38, 17:40 and 17:45, Constantinidis calls Witness B. There was a lot of telephone activity between the accused and Constantinidis and Witness B [Exhibit P, CCRs pp 27 and 28]. 22 August 2012, 17:47, tab 222 1. The CCRs show Lazar ringing Constantinidis [Exhibit P, p 28]. They speak for 192 seconds. They speak about a new lawyer and how much they have to pay the lawyer. The lawyer wants $5,000. Constantinidis tells Lazar that he wants that money because he is starting a new file and a new account, and "if we can't cover legal fees they'll tell us to get fucked". Lazar starts complaining about legal fees and said, "I don't have the money." 2. Constantinidis and Lazar have a frank discussion about all his worries. Constantinidis says, "The world as you know it is falling about at the seams… you're copping the brunt of it", and Lazar says, [REDACTED]. They talk about his boils/shingles on his forehead, and his stress. 3. There are a series of phone calls from Constantinidis to Witness B at 18:09, 18:10, 18:13, 18:16, 18:17, 18:33, 18:34, 18:35, and then Witness B calls Constantinidis at 18:49 [Exhibit P, CCRs, p 29]. 22 August 2012, 21:20, tab 223 1. At 21:20, Lazar calls Constantinidis and they speak for 110 seconds. Constantinidis seems to be quite groggy, as if he has been woken up from sleep. At page 2 of the call, Lazar refers to a call early in the morning, (which could be the McGillicuddy call). He says, "I'm unclear actually who called me, cos I didn't catch the name… anyways, are you saying that there's further meetings happening?", and Constantinidis says, "right now, there's a final one at 11:15 up the road I'm waiting for… There's a meeting again tomorrow, some place". 23 August 2012, 1:01 am – 3:18 am calls 1. In the early hours of the morning on 23 August 2012, Constantinidis calls Witness B at 1:01, 1:41, 2:26 for 285 seconds, 3:02 for 378 seconds, 3:05 but the call doesn't connect, 3:13 for 276 seconds, and 3:18 for 28 seconds [Exhibit P, CCRs]. 23 August 2012, 8:55, tab 224 1. At 8:55 am on 23 August 2012, Lazar calls Constantinidis and speaks to him for 283 seconds. Constantinidis says he was up until 5:00 am, and, looking at his CCRs, he was speaking to Witness B until 3:30 am. He sounds very sleepy on the phone. Constantinidis tells Lazar that at about 3:00 am he fell down the aisle and almost killed himself. Lazar asks him whether he spoke to anyone, and he said "well that's where I was... They have spoken to him somewhat severely", and that they spoke to "him" yesterday very severely two or three times during the evening, "so hopefully there's a different result completely". 2. Then they talk about having an appointment with the lawyer, and it seems like there is a new lawyer to deal with the situation. Lazar just wants know if he is still going to see him, and Constantinidis says, "yes, you still have to see him and he will make an appointment with the lawyer". Constantinidis says that the appointment will be cancelled. 23 August 2012, 11:13, tab 225 1. This phone call seems to have little to do with Detective Roberts, except at the top of page 4, where Lazar is talking about a lawyer and says, "I don't think he knew Raed, some bloody lowlife. I would assume he would have known the guy's name…and the bloke said you know who to stay in contact with" Constantinidis says, "there's more to it, I've gotta talk to you about it". Lazar says, "positive or negative", and Constantinidis says, "positive". He clearly did not want to talk on the telephone about something, but it is hard to say whether it had anything to do with Detective Roberts. 23 August 2012, 14:46, tab 226 1. Lazar calls his office and seems to be in a lawyer's office. He asks his office manager Michelle to email [REDACTED] he sent Detective Roberts. He says he is with his lawyer now, and that the other documents had not come through. 23 August 2012, 19:03 1. At 19:03, Witness B calls Constantinidis and speaks to him for 1,195 seconds [Exhibit P, CCRs, p 33]. 23 August 2012, 21:04, tab 227 1. At 21:04, shown on page 34 of the CCRs, Lazar calls Constantinidis and speaks for 690 seconds. This is a long phone call, most of it is talking about Lazar's shingles and other matters. 2. However, at page 7, there is the following conversation: Lazar says, "the guy you spoke to me about today, the consultant, it's imperative we engage him cos I think he'll put the whole stuff together in proper format… did we have any progression there?", Constantinidis says, "just a couple of phone calls, they are pleased with the fact, you know, that you've been and seen a solicitor". Constantinidis says, "they have looked through it, there's absolutely nothing there that he can even raise a finger towards you… There's no way conceivable he reckons he can even contemplate charging you… they know him back to front, and he got kicked out of Bankstown and Central Business Detective Unit, he's been sent over there cos he's basically on remand". Lazar says, "he's a thug". I infer that portion of the conversation relates to Detective Roberts. 3. There do not seem to be any further calls referring to Detective Roberts, or referring to how Detective Roberts was taken off the case, or any further appointments. The evidence from the Officer in Charge is that at the same time as these calls, Detective Roberts was asked to suspend his investigation into the gold bar by other Senior Police investigating Lazar for fraud. 4. That is a summary of the evidence the Crown relies on. Defence case – Lazar 1. The following telephone intercepts were tendered on behalf of the accused Lazar: 16 August 2012, 22:59, Exhibit 1 1. This is a phone call between Lazar and Rahal. The call relates to Police raiding Lazar's lawyer's offices for documents in Melbourne. 17 August 2012, 7:18 am, Exhibit 2 1. This call is between Lazar and Rahal. The call relates to an article in a Melbourne Newspaper. Lazar refers to a conversation with Bruce Levitt (a lawyer). This call does not seem to relate to the gold bar. The call refers to six or seven people of interest in NSW. 17 August 2012, 8:07 am, Exhibit 3 1. This call is a conversation between Lazar and Bruce Levitt. This phone call also relates to the Melbourne article. Defence case – Constantinidis 1. On behalf of the accused Constantinidis, Mr Vasic tendered a COPS report E467046591, relating to an incident dated 4 April 2014, which stated, "the victim Constantinidis and [Witness D] had been friends for many years. The relationship turned sour over a civil dispute regarding a house they both invested in. About 00:30 am on 4/4/2014, Witness D attended Constantinidis' home and became involved in a verbal argument. During the argument she said "I will be back, the house will burn in hell". Witness D rambled about religious beliefs. Constantinidis reported it to police but did not want any action taken." [Exhibit 1]. 2. Mr Vasic also played two telephone intercepts, one dated 16 August 2012 at 7:50 am, and the other dated 17 August 2012 at 8:17 am [Exhibits 2 and 3]. The context of the calls relates to the Melbourne issues at the time and shows that Constantinidis was making calls to other lawyers on behalf of Lazar. Crown Submissions 1. The Crown submitted in respect of the elements of the offence that the act relied upon by the Crown was the paying of Witness B to improperly influence Detective Senior Constable David Roberts. The Crown relies on the direct evidence of Witness B that both accused instructed him to do "whatever it takes", including physical violence, or anything else intended to pervert the course of justice. It was submitted that the "course of justice" is the Police investigation by Detective Roberts that might lead to court proceedings in respect of the accused Lazar, in respect of Lazar having stolen goods, or might have led to a proceeds of crime charge not necessarily confined to Lazar. The Crown submits the Court would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt there was an investigation into the origin of the gold bar, which comes within the definition of "course of justice", and the intention was to have Detective Roberts improperly cease the Police investigation into the seizure of the gold bar. Submissions regarding Constantinidis 1. In respect of the accused Constantinidis, the Crown relies on the direct evidence from Witness B that Constantinidis asked Witness B to do "whatever it takes" to remove Detective Roberts from his investigation of the gold bar. The Crown case is that the accused Constantinidis was a party to the Joint Criminal Enterprise because the first approach to Witness B was made by the accused Constantinidis - that is, he used the words "do whatever it takes, break his legs, break his arms, do whatever it takes, just get rid of him, get him out of the way". The Crown submits that the accused Lazar was the financier and he offered amounts of money and in fact paid Witness B $99,000. The Crown submitted Constantinidis' role was to approach Witness B in the first place, and that he was in fact supervising the Joint Criminal Enterprise. 2. It was submitted that Witness B said he had no intention of engaging in the actual crime, and he was in fact "tricking" the two accused. Witness B has been given an undertaking by the Attorney General and received a discount on his sentence. The Crown conceded that Witness B expressed strong animosity towards each accused. The Crown submitted a s 165 warning was appropriate in the circumstances. 3. The Crown submitted there was both direct and circumstantial corroboration to support Witness B's evidence. The Crown submited that the Court should consider Witness B's evidence, in combination with the telephone intercepts and the CCRs. The Crown submits that the motive for the accused Constantinidis is revealed in the telephone intercepts, in particular the telephone intercept of 22 August 2012 at 12:06. In this intercept, Constantinidis says to Lazar, "you fucking crack and its fucked for everyone" [Exhibit G, tab 219]. 4. The Crown submits that the accused Constantinidis had a vested interest in making sure that the accused Lazar got through the situation without being impeded in doing his business deals, because it would have a deleterious effect on him, as well as Lazar, if Lazar could not cope with the situation. It was submitted that at the relevant time both accused were doing a lot of business deals together and Constantinidis was struggling to get Lazar to focus on the business as opposed to the problems he was having with Detective Roberts. 5. The Crown submitted that an important piece of evidence that links the accused Constantinidis and the accused Lazar to Witness B is found in a telephone call on 21 August 2012 at 8:21 am [Exhibit G, tab 181]. That call was made after the accused Lazar had spoken to his solicitor Mr Rahal. Mr Rahal said that Lazar could potentially be charged. The Crown submitted this led Lazar to panic and speak to the accused Constantinidis. 6. In this call, Lazar was clearly upset. Constantinidis says "I'll ring him… let me ring him and I'll tell him to ring you, alright, I'll get someone to ring you direct"; Lazar says "when?"; Constantinidis says "now". The Crown submits that what Constantinidis is talking about is, he is going to get one of the corrupt senior Police officers to ring Lazar directly, because Lazar is extremely upset that he is going to be charged by Detective Roberts. 7. The Crown submits that Constantinidis asked Witness B to deal with the matter. The CCRs shows that immediately after the call at 8:21 am, a call is made from Constantinidis' number to Witness B's number, at 8:23 am. The call lasts for 445 seconds. The Crown submits that the telephone call at tab 181 is a circumstantial piece of evidence showing independently that the arrangement was that Witness B was going to be the conduit to some other senior Police officer, and that was his role. 8. The Crown submits the next phone call between the accused is at 8:46 am at tab 182, in which Constantinidis says "I've just spoken to him". He then says to wait 15 minutes. The Crown submits that Constantinidis rang Witness B, and there is no one else that he could have spoken to as the call is literally a minute after the previous one. The Crown conceded that Witness B does not give any evidence about the contents of any of these calls, however the Crown relies on the contemporaneous recordings of the accused as to what was going on at the time. The Crown says the telephone intercepts were independently recorded and fit in with the CCRs [T 521]. 9. The Crown does not suggest that the accused Lazar at that point knew exactly who it was that Constantinidis was going to be dealing with, but the Crown submits that it does not have to prove that, as long as the Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Lazar is a party to the Joint Criminal Enterprise to remove Detective Roberts from the investigation of the gold bar by any means. 10. The accused Constantinidis is not a party to any of the telephone calls with Witness B that have been recorded. The Crown submits that that phone call or the series of connected calls is compelling evidence as to whether or not the accused had any involvement in an enterprise with Witness B to try and corrupt a senior Police officer. 11. The Crown also relies on the telephone intercept at tab 181 where Constantinidis says, "I'll get someone to ring you direct" to explain why it was that Witness B made a call to Lazar posing as McGillicuddy, a senior Police officer. 12. The McGillicuddy call was made the following morning at 7:39 am on 22 October 2019. 13. The Crown submits that the phone call at tab 201 on the 21 August 2012 at 21:40 from Constantinidis to Lazar is an important phone call. Constantinidis tells Lazar, "you might get a phone call tonight, just to ask you about intimidation and what Rahal heard. He said that's being contemplated at the moment." Lazar responds, "why are they so adamant to hear from me?" Constantinidis says they are contemplating whether to get Rahal to lodge a formal complaint. Lazar says, "well what good would that do?", and Constantinidis says, "because they would bury this prick once and for good". Lazar asks if "they" do not like him, Constantinidis says "no, what are you talking about. They're so annoyed. You can't behave like that mate." Lazar says "it's gestapo tactics". The Crown submits that there may well have been discussions about making a formal complaint against Detective Roberts through his solicitor. The Crown submits that Lazar at this time was panicked about whether he was going to be charged, particularly because Rahal had told him that could happen, so the accused pushed on with the other plan to get rid of Detective Senior Constable Roberts, as Lazar held out little hope that a formal complaint would help him. The Crown further submitted that Constantinidis had foreshadowed that making a complaint would be a good idea to cover for corrupt police to have some justification to take Detective Roberts off the case. The McGillicuddy call 22 October 2019, 7:39, tab 202 1. The Crown submits that the tenor of the call makes it clear that it is not a response to a legitimate complaint. It was submitted that the Court could not find that it would be a normal response to a legitimate Police complaint by any Police officer. The Crown case is that there is no way that Lazar could have believed that this was a senior Police officer responding to a legitimate complaint about the way Detective Roberts had treated him, also as Witness B refers to the "big man", a mutual friend of theirs which the Crown says is code for Constantinidis, and says he has been the conduit to the Police. It was not submitted by either Defence Counsel that the McGillicuddy call was a response to a legitimate Police complaint. The Crown says that the McGillicuddy call supports Witness B's evidence that in fact he was being approached to engage in the criminal enterprise. In response to a question from the Court as to whether Witness B was working for Lazar at this time, the Crown said, "not full-time at this point". He appeared to be "doing jobs" for him and working for him, but not sitting in the mortgage trader office as the pay slips show in 2013. He initially worked for Constantinidis, and then worked for Lazar doing "odd jobs". The Crown's case is that at the time of this call, Witness B was not attending every day as a full-time employee of Lazar. 2. The Crown submits that if the Court was to accept Witness B's evidence, both accused spoke to him independently about the same enterprise at personal meetings. The Crown submits that the phone call made on 21 August 2012 at 8:23 on the CCRs related to this enterprise. The Crown submits that both accused were asking Witness B to do something about Detective Roberts, so therefore they knew that each of them were involved, and they both approached Witness B separately. The Crown asked the Court to draw inferences that Constantinidis and Witness B spoke regularly about the request to take Detective Roberts off Lazar's case [T 525.30]. 3. In respect of the McGillicuddy call, the Crown submits that Lazar did not recognise Witness B. The Crown submitted that the McGillicuddy call was not the sort of conversation that anybody would engage in with a Police officer. The Crown submitted that "One would have thought that if you're receiving calls from somebody superior or somebody from a complaints unit, they might identify themselves as such, and not do it in this mysterious way about big men, and associates, and "getting a little bit nastier", and "we've got our ways", having very, very powerful people on your side in the plural." [T 526.45]. There is no issue in the trial that it was Witness B on the phone to Lazar posing as a Police Officer. 4. The Crown submitted that telephone call at tab 213 on 22 August 2012 at 8:35 relates to the McGillicuddy call. Lazar says, "I can't go to the office now", and Constantinidis, referring to McGillicuddy, says, "no he said you can. I said to him you were in a state, you know. I said you know the way you just ring straight afterwards and whatever. He said 'look, tell him to stay home and put his feet up for an hour or so', 'cause he's obviously doing what he is doing from his end now." 5. The Crown relies on that phone call to indicate that Constantinidis was getting advice from Witness B, for example telling him to stay home and put his feet up, and when he says, "should I get in contact with my lawyer", he says, "yes, of course". The Crown says there is a double deception going on here, because Witness B is pretending that he has Police contacts, and Constantinidis thinks he has Police contacts. The Crown says he is getting advice from Witness B as to what's going on through this chain. 6. The Crown submits the CCRs on the 22 August 2012 [Exhibit P, p 20] are important. At 8:14 am, the Crown says that is about 20 minutes before the intercepted call at 8:35 am, where Constantinidis has contacted Witness B. The Crown says that at a time when it looks like he rung another other person, he has is in fact called Witness B, and is relaying instructions. The Crown relies on this as a circumstantial piece of evidence. 7. The Crown submits, putting together the previous sequence of calls, there is no other reasonable hypothesis about Witness B's involvement in this, and the contents of the conversation supports what Witness B says. 8. The Crown relies on the call on 22 August 2012 at 8:55 am [Exhibit G, tab 216] to support Witness B's evidence that Constantinidis told him to "do whatever it takes", in relation to having Detective Senior Constable Roberts removed. Constantinidis is heard saying, "I will do anything it fucking takes to take this prick down." The Crown submits that it would appear that after the McGillicuddy call, Detective Roberts is still calling Lazar, which prompts further conversation and anger between the accused. 9. The Crown also relied on the phone call the day before the McGillicuddy call, on 21 August 2012 at 12:03 [Exhibit G, tab 217] where Constantinidis can be heard saying he is not letting up, and he is doing everything in relation to this. 10. The Crown submitted that the telephone call of 22 August 2012 at 7:58 am, at tab 204, supports Witness B's evidence. Very shortly after the McGillicuddy call, Lazar rings Constantinidis and says, "I've just been on the phone for about 30 minutes plus with a guy... Someone who you know probably, right? Or you know of, right?" The Crown submits that Constantinidis knows exactly what conversation Lazar is talking about. 11. The next telephone call the Crown referred to is the telephone intercept at tab 207, on 22 August 2012 at 8:11 am. Lazar rings Constantinidis, after the McGillicuddy call. The phone call involves a discussion between the accused about the McGillicuddy call. Constantinidis says, "I'm on the other line. The person was with an English accent wasn't he?" Lazar says, "with a what?" Constantinidis: "the person that just spoke to you has got an English accent?" Lazar says, "no not English, sounded like Pakistani". Constantinidis says, "yeah.. and I'm not mentioning names, right? But the thing is that the other clown is just being hunted right now. You're not to do anything, you just stay where you are, right?" Lazar says, "he threatened me", and Constantinidis says "and they want you to lay charges - they want you to ring Rahal". The Crown submits that it is not clear as to why Constantinidis thought the caller (McGillicuddy) had an English accent, but "that that comment about, "the other clown is just being hunted right now," means that steps were being taken by whoever this corrupt Police officer was to somehow interfere with Detective Roberts in his investigation." [T 530.40 – 50]. Submissions regarding Lazar 1. The Crown submitted that it relies on the same telephone calls in the case against Lazar. Joint Criminal Enterprise 1. The Crown submitted that the evidence of Witness B [T 95 and 96] is evidence of the conversation between Witness B and Lazar, and there is evidence that Witness B did receive money from Lazar. The Crown relies on Witness B's conversations. Lazar's motives for wanting Detective Roberts removed from the investigation 1. The Crown submits the Lazar was concerned he would be charged with an offence if he did not cooperate. The Crown submitted that Lazar was upset he lost his money, but his overriding concern was with being charged. In respect of the payment by Lazar, the evidence of Witness B was he was paid $99,000, in two separate lots. The Crown submits that Lazar did not want to be charged with a criminal offence, as there would be a prison sentence, and difficulties in the commercial world; therefore the actual money paid had nothing to do with the value of gold bar (which was approximately $50,000). The Crown submits that it cannot give precise dates as to when the Joint Criminal Enterprise began, but submitted that the call at tab 181 prompted Constantinidis to tell Lazar he would get someone to ring him direct, and was the precursor that triggered further involvement with the two accused. 2. The Crown made submissions in respect of Detective Senior Constable Roberts' conduct. I do not need to make any findings as to Detective Senior Constable Roberts' conduct, except that it was obvious from the tenor of the calls that Detective Senior Constable Roberts was persistent in chasing Lazar for a witness statement, and he did not believe what Lazar was saying. Lazar could have said to Detective Roberts at any time that he would not make a statement. Lazar was clearly under a lot of pressure at the time, and was given advice from his lawyer if he did not make a statement to Police he may be charged "out of spite". 3. The Crown submitted it was not a situation where the accused Lazar refused to say anything to the Police, and the reason the Crown submits he did not do that is pure greed, as he thought there might be some chance he would be able to get the gold bar back. The Crown submits that Lazar was trying to avoid Detective Senior Constable Roberts delving too far into the gold bar's providence. The Crown submits that Lazar originally gave a false story to Police about the gold bar, and that relates to the phone call behind tab 47 on 9 August 2012 at 8:21 am, when the accused rang the Chatswood Police station. The Crown submits that Lazar knew at that stage that the Police had seized the gold bar, because he met Y on the same evening after the Police took possession of it, according to Witness A. The Crown did not rely on the lies as a consciousness of guilt. 4. On 9 August 2012 at 10:00 am, Lazar spoke to Detective Locke, saying that he found out that morning. The Crown says that was not true, as the night before in a phone call the accused says Y only gave him the gold bar the day before. The Crown submits that Lazar gave many versions as to who owned the gold bar, and what its providence was. The Crown submitted that none of Lazar's conduct is consistent with the conduct of a person who legitimately has a gold bar which is taken by a scoundrel and left in a car. The Crown says, "There is no need for all these different versions. The truth is quite simple. And it shows the growing anxiety that Lazar had about the gold bar and about his own situation." [T 536 – 537]. The Crown submitted that the motive the accused Lazar had for having Detective Roberts taken off the case was that he was trying to get the gold bar back as he needed the money, and secondly, he believed there was a good chance that he may be charged with an offence in relation to the gold bar. 5. The Crown's position is that in the beginning, Lazar was concerned with trying to get the gold bar back, and then as Detective Senior Constable Roberts became more insistent on getting a statement, he took more extreme steps, as he believed things were getting more serious. The Crown's submission is that Lazar told lies about the providence of the gold bar, and that none of the accused's explanations as to the circumstances of how he came into possession of the gold bar could be accepted, and that he lacks credibility on that issue. Witness B 1. In relation to the credibility of Witness B, the Crown relies on the telephone intercept material to support his evidence. The Crown submitted that Witness B has a criminal history, he has been accused of being a standover man and called himself a debt collector. The Crown submitted, "if you're going to recruit somebody to get a Police officer off a case by any means, including breaking arms and legs, then somebody like Witness B would be the person." The Crown submited, "clearly he got a discount for that driving matter for this, but it does appear from his evidence that his overwhelming reason for coming along to give this evidence was that he felt that he and his wife, Witness D, had been cheated by both accused… out of their house." [T 539]. The Crown submits that the Court could not make a finding about what really happened in relation to the house. Witness B was also upset as he had had a close relationship with Constantinidis, at one point calling him "Dad". The Crown submits that the question that arises is whether Witness B and his wife would have been prepared to come to Court and tell lies because they felt aggrieved by the accused. The Crown submitted that Witness B was concerned about giving evidence, as was his wife, and there was no real benefit to Witness B in circumstances where his life may be in danger. The Crown conceded that Witness B did not have a good memory about events in 2012, but that there was supporting evidence and that the Court could be confident that Witness B is telling the truth. 2. The Crown also relied on evidence of Mr Mirosavic, who stated that he had overheard the accused Lazar saying he was going downstairs to meet Witness B. The Crown submitted that Mr Mirosavic was not a liar, and had carefully checked his paperwork. 3. The Crown submitted that Witness B made a mistake about the 2013 date, and it was clear that Witness B had dealings with Lazar before the gold bar incident. The Crown submitted that Witness B knew Constantinidis better. The Crown submitted in relation to the McGillicuddy call that Witness B did disguise his voice, and that if it was the case that Witness B did not know Lazar, there would have been no need for him to try any accent. The Crown says that the reason Lazar did not recognise Witness B's voice is that he was expecting to hear from a senior Police officer, and was in such a state of anxiety about being charged he was just grateful to get the call and did not pick that it was Witness B. 4. The Crown submitted that Witness B should be believed when he said he received money, as there was no possibility that Witness B would involve himself in impersonating a Police officer out of the goodness of his heart. Witness B was concerned about the fact that he had been doing jobs for these people, and he was not getting properly paid. She stated, "He's highly unlikely to be doing this for no money and if, in fact, he was simply asked - and there's no evidence of this - but if he was simply asked if he can do a favour and somehow speak to a Police officer, there'd be no need to impersonate one. He could just say, "Well, I've rung my friends and they can't do anything. They say, 'Make a formal complaint.'" The Crown submitted that there would be no need for this subterfuge, if there wasn't something criminal occurring at this particular time. [T 541.20 – 25]. 5. The Crown submitted that the accused are cunning business people who are very conscious of money and are hardly likely to be willingly paying money to Witness B for no good reason if they did not owe him money. The Crown submitted that there was no positive evidence that Witness B had done any blackmailing or threatening. The Crown submitted that Witness B was incredulous when it was put to him in cross-examination that the accused had paid him money because he had blackmailed them, and that the money was paid to him for lost wages. The Crown submitted there are good reasons to take care with the evidence of Witness B, but the Court could be satisfied that he was an honest and reliable witness. The Crown submitted that the Court should accept the evidence of Witness B and convict both accused. Submissions on behalf of the accused Lazar 1. Mr Brewer, on behalf of the accused Lazar, submitted that the genesis of the prosecution came about only by virtue of a bizarre set of circumstances, including telephone intercepts of the accused, which had nothing to do with the persistence of Detective Roberts in relation to the gold bar, an experienced Police officer who was not going to be dissuaded by the accused Lazar telling him he did not want to speak to him or that he wanted to have his lawyer present whilst being spoken to. Mr Brewer submitted that Lazar would not use the services of "one of the biggest hoods that must've set foot into a courtroom in New South Wales", to prevail upon Detective Senior Constable Roberts, to have his legs broken, or dissuade him from continuing his investigation. 2. Mr Brewer submitted that the accused's solicitor, Raed Rahal, acted appropriately at all times in his dealings with his client in 2012. He provided information to Detective Roberts, demonstrating that Y owed Lazar money, and Lazar was chasing Y for money, and so when Y came to him with gold bars he said that they were his. Mr Brewer submitted that Lazar had a claim of right over the gold bar, and Lazar told Detective Roberts that. 3. Mr Brewer submitted that the accused Lazar was under fire from every possible direction - his mental health, his personal relationships, being investigated under Strikeforce McMaster, and being investigated in relation to the gold bar. He suggested the combination of events was catastrophic for Lazar. He submitted that Lazar was not acting rationally, and that no one could make sense of him - not his solicitor, Constantinidis, or Detective Roberts. He also had trouble understanding what other people were saying to him. Mr Brewer submitted that Detective Roberts, in his dealings with Lazar, was unprofessional, aggressive, and threatening. [REDACTED]. It was submitted and that the accused Lazar was never caught in the telephone intercepts having a conversation with Witness B except for the McGillicuddy call. Witness B 1. Mr Brewer submitted that Witness B was inconsistent in his evidence in the courtroom. Mr Brewer compared the evidence Witness B gave in a committal and in his prior witness statements and submitted that he had never previously said "Do whatever it takes, break his leg, maybe get a couple of guys from Bankstown to do what they have to do" - and that that evidence was a recent invention. It was submitted that Witness B was prepared to say anything. McGillicuddy call 1. In respect of the McGillicuddy call, it was submitted that Witness B said he had known Lazar for five years. If that was the case, there are two possibilities: one, that Lazar did not recognise Witness B's voice; or two, he recognised him but pretended not to. It was submitted that there could be no doubt that the voice in the call was Witness B. Mr Brewer submitted that the Court would not accept the Crown's submission that it is easier to assume that it is somebody's voice when you are told it is somebody's voice, but that the Court should take into account the Officer in Charge's summary, when she provided a statement with summaries of the calls annexed to her statement that contained the words in brackets "sounds like [Witness B]". Mr Brewer submitted that his client did not really know what was going on during the McGillicuddy call, and this was demonstrated when he called Constantinidis shortly after to recount the call, and said that he thought the accent of the voice was Indian or Pakistani, and then seem to be talking about what Detective Senior Constable Roberts had said to him. Mr Brewer asked rhetorically: "what's wrong with speaking to someone who has control over an intimidating threatening persistent person, who even plays Mr Lazar by saying at one stage, "Oh, yes, mate, I've had my bad days as well" [T 546.22 – 25]. Mr Brewer submitted that the accused Lazar did not pay Witness B money in 2012. 2. Mr Brewer submitted that Witness B was cross-examined about his most recent statement in 2018. Witness B said he had rented an apartment in Ryde in early 2013, and he had met Lazar for the first time a few weeks before that. It was submitted that that would place the meeting at its earliest in late 2012. It was submitted that Witness B was not in the employ of Lazar in 2012. 3. It was submitted that Witness B had extensive criminal history, he is a standover man, he is not a person of good character, his motivation was that someone had stolen his house, and he was absolutely unprepared to concede that the money was borrowed through an IGS loan. It was submitted that Witness B was a standover man, and that "then if he gets caught, he becomes a snitch" [T 547.27]. 4. It was submitted by Mr Brewer that when Witness B said he did not know top Police officers, that was not true, as he has been protected by the Police for a long time, going back to before he was stabbed 42 times and bashed over the head with a jaffle iron in jail. It was submitted that there was a flaw in the Crown's argument, as to why Lazar would pay $99,000 to chase a gold bar worth $35,000? Witness B agreed that Mr Tabchouri acted for him, and that Lazar had made a payment of $200,000 into his trust account. He agreed he was a person with a serious drug addiction. Mr Brewer took the Court through the evidence of Witness B and the matters he agreed in cross-examination, [REDACTED]. 5. It was submitted that there were no telephone intercepts between Lazar and Witness B, which demonstrates Lazar had no dealing with him at the time. Mr Rahal 1. Mr Brewer submitted in relation to Mr Rahal that he had given three volumes of material in respect of the gold bars to a Detective Roberts over the counter in Balmain. It was submitted that he pursued the recovery of the gold bars in an appropriate way. It therefore makes no sense that he would have been concurrently trying to have Detective Roberts injured. Mr Rahal, Mr Brewer said, was a credible witness. He detailed Lazar's medical and personal issues at the time, saying he was borderline suicidal, depressed, and had breathing issues. He said he explained to Lazar that he was under no compulsion to provide a statement to Detective Roberts. Mr Brewer said that he could accept the evidence of Mr Rahal, particularly in respect of the payment of the $200,000. 2. It was submitted that apart from the McGillicuddy call, there was no communication captured between Lazar and Witness B, which underpins the fact that Lazar had no dealings with Witness B at the relevant time in August 2012. It was submitted that Lazar's concern was not whether he would be charged, his concern was about being spoken to by Detective Roberts in such a threatening way. Witness D 1. In respect of Witness D, Mr Brewer submitted that she was slurring her speech, she was unresponsive, she couldn't corroborate the alleged timing of key telephone conversations, and she was motivated by the fact that she viewed what happened to her Bass Hill property in a particular way, and because civil proceedings were going to be issued against Lazar. 2. Mr Brewer submitted the evidence of Witness B and Witness D were not reliable or credible and the accused should be acquitted. Submissions on behalf on the accused Constantinidis Payment of money 1. Mr Vasic submitted that the indictment was framed in such a way that the accused did an act, namely offer to pay Witness B to improperly influence Detective Senior Constable David Roberts, in respect of an investigation. Mr Vasic submitted that Witness B was asked, "did you have any conversation at that time with Al about money and whether the job cost anything?" Witness B answered that "yes, they did talk about money". Mr Vasic said the witness was clearly directing his answer to the first part of the question, and then Witness B further clarified his answer and said "there was money already owed for other jobs and yeah we did speak about money". Mr Vasic submitted Witness B was clarifying his answer to the first question - a conversation about money – and there was no reference to the second question of whether the job would cost anything. The next question and answers were: Q. You said money was owed for other jobs. A. Yeah. Q. You're talking about wages owed to you. A. Wages, yep. [T 87.15 – 19] 1. It was submitted that the Court could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence "yep", contained in that one word, is sufficient to prove the element in the indictment that Constantinidis offered to pay, whether individually or as a Joint Criminal Enterprise. It was submitted that there is no evidence of Constantinidis even knowing about, let alone agreeing to, Lazar offering to pay between $50,000, or around $80,000 (it was actually $99,000). It was submitted that there was no evidence that Constantinidis agreed to pay anything and there is no conversation between Constantinidis and Lazar saying, "I'm going to pay / I have paid $50,000". Mr Vasic submitted it was impossible to imagine Constantinidis saying that he agreed with that idea. Mr Vasic relied on his outline of submissions (MFI 20), which I have taken into account. Conversation between Constantinidis and Witness B 1. Mr Vasic made submissions on the actual conversation recounted by Witness B with Constantinidis. He said the conversation is not credible - there were no clarifying questions such as who do you know? How do you know them? Are they corrupt? Can they be bribed? et cetera. 2. Mr Vasic submitted the conversation alleged by Witness B with the accused Constantinidis is unbelievable, and a recent invention, and had never previously stated in any statement that Constantinidis said "break his legs, break his arms". He never said get rid of him, get him out of the way, possibly get him sacked. It was submitted that most of the conversation is of recent fabrication. 3. In respect of the conversation alleged between Constantinidis and Witness B at Windsor, it was submitted that the conversation did not have sufficient detail - there was no further information provided regarding the phone number of the officer, the station of the officer, and so forth. He could not even remember the name of the Detective. There is no evidence that he had any other telephone conversation with him, and there was no suggestion by Witness B that any further conversation took place at all regarding Detective Roberts. Motive 1. Mr Vasic submitted that the Crown's motive for Constantinidis' involvement, that he wanted to keep Lazar continuing in business, does not stand up to scrutiny or logic or common sense, as Mr Lazar was not under any threat of arrest. Further, Lazar had told Constantinidis that he had done nothing wrong, that Detective Roberts wanted him to sign a statement and to arrest him for a criminal offence of not signing. It was submitted that it is unbelievable that Constantinidis would ask Witness B to break a Police officer's legs and get him sacked, in circumstances where a Police officer wants to take a statement from Lazar, and Lazar is to his knowledge so [REDACTED] that he would not be able to do that. McGillicuddy call 1. In respect of the McGillicuddy phone call, Mr Vasic submitted Witness B said the conversation he had with Constantinidis was the same day he made the McGillicuddy call. The McGillicuddy call was made at 7:39 am on 22 August 2012, meaning he would have been at Windsor at around five or six in the morning, however there is no corroboration on the objective material. 2. Mr Vasic submitted that Lazar was not hiding his harassment from Detective Roberts, he was not keeping it a secret and telling people and that Witness B said he saw a pot of gold, and he took an opportunity to pretend to be a Police officer so he could then go up to Mr Lazar and claim his pot of gold [T 565]. Credit of Witness B 1. Mr Vasic submitted that Witness B, the main witness in the trial, has no credit, and should not be believed. Witness B's criminal history was tendered in the Crown case. It was submitted that Witness B's criminal history has significant probative value in assessing his credibility and the facts in issue. 2. Mr Vasic submitted that the Court should give a s 165 warning, on the basis that Witness B might reasonably be supposed to have been criminally concerned in the events giving rise to the proceedings, but also on the basis that there is further need for caution in determining whether to accept his evidence arising from (1) his motive to lie; (2) his obvious animosity towards Constantinidis; (3) his criminal record (his lack of respect for the law reflects his attitude towards telling the truth); (4) his history of substance abuse; (5) his lack of recall; and (6) the nature of his evidence being a story that is easy to make up. I accept this submission and have given myself a 165 warning in terms as set out above. Witness B's statements to Police 1. It was submitted that Witness B's statement to the Police, dated 27 November 2014, and induced statement, provided a detailed version of the circumstances concerning "the Balmain Police officer" (a reference to Detective Roberts). In that statement, there was no mention of the accused Constantinidis approaching Witness B about the gold bar matter. In his statement at paragraph 40 he said, "I got back to Ian about a week later because I saw a pot of gold sitting there" [T 121.10]. 2. It was submitted that Witness B's next statement to the Police is dated 17 March 2015. This statement did not refer to any contact with Constantinidis, despite a statement referring to the McGillicuddy call. The reason for the call, he stated, was, "I made this call to Ian so that he would believe that I had contact with high ranking Police. I wanted him [Lazar] to think that I had contacted a high ranking Police officer and that the Police officer was then ringing him" [T 126.50 - 127.05]. It was submitted that that McGillicuddy call was his attempt to claim the "pot of gold" from Lazar, who was not well at the time. It was submitted that there was no evidence from Witness B as to why he admitted to providing any details of Constantinidis involvement in those statements. It was submitted that those statements made no mention of Constantinidis approaching him in relation to the gold bar matter. It was submitted that there was no such mention, because it wasn't true, and Witness B did not think of fabricating a version at the time. It was in a statement on 25 May 2015 that Witness B first alleged that Constantinidis approached him about the gold bar matter. 3. It was submitted that Witness B's version of what Constantinidis asked him to do does not stand up to scrutiny. Witness B stated that Constantinidis asked him if he knew people high up, and when Witness B responded positively Constantinidis was pleased, and then told Witness B to "do whatever it takes. Break his legs, break his arm. Do whatever it takes. Just get rid of him, get him out of the way, possibly get him sacked." It was submitted that Witness B had never previously alleged the request was to break the officer's legs or arm, just get rid of him or possibly get him sacked [T 142]. It was submitted he made it up on the day of giving evidence to embellish his story. 4. It was submitted that from that one question "do you know people high up?", that Witness B could do whatever he wished, including extreme acts of violence. It was submitted that there is no evidence that Constantinidis provided him with any further details, or that they even spoke about the matter again. It was submitted that the statement that Constantinidis brought the problem to his attention is inconsistent with Witness B's original version, in the statement of 27 November 2014, that he had spoken to Lazar about what was going on before that. Mr Vasic asked rhetorically, whether there is a reason to suddenly implicate Constantinidis, and submitted that there was another statement provided by Witness B on 17 March 2015, and also there were Supreme Court proceedings, which were dismissed against Witness B's wife Witness D, and Witness B's belief that he and his wife were robbed by the accused Constantinidis, which gives them a motive to lie. It was submitted that it was clear from the way Witness B gave his evidence that he still holds significant animosity towards Constantinidis. It was submitted that he cannot be relied upon as a witness of truth. Telephone intercepts 1. In relation to the telephone intercepts, Mr Vasic submitted that the calls show that Lazar was unwell, and concerned about the pressure being applied on him by Detective Roberts to make a statement in relation to the gold bar. It was submitted that Lazar did not refuse to provide a statement, but sought more time to engage lawyers. Mr Vasic directed the Court in particular to the phone call by Detective Roberts on 22 August 2012 at 7:55 am, and submitted that Lazar complained to Constantinidis about the improper pressure put on him by Detective Roberts, and the accused Constantinidis encouraged Lazar to engage his solicitor, and told him to do certain things such as "ring the fucking Commissioner", file a complaint against Detective Roberts, and gave his view of the harassing and intimidating nature of the phone calls by Detective Roberts. 2. It was submitted that Constantinidis on numerous occasions told Lazar to report Detective Roberts. He told Lazar not to say anything, saying "he has no basis to force you to make a statement". Mr Vasic set out the transcript references indicating the outrage of the accused Constantinidis. It was submitted that the reference to "they" is not a reference to Witness B. It was submitted there is no evidence that Constantinidis took or encouraged any action which could possibly amount to perversion of the course of justice. 3. It was submitted that there was no mention of Witness B in any of the intercepted calls, and there is no evidence of any payment or promise of payment to Witness B to do anything. The suggestion that Witness B asked the accused Constantinidis to use violence against Detective Roberts is inconsistent with the tenor of his advice to Lazar, both before and after the McGillicuddy call. Witness D 1. It was submitted that Witness D's evidence is fanciful and incredible, and there is no mention of it in the Crown's closing. It was submitted that her most recent statement came during the course of the trial in which she identified the name Dave Roberts, and that she had said that she told Detective Roberts' name to a Police officer. It was submitted that could not possibly be true because the Crown would have called the Police officer to give evidence of that. 2. Mr Vasic also made submissions in relation to the Defence phone calls played in Court, and asked the Court to put the conversations in context as to what was happening with other lawyers at the time, in particular Mr Tabchouri. Mr Vasic submitted the accused was Not Guilty. Further directions 1. In this case the Crown relies on circumstantial evidence as well as direct evidence, and asks the Court to draw certain inferences. The Crown asks the Court to draw an inference from the telephone intercepts, CCRs, and the witnesses' evidence. In the context of a criminal trial, the Court should not draw an inference from the direct evidence unless it is a rational inference in the circumstances, but must also look as to whether there are any other reasonable inferences available. If there is no other reasonable or rational inference consistent with innocence, then the Court can draw the inference sought by the Crown. I remind myself of both the inference direction and circumstantial evidence direction. If having determined the facts I find established by the evidence, I must find that any conclusion is a reasonable one to draw based upon a combination of those established facts, before I can convict. I must determine whether there is any other reasonable conclusion arising from those facts which is inconsistent with the conclusion the Crown says is established. If there is any other reasonable conclusion open on those facts that is inconsistent with the conclusion the Crown asks me to find, then the Crown's circumstantial case has failed. 2. This is also a case in which a s 165 warning is required. In doing so, a Judge must properly formulate the warnings and principles that are applied. In this case, I accept the Defence submissions. The Crown has also submitted that a s 165 warning should be given in respect of Witness B. I accept the submissions of both Defence Counsel that the factors set out by Mr Vasic above are the matters which I should take into account. 3. In respect of the 165 direction, I give myself a direction that the evidence of Witness B may be unreliable, as Witness B is a witness who might reasonably be supposed to have been criminally concerned in the events giving rise to the proceedings. I find that he clearly was, and he has been given an undertaking by the Attorney General. I warn myself that Witness B's evidence may be unreliable, and warn myself of the need for caution in determining whether to accept the evidence and the weight to be given to it. 4. I also remind myself that each accused, having not given evidence, is in no way to be subject to any adverse finding or inference arising from that fact. In respect to both the accused Lazar and the accused Constantinidis, they have tendered evidence in their case and the fact that each accused has taken the step of putting an affirmative case does not in any way alter the burden of proof that falls upon the Crown, or in any way cause it to shift to the accused. Character 1. Both accused have asked for a good character direction and have led evidence from the Officer in Charge that each accused is of good character and have no relevant prior convictions. The accused did not call any other character witnesses. The Crown did not seek to adduce evidence of bad character. I give myself a good character direction. Determination 1. In relation to the commission and motive of the offence, the Crown relies primarily upon the evidence of a single witness, Witness B, together with the telephone intercept recordings and the CCRs. 2. The onus is on the Crown to prove the elements of the offence. That is, the accused did an act, being an offer to pay Witness B to improperly influence Detective Senior Constable Roberts with the intent to pervert the course of justice. 3. The onus is on the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I must examine the evidence of Witness B with great care before I convict the accused, because the Crown case depends to a large degree on my acceptance of the reliability of Witness B's evidence. The credibility of Witness B must be assessed with reference to all other evidence in the case, in particular the telephone intercepts and CCRs and evidence of other witnesses. In assessing the evidence of Witness B, I must take into account what he said, as well as how he said it. 4. Did Witness B impress me as someone who was telling the truth to the best of his ability? I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Witness B was both an honest and accurate witness in the account he has given before I find each accused guilty. After I have assessed the credibility of Witness B and the reliability and accuracy of his evidence, I must focus on the question of whether the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. I have considered the evidence very carefully, and I make the following findings. Witness B 1. Witness B did not present well in the witness box. On the first day he gave evidence in chief, he was clearly affected by drugs and was slurring his words. He fell asleep in the witness box during the playing of the McGillicuddy call [Exhibit C]. 2. Witness B has a lengthy criminal history and was given an undertaking by the Attorney General in relation to his evidence under s 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 [Exhibit A]. 3. His association with Constantinidis went back to approximately 2007 or 2008. He was a 'debt collector' for Constantinidis. I took this to mean he was a standover man who extorted money from people ostensibly in debt to Constantinidis. 4. His conversation with Constantinidis in relation to the gold bar is set out verbatim at paragraph [47] of this Judgment, and his conversation with Lazar is also set out in paras [51]-[52]. The conversation relating to an offer of money or payment is set out at paras [47], and [52]-[53]. 5. Witness B was very vague about working for both the accused, and what type of work he did, except to say that he was a personal bodyguard for Lazar and a debt collector for Constantinidis. In respect of the two amounts of cash he said he received from Lazar, being approximately $99,000, Witness B did not say how much money was owed for other work done (nor did he specify what the other work had been). As the money was given to him in cash, there is no independent record of any payment into bank accounts, or receipts for the cash. There is no independent evidence to support the payment of this cash. There is, however, evidence to support the fact that Lazar did pay Witness B a large sum of money. This evidence comes from Lazar's solicitor, Mr Rahal [T 343.25 - 37]. Witness B said that the payment of money by Rahal included payment for the gold bar job [T 188]. 6. In respect to the accused Constantinidis, it is not the Crown case that Constantinidis offered or paid Witness B any money for the gold bar job [T 104.45]. 7. It is the Crown case that Constantinidis initially asked Witness B to "do whatever it takes", including speaking to high ranking corrupt Police officers, or using physical force, to stop Detective Roberts investigating Lazar in relation to the gold bar matter. Witness B said Constantinidis did talk to him about money [T 87.10 – 16]. However, it was Lazar who actually paid him in cash for the job. The Crown relies on the doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise in relation to the charge. 8. Witness B had a very strong motivation to lie as he had a great deal of animosity towards both accused. Witness B was not a reliable witness in many respects, due to his motive to lie, the fact he was taking medication at the time of giving his evidence, and lack of detail in his evidence. Witness B also gave inconsistent accounts in relation to the length of time he knew Lazar, and in what capacity, and where and when he had received money from Lazar. He did not give evidence as to the content of the many conversations he had with Constantinidis, shown in the CCRs. 9. In assessing his evidence and his reliability and credibility, I must look to other independent evidence that I may find convincing, such as the telephone intercepts [Exhibits G and H], and the CCRs [Exhibit P]. Findings of Fact 1. There are a number of issues that I must determine in the trial. 2. I make the following findings of fact based on my assessment of all the evidence adduced at the trial. I have had particular regard to the telephone intercepts and have cross-referenced them with the CCRs. I have summarised the evidence earlier in my Judgment. 8 August 2012 1. In August 2012, the accused Lazar and Y were well known to each other. On 8 August 2012, Witness A, an associate of Y and the wife of a well-known criminal figure, X (now deceased), retrieved two gold bars from Witness A's mother's house and gave them to Y. Witness A travelled with Y into the city, where Y met the accused Lazar. Y gave Lazar one gold bar and kept the other gold bar to see if he could sell it for a better price and give the money back to Lazar, minus his commission. As Y, Witness A and C were travelling in a car with the gold bar, they were stopped by Police at 20:50. During a search of the car, the gold bar was found, and Y told Police that the accused Lazar was the owner of the gold bar, and Lazar had given it to Y to sell. The Police seized the gold bar. Y told the accused Lazar that the gold bar had been seized by Police later that night. 2. Police were investigating the accused Lazar in relation to other matters and had a lawful telephone intercept on his mobile phone [Exhibit F]. Tendered in court were the disks and transcripts of the telephone intercepts from 4 July 2012 to 23 August 2012 [Exhibits G and H]. The telephone intercepts demonstrated that the accused Lazar and Y had a close relationship and were involved together in a number of matters. The evidence is that Y had many criminal convictions, and is not a person of good character. On 8 August 2012, there are numerous text messages between Y and the accused Lazar. I find that those texts related to the seizure of the gold bar. 9 August 2012 1. On 9 August 2012, the accused Lazar made phone calls to the Australian Gold Bullion Company, Detective Megan Bourke, Detective Locke, and other Police officers. Detective Senior Constable Roberts, who was the Officer in Charge of investigating the seizure of the gold bar, contacted Lazar at 12:01 pm on 9 August 2012. At 13:55, the accused Lazar gave Detective Roberts a long explanation of how he came to have the gold bar. Detective Roberts did not believe him, and requested that Lazar make a statement to Police. Detective Roberts said, "This is going to be investigated no matter how big or small it is… its gonna be investigated to the nth degree… if you come in with lies tomorrow… its going to be much worse for you." Lazar told Detective Roberts that it was his gold bar and he had a right to it. Lazar then made numerous phone calls including to another Police officer, Constable Thew, and his solicitors Raed Rahal and Mr Tabchouri, in a continued attempt to retrieve the gold bar. Lazar tells Mr Tabchouri, "the thing is, I can't prove the actual ultimate origin of it [the gold bar]". 10 August 2012 1. Detective Senior Constable Roberts informed the accused Lazar that unless he could prove ownership of the gold bar he would not get it returned to him. During a recorded phone call on 10 August 2012 at 11:29 am [Exhibit G, tab 91], Detective Roberts told Lazar that any documents he had as proof of ownership should be scanned and sent to him, and that Lazar should come in to the Police Station and tell him the "truth". Detective Roberts said, "if you got dramas with people mate, you might want to think about speaking to us on another level too mate, you know what I mean". I infer this means that Detective Roberts was talking about Y, and whether Lazar wanted to speak to Detective Roberts about Y and inform on him. I also infer that Detective Roberts had a strong suspicion that the gold bar was the proceeds of crime. 2. The accused Lazar made many other phone calls relating to the gold bar issue over the following days to the co-accused Constantinidis, to Detective Roberts, and to his solicitor, Raed Rahal. Detective Roberts was extremely insistent that the accused Lazar come to the Police Station and make a witness statement. There were a number of occasions this was arranged. At no time did the accused Lazar say to Detective Roberts that he did not want to come to the Police Station to make a statement. Indeed, Lazar indicated that he would make a statement, however he wanted his solicitor, Rahal, to be present. 3. Raed Rahal did in fact attend the Police Station on 21 August 2012, and provided Detective Senior Constable Roberts with documents relating to Lazar's dealings with Y, in an attempt to prove that the gold bar related to a debt owed by Y to the accused Lazar. 4. Rahal told the accused Lazar on a number of occasions that he thought Detective Senior Constable Roberts would charge him out of spite [Exhibit G, tabs 173, 177, 180, and 194], and advised Lazar to make a statement to the Police. There were many discussions between Lazar and Rahal about Detective Senior Constable Roberts. Mr Rahal was not helping the accused Lazar's anxiety. The solicitor continued to tell Lazar, "I'm telling you mate, I don't know who you've spoken to, but I have a sense right down to my bones he'll charge you." [Exhibit G, tab 180]. Lazar relays all these conversations to Constantinidis on a continual basis. 5. The phone calls between the accused on 21 and 22 August 2012 have particular relevance, as do the CCRs showing the calls between Constantinidis and Witness B. 21 August 2012 1. By 21 August 2012, Lazar was very anxious. He was concerned he may be charged out of spite [Exhibit G, tab 178] and that he would not get his gold bar back. Constantinidis later tells Lazar, "I'll get someone to ring you direct"" [Exhibit G, tab 181]. 2. Immediately after this call at 8:23 am, Constantinidis calls Witness B and has a lengthy discussion with Witness B for 445 seconds [Exhibit P]. Constantinidis then calls Lazar back and says that he has spoken to "him", and "it's totally contradictive to what you believe" [Exhibit G, tab 182]. At 9:21 am, Constantinidis tells Lazar, "the other guy just rang me. Apparently they're talking now." [Exhibit G, tab 187]. I find the references to "him" and "they" and "the other guy" is a reference to Witness B. 3. At 9:30 am [Exhibit G, tab 188], Constantinidis speaks to Lazar, who is in his office with Rahal. Constantinidis asks to speak to Rahal. Lazar offers to call Constantinidis from his office phone. I find he did this as he believed his office phone was not being monitored by Police. Immediately after this call to Lazar, Constantinidis calls Witness B at 9:38 am. 4. At 9:42 am [Exhibit G, tab 189], Detective Senior Constable Roberts rings Lazar and asks him if he is on his way to see him. Lazar tells him he is at the doctor getting a prescription. 5. From 9:45 am to 10:09 am, Constantinidis calls Witness B seven times. 6. At 10:02 am, Constantinidis tells Lazar, "I'm just on the other line…I'm talking to them" [Exhibit G, tab 190]. The CCRs indicate he is talks to someone using the phone number 0414309977 for 442 seconds, and then calls Witness B. 7. At 10:09 am [Exhibit G, tab 191], Lazar speaks to Constantinidis while Lazar is at the doctor. In this conversation, Constantinidis and Lazar speak about Detective Senior Constable Roberts, and Constantinidis says, "the guy's going to fucking get fired". Lazar says he has told Detective Roberts he had to go to the doctor, and that he would be at the Police Station around 10:30 am. Constantinidis is clearly upset with the pressure Detective Senior Constable Roberts is putting on Lazar. Constantinidis says, "I've been asked to ask you specifically, did he ring you direct?" Lazar says, 'Yes he did, in front of Rahal". There are further references to a "they" in this call, and about looking at information in the station. 8. At 10:17 am [Exhibit G, tab 192], Constantinidis says to Lazar, "they said there is nothing that you can be charged with not even obstruction". Lazar asks "why did the guy ring me again", referring to Detective Roberts, and Constantinidis says, "They're obviously doing something from their end... he's obviously saying that he's not bothering you at all, cos they told him that he's not to contact you. You're better off talking to them and whatever and then they can say they're talking to you because of their connection with their case." I infer that the references to "them" includes Witness B and perhaps others, however I cannot be certain as to who these other people are. 9. At 11:12 am [Exhibit G, tab 193], Constantinidis speaks to Lazar and says, "I've spoken to them twice. Just hang in there… I've, I've actually asked for them to ring you to, you know…contact you themselves direct." During the relevant period, Constantinidis spoke to Witness B three times (from 10:17 am to 11:12 am). I infer from the conversation that Constantinidis asked Witness B to ring Lazar directly, or get a senior Police officer to ring him. 10. At 11:36 am [Exhibit G, tab 194], there is a conversation between Lazar and Rahal about Detective Roberts. Rahal tells Lazar that Detective Roberts needs him to introduce the documents that had been provided to the Police officer. They have a lengthy discussion about the gold bar, and Rahal says, "this bloke will spitefully take the matter to a different stage." Rahal tells Lazar he believes he will be charged out of spite. I find that Rahal's advice that Lazar could be charged out of spite was making Lazar increasingly anxious that he would be charged. 11. At 11:46 am [Exhibit G, tab 195], Lazar talks to Constantinidis and passes on a version of his conversation with Rahal, and tells him that Detective Roberts is adamant he wants a statement that day. Constantinidis says, "I'll fuckin' deal with that", Lazar asks "When?" and Constantinidis yells, "NOW! What do you think I'm fucking doing? Sitting around here? For fucks sake…" Immediately after the call with Lazar, Constantinidis calls Witness B at 11:51 am, 11:53 am, and again at 11:57 am. 12. At 11:57 am [Exhibit G, tab 196], Detective Roberts rings Lazar and Lazar tells him that he is [REDACTED], that his biggest issue at the moment is liquidity and that he needs the money from the gold bar. Detective Roberts says, "well mate, if you're, if you're not cooperating with me, mate, if you're not cooperating with me, how do you expect any cooperation in return?" Lazar tells Detective Roberts that he might have to go to [REDACTED]. During this phone call, Lazar is crying. 13. At 12:03 pm [Exhibit G, tab 197], Lazar rings Constantinidis and tells him about his conversation with Detective Roberts. He tells Constantinidis that he was crying on the phone, which can be heard in the tapes. Constantinidis is very upset about the way Detective Roberts is treating Lazar, and tells him, "you're not going to see him without Rahal". Lazar says, "I just want them to go away", Constantinidis says, "I'm doing what is needed - what I've done - I'm not fucking letting up". Lazar asks, "Can you do something?" Constantinidis says, "I'm doing everything… mate, I've rung and rung, what do you want me to do, I'm becoming a pest". Lazar says, "but have you had contact?", and Constantinidis replies, "yes, of course I have". I infer this is a reference to Witness B. The CCRs indicate that Constantinidis called Witness B at 12:30, 12:38, and 14:43. 14. At 14:58, Detective Roberts rings Lazar again [Exhibit G, tab 198]. They have a lengthy discussion and Detective Roberts says he aims at getting a statement from Lazar first thing in the morning. From the conversation, it was clear Lazar was distressed and Detective Roberts was not going to stop pursuing him for a statement. During this period the CCRs indicate Constantinidis is in regular contact with Witness B. 15. At 16:18 [Exhibit G, tab 199], Lazar calls Constantinidis, and Constantinidis says ""they're on the war path, and something's being done this afternoon, right? That's all I can say to you now… They're trying to address the issue." From this I infer that Constantinidis is speaking about Witness B, and that Witness B was trying to address the issue. 16. At 20:51 [Exhibit G, tab 200], Lazar calls Constantinidis and says, "Did you reach further contact with your friend?" Constantinidis says, "they'll ring me later". At the end of the call, Constantinidis says, "Hang on a minute", as he places Lazar on hold and music plays. The call discontinues. At that precise time, the CCRs indicate that Witness B called Constantinidis, and spoke to him for 109 seconds. There is a further call between Witness B and Constantinidis at 20:57, for 1,468 seconds, and then Constantinidis calls Witness B for 162 seconds. I infer the calls between Witness B and Constantinidis relate to the Detective Roberts issue. 17. Immediately after those calls at 21:40, Lazar calls Constantinidis [Exhibit G, tab 201]. I infer that the phone call refers to Witness B. Constantinidis says, "I got a phone call also from the people we are expecting, you might even get a call tonight, they're not sure - just to ask you about the intimidation and what Rahal heard and whatever. I just said 'don't take my fucking word for it', I said 'hear it yourself', so that's being contemplated at the moment". Lazar asks, "why are they so adamant to hear it from me?" The accused are contemplating getting Rahal to make a formal complaint, "'cause they could bury this prick once and for good". 18. Immediately after the above phone call, Constantinidis called Witness B. 22 August 2012 The McGillicuddy call 1. On 22 August at 7:39 am [Exhibit G, tab 202], the McGillicuddy call takes place. I summarise the contents of the phone call at paragraphs [223] – [231] of my Judgment, and will not repeat my summary here. There is no dispute in the trial that the call is between the accused Lazar and Witness B. Witness B said that he made this call as he had been asked by Constantinidis and Lazar to deter Detective Senior Constable Roberts from his investigation of the gold bar matter. 2. The McGillicuddy call is a curious call, particularly because (a) if the accused Lazar knew Witness B as well as Witness B said he did, there is a strong possibility that Lazar would have recognised his voice; and (b) Witness B said he had no intention of actually speaking to Detective Senior Constable Roberts or anyone else in the Police force, nor did he intend (he said) to physically harm Detective Senior Constable Roberts, so there was a high probability that nothing would happen and Lazar's stress levels would not be reduced. The only possible reason for Witness B making this call would be to persuade the accused Lazar that he had in fact spoken to the fictitious Detective Sergeant Superintendent McGillicuddy to ask him to get Detective Senior Constable Roberts to stop investigating the gold bar matter. This was a very risky tactic as, given the determination of Detective Senior Constable Roberts, he had no intention of ceasing to investigate the providence of the gold bar without someone or something stopping him. 3. I accept that it was entirely coincidental that other Police officers asked Detective Senior Constable Roberts to cease the investigation as it was interfering with another ongoing investigation. 4. The McGillicuddy call refers implicitly to both Witness B and the accused Constantinidis. Witness B says, "I don't want you to stress 'cause if you stress, it causes [me] anxiety and I'll get, I'll get the Big Man calling my friend, my friend who gives me the headache…" I accept the evidence of Witness B that "the Big Man" was a reference to Constantinidis and "my friend" was a reference to Witness B. 5. Witness B then tells Lazar to put in a complaint (regarding Detective Senior Constable Roberts), and that he is in control now. He then says, "If he rings you today and if he [threatens] - rings you one more time, okay? I will call you, but actually, you will call the Big Man [Constantinidis], you know who I'm talking about? The Big Man will talk to my associate… which is a mutual friend of [both of ours]?" (presumably he is talking about himself). "He will come and see me in person and then... he will deal with it swiftly [accordingly] and quietly and I promise you this much, you'll never hear from him again." 6. At page 16 [Exhibit G, tab 202], Witness B says, "Mate, I heard - I mean, ah, the guy [Witness B] that talks to the Big Man [Constantinidis], is a very good, a very good mutual friend of mine. That's the main reason why we're doing this and he told me and he was, actually he was really pissed off… about the circumstances, so um, there are certain, ah arrangements we can make to make you [comfortable]." Witness B talks about how they are going to go through a third party, and how they have done a similar thing on two other occasions. Witness B says, "so, leave it in my hands.. if for any reason he rings you and threatens you, you ring the Big Fellow, okay? And then he will ring my friend, and my friend will ring me, and then we take precautions". 7. This part of the McGillicuddy call corroborates the evidence of Witness B that he was to do "whatever it takes" to have Detective Roberts removed from the case. The McGillicuddy call also refers to Lazar's father [Exhibit G, tab 202, p 10]. 8. In essence, the tenor of the phone call is that Constantinidis had spoken to Witness B who had spoken to the fictitious McGillicuddy, and that Lazar should tell Constantinidis if there is any further harassment by Detective Senior Constable Roberts, who would let Witness B know to let the fictitious McGillicuddy know, and Detective Senior Constable Roberts would be dealt with. 9. This phone call is an important evidentiary call in the Crown case. The McGillicuddy phone call is supportive of Witness B's evidence that he was informed by Constantinidis about Detective Senior Constable Roberts pressuring the accused Lazar to give a Police statement. There are other matters in the call that support Witness B's evidence such as: (a) the name of Detective Roberts; (b) the name of the solicitor Raed Rahal; and (c) reference to Lazar's father. 10. I find the McGillicuddy call supports Witness B's evidence that he was asked by Constantinidis to assist in having Detective Roberts taken off the case. 11. At 7:55 am [Exhibit G, tab 203], after the McGillicuddy call, Detective Roberts rings Lazar and tells him he is coming to get a statement from him that morning. Detective Roberts is incredibly persistent in this phone call and says, "all I'm doing is telling you that I'm going to want this over and done this morning, mate". 12. At 7:58 am [Exhibit G, tab 204], Lazar rings Constantinidis, and immediately Constantinidis tells him he has been on the phone for 35 minutes with a guy, and says, "somebody who you know probably right? Or you know of right?" In my view, Lazar is well aware that Constantinidis is having "somebody" they cannot name on the calls deal with the Detective Roberts matter. The CCRs at this time show Witness B and Constantinidis in constant contact. In fact, during this phone call, Constantinidis says, "Someone's on the phone. Let me answer it", and the CCRs show that Witness B was on the other line. I find that the reference above is referring to Witness B, and that Constantinidis had spoken to Witness B regarding the McGillicuddy call. 13. At 8:05 am [Exhibit G, tab 206], Lazar rings his solicitor Rahal and tells him he got a call from a bloke (Witness B/McGillicuddy) and also Detective Roberts, and expresses his concerns. 14. At 8:11 am [Exhibit G, tab 207], Lazar rings Constantinidis. Constantinidis tells him he is on the other line, and he says, "the person was with an English accent, wasn't he? The person that just spoke to you right, he's got an English accent?" I find this is a reference to the McGillicuddy call. Lazar says, "no not English, it sounded, you know.. Pakistani". Constantinidis tells Lazar that Detective Roberts "is just being hunted right now. You're not to do anything, you just stay where you are, right?" 15. It was Witness B who said he disguised his voice with an English accent. The CCRs show that immediately before this call, the accused Constantinidis spoke on the phone to Witness B for 573 seconds. I find that when Constantinidis said, "I'm on the other line", it was to Witness B. I find Witness B told Constantinidis that the person who had called Lazar had an English accent. Immediately after, Constantinidis calls Lazar for 2,080 seconds, and asks Lazar about the English accent [Exhibit G, tab 207]. 16. At this time, the CCRs indicate that Constantinidis is in constant contact with Witness B before and after each call with Lazar. Either Witness B is lying to Constantinidis about having contacted other Police, or Witness B was in fact speaking to someone in the Police. There is a strong inference that Witness B was telling Constantinidis that he had the matter under control and was talking to Police. 17. At 8:19 am [Exhibit G, tab 208], Lazar rings Constantinidis and asks him if he wants Detective Roberts' mobile and they again speak of the McGillicuddy call. Constantinidis says, "they're just going to pick him up and get to the fucking bottom of it, because you know this is a person that you, you don't fuck with." 18. At 8:26 am [Exhibit G, tab 211], there is a further conversation between both accused. They discuss what Witness B has allegedly told Constantinidis, that Detective Roberts has not said he will charge Lazar. Lazar says, "no.. but Raed is imputing that he will if I don't do what he wants". Constantinidis says, "well he can't force you to give a statement, it's illegal", and Lazar says, "that's what Raed said - I either be a witness or if I'm not going to be a witness I could be a defendant… I just want him to leave me alone so I can work". 19. At 8:30 am [Exhibit G, tab 212], Lazar rings his financial employee, Darren Thorley, and speaks about the Detective Roberts matter and asks for a fast clearance on a cheque. Although the timing of this call is extremely suspicious, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it relates to any payment of cash to Witness B. 20. At 8:35 am [Exhibit G, tab 213], Lazar again speaks to Constantinidis and asks if he should ring Detective Roberts and tell him to leave him alone, and that he is not going to see Detective Roberts without a lawyer, and that his lawyer can see him later that day. Constantinidis says, "yes, say your lawyer's in court right?" and Lazar says, "and you're saying by that time the other matter will be dealt with?" Constantinidis says "100%". I find this is another reference to Witness B and find that the "other matter" refers to Witness B dealing with Detective Roberts. 21. At 8:38 am [Exhibit G, tab 215], Detective Roberts rings Lazar. In the conversation, Lazar tells him he is not coming or signing anything without a solicitor present. Detective Roberts is still not letting up and says, "Let's get this thing sorted out this morning". 22. At 8:55 am [Exhibit G, tab 216], Lazar rings Constantinidis again. Constantinidis says, "I will do anything it fucking takes to take this prick down. You've got no idea". I find Constantinidis is talking about Detective Roberts. 23. At 9:51 am [Exhibit G, tab 217], Lazar calls Detective Roberts and asks him to make a draft statement for him, and gives him information. It is a lengthy phone call. 24. At 10:26 am [Exhibit G, tab 218], Lazar calls Constantinidis to speak about another solicitor being involved (Alexander), as they want to use Rahal as a witness for a complaint against Detective Roberts. Mr Rahal was in Lazar's office at the time Detective Roberts called and spoke to Lazar in a very forceful manner. I find that Lazar believed that in this call (and in general) Detective Roberts was threatening and harassing him. There is a reference in this call to "they" – Constantinidis says, "they don't want you to sign anything or go anywhere". I find this is a further reference to Witness B. There are further conversations between the accused that day discussing Detective Roberts, which I have summarised in my Judgment. 25. The CCRs indicate that Constantinidis was on the phone to Lazar and using Lazar's office number and mobile. These calls were interspersed with calls to Witness B [Exhibit P, CCRs, p 27 and 28]. At 21:20 [Exhibit G, tab 223], Constantinidis tells Lazar that there are further meetings happening, saying, "right now, there's a final one at 11:15 pm up the road I'm waiting for… There's a meeting again tomorrow, some place". I infer that this meeting related to Witness B and Detective Roberts. 26. In the early hours of the morning (between approximately 1:00 am and 3:20 am), Witness B and Constantinidis speak on the phone seven times [Exhibit P, CCRs]. I infer this related to Detective Roberts. 23 August 2012 1. On 23 August 2012 at 8:55 am [Exhibit G, tab 224], Lazar calls Constantinidis. Constantinidis says Detective Roberts was spoken to "very severely two or three times during the evening, so hopefully there's a different result – the outcome is the same the result should be, that's what I'm saying to you". The evidence from the Officer in Charge is that Detective Roberts was spoken to by Detective Sergeant Flores who was investigating Lazar on other matters, and the gold bar investigation was suspended. How Constantinidis knew this is a mystery, as the Officer in Charge gave evidence that Detective Senior Constable Roberts' removal from the gold bar investigation had nothing to do with Witness B. Findings regarding the telephone calls between Constantinidis and Witness B 1. Overall, there are almost 100 phone calls between Constantinidis and Witness B between 18 August and 25 August. Given the timing of the calls, the correlation of those calls with the telephone intercepts, and the fact that Witness B's calls at times interrupted Constantinidis' calls with Lazar, I find that Constantinidis did speak to Witness B and ask for his assistance in removing Detective Roberts from the gold bar investigation, with the intention of perverting the course of justice. There can be no reasonable explanation for the McGillicuddy call other than that Witness B rang Lazar to assure him that something was being done to address his concerns in relation to Detective Roberts. I find Constantinidis spoke to Witness B to get him to speak to Police officers, and Witness B was either providing Constantinidis with information that he was making up, or was getting information from some unknown person or persons. 2. Witness B did not give evidence as to the contents of these telephone calls with Constantinidis, in particular the calls which overlapped with the telephone intercepts and the McGillicuddy call. The Crown case is deficient in this regard. Independent evidence does however point to Witness B and Constantinidis being in very close contact at the precise time of the McGillicuddy call. Despite the deficiencies in the evidence and the unreliability of Witness B, I find that the telephone intercepts and CCRs paint a compelling picture that the conversations between Witness B and Constantinidis related to Detective Roberts and having him taken off the case. How well did Witness B know each accused in 2012? 1. An issue arose in the trial as to how long Witness B had known each of the accused at the time of the McGillicuddy call. I find that Witness B knew the accused Constantinidis very well at the time of the McGillicuddy call. I accept that Witness B had a very close relationship with the accused Constantinidis, until approximately 2014, when a dispute arose between them with regards to Witness B's wife's house. I find that Witness B was so close with Constantinidis that he called him "Dad". I find that Constantinidis and Witness B were in very close contact leading up to the McGillicuddy call, particularly on 21 and 22 August 2012. I accept that from Witness B's demeanour in Court that he was extremely hurt and upset by Constantinidis' actions, and had an axe to grind against him. He felt betrayed by Constantinidis. 2. In relation to the accused Lazar, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Witness B was in close physical connection with the accused Lazar prior to August 2012. He may have known Lazar and met him through Constantinidis prior to August 2012, but the evidence called on behalf of the Crown is not persuasive and does not suggest that Witness B was indeed working in the office with the accused Lazar in August 2012. One of the reasons their physical proximity may have been limited was because Lazar wanted to paint himself as a legitimate businessman, and did not want Witness B, who was a large standover man with criminal convictions, associated with him. Witness B referred to this in his evidence [T 177]. 3. There is no dispute that as of early 2013, Lazar and Witness B knew each other, as both were charged with a criminal assault relating to an incident in a car park. It would seem that all charges were dropped against Witness B, and Lazar was charged with common assault. There are no telephone calls recorded in the 227 calls on Lazar's mobile phone between Lazar and Witness B. There is no independent evidence at all that Witness B was the bodyguard of Lazar in 2012. There is no independent evidence at all that he was seen in his office in 2012. There is evidence that Witness B and Constantinidis had a long relationship, and Lazar knew who Witness B was. 4. It is clear from the McGillicuddy call Lazar did not recognise his voice. The fact that Witness B's voice was not recognised by the accused Lazar on the McGillicuddy call supports the accused Lazar's contention that at the time of the call, Witness B did not know the accused Lazar as well as he purported. I listened to Witness B give evidence and also to the McGillicuddy phone call on a number of occasions. It seems to me that Witness B thinly disguised his voice. His voice was very hard to understand both on the call and in court, as he was slurring his words. However Witness B's voice in the McGillicuddy call was still recognisable as Witness B. I find that the reason Lazar did not recognise Witness B's voice during the McGillicuddy call is that although Lazar may have met him and had day-to-day business dealings with him, prior to August 2012, Lazar's main contact with Witness B was through Constantinidis. The phone call with Constantinidis on 16 August 2012 [Exhibit G, tab 136], in which he refers to Witness D, at least indicates Lazar knew Witness B's wife in August 2012. I find that in August 2012, Witness B was not a full-time employee and did not work in Lazar's office. It was not until 2013 that I can be satisfied that Witness B and Lazar worked together in close physical proximity. 5. I primarily base my findings on Witness B's statement to Police dated 8 February 2018, in which he stated that he met the accused Lazar shortly before the assault incident in 2013, and the evidence of independent witnesses (Dennis Mirosavic and Eddison Diez) who worked in Lazar's office in 2012 that they did not see Witness B in the office. 6. I make a finding that although Lazar may have known Witness B in 2012, Witness B was much closer to Constantinidis. I find that Lazar was not as familiar with him, and he did not recognise Witness B's voice when Witness B made the McGillicuddy call. I find that whilst Witness B was putting on an accent during the McGillicuddy call, he still sounded remarkably like he did in the witness box, with slurred speech. If Lazar had known Witness B so well at the time, not only would he have recognised his voice, he would not have needed to go through the accused Constantinidis to speak to him. He could have spoken to him at his workplace. Further, if Lazar knew Witness B as well as Witness B said he did in 2012, it would have been a very risky tactic for Witness B to make the McGillicuddy call if there was a possibility he would be recognised by the accused Lazar. 7. At the time of the telephone intercepts, particularly around 21 and 22 August 2012, I find that Lazar was under a considerable amount of stress due to matters such as Police raids on his lawyer in Melbourne, a Victorian Senator, media articles, his ex-wife, his boils (diagnosed by Constantinidis as shingles), [REDACTED]. Lazar's perception of Detective Roberts' intention to charge him was fuelled by his lawyer Raed Rahal's constant insistence that Detective Senior Constable Roberts may charge him out of spite. Lazar wanted the gold bar returned because he was desperate for money. 8. I find in August 2012, Lazar and Constantinidis had a very close personal and business relationship, indeed they were on the phone to each other constantly discussing business and personal matters. 9. In respect of the accused Constantinidis, I find that as of August 2012, Constantinidis had intimate knowledge of Lazar's problems with Detective Roberts. Lazar rang Constantinidis almost immediately after each phone conversation with Detective Roberts or his solicitor Rahal. Constantinidis spoke directly to Rahal on 21 August, when Rahal was in Lazar's office before he met with Detective Roberts. Constantinidis was in constant contact with Witness B at the relevant times, and indeed was actually speaking to him on the other line on some occasions when Lazar tried to call Constantinidis. 10. In respect of the accused Lazar I find that in August 2012, he was concerned that the gold bar given to him by Y was stolen. The evidence that supports that finding can be found in Lazar's phone calls to various entities to ascertain how one can tell if a gold bar is stolen or not. I find that at the time the gold bar was seized by the Police, Lazar needed the money. I find that Lazar was concerned that Detective Senior Constable Roberts may charge him with something "out of spite". I find that Lazar was concerned that Y was a well-known criminal, and had involved him in an investigation by saying it was Lazar's gold bar. Y was also in a vehicle with Witness A, who was the wife of a now deceased notorious criminal. 11. I find that Lazar wanted Detective Senior Constable Roberts taken off his case, and enlisted the accused Constantinidis to help him. I find the accused Constantinidis then enlisted Witness B. I accept Witness B's evidence that Lazar also spoke to him about the gold bar matter and Detective Roberts. This was most likely on 21 or 22 August 2012. 12. Despite the unreliability of Witness B's evidence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both accused asked Witness B to assist in getting Detective Senior Constable Roberts taken off the gold bar case either by getting him transferred or making a complaint, and doing whatever it takes. 1. I find both accused spoke to Witness B and asked him to speak to high-ranked Police, and put improper pressure on Detective Senior Constable Roberts, and if that did not work to recruit others to physically harm Detective Senior Constable Roberts. I find both accused acted together in a Joint Criminal Enterprise. Based on my assessment of all the evidence, I am satisfied to a point of actual persuasion beyond reasonable doubt that both accused had an intention to pervert the course of justice. 1. The particular act to pervert the course of justice relied upon by the Crown is an "offer" to pay Witness B. The Crown opened its case that there was actual payment of money by Lazar to Witness B. It is not in dispute that Lazar did make payments of money to Witness B. The only issue is what the money was payment for. Witness B said in 2013 that $200,000 went into the trust account of his lawyer [T 180.5]. It was put to Witness B that the accused Lazar made payments of approximately $50,000 in relation to work done on some tugboats. Witness B said, "I was paid for his protection. That's about it" [T 182.45]. Witness B said he was paid two lots of cash in the amounts of $49,000 and $50,000 on two separate occasions by Lazar in respect of the gold bar matter [see paragraph 52 above of my Judgment]. Mr Rahal also said he was aware that money was paid to Witness B as he was threatening Constantinidis. 2. I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the exact amount of payment by Lazar to Witness B for the gold bar job. Firstly, the value of the gold bar was said to be approximately $50,000. Why would the accused Lazar pay approximately double that, being $100,000, to get the gold bar back? Secondly, it was clear from the time of the conversations with Detective Senior Constable Roberts and his lawyers that the accused Lazar was desperate to get the gold bar back, as he needed the money. Thirdly, the evidence of Witness B is highly unsatisfactory in relation to when he was paid, what he was paid for, and what the other jobs related to. There is a very strong suspicion that Witness B was involved with both accused in other matters that went beyond legitimate legal business dealings, however those matters are not before me and I have very little evidence in relation to them. I make no finding in that regard. 3. What I do have to decide is, can I be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the elements of the offence on the evidence before me. The indictment refers to an "offer" to pay Witness B, although the Crown opened and ran its case on actual payment. The Crown cannot say when exactly the cash payment was made. I accept Witness B's evidence when he said he spoke to Constantinidis about money, and I accept his evidence that he was paid cash by Lazar at some stage, and the money included money for the gold bar job. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Constantinidis discussed payment with Witness B, and that the accused Lazar did in fact pay Witness B some money for his involvement in removing Detective Roberts from the investigation. I cannot however be certain of the precise amount Witness B was paid or the timing of the payment. 4. I am therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt in respect of both elements of the offence. 5. I find that the accused acted together in a Joint Criminal Enterprise and did an act, namely offer to pay and paid Witness B to improperly influence Detective Senior Constable Roberts. There was an intention by each accused to pervert the course of justice. I find the offence proved. Verdict 1. I find each accused Guilty of the offence as charged. ********** NOT FOR PUBLICATION – NAMES RESTRICTED Annexure 1 Witness List and Pseudonyms [REDACTED] ("Witness A") [REDACTED] ("Witness B") [REDACTED] ("C") [REDACTED] ('Witness D") [REDACTED] ("Y") [REDACTED] ("X") Amendments 29 January 2020 - Addressed some heading formatting issues DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 29 January 2020