(a) Whether the explanations for not bringing charges against Sammia Abboud
(i) for making a false report,
(ii) for obtaining money by false pretences from the Crimes Compensation Tribunal
were honest explanations having regard to their substance and the failure apparently to interview Charlie or whether the explanation was at least in part, an attempt to conceal information which cast doubt on the conviction of the plaintiff.
(b) In relation to the meeting in May 1994,
(i) in light of the information revealed at the meeting, why did eight months elapse in which there was no decision or referral to the DPP?
(ii) although issues were raised about the credibility of the first defendant as a witness, was a decision made at or after the meeting not to refer the matter to the DPP and not to consider it further or not to fully inform the DPP? If so, was it honestly made?
(iii) whether Waterman, the proposed seventh defendant, was of the opinion that the matter should be referred to the DPP and whether he decided not to recommend that course or was overruled by one of his supervisors, and if so, why?
(iv) whether it was decided not to reconsider the facts from the plaintiff's point of view but rather to try to produce a brief which would result in the false reports of the first defendant not leading to charges and, so no publicity?
(c) Assuming that Waterman, about two weeks after the meeting, requested a report within three months from McKenzie about whether the DPP should be asked to review the plaintiff's trial, was there a report and, if not, why not? If there was a report, what happened to it?
(d) Why was the transcript of the meeting of 10 May 1994 and the memo of 23 May 1994 not included in the 1995 list of documents or made available in 1995 and not made available until 1998?
The foregoing material is directly relevant to the application of s27(a) but also bears on that of s27(b). In particular, as to s.27(b), in light of that material and the present lack of other evidence, an issue arises as to whether the non-disclosure of the minutes of the Broadmeadows meeting, the existence of the memo from Waterman to McKenzie and the absence of evidence of any action upon that, point to dishonest behaviour which served to conceal evidence. In that context, the plaintiff can argue that the reports of Willis and Pritchard take on an added significance not apparent without the context - i.e, the plaintiff can argue that it was not apparent until 1998 that there may have been an attempt to conceal evidence. As to whether those persons as defendants could be held to have concealed the right of action, the plaintiff can argue that the decisions whether to make those documents available or not is likely to have been taken at a senior level. On the evidence placed before me at this stage, Waterman arguably appears to have been involved at a responsible level in the investigation of the issue which was the subject of document disclosure, and Willis and Pritchard arguably were senior officers involved also in decision making in the matter, with Willis alerting Pritchard to the issue. From the memorandum from Waterman to McKenzie, Exhibit GW3, it appears that Waterman, on 23 May 1994, was a District Detective Inspector in the Crime Co-ordinator's Office "I" District Broadmeadows, and McKenzie was a detective senior sergeant at the Brunswick C.I.B. Brunswick C.I.B. would seem to be within the Broadmeadows "I" District. The documents also suggest that Willis was also in that Crime Co-ordinators Office of that District in January 1995 and Pritchard was also in the "I District" Broadmeadows in January 1995[21]. There is enough to suggest that the issues are arguable.