Private Investigator Portal

Richard Ackland SMH

More than a year ago, there was strong evidence that the terror case against Mohamed Haneef was a farce. Yet grimly the federal police and the top copper Mick Keelty held firm to the belief that this Indian doctor posed a threat.

Based on the word of the Australian Federal Police, Haneef was stripped of his visa. The then minister for immigration, Kevin Andrews, repeatedly said he was in possession of secret information from the police that he relied on to make that decision. It was so powerful and secret that this information could not be publicly revealed.

It has now emerged that there was no evidence of criminal behaviour in the document at all.

ASIO, too, advised that Haneef was not a threat to national security. The story about the doctor's SIM card being found in a burning car used in an attempt to blow up Glasgow airport was also false.

Indeed, that information was already available to the police before they briefed the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions lawyers for the appearance at the bail hearing on July 14 last year.

The DPP lawyer who appeared, Clive Porritt, even came with an explanation for the court as to why Dr Haneef would have provided his SIM card if he knew it was to be used in a terrorist attack.

Because he intended for it to be destroyed in the explosion, Porritt said.

Meanwhile, the British coppers thought this was a huge hoot.

The Herald reported them saying on July 21, 2007, that: "Australian police have got their wires crossed. This is very embarrassing for them."

On July 27, 2007, the terrorism charge against Dr Haneef was dropped by the Commonwealth DPP.

As at the end of last year, $7.5 million had been spent on investigating Haneef and related matters. At its peak, 249 AFP officers were involved, 225 Queensland police, 12 employees from the attorney-general's department, 54 West Australian police, 40 from NSW, six from the customs service, two Northern Territory police and one Tasmanian walloper. There were also two British bobbies posted to Australia.

Keelty told a Senate estimates committee in May this year that an investigation was still going on and that the doctor "remains a person of interest".

The AFP seemed to to be relatively prompt, just before the last federal election, in clearing a number of Liberal MPs of allegations of electoral expense rorting.

You'd think after more than a year and hundreds of police officers, they might by now have drilled to the bottom of the Haneef affair.

Earlier this year Police Commissioner Keelty, in a curious outburst, suggested that restrictions apply to the media reporting proceedings in open court and even the reporting of information in the public domain.

In March, a former NSW judge, John Clarke, was appointed by the Labor Government to examine the key elements of the Haneef affair: his arrest, detention, charging, prosecution, cancellation of his visa, and to report on the deficiencies of the law enforcement agencies.

The Commonwealth DPP made a submission and a public version was received by the inquiry on August 14. In it, the prosecutor jumps all over the federal police.

The police exerted "extreme pressure" to bring the charge, essential information was withheld making it hard to impossible to make an informed judgment about the case, and there were inconsistencies between the oral and written briefings provided by the AFP.

However, the DPP did advise the police that Haneef could be charged. Around the same time, Keelty was making noises to the chief prosecutor that he didn't think there was enough to go on, but they were pressing ahead seeking more information. That was contrary to what he had been telling the media: "I can assure you that the investigation … has been driven by the evidence and driven by the facts."

In substantial respects, the DPP reflects the same concerns as those expressed in the submission to the inquiry made by lawyers for Haneef.

In keeping with Mick Keelty's beliefs about media blackouts, the federal force doesn't want you to know the contents of its submission. This remains under wraps.

If the DPP is sheeting home the blame to the AFP, it's relevant to ask why Clive Porritt was placed in an impossibly isolated position by prosecution management.

At the moment, Mick Keelty is looking like one of the most wretched and plod-like public servants in Australia.

It's about time the Government put its foot on his neck. To allow him to continue to run a complex and massively resourced anti-terrorism agency is unthinkable.

SMH article

A Sydney private eye who posed as a federal police agent and sent a 77-year-old woman a menacing letter has been jailed for 12 months.

In the Downing Centre Local Court today, Magistrate Pat O'Shane ruled Brett Sutcliffe would be eligible for release after nine months.

The 28-year-old must then enter into a 12-month, $5,000 good behaviour bond.

The magistrate also imposed a $5,000 fine on Sutcliffe, a former director of private investigation firm Spousebusters.

He had pleaded guilty to impersonating a Commonwealth public official and using the postal service to menace the elderly woman, who challenged him for parking in a disabled parking zone near her North Bondi home, in Sydney's east, last July.

Sutcliffe sent the woman a letter, purportedly on Australian Federal Police (AFP) letterhead, warning that she had "wrongly interfered" with an AFP investigation.

Ms O'Shane said the letter had involved "significant intimidation" of an elderly woman.

The Australian Law Reform Commission has called for a major overhaul of out-of-date privacy laws to better protect individuals and the corporations which investigate them in the digital age.

Political parties and small business would no longer enjoy generous exemptions to the 20-year-old Privacy Act and a statutory course of action against serious invasions of privacy would be established.

The ALRC has released its 2,700-page, three-volume report looking at how national privacy laws apply in the current digital age and how they stack up against international standards.

About 250 workshops with individuals, community groups, the private sector and government organisations were held and nearly 600 submissions received during a 28-month inquiry by the commission.

The final report puts forward 295 recommendations for reform.

ALRC president David Weisbrot, launching the report in Sydney, said much had changed since the commission delivered its first report into privacy 25 years ago.

"None of the commissioners had or had even heard of email, there were no mobile phones, no digital cameras - no high-tech surveillance cameras in public places," Professor Weisbrot said at the launch.

Small business, which makes up 94 per cent of all Australian companies, and political parties should no longer be exempt from the laws, the report states.

It says they look after vast amounts of personal information and are not required to follow regulations on acquiring, protecting, using or disseminating that information.

"No other comparable jurisdiction in the world exempts small business from the general privacy law."

On the issue of data breaches, Australian organisations are not required to inform individuals when their personal information has been compromised.

It is standard practice in most states in the US and the report recommends the same measures for Australia.

Regarding age requirements, the commission recommends anyone over 15 should have consent over the access and distribution of their personal information.

On the flip side of things, credit providers would have greater access to applicant's financial information such as current credit balances and loan repayment histories.

"The Australian regime is ... more restrictive than in most comparable countries," the report states.

Australian credit bureau Veda Advantage backed the changes, saying the current laws prevent people from building a positive credit history.

"The government needs to pick up the ALRC's suggestion that more data can be permitted when government and industry implement a responsible lending framework," Veda director Chris Gration said in a statement.

Under the recommendations, people would not be charged for keeping telephone numbers unlisted and Australian companies would become accountable, under many conditions, when transferring individual's information overseas.

Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the disclosure of a person's private information would be "an outrage".

"Equally, however, there is need for government effectiveness and for data to be communicated between agencies and government departments," Mr McClelland said at the launch.

Based on the size of the report, Cabinet Secretary John Faulkner, who is responsible for information law, said the government would review the report in two stages and begin to legislate on the recommendations within 12 to 18 months.

Opposition legal spokesman George Brandis warned the government against any legislative changes which would compromise freedom of speech.

"(Current common and statute laws) strike careful balances between the protection of legitimate interests in privacy, and the respect for freedom of speech which has been a hallmark of our legal system," Senator Brandis said in a statement.

The 1988 Privacy Act limits the collection of personal information by organisations.

They are only allowed to collect information necessary for their function or activities, and must not use it or disclose it for other purposes.

But political organisations and businesses with a turnover of less than $3 million a year are currently exempt and may use information in any way they please.

Senator Faulkner would not comment on the implications of reversing the exemptions political parties have enjoyed.

"My responsibility here is not to come forward as a representative of a political party," he told reporters at the launch.

"That's not the hat I'm wearing."

ACCESS THE FULL ALRC REPORT »

© 2008 AAP

I met with the (NSW ed.) Police Ministers' representatives (Tanya DADIEL MP and Chair, Parliamentary Secretary for Police, Mary Louise Battilana, Policy Manager Ministry For Police, Fiona Lansdown Senior Policy Analyst, Ministry for Police, Agnes Yi Policy Advisor, Minister Campbells Office) early last week along with about 10 other concerned and caring industry stake holders including Alan Harries IMA, Alistair Steel AIPI, Anthony Callaghan AIPI, John Bracey AIPD, Dan Deleau MJM Investigations, Peter Cox Peter Cox And Associates, Steve Kent IAB Services,  Bernie Galetti TAFE,  to discuss problems with the current legislation and a new legislative model.

The consensus of all stake holders was that the current legislation had been put together in a hurry despite the fact the State Government had this matter for over six years and that in its present form it was unworkable and in part unnecessary and unregulated or poorly regulated by police.

Some very sad experiences with serious consequence for industry stake holders and consumers with well known and adversely publicised investigators was discussed and it was apparent from these well documented experiences that the legislation in its present form coupled with poor policing of that legislation demonstarted the inadequacies of the legislation and the regulatory authority.

In relation to the legislation frame work, I proposed a registration board model similar to that which is currently in place for lawyers, real-estate agents, Accountants and Psychologists that would allow for industry input as to who comes and goes from our industry and thus allowing for co regulation which was put to the vote and adopted by a majority of those industry stakeholders in attendance.

In relation to Private Inquiry Agents I also raised the following issues and recommendations:

Mandatory licensing of all private investigators whether they work in house for banks or insurers or law firms. Agreed by the majority in attendance.

I argued that far too many organisations operate with an unfair advantage and at the same time carry out the exact same occupation as those of us who are licensed and pay a fee to the Government for that privilege. Not only this but there was no fingerprinting nor probity on those engaged in-house. Agreed my the majority of stakeholders in attendance.

Recognition that Loss Adjusters and Loss Assessors are also investigating and that they should fall within the legislation for CAPI licensing. Agreed by the majority in attendance. Agreed by the majority of stakeholders in attendance.

Loss adjusting is simply that, adjusting a claim for certain damage or losses. However it has been my experienec that the work of thedse people almost always goes beyond adjusting. Insurers know and expect  loss adjusters to report suspicious claims and they do so on a regular basis and thus at this point they are inquiring and reporting into the character, actions or nature of business of a person (old definition) and at that point require licensing. It is a rare occurrence that a loss assessor/adjuster does not give an opinion regarding the genuineness or otherwise of a claim and in fact most insurance reporting formats are framed this way.

That private investigators should not be joined under one piece of legislation with security personnel.

This was obviously one area being considered by the Police Ministers office. I proffered the argument that for many years we had strived for separation from the security industry as we are very different in terms of our work, skill sets and competencies. I argued that if were lumped in with the security industry this would place a serious imposition/disadvantage upon members in terms of Workers' Compensation and Professional Indemnity premiums for insurance cover, a premium that would not truly reflect the vast differences in our exposure to risks when compared to security personnel. Private Investigators do not carry guns, batons, guard, patrol, protect nor generally become involved in arrests or fracas.

That fingerprinting of applicants should be retained.

There was a move by many stake holders to have this rescinded however I argued that if investigators were to gain greater recognition from Government  we should also undergo greater scrutiny. Further, I argued that investigators regularly attend crime scene and gather exhibits as evidence and during that process their prints might corrupt the process and could be eliminated via retention of fingerprinting.

Another issue that was very much considered and discussed was a National licensing system allowing licensed investigators to hold one license for the whole of Australia. I believe this will become legislation in the long term future.

Warren Mallard
Lyonswood Investigations & Forensic Group

I wrote to the Australian government´s Office of the Privacy Commissioner seeking clarification on the full implications of the Privacy Act on private investigators because our experience has been that the majority of Australian investigators do not know what they can and cannot do since the NPPs in 2001.

Recently I received this response published in full except for intro and closing. If you are a private investigator anywhere in Australian, you´d be wise to review this information. Either you knew it anyway, or you might be surprised to learn you´re breaching law. ed.

Go to the letter from the Commissioner's office

(NSW) POLICE ACT 1990 - SECT 205

Use of police designations by others
205 Use of police designations by others

A person (not being a police officer) who, in connection with any business, occupation or employment uses:

    (a) the designation of "detective", or

    (b) the designation of "private detective" or any other designation that includes the word "detective", or

    (c) any other designation, or any rank or description, implying that the person is a police officer (whether or not the designation, rank or description was previously applicable to the person as a police officer),

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.

Check your state's legislation as it may well be similar (ed.).

By Stephanie Peatling - SMH

Private detectives will be used to spy on child support defaulters under tough new measures announced by the Federal Government, as it chases $1 billion in unpaid payments.

The Minister for Human Services, Joe Ludwig, announced yesterday that "covert optical surveillance" would be used from July 1 to chase the worst offenders from the pool of 254,073 parents who have not paid for the continuing support of their children.

"I want to reinforce this message to parents who fail to meet their obligations: if you don't do the right thing you will be caught and will have to face the consequences," Senator Ludwig said.

"Parents should do the right thing by their kids and give them the level of support they deserve."

The size of the child support debt grew by 5.6 per cent this financial year to $1 billion, with half the outstanding amounts larger than $1000.

Between 15 and 20 private detectives will be used in a small number of cases where parents do not make their payments or are suspected of consistently underestimating their income in order to minimise their payments.

Evidence collected by the detectives will be used by the Child Support Agency in court action against parents who continue to lie about their income.

Senator Ludwig would not say how many parents would be spied on but the private detectives would be used only against "the worst offenders". The detectives will be used in a year-long trial to see if more aggressive methods succeed in recovering larger numbers of debts. The agency will work with the Insolvency and Trustee Service to seize and sell assets, such as houses, in order to cover debts.

Income records held by the agency will be matched with Tax Office records to stop parents from salary-sacrificing portions of their income to lower their taxable income and child support payments.

The tough measures will be introduced on July 1, the same day the child support payments for hundreds of thousands of parents will change following a revamp of the way payments are calculated.

The architect of the changes, Professor Patrick Parkinson, says about 60 per cent of parents will pay less child support under the new system. Senator Ludwig declined to comment on that figure.

Copyright Sydney Morning Herald

By Ros Reines - Daily Telegraph

JAMES Monte - the good-looking son of controversial, swashbuckling private eye Frank Monte - is in a spot of trouble that rivals his dad's stoush with the Versace family.

Monte junior's "escapade'' includes having a squad of police knock down his eastern suburbs door and winding up in Waverley Court on two counts of common assault with an application for an AVO against him involving his beautiful partner, Georgie Gordon.

Gordon is, of course, the former girlfriend of A-list restaurateur Dave Evans.

They famously broke up when Elle Macpherson came on the scene.

Gordon and Monte have been dating ever since but, by all accounts, the affair has been a bit of a roller coaster ride.

It all came to a head, according to his lawyer Phillip Beazley of Beazley Singleton, after Gordon went to the police on May 24 to discuss her treatment by her boyfriend. This resulted in police arriving at their home in the early hours of May 27 and waking up the couple.

Monte was arrested, taken to Kings Cross police station and formally charged - on his 37th birthday. On May 29, he appeared at Waverley Court where he denied the assault charges.

A temporary AVO against Monte, sought by the police prosecutor, was put in place, with another hearing set down for July 10.

Frank Monte was not in court to support his son and has only recently arrived back in the country from the US, where he is still employed by the surveillance industry.

He left town following his well-publicised court battle with the Versace family, whom he was found to have defamed in his 2002 biography, The Spying Game.

However, he now has his work cut out for him, with his son also due to face court again for sentence on October 8 after pleading guilty to a string of driving offences, including unlicensed driving, driving an uninsured vehicle, two counts of driving with a suspended licence and exceeding the speed limit.

He is now enrolled in the Traffic Offenders program.

Copyright Daily Telegraph

By Roger Rogerson

THEY'RE smart cookies and they know it. They're cocky and arrogant. They travel all around the world doing whatever they like. And they've got unlimited money to play with.

They're greedy. Very greedy. And they know they can get away with it.

A lot of them are bad gamblers - and that's the worst situation for a cop with potential to turn. That's the most dangerous type.

But the reason these high-level cops cross the line is because they've got absolute, unlimited power.

At the State Crime Commission and the Australian Crime Commission they have unfettered powers, there's no one there to do checks on them. They're a law unto themselves, accountable to nobody.

Let me tell you how the State Crime Commission works. Their main role is to take possession of property, to make money for the Government. And they work on commission.

The first thing they do on an operation, without anyone being charged, is hit people with a caveat on their house. They freeze all your bank accounts for months and months, and they slowly go through it all and basically break you bit by bit.

Then they have a private hearing and they work out a deal. They actually barter, they sit there and barter over people's lives, their houses and their Mercedes cars.

There was a case recently where a person had been convicted and here's this Crime Commission investigator acting as a witness, accused of threatening this bloke. Of course, he denied it. But who's going to question a Crime Commission investigator standing up in court under oath? Nobody.

It's not like policing at all. It's an incredibly powerful body, too powerful as we've seen this week.

A lot of people said I crossed the line, which I deny to this day.

It takes a certain type of person to cross the line.

They've got to have greed. I honestly don't think you could say corruption exists because cops are poorly paid. It's because of greed, simple as that.

I mean, it's not a matter of them being poorly paid, that they need the money, especially at the Crime Commission or in the top ranks. These are senior investigators on $130,000 or $140,000 a year. I don't think they can cry poor-mouth.

But if they have a gambling problem, well that makes it even more dangerous, even more tempting.

A lot of them are bad gamblers. In my day I saw cops who were terrible gamblers, who'd put most of their pay cheques on the horses or through the hokie pokies and you knew they were battling when you went to their homes, everything would be buggered, old lino, old lounge suites - it was all going into gambling.

You couldn't get a phone to do any police work on a Saturday because most of them were ringing up Townsville to get bets on or ringing Brisbane to get tips in Perth.

A gambling habit makes it highly dangerous. I mean, you're searching people's homes, finding thousands and thousands of dollars in cash and drugs and if you've got a gambling debt, it's a hell of a temptation to knock something off isn't it?

And they're already leading a double life which makes it even easier.

These guys at the State Crime Commission, they can't tell their families much because in these situations they're sworn to secrecy.

I remember when the joint task force was operating between the state police and the federal police. All those operations had untraceable addresses, bodgy identities, they even had bodgy companies where their cars were registered. Everything they used or touched had nothing to do with the police.

They live two totally different lives. It's easy for them to turn - they're already living a lie. It's the thrill of the chase for a lot of them too.

They thrive on that sort of stress, knowing they can't get caught, the adrenalin starts pumping like mad.

There's no doubt these guys are under enormous pressure. Here they are locking up people who have been conspiring to import huge amounts of cocaine and ice and what do you know, they are doing it themselves.

Doing your job, and doing your job properly and getting results is extremely exhilarating, but for someone who has got a financial problem, especially gambling where they've done a fortune, lost millions, the obvious option for them is corruption. It's right in front of them, it's right there for the taking.

Cops in general have got to be smart people to combat crime and these days crims are unbelievably smart. I mean with international rings emanating from Europe you can't imagine what these crime commission guys could get their fingers into. You've got to be a bloody smart cookie.

They've got an attitude of "I'm very smart and no one is smarter than me".

For someone at a rank and level of power, especially in the crime commission, you're the commander, you don't need a partner in crime. You can do a lot of dodginess all on your own. Coppers like this mix with certain horrible people and the minute they have some trust with them they then use them as a conduit and that's how it all comes about.

The normal state cops are answerable but these guys, they're not answerable to anyone. They had the Royal Commission and it said all these horrible things that cops got up to, but it's nothing like what's going on in the Crime Commission.

It's come back to that old saying: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I've heard it for years. And if you go right back through the centuries, throughout time, you'll see that's what happens.

I'm hoping, I'm really hoping that if there is any corruption proved at the State Crime Commission after the events of this week, that it will be a huge eye opener for the Government and they might now bring in some rules and regulations that require these people to be accountable to somebody - because they're not at the moment. And that goes to the heart of the problem.

Copyright Roger Rogerson

By Jared Savage - NZ Herald

Private investigators could be given the power to arrest and prosecute criminals under proposed changes to police laws.

Critics say civilians given stronger powers under the Policing Bill would be untrained and unaccountable.

But supporters say the police are too stretched to tackle fraud - even with a new organised crime unit - and a partnership with private investigators would lead to a crackdown on white-collar crime.

Under proposed changes to the Police Act, Commissioner Howard Broad could from "time to time" appoint people with the "powers, functions and duties" of sworn officers.

The power would be on an acting, temporary or casual basis, or for any period the Commissioner and employee agreed on. Similarly, Broad could place an officer with another employer, such as a private investigation firm.

In effect, this would allow private detectives to gather evidence of white-collar crime before a sworn officer executed search warrants, arrested offenders or even prosecuted.

The bill is being debated by Parliament's law and order select committee, chaired by Ron Mark. Broad declined to comment until the bill became law.

But Police Association vice-president Stuart Mills said passing police powers to private investigators would confuse the public, who expected a properly trained police service. "Who are private investigators accountable to? The clients who pay them," said Mills.

"Leave policing to police. That's what we're trained to do without fear or favour."

Ron McQuilter, managing director of private investigators Paragon New Zealand, said partnerships with firms such as his were being created by law enforcement agencies worldwide, including the FBI. Paragon is often hired to investigate fraud, sometimes by Government departments.

McQuilter was candid about the lucrative contracts his company would gain from private-public partnerships, but said police did not have the resources to combat white-collar crime - even when the investigation work had already been done.

A recent case involved $1.5 million of stolen money. Paragon obtained confessions and handed a complete prosecution file to police.

Six months later, nothing has happened, with tens of thousands of recovered dollars sitting in a Paragon safe.

"At the moment, there are crooks getting away with crime because the police are too busy to arrest them."

Mark said he was keeping "an open mind" about contracting private investigators, particularly on fraud offences. Police lacked the manpower and expertise to investigate mid-level fraud and he was concerned they refused to look at some cases, even when private investigators obtained taped confessions. "We are very mindful of the frustration of ordinary Kiwis who are being denied justice because the police don't have the resources to deal with their case," he said.

Police and Justice Minister Annette King's office did not return calls, but in a statement last month she said there were more than 2000 extra police on the street since Labour came into office in 1999.

A new agency to combat serious and financial crime will be launched in July - amalgamating the Serious Fraud Office with police.

Thanks Warren Mallard for sniffing out this article.

By Telegraph reporter Kim Arlington

He's a private eye whose agency busts unfaithful partners. But Brett Sutcliffe yesterday faced court after he was busted - for posing as a federal police agent.

In an amusing twist, it was the sleuthing by the 77-year-old woman he hoped to deceive that led to his undoing.

Downing Centre Local Court heard that Sutcliffe - the director of private investigation firm Spousebusters - was carrying out surveillance from a parked car in North Bondi last July.

Elderly resident Pauline English asked him to move from the disabled parking zone. After initially claiming he was waiting for his grandmother, Sutcliffe said he was an investigator and refused to move from his "perfect position".

Within days Mrs English received a letter, emblazoned with the Australian Federal Police logo and signed by "Risk Officer 34324421234", warning that she had "wrongly interfered" with an AFP investigation.

"The man you spoke to that was parked in your street was a federal agent working on an investigation regarding matters of national security," it read.

The letter said that telling her neighbours of his presence "may have led to ruining months of surveillance and investigation".

It added: “Your actions may have provided suspect parties the information they require to alter their activities and avoid being caught and prosecuted by Police.

"This letter serves as your first and last warning about such matters although if it is found that your actions have led to this investigation being compromised, you will be arrested and charged with obstruction of justice, harbouring of criminals as well as many other offences."

Six weeks later, while watching a current affairs story on Spousebusters, she recognised the man she had spoken to outside her house.

Sutcliffe, 28, pleaded guilty to impersonating a Commonwealth public official and using the postal service to menace, harass or offend.

Magistrate Pat O'Shane said the incident "reeks of immaturity and an overwhelming sense of self-importance".

She adjourned sentencing until August, ordering Sutcliffe into counselling and suggesting he undergo cognitive behaviour therapy.

Have you had an experience with this investigator or any others that you'd like to tell us about?

We fully support the exposure and prosecution of any private investigator that cheats, lies, steals, behaves like a dumb cowboy or involves in other form of unlawful conduct.

Professional private investigators maintain higher ethical standards supported by the vast majority of private investigators in Australia. Let's expose the cheats and the liars. Please contact us and tell us if you know of relevant facts.

Who said there's no money in private investigation!?! - Well, there is. At least for the NSW government, when you consider the exorbitant licensing fees! [The link is to a PDF file which opens in a new window]