COFFMAN -v- THE QUEEN [2010] WASCA 54 (25 March 2010)

COFFMAN -v- THE QUEEN [2010] WASCA 54 (25 March 2010) - WASCA 2010 case summary — Zoe

[258]

Can we start by dealing with Coffman in the cells? Was he kept in the cells overnight?---Yes.

Did somebody go and get him?---Dowding and I took him from the cells up to the interview room and lodged him in an interview room, as I said before, on the third floor.

Right?---And after he was interviewed, he was taken back down. However, - - it was - - Dowding and I had to make some notes in our note - - or in his notebook in relation to alleged verbal conversations in relation to that fingerprint, which we did, but of course that conversation never took place.

All right. You made a statement eventually, did you not, in relation to what had happened on that day - -?---Yes.

- - for inclusion in the brief?---Yes.

Have a look at exhibit 1063 which is barcoded 1020701. Apart from a signature which has been blocked out at the end and the substitution of Coffman's name as F3 at the beginning, does that seem to be the statement that you made in relation to the events of the day?---Yes.

Which of course adopts the statement of Detective Dowding, pages 1 to 5, does it not?---Correct.

I'll ask you to have a look at Mr Dowding's statement, which is exhibit 1062, if that could be brought up please. That's barcoded 1020703. I'll take you through it, but does that, from the first page, appear to be the statement that you adopted of Detective Dowding?---Yes.

With, again, some alterations to deal with a substitution of Coffman's name for F3?---Yes.

The statement commences halfway down that page in front of you by reference to the morning of the 22nd of September 1989 and refers to you as F2 going with Higgins and Staltari to the Sydney Police Centre. It then purports on the bottom of that page to refer to a conversation which took place between Dowding and Coffman?---Yes.

I suppose you can recall. Did that conversation take place in roughly those terms?---I would say that parts of it may have taken place, but maybe not in that context..

Was Coffman's wife at the SPC that day?---Yes.

Now, if you go on - - read on, you'll notice that halfway down the second page it refers to going to an upstairs interview room - - -

MR HASTINGS: - - - upstairs interview room, and on the way to the lift, Coffman saying:

[274]

Can I take you back now to Coffman? The statements and other records indicate that - - -

MR HASTINGS: - - - indicate that Detectives Higgins and Staltari came back from the United States to Sydney on Thursday, the 21st of September 1989 and Coffman was lodged in the cells at the Sydney police centre. Do you remember that in general terms?---Yes.

When you were first interviewed or debriefed what was your recollection of the misconduct involved with the processing of Coffman?---Coffman - - I can't remember whether it was conversations on the plane or an interview at the police centre but I performed the role of what in New South Wales then was called the oversighting officer and that was that I - - after a person was interviewed an independent officer asked questions of the interviewee as to the manner in which - - or the manner in which the interview was conducted and its correctness.

And what was your recollection of the way in which you carried out that role?---Well, I didn't. I just wrote it up later.

Did you have or do you now have a recollection of what happened which led to you fabricating that evidence?---Well, there was a conversation between myself and F2 and another New South Wales detective, and the Perth detectives as to how this would occur and it was worked out, and then we arranged that F2 and the other detective would give Coffman a - - in police parlance, 'a short, sharp one' when they were conveying him from one place to another which would corroborate the evidence of the interview of the - - by the Perth detectives.

And did you have some role in coordinating the evidence of the Perth detectives, your evidence and the evidence of F2 and the other officer?---Yes. I think that was probably my role.

And what did that involve?---Well, I coordinated it.

Meaning?---I put it all together.

Ensuring it was consistent?---Yes.

Do you recall where this discussion took place?---I don't.

Were you stationed at the Sydney police centre then?---No, at the time I was in charge of a taskforce which was across the road.

What about F2? Was he stationed at the Sydney police centre? He was with me.

And the other officer was Kim Dowding, was it not?---Yes.

...

Your statement in this matter, if I can have it brought up, please, is barcoded D1020697. Again, this is the edited version which has F2's name and Coffman's name and your name -

MR HASTINGS:. - - - and your name deleted, but you can see that it indicates that 11.40 am on the 22nd of September you went to the Police Centre and there saw Dowding and F2, and you then saw Detective Sergeant Higgins, Detective Staltari.

[276]

And then you purported to put the usual questions and required an oversighting officer in getting positive answers from Coffman. Do you remember that?---Yes.

Is that the interview which you say did not take place? Perhaps you need to - - if we can go to the next page, please?---Yes.

In fact, did you go anywhere near Coffman in that context?---No.

...

During the proceedings here - when evidence was being led of your alleged conversation with Coffman in these circumstances, did you hear Coffman say something?---Coffman said either to his solicitor or to the instructing solicitor or his barrister, 'I've never seen this bloke before.'

Was that correct?---He might have glimpsed me, but that was about it.

And insofar as the evidence that you fabricated was supposed to result in the adoption of an interview between Higgins and Staltari and Coffman, to your knowledge had any such interview taken place?---Well, I can't say - - -

WITNESS: - - - can't say that it didn't take place in some form or other. I mean - - -

MR HASTINGS: What does that mean?---If I was to - - whether I was going to or - - sorry, it's not the plan usually to verbal a person. I mean, if you can get the necessary admissions, well, then you do so. A lot of the questions and answers in the interview may well have been given and the answers - - the questions given and the answers received.

In the oversight procedure that you fabricated you made reference to saying, 'I said, "Have you read the interview with you'll"'- - 'I said, "Have you read the interview they had with you"' and at the top of the page "now in front of you?" you fabricated the response, 'He said, "No. Nick read it over to me"? --- Yes.

Did you know whether that had happened or not?---No, I can't remember now.

The remainder of the evidence was - - ?---It may have been that he couldn't speak - - it may well have been that he couldn't read. Don't know.

The remainder of this parcel of evidence was from F2 and Dowding, who claimed that when they were escorting Coffman down to the cells after your oversighting role had been allegedly discharged they had a short, sharp conversation with Coffman during which he made what seemed to be an interview - sorry, seemed to be an admission. Do you have any knowledge as to whether that admission was actually made or not?---I believe not.

Was that matter that you described as 'a short, sharp one' I think earlier - - -?---Yes.

As being something which was fabricated when you met? ---Yes. It was to link in with the - - from memory there was something in the interview with - - the Perth interview was to do with family or something like that and this was linked into that by saying something like, 'I'm stuffed. I've lost the family' or something similar to that.

I've referred you to the alleged conversation between Higgins and Staltari and Coffman?---Yes.

Your alleged oversighting and the alleged short, sharp verbal between F2 and Dowding and Coffman?---Yes.

Were they the matters that had been discussed at this meeting that you talked about earlier in which you had been the main player in ensuring consistency?---Yes.

MR HASTINGS: There were some other aspects of the prosecution case against Coffman which you've discussed with F2 from time to time, have you not?---Yes.

...

There's just one aspect of your discussions with F2 that I want to particularly bring to your attention. On one occasion when F2 was, I think, having lunch with you and some other officers in May of the year 2000, during which he recorded the conversation, there was a discussion about the Coffman matter ... there was ... reference to Mr Staltari that I want to bring to your attention, in that you are recorded as saying this, 'Staltari didn't know' and F2 said 'He wouldn't have known what was going on, mate.'

You said, 'Piggy - - Piggy was going - -'F2 said 'Staltari said to me - - Staltari to me was just a sort of a boy to fucking hit Higgy.'

You said, 'Yeah, he was.' And then F2 said 'The last time I was over there - - You said 'Piggy' and F2 said 'Staltari didn't want anything to do with me at all.' And then you said 'Higgy - - Piggy didn't know what was going on either, how we do this. Piggy told me about the print' and you said 'This is what we do.' One construction of that passage of conversation is that you were indicating that Mr Staltari was unaware of what was going on in terms of the fabrication of the evidence. Was that what you meant?---I don't - - I didn't quite catch all of that, I'm afraid. I've been confused a bit with - - - when you say 'the print' and the - -

All right. Commissioner, unfortunately it's not scanned into the system. Perhaps if we take the adjournment now, if that's all right, I might give the witness the opportunity to read it over the break.

COMMISSIONER: Yes.

MR HASTINGS: And he can respond then.

COMMISSIONER: Yes, very well. We'll adjourn until 2 o'clock.

COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Hastings?

MR HASTINGS: Witness, before lunch I had asked you whether you could explain some dialogue between you and F2 which seemed to relate to this matter, in the course of which you said, 'Staltari didn't know' and F2 said, 'He wouldn't have known what was going on, mate', and he then said, 'Staltari to me was just just, sort of, a boy to fucking Higgy', and you said, 'Yeah, he was'?---Yes.

Are you able to recall to what you were then referring? ---I think we were just referring in general to Staltari's relationship to Higgins.

Which was what, as far as you could see?---The junior and senior man.

Yes, thank you, Commissioner, that's all.

[313]

167 The first is an affidavit sworn by the appellant on 2 September 2008. In this he deposed as follows: he was advised after the trial that he had no prospects of a successful appeal. He served his sentence of imprisonment and was released from custody in the 'latter part of 1992'. The appellant then went to New South Wales and later returned to the United States. In 2002, the appellant was residing in the United States when he was contacted by an officer of the Police Royal Commission asking if he would give evidence. He chose not to do so. In February 2003, the appellant returned to New South Wales and in September 2003 was arrested in relation to a marijuana offence and was represented by the New South Wales Justice Advocacy Centre. 'Sometime in early 2004' he became aware that the Advocacy Centre had obtained transcript from the Police Royal Commission and he then became aware that F1 and F2 had given evidence to the Police Royal Commission that their evidence against the appellant at his trial in 1989 had been fabricated. As a result, the appellant instructed lawyers to prepare an appeal. A draft appeal notice dated 29 March 2005 was prepared by his lawyers, but the 'content was not complete due to our not having the actual trial transcript'. However, the appellant then accepted advice to 'get the marijuana offence out of the way' and then deal with the appeal. His affidavit deposed that the 'principal marijuana charge' was 'resolved in [his] favour', although he also deposed that in May 2005 he was sentenced to 9 months' probation for possessing marijuana leaf. In September 2005 he was 'provided with a draft letter [from his solicitors] to the Western Australian Attorney General in regard to a possible petition in respect to his armed robbery conviction and also seeking the assistance of the Attorney General's office in respect of obtaining the actual trial transcript'. In October 2005 he returned to the United States with a view to earning money to help meet legal expenses to fund an appeal against his convictions. He returned to Australia for a number of weeks in April/May 2006 for 'family reasons'. The appellant met with a Les Connolly who did 'voluntary work for people with legal problems' and this person assisted him prepare a letter to the District Court saying that he proposed appealing and asking for transcripts to be sent to Connolly. The appellant contacted counsel who appeared for him at the trial. Counsel told him about the Royal Commission evidence and asked what he wanted if he was to act for him on an appeal. Counsel said he would want $5,000 to set things in motion. The appellant returned to the United States in May 2006. He returned to Australia in January 2007. He renewed his endeavours to obtain the trial transcript and he received it on 9 May 2007. He was unable to raise sufficient funds and eventually he was advised by Connolly that he should apply for legal aid. The appellant did this in about June 2007, and in July 2007 he was advised that funding had been granted for advice and investigation about the likelihood of a successful appeal.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (374 paragraphs)

COFFMAN -v- THE QUEEN [2010] WASCA 54 (25 March 2010)

COFFMAN -v- THE QUEEN [2010] WASCA 54 (25 March 2010)

R v Vastag (Unreported, Library No 60420 of 1996, NSWCCA, 20 June 1997)

R v Marsala (Unreported, NSWCCA, Library No 60198 of 1995, 31 May 1996)

R v Selewski (Unreported, NSWCCA, Library No 60281 of 1994, 19 June 1996

R v Hastings (Unreported, NSWCCA, Library No 60167 of 1997, 26 September 1997)

R v Hasenkamp (Unreported, NSWCCA, Library No 060495 of 1997, 24 February 1998

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (12)