124 The Commissioner's Notice alleged that Mr Hosemans was untruthful in giving evidence at Bathurst Local Court in May 2002 during the hearing of these matters in relation to the evidence regarding: the charge of exposing his penis; the evidence regarding the lifting incident; and, that Mr Hosemans gave a false account regarding the telephone message left by him on Ms Parkes' mobile phone on 21 October 2001.
125 In relation to the first two allegations, I have already dealt with those and I have found Mr Hosemans was untruthful. In relation to the mobile phone incident my assessment of the evidence commences with the fact that Mr Hosemans was "thinking about Karen Parkes" on Sunday morning 21 October 2001 with a little bit of concern. In particular, he said he was considering what may have upset her. He said he had seen her upset on the "odd occasion" the night before. The odd occasions identified by Mr Hosemans were: when she heard Mr Larnach's remark about sex in the motel; and, when she slapped Mr Woolfe. However, the last contact Mr Hosemans had with Ms Parkes on the evening of 20 October was when he lifted her, behind the bar, and according to his evidence she did not show any sign of being upset because she laughed and continued, he said, to act in a playful manner. Mr Hosemans did not see Ms Parkes leave the Club in an upset state but said he figured something might have been amiss because she left without cleaning up and he had to assist with that task. But the fact that she did not clean up would be unlikely to logically lead a person to believe she had left the Club in an upset state unless the person had a guilty conscience. There is a clear inference to be drawn that either Mr Hosemans could not, because of his state of intoxication, fully recollect whether what he had said or done the previous evening had upset Ms Parkes and that gave him cause for concern the next morning, or he did recall and he was concerned about the personal implications.
126 Ms Parkes went to see Mr Farmer about 9.00 am on Sunday morning and complained to him about the events of the previous evening involving Mr Hosemans. Mr Farmer told Mr Kelly of the complaints Ms Parkes had made.
127 Mr Kelly phoned Mr Hosemans. Mr Hosemans claimed Mr Kelly told him about a complaint concerning "some of the boys" and not that there was a complaint against Mr Hosemans. But as counsel for the respondent stated, "Why else would Kelly have rung Hosemans (as against anyone else)? The inference from what Parkes told Farmer and what Farmer told Kelly is overwhelming. There was no complaint about "some of the boys" - it was about Hosemans." It is unbelievable, given Ms Parkes' specific complaints against Mr Hosemans, that Mr Kelly would not have told him of those complaints.
128 After receiving Mr Kelly's call, Mr Hosemans looked up Ms Parkes' phone number in the phone book. He then rang Mr Kelly back to get hold of Ms Parkes' mobile phone number. He then rang Ms Parkes on her mobile phone. He left a message on her message bank. In the Local Court he said that the words he spoke were "Parkesy, its Brad. Can you give me a ring. I just wanted to see if someone should apologise for anything that might have been done or said. I just wanted to say sorry for anything I said. Could you give me a call on . . . " Mr Hosemans' evidence in the Local Court was that he didn't believe he had "anything to apologise about", and as far as I can ascertain from the evidence, Mr Hosemans did not say much to Ms Parkes all night - certainly nothing, according to him, that required an apology.
129 Mr Hosemans claimed he made the phone call to Ms Parkes for the purpose of resolving any concerns Ms Parkes had about any conduct, other than his own, that occurred the previous evening before it became an issue within the Club. He said that he thought he might be able to head off the complaint by "explaining to Ms Parkes why certain people carried out certain action". There was no explanation as to why Mr Hosemans chose to take on the role of conciliator in circumstances where he knew of no incident that could realistically have been the subject of a complaint by Ms Parkes except that Mr Hosemans referred to Mr Holland's "boisterous" conduct that might require an explanation to Ms Parkes. However, I consider this a weak basis for Mr Hosemans wanting to intervene in the manner he suggested. As counsel for the respondent submitted, "Nowhere in his evidence before that point had he [Mr Hosemans] identified Mr Holland's behaviour as being a matter that may have been a cause for Ms Parkes to be upset or as something that he had been thinking about on the morning before he rang Parkes." Further, although he said he was curious as to the nature of Ms Parkes' complaint he made no real effort to find out from other persons including Mr Kelly and Mr Constable, although the opportunity to do so existed. The available inference is that Mr Hosemans was looking to head off any complaint against him personally and that he did not seek any information about the conduct of others because he knew from the phone call from Mr Kelly that he was at the centre of Ms Parkes' complaint.
130 It was put for Mr Hosemans that if his motive, in leaving the message he says he did on Ms Parkes' phone, was for the purpose of heading off any trouble that might impact on him personally, he would hardly have said, "I just wanted to say sorry for anything I said". At the time Mr Hosemans made the call to Ms Parkes he had no inkling that Ms Parkes might make a complaint to Police about his conduct. He was only concerned about heading off a complaint to the Club's committee. Secondly, Mr Hosemans believed because of his friendly relationship with Ms Parkes he could head it off by speaking to her. Thirdly, according to Mr Hosemans, he was only indicating in his message that he was sorry for anything he said and was making no admissions about his conduct.
131 It was further put for Mr Hosemans that having failed to make contact with Ms Parkes he went off on a fishing trip for a week and made no further attempt to contact her. It was submitted this was hardly the behaviour of a person concerned about his career. Again, Mr Hosemans' only concern at this stage would have been a complaint to the Club's committee and even an adverse outcome would have been unlikely to have any impact beyond the Club. Moreover, here was a senior police officer and deputy mayor's word against that of a bar attendant, with Mr Hosemans no doubt expecting support in any Club inquiry from people like Mr Kelly and Mr Constable, well known employees of the Club and friends of Mr Hosemans. It is quite possible that in leaving on his fishing trip Mr Hosemans considered there was not much to worry about.
132 Ms Parkes gives a different version of the message left on her mobile phone. She gave evidence that the message included the words "I just wanted to call to apologise for anything I did or said last night, I just wanted to say sorry". Mr Johns corroborated this version of the message but I must say I regard Mr Johns' evidence as unreliable given he admitted to giving false evidence in the Local Court and given the following answer in cross-examination:
Q. That you would stand by Karen [Ms Parkes] in terms of supporting her allegations, come what may?
A. Yes.
133 Further, I have sufficient reservations about Mr Hosemans leaving a message that he was sorry for anything he did that I am not prepared to accept Ms Parkes' evidence in this regard. Firstly, I am unconvinced as to why the message was not saved by Ms Parkes on the mobile phone. Secondly, I do not consider it was likely that Mr Hosemans would have left a message admitting there was something he had done for which he was sorry.
134 It follows from what I have said that I consider Mr Hosemans was truthful about the content of the message he left on Ms Parkes' phone but he was untruthful about his motives for leaving the message.
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS