Cross-Examination
215In cross-examination the Prosecutor's counsel asked Mr Ceman about his education and employment history. Mr Ceman obtained a building admission to supervise building constructions in the former Yugoslavia after undertaking a trade course in building. He worked for six or seven years in the former Yugoslavia. After migrating to Australian Mr Ceman worked as a labourer and then at a construction company where he became familiar with building rules and regulations. He became a licensed builder in Victoria in around 1988 after sitting a three-hour English exam. Mr Ceman has lived in Australia for 40 years. He is a director and shareholder of a family business, DDC Constructions, which has been a registered company for approximately 22 years building residential dwellings. At the time he bought Kunanadgee Mr Ceman had approximately 20 subcontractors working for his business. At one time Mr Ceman was building 20 or 30 houses. Mr Ceman's son works with him and knows Mr Smit who has been his daughter's partner for eight or nine years. Mr Ceman is a director of Mato which was formed for the sole purpose of carrying out the development of the Kunanadgee eco-tourist resort. Mr Ceman was to receive one quarter of the share of profit from the development.
216Neither of the work diaries brought to Court had any record of Mr Ceman being in Kunanadgee on 12 October 2007 to 13 October 2007. He said he did not keep diaries of his involvement with Kunanadgee.
217Mr Ceman has working knowledge of proceedings of companies. Mr Ceman was shown the minutes of Mato's shareholders' meetings (exhibit P). Mr Ceman did not keep any notes of what was discussed at the meetings. He relied on Mr Coomes and Mr Bennett to keep notes. He also did not keep records of when he went to Kunanadgee to look at the progress of works. Mr Ceman was satisfied with the arrangement of Mr Coomes keeping the minutes of the meetings. Mr Ceman said that he received typed minutes by email in advance of a meeting and these were discussed at the beginning of the next meeting. He did not suggest any changes to the minutes which concern site clean-up. Contrary to Mr Ceman's evidence in chief, counsel suggested that what was recorded at section 3.1 of the 3 August 2007 minutes was discussed and agreed upon at the meeting. Mr Ceman said that he could not recall and that he would not expect a man with Mr Coomes' education and experience to falsify the minutes. It was suggested to Mr Ceman that it would be easier for machinery and the workers' removal of large woody debris at low water levels, and Mr Ceman responded that he would never advise that to be done because as a fisherman he likes fish to be present in the River. The minutes of 21 August 2007 mention that a scope of works document was prepared by Mr Coomes. Mr Ceman said he could not recall but did not think it had been prepared at that stage.
218Counsel questioned Mr Ceman at length about exhibit 4 (the response to the DEWHA statutory notice drafted by Mr Hanger). After receiving the statutory notice by mail Mr Ceman said he received a call from Mr Michael Hanger who asked whether he had received any documents and when Mr Ceman replied in the affirmative, Mr Hanger wanted to see them. They organised to meet at Mr Smit's office where Mr Hanger filled out a blank copy of the DEWHA statutory notice in his presence to guide him with his response. He says he was also given verbal instructions to assist him when answering questions at the interview with Mr Potter. When it was pointed out that the interview with Mr Potter was on 16 December 2007, which was before Mr Ceman received the DEWHA statutory notice dated 1 April 2009, he acknowledged he had made a mistake with the dates.
219Mr Ceman's response to the DEWHA statutory notice, exhibit S, was written by his son, Mr Dane Ceman, based on the document drafted by Mr Michael Hanger, exhibit 4. In accordance with the instructions given by Mr Michael Hanger, Mr Ceman said in exhibit S that he participated in an initial site visit around late August with Mr Michael Hanger and Mr Smit but that this was not factually correct. Mr Ceman said he did not read the cover letter from DEWHA (exhibit R) which refers to an offence under the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) of knowingly providing false information in a statutory notice.
220When the draft statutory notice responses in exhibits S and 4 were compared by counsel, Mr Ceman said he did not exactly copy the responses suggested by Mr Michael Hanger for questions 1.3, which asked what route around Kunanadgee was taken during the initial site visit, and 1.4 which concerned conversations which took place during the initial site visit. When it was put to Mr Ceman that what Mr Michael Hanger had in fact said was that he would put down what he knew took place and Mr Ceman can change or add to it, Mr Ceman disagreed. He said it was how Mr Michael Hanger said his solicitor had said Mr Ceman should respond.
221Question 1.5 concerned conversations during the initial site visit about snags or de-snagging. In exhibit 4, Mr Michael Hanger had not written any response. Mr Ceman stated in exhibit S that there was no conversation about de-snagging, only cleaning up. When counsel asked where he got this information from, Mr Ceman said Mr Michael Hanger told him what to write. Question 2.1 asked what role if any Mr Ceman had in the preparation of the scope of works. In exhibit S Mr Ceman copied what Mr Hanger wrote in exhibit 4, that he had conducted the first site visit with Mr Hanger. Counsel suggested that this was a truthful answer, but Mr Ceman said that what he wrote was false because he did not visit the site with Mr Hanger. In response to question 2.2 which concerned conversations Mr Ceman participated in or heard in the course of the preparation of the scope of works and which related to its contents, Mr Ceman did not copy Mr Hanger's answer of "General talk but Mr Hanger compiled scope of works with Mr Coomes" (in exhibit 4) but wrote "General talks" in exhibit S. Counsel suggested that this was because he did not want to get Mr Coomes into trouble. Mr Ceman responded that he did not want to get anyone into trouble. It was suggested to Mr Ceman that he did not tell the full truth in exhibit S because he did not want anyone to get in trouble and that he was lying throughout his oral evidence to avoid getting convicted. Mr Ceman responded that he was not lying in Court and that he was trying his best to tell the truth. He admitted he lied earlier when he listened to other people and tried to help everybody else.
222In response to question 2.3, which asked to whom the scope of works or a copy of it was provided, Mr Ceman wrote "Not known, (Mr Coomes?)" in exhibit S. It was suggested to Mr Ceman that he wrote this instead of copying what Mr Michael Hanger wrote in exhibit 4 which was "Mr Coomes" because he did not want to get Mr Coomes into trouble. Mr Ceman disagreed saying that he gave that response because he did not agree with what Mr Michael Hanger had written. Counsel questioned Mr Ceman about his response to question 2.4 concerning the intended purpose of the scope of works, which differed to Mr Michael Hanger's suggested answer in exhibit 4. When Mr Ceman was shown a copy of the scope of works document (exhibit T), he said he had not seen it previously. Mr Ceman said he did not understand what was meant by "men and equipment power" at the bottom of the scope of works document. Counsel went through the document and what Mr Ceman saw on his visit to the property on 12 October 2007 to 13 October 2007 (that is a bulldozer, an excavator and approximately four men). Consequently counsel suggested that the scope of works was reasonably accurate as to what was required. Mr Ceman rejected this saying that it is not accurate and he would never agree to go through with it. He was taken to Mr Coomes' invoice to Mato for work done on 17 August 2007 (exhibit 2C) which records "prepare scope of works for contractor and email to J Smit". When counsel suggested to Mr Ceman that he had seen the scope of works document, Mr Ceman maintained that he had not.
223In response to question 2.5 of the statutory notice, asking about the uses to which the scope of works was put and whether it was referred to in any meetings or discussions between and including Mato personnel, Mr Ceman had copied Mr Hanger's suggestion in exhibit 4, that it "was tabled at a board meeting and given approval to proceed". Mr Ceman said that this was not factually correct.
224Question 2.6 asked whether Mr Ceman had ever been in possession of a scope of works and if so, what he did with it (2.6.1) and where it was located (2.6.2). With regard to its location, Mr Hanger's suggestion in exhibit 4 was "Ask Mr Coomes". Mr Ceman's response in exhibit S was "Don't know". Given this deviation from Mr Hanger's suggestion, counsel put to Mr Ceman that he was exercising an independent mind and that he did not want to say anything that might put Mr Coomes in a difficult position.
225Question 2.7 asked whether Mr Ceman had ever read the scope of works. If so, it required Mr Ceman to indicate when and in what circumstances it was read (2.7.1), when it was most recently read (2.7.2) and to describe the contents and effect of the scope of works to the best of his recollection (2.7.3). Mr Hanger's suggestions in exhibit 4, in response to question 2.7 was "No need" and to question 2.7.3, "Clear tracks, remove timber unknown creek, pull logs on bank river, access track to wetlands, clear fallen timber around property." Mr Ceman's answer in exhibit S omitted "remove timber unknown creek" and "pull logs on bank river". Counsel suggested Mr Ceman left them out because he knew that those actions were not supposed to have been done and he did not want to get into trouble by making an admission to that effect. Mr Ceman replied, "No ... the damage has been done when I fill this out ... the timber has been pulled out of the river". Mr Ceman agreed with counsel that on occasion he was happy to put down what he wanted to and he was not fearful of Mr Hanger, even though Mr Hanger was angry on many occasions when Mr Ceman did not copy his answers. However, when counsel suggested that Mr Hanger was not forcing Mr Ceman to do anything including give a false account to the Commonwealth authorities, Mr Ceman disagreed. Counsel proposed to him that in answering the statutory notice Mr Ceman was intending to tell the truth in some parts and not others. For example, that he did not want to make admissions about knowledge or direction of the removal of fallen logs from the banks of the unnamed creek or Murray River or from within the unnamed creek or Murray River. Mr Ceman replied that he did not give anyone instructions to do that.
226Part 4 of the DEWHA statutory notice deals with the site visit by Mato personnel on 12 - 13 October 2007. In answer to question 4.1 about who was present at Kunanadgee during the visit, in exhibit 4 Mr Hanger's suggestion is "Me, Ian Bennett, Jim Coomes, Brian". In exhibit S Mr Ceman had added to that list "Jack Smit and Brian Bird". Mr Ceman confirmed that this information was correct. Counsel again asked whether sometimes Mr Ceman was intending to tell the truth and sometimes he was lying, to which Mr Ceman replied "That's correct". When asked how to tell when Mr Ceman was lying and when he was telling the truth, Mr Ceman replied "Well I'm here to tell the truth today". He added that Mr Hanger made him lie to the Commonwealth authorities in his response to the statutory notice and that he listened to Mr Hanger so that they could "rectify the problems" and the matter "wouldn't go any further". Counsel asked whether Mr Ceman went around the property on 13 October 2007 and saw the workers still working. Mr Ceman replied he did. Mr Ceman disagreed that he saw them pulling logs out of the Murray River. When asked whether he did anything to stop the workers doing anything, Mr Ceman replied it was not his duty and he was not aware of all the things that needed to be done.
227Counsel questioned Mr Ceman about his ROI. Mr Ceman said it was a true record of what he said but that some of his answers on that day were lies. He knew it was being recorded. He said if he had understood it as a serious interview, he would have taken a lawyer. He thought he was there to tell Mr Potter what happened and that would be the end of it. After cautioning, Mr Potter asked Mr Ceman whether he understood the caution to which he replied at the time "Yes, I do" (ROI par 19). In oral evidence Mr Ceman said that at the time he did not understand the caution that what he said could be later used in evidence and that he did not think it was a serious interview. Counsel put to Mr Ceman that he told the truth at the interview because he felt he could do so; he did not think that by telling the truth anything would happen to him. Mr Ceman disagreed with that proposition. Subsequently counsel asked why there was a need to lie if at the time Mr Ceman did not think it was a serious interview. Mr Ceman replied, "Because I was told what to say and that if I say that, that matter will stop, won't go further ... no one will be charged or hurt". He said he did not lie only for his own convenience, but also to ensure there would be no trouble for anyone else including the contractors and Mato.
228Mr Ceman was referred to his ROI where he mentioned he bought Kunanadgee (see par 196 above). He agreed that he knew Mr Michael Hanger before the clearing started. Counsel queried whether Mr Ceman knew Mr Michael Hanger at the time Mr Smit was introducing him to do the work. Mr Ceman responded that he did not know at first whom Mr Smit meant when he referred to "the contractor" but when he mentioned it was Mr Michael Hanger, Mr Ceman did know who that was. They had met after he purchased the property at Kunanadgee, through Mr Smit. At par 136 of his ROI, when Mr Potter asked Mr Ceman when the site meeting with Mr Hanger took place, Mr Ceman had replied, "That would be hard, in September or something. Honestly I'm not quite sure." Counsel compared this date with Mr Hanger's suggested response to question 1.1 of the statutory notice asking when the site meeting took place (exhibit 4), of "Sometime later, August is the best I can tell you", and Mr Ceman's response (exhibit S) of "late August". When counsel asked Mr Ceman why he said September in the interview, Mr Ceman replied that it was a mistake. Mr Ceman rejected counsel's suggestion that he responded truthfully at the interview.
229Mr Ceman was directed to par 145 of his ROI where he told Mr Potter the specific instructions he gave to Mr Hanger at the site visit (which he now denies occurred) and asked whether it was a lie. Mr Ceman said he was helped with this answer too. He agreed when counsel asked whether his response at par 147 of his ROI (Mr Ceman told Mr Potter that he gave those instructions verbally) was a lie. At par 148 of his ROI, Mr Potter asked Mr Ceman whether Mr Hanger was provided with any other instructions regarding work he was to carry out on Kunanadgee and at par 149 Mr Ceman had responded, "Well actually I understand it was a discussion with ... [Mr Coomes who] was [the] one nominated ... to be [the] construction manager, there was discussions with him on that too". Counsel queried why he had volunteered this information and Mr Ceman replied he was told by Mr Michael Hanger to do so. Counsel proposed Mr Ceman was merely telling the truth as he understood it. When Mr Ceman denied this, counsel proposed he was lying in the witness box and that it was an honest answer he gave to Mr Potter because Mr Ceman knew that Mr Coomes had spoken to Mr Hanger about what he was to do. Mr Ceman said he did not know this.
230Counsel asked whether he knew Mr Coomes and Mr Hanger met on 16 August 2007 to discuss the scope of works for the clean up of the site. Mr Ceman said he could not recall. At par 155 of his ROI Mr Ceman told Mr Potter that Mr Smit was also there on the site visit. Counsel asked whether it was true that Mr Smit was there with Mr Michael Hanger but Mr Ceman was not. Mr Ceman said he had lied when he said he was there on the site visit but it was true that Mr Smit took Mr Hanger to Kunanadgee to show him around because Mr Smit reported it. Counsel suggested that Mr Ceman was lying. Mr Ceman again denied that he was with Mr Smit on the site visit. Paragraph 159 of his ROI reports Mr Tilbrook asking Mr Ceman to elaborate on his instructions to Mr Michael Hanger about clearing snags from the banks. Mr Ceman had responded "was anything sitting on ... the bank, on the ground ... all dead trees ... I did ask him I said you just pull them up and clean them up there." He said in oral evidence that this was a lie. Mr Tilbrook also asked whether that meant Mr Hanger was to pull out a snag lying on the bank which had fallen into the water. Mr Ceman had replied, "Well no ... we didn't ... specifically ... say Well, pull this out but don't pull this out. I did say 'Any dead trees on the banks or something, pull them out, clean them and put them on the side on the pile'. It's all what was instructions for that." In oral evidence Mr Ceman said this was a lie.
231Counsel further put to Mr Ceman that his oral evidence about the ROI and why he gave those answers at the interview were "a pack of lies". Mr Ceman disagreed maintaining that he lied at the interview and that his oral evidence in Court was truthful.
232In relation to his work diaries Mr Ceman agreed they were hundreds of pages long and full of entries written in English. If he could not spell something in English he would write it in Yugoslav.
233Counsel for Mr Coomes cross-examined Mr Ceman on Mr Coomes' role in Mato. Mr Ceman was asked whether the minutes of Mato's shareholders' meetings (exhibit P) recorded the passing of a resolution directing Mr Coomes to instruct, supervise and meet with Mr Michael Hanger. Mr Ceman said that he could not see it specified in the minutes but he was appointed to be construction manager and to supervise construction. When it was suggested that this was false because Mr Coomes was appointed project manager not construction or site manager, Mr Ceman replied that this included organising the scope of works and supervising all the works. In relation to question 2.3 of the DEWHA statutory notice which asked "To whom was the scope of works or a copy of the scope of works provided?" in exhibit 4 Mr Michael Hanger suggested "Mr Coomes" whereas Mr Ceman's response (in exhibit S) was "not known (Mr Coomes?)". Counsel put to Mr Ceman that the reason he made this change was because he did not in fact know that the scope of works was provided to Mr Coomes. Mr Ceman disagreed saying in this case Mr Michael Hanger was trying to blame someone else for pulling out the logs without consulting anyone. In response to question 3.24 which asked for the "details of any persons (other than yourself or Mr Hanger) who were party to, or present during, the conversation", Mr Hanger nominated Mr Bennett and Mr Coomes in exhibit 4 whereas in exhibit S Mr Ceman only nominated Mr Coomes. Mr Ceman did not have an independent recollection of that conversation having taken place. In relation to question 6.1(c) of the DEWHA statutory notice, which asked who "may have been aware of de-snagging works" at or before those works were undertaken, Mr Michael Hanger suggested Mr Ceman, Mr Bennett and Mr Coomes (in exhibit 4). In his response Mr Ceman nominated Mr Bennett and Mr Coomes with a question mark (in exhibit S). Counsel proposed that the reason he put a question mark after "Mr Coomes" was because Mr Ceman had no independent knowledge of whether Mr Coomes knew of the de-snagging prior to the time it was undertaken and he only included Mr Coomes because it was what Mr Michael Hanger had told him to say. Mr Ceman agreed with that proposition.
234Counsel took Mr Ceman to par 274 - 275 of his ROI where Mr Potter had asked what Mr Coomes was engaged by Mato to do with regard to the eco-tourist resort. Mr Ceman answered that Mr Coomes was engaged to organise the refinancing of the project and "more or less supervision in conjunction ... [with Mr Bennett]". Counsel proposed that the reason Mr Ceman spoke with hesitation about Mr Coomes' role was because it reflected his discussions with Mr Michael Hanger who had been telling him to blame Mr Coomes. Mr Ceman agreed that Mr Michael Hanger coached him for the interview.