October 28, 2025 • 42 mins
In this episode of Real Crime with Adam Shand, we explore the case of Gary Lewer — a former Mr. Australia, world bodybuilding champion and long-time Melbourne identity who now finds himself detained in an immigration facility and facing deportation to a country he hasn’t lived in since childhood.
Lewer insists he’s no criminal mastermind but the victim of a vendetta — a web of untested allegations and police dossiers that have never seen the inside of a courtroom. Adam unpacks the evidence, the politics, and the human cost of a system that allows punishment without trial.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Approche Production.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shanned. I'm your host,
Adam shann. If you like the content of this podcast,
please like and subscribe it. I've always believed in the
credo that if you do the crime, you do the time,
but if there's reasonable doubt, then you're entitled to the
benefit of that doubt. This is frustrating to some police
officers who take it personally when a crook gets away
(00:35):
with their crimes doesn't mean they can load up a
suspect and find a way to punish them when they
haven't done their job well enough to lock them up
fair and square. Out of the reign of former Home
Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, a new form of punishment was
inactive was called the Character Test, where non citizens living
in this country were deported solely for more than twelve
(00:56):
months in prison and being a so called bad character.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
We've got Australian citizens who are falling victim where people
are sexual affect against children. Have had a big push
to try and to port those pedophiles, and I believe
strongly that these Traine people would support that stance.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
I think there's really appeal to Dutton himself a former
police officer, he could play judge and jury and eject
people who paid their debt to society or hadn't offended.
In decades, I've had two close contacts and friends deported
from Australia on this basis without the benefit of natural
justice or indeed basic fairness. In both cases, dossier is
(01:33):
prepared by police, represented as fact, even though the information
was hearsay and perhaps motivated by malice, a square up
by police who couldn't do their job well enough.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
The Opposition leader Peter Dutton has the view that if
somebody has committed a terrorism fence, they have broken the
oath to Australia and should therefore be deported.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Another man recently who's facing deportation based on this character test,
Gary John Lewer, is a former champion bodybuilder, Mister Australia
winner who represented this country internationally, winning Mister World and
Mister Universe titles. However, he was born in England and
(02:18):
failed to get his citizenship to one suburban police officer,
Lewer was a clever, calculating master criminal who'd gotten away
with a string of crimes and was a danger to
this nation. He compiled the dossier of hearsay and unproven
allegations that have never been tested in court. But on
that basis, in twenty twenty, Peter Dutton invoked the character
(02:40):
test and ordered his deportation. He's been fighting this order
ever since and contacted me to tell his story from
inside the broad Meadows Immigration Detention Center in Melbourne.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
Welcome to Real Crime, Gary.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Thank you so much, Evamo to be here.
Speaker 5 (02:56):
You're in on the podcast Real Crime. Are you a
real criminal?
Speaker 6 (03:00):
Purportedly or allegedly particular by one police officer's got this
story and there own particular stories for me. The dossier
of terror that this police officer compiled was basically replete
with not even allegations but suppositions. And there were sixteen
(03:22):
points that he put in there. Out of the sixteen
points of not even allegations, actually just beliefs, his beliefs.
Out of those sixteen, I was never spoken to on
fifteen of those, So one would think how strong are
the beliefs if you kind of interview me, let alone, charge.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Me or comfit me. So yeah, it's a very convon story,
actually it is.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
And you know, I've been knocking around the underworld and
police and things for about twenty five years in Melbourne,
and I must confess I've never heard your name before,
which tells me that you're a very good, low key
criminal or you haven't got much form.
Speaker 5 (04:00):
What is your form in the criminal sense, my.
Speaker 6 (04:04):
Forming the criminal scene, it's I've been convicted for eleven
times in sixty years, and the majority of those offenses
were for possess or restricted substance.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
I e.
Speaker 6 (04:17):
Steroids for my bodyhood e avctually before the right up
until the eighth Possession of steroids wasn't an offense. They
made it so. And because I was so outspoken in
relation to using them, I was very honest I always
have been in relation to that.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I mean, you couldn't be in that game without taking them, right,
really in those days.
Speaker 6 (04:39):
Never all professional sportsmen take performance enhancing things, but in
one form or another. So police targue with me and
charge me with possess a restricted substance, and restricted in
the sense of one needed a prescription to have it.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
That was it.
Speaker 6 (04:58):
And I do note though, that in a newspaper article
one of your colleagues that was mentioned that I was
convicted of selling steroids to other bodybuilders, animal steroids. Even
that's correct, and well, there isn't. Actually, this is the
way they're laid and packaged. I have never been charged
(05:21):
with selling anything to anybody, let alone.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
I do know them the same story that he talks about.
And I haven't had the benefit of reading this dossier
that there's a prior conviction for firearms, which is a
serious offense.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
What's that all about?
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Well, the firearms offenses?
Speaker 6 (05:37):
Why I was relegated to the position of five oho
one that character. In nineteen ninety five, I was convicted
of possess and illegal firearm, And the possession part of it,
some people might think that you're walking around. It was
wrapped up under the house, put away, no ammunition, no nothing,
And the police did come. They rate again because of steroids,
(06:01):
and they found the firearm. And twelve months after this raid,
I was summons and went to court and I received
two six months sentences to be served concurrently.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
So I served six months, but.
Speaker 6 (06:15):
The aggregated sentence brought it up to twelve months. So
therefore you were automatically bad character.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
The magic number? Tell me what sort of gun? And
why what sort of gun?
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Why?
Speaker 6 (06:28):
Well, I'm just an average boy, I guess, and look
I don't think I've ever come across a boy who
wasn't some somewhat fascinated firearms, cowboys and all that sort
of bit. My son and I used to go target shooting.
I mean, there's no way on God's green Earth I
could shoot anything like that.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
So we used to go up the bush and we
chewed targets.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
That's it, Okay, what sort of gun was it?
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Was it twenty two?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Right, Just a little twenty two basically bounce off a
thick jumper. Not really a very serious weapon at all,
you'd say, no, not a serious weapon, right, because this
was the basis of the dossier, or the beginning of
the dossier.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
But there was a lot more.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
When I look at this story that was written about you,
Sylvester talks about you as being an intimidator, a drug importer,
a person behind a threat to nail your dogs to
the door, and the quote what is beyond dispute? Is
it by accident or design? If you get on the
wrong side of it? Was massive bodybuilders frame bad things happen.
What's he talking about?
Speaker 6 (07:29):
He really made a license to create a fiction there.
I mean, that's just actually, when I read the dossier,
I was absolutely horrified. And I actually said to the
Immigration that I said, if I had read that, if
I thought this was true of someone, I'd want orton too.
But there's absolutely no substance to that whatsoever. And like
(07:50):
I say, these are the things that were in the dossier,
But how strong is their belief that I'm responsible for
any of those things?
Speaker 1 (08:00):
I wasn't even spoken to in relation to that.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Right thoroughly bricked in by all this. You've got a
dossier which has taken as fact from police officer. You've
got a journalist who's writing corroborating material. More trouble than
the early settlers here, really, And the bottom line is
when it was tested by a court and so forth,
there seemed to have taken as fact that this came
from police intelligence holdings, which gives it a very authoritative ring,
(08:28):
as if you were such a master criminal that they
had always intelligence on you, but they couldn't pin you
with anything. What's the reality here, I mean, what was
the basis of what you call a vendetta against you?
Speaker 6 (08:43):
Well, let me just begin by correcting you that you
said this was tested by a court. These allegations were
tested by court. The allegations were never tested by a court.
As I say, the allegations, ninety percent of these allegations
were never put to me. I was never questioned by
anyone in relation to ninety percent of those allegations, let
(09:05):
alone charged or convicted.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Nothing, and that ever went to court.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
I should direct myself there when I say tested by
a court. It was in the Federal Court judgment of
the Judiciary Review that you sought. Justice Murphy found the
document to be reliable as it emanated from the quote
police intelligence unit.
Speaker 6 (09:25):
Yes, what he actually said, because we disputed the document
as aubrication fiction. What he said in sexual judgment was
the Minister was entitled to rely upon the document as
having been properly constructed and in good faith, So regardless
(09:45):
of what that document contained, as outrageous as it is,
it was, the Minister is entitled to rely upon its
credibility or validity.
Speaker 5 (09:58):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
And then of course the Minister for Home Affairs, then
Peter Dutton relies on this document referencing quote Police Intelligent
Holdings twenty seven times. So it does give us all
a pretty authoritative ring. But you say this all came
from some years earlier twenty thirteen when this police officer
(10:19):
began a vendetta we can call it that against a
friend of yours, Andrew Hutton, his wife Lisa, and their
four little girls, all under the age of ten.
Speaker 5 (10:29):
What on earth was going on?
Speaker 6 (10:31):
Okay, A long story, short as look as short as
it can be. Andrew was running a chemical business. He
was taking excess leftover chemicals from companies and then reselling them.
And what sort of chemicals time, all sorts of chemicals whatever. Basically, companies,
when they have excess chemicals, they pay somewhere to come
(10:53):
and take them and dispose of them.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
So he thought, well, hang on a second, these things
are worth money.
Speaker 6 (10:59):
So I'll take them free and then I'll resell them
instead of the company's paying for someone to take it
and dispose it. I mean, it was costing them thousands
of thousands of dollars to pay for disposal of these chemicals.
So he just lashed onto something a bit like recycling,
I guess. And at this time, probably a few years
(11:20):
after the met Andrew was widely advertising the company, bettered
by Seculda Road drug Squad ticked all the boxes. Anyway,
As time went on, Andrew became embroiled in a custody
battle for his children with his then wife Lisa, and
(11:40):
as time went on they separated. They moved home, and
then they split up. Lisa took some chemicals and she
took it back to the house that they ran crime
stoppers and said, look, there's some chemicals at this place
he had. So they went there and turned into a
whole circus, rove off all the area and so forth. Anyway,
(12:03):
so then the police did the police who they investigated,
who lived here, where the chemicals come from.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
It came back to Andrew.
Speaker 6 (12:12):
So they charged Andrew with having precursor chemicals, chemicals that
can be used in the manufacture of aphetamines.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Well, I was going to say, sorry to stop you there,
but I mean, my suspicious and skeptical mind gets a
bit excited when I hear people talking about buying and
selling excess chemicals. And this is not chlorine for the
backyard pool. These are precursor chemicals for the production of methamphetamine.
Speaker 5 (12:35):
That's pretty serious to me.
Speaker 6 (12:37):
No, no, no, some of them can be It's like acetone.
Now everyone uses acetone. Yeah, you know what acetone is?
Speaker 5 (12:44):
I do and to make methamphetamine as.
Speaker 6 (12:46):
Well, well, it can be used in the process. It's
a basically a solvent.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
I mean, I make no allegations against mister Hutton. I
don't even know it. But it is suspicious.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
Well, it became suspicious because it suited the police as
a gender. They liked things to be probably more than
they actually are, because it's good for their position. As
things went along, they charged Andrew having these briefs and
chemicals with the intent to do whatever with them in
(13:20):
this process. Andrew had one child. She was under the
age of five years. She was very ill in hospital.
She was basically dying serious aggressive cancer, and he had
his other three children removed from his custody and put
into foster care. This police officer informed his landlord that
(13:42):
he was manufacturing drugs in the house. He lost his home,
he lost the business. His wife, Lisa, through all the
stress that was put on her by the police, committed suicide.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Charlotte.
Speaker 6 (13:58):
Charlotte, who was in hospital at the time. The police
officer questioned entered Andrew visiting her company.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Sorry it's.
Speaker 6 (14:13):
Me, and he prevented him visiting her when she was dying,
and poor little thing ends up dying by herself because
of this police officer, and as I say, Lisa committed suicide.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
And this piece of bil this police officer.
Speaker 6 (14:33):
Even prevented Andrew from going to a funeral by advising
that the funeral home his presence there would bring a
lot of trouble with it, et cetera, cetera. So he
was basically barred from his wife's funeral. So at the
end of the day, he's lost his he's lost his business,
lost his home, lost his three children, the other one
(14:55):
dies in hospital by herself, and Lisa commits suicide. Now
a few months later, this all goes to court. Business Well,
first of all the children did the court turned around
and said give him all his children back. There is
no substance to the police allegations. So he gets his
(15:17):
children back. Then he goes to court in relation to
the chemicals and inso much with this, the police were
telling everyone that Andrew was going to get twenty five
years in jail for these offenses.
Speaker 5 (15:33):
What do you get?
Speaker 6 (15:34):
He got a twelve month good behavior b four dangerous
stories of the chemicals. He had some chemicals sitting next
to otherlands that it shouldn't have been. It was basically
the improper stories of chemics. He got a twelve month good.
Speaker 5 (15:47):
Behavior So there was no evidence.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
There was no evidence that these chemicals were being used
to produce less of drugs.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
None whatsoever, not even the sniff of it.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
So you at this point feel a sense of outrage
about all this, and you decide to pursue this police
officer through every legal channel available to bring some justice
to Andrew.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
You've sent me a list of the things that you did.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
You compiled a brief of evidence that the police officers
had committed gross misconduct. You made official complaints to the
Police Professional Standards Command twice. I back the Independent. I
don't even know what it stands for. It's so useless.
Speaker 5 (16:23):
Highback anyway, the Corruption Commission here in Victoria, yes, Victorian Inspectorate,
the Chief Commissioner of Police, the Attorney General, the Shadow
Attorney General, the Minister for Police, the Shadow Minister of Police,
Premier Victoria, and the obbudsman. And what happened from all.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
That Absolutely nothing.
Speaker 6 (16:40):
As you would know, probably better than most police investigating polices.
It's just a non starter. So nothing of substance actually happened.
I mean, the guy should have been criminally charged the
damage he caused from his outrageous fictions is in calculable. However,
it was obviously caused through the police force and to him.
(17:03):
He was demoted out of the Frankston drug squad and
basically placed on desk duties. So he wasn't happy. He
wasn't happy at all. Then he started his pursuit of me.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
How do you feel about what's happened to you in
light of your advocacy on behalf of your friend? Because
I guess the casual observer might say, well, why is
Gary getting involved in this? Look at the stakes of
all this, and maybe he had something to do with
the alleged wrongdoing that the police officer was trying to
bring against your friend.
Speaker 5 (17:37):
Mister Hutton.
Speaker 6 (17:38):
No, look, that's it. I was going to say, it's
a bolt of mine. I can't stand injustice. It was injustice.
If it happened to a stranger, I'd want to help them,
let alone a friend of mine. I mean, what happened.
I'm surprised Andrew was able to live through this. I
honestly had stress. The turmoil of the emotional told this
(18:02):
had on this man and his children, all these.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
Little girls around under the ten for God.
Speaker 6 (18:07):
So they put in foster care, the assistant eyes, their
mum dies, they lose their home. The damage this guy
did was incalculable. So I mean I was incensed. And
Andrew just wasn't in any state to do anything. I mean,
he was lucky. Like I say, I think it's very
very lucky to be able to live through that. I
(18:28):
think the reality is that Pau wasn't for his little girls.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
You would have thought the good sense and fair play
would have dictated that there should have an end to
all this, that you both inflicted damage on each other,
all three of you. But it didn't end there because
the police officer continued. You say, he furnished the ATO
with a DOSSI aliging all amount of criminal activity that
you had tens of millions of dollars buried and millions
(18:55):
of dollars worth of hidden assets. How much did you
actually have buried in the back garden? And you know,
do you know where it is today? If it's still there?
Speaker 1 (19:05):
Issue?
Speaker 6 (19:05):
I wish I took shovels straight out and started looking
for it. Again, outrageous allegations and again, I mean it
was first of all, he went to the ATO, they
found nothing of substance actually.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
What they did.
Speaker 6 (19:20):
Because I hadn't put in tax returns for about five
or six years, I was fined six thousand dollars. Oh no,
I wasn't fined six thousand dollars. Sorry, I was ordered
to pay six thousand dollars. Yeah, I did back taxes.
Speaker 5 (19:33):
But no penalties. How the hell did your no penalties?
Six years of no tax and I didn't penalize you,
no penalty? Rageous? So we did that.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
It's going to fail for your nemesis. Police officer, So
he goes again. He gives the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
the same document as the ATO, and you were examined
for four hours. You advise you'd be needed for a
further examination a couple of months.
Speaker 6 (19:58):
What happened, Well, just prior to the second examination, I
was informed by them that I will not be required
for further examination as there was basically no substance to
the allegations.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Right, but still he's not finished. Twenty seventeen, twenty nineteen,
which you call the kill shot.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
What happened then the kill shot was well, because of
their only allegations, he wasn't getting so he compiled a
dossier and sent it to the entryp C, which is
a National Character Consideration Center. Now that existed, No, neither
did I. And they came back to him, and I
(20:38):
have internal documents from their relations to this and basically
said lewis criminal history. They're only minor offenses, so we
need much more than that. So this was in twenty seventeen,
so two years later he was informed, but there was
nothing there.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
They do. He furnishes them with.
Speaker 6 (21:00):
The dossier of terror and that's where all these outrageous
allegations and beliefs coming to play, and they send it
to mister mister dud with the stroke of a pen,
reduces me from a sixty year permanent resident to an
illegal non citizen.
Speaker 5 (21:20):
Why didn't you get citizenship? I've got to ask people
this question, because surely that's a way to ensure yourself
against this outcome.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
And I couldn't count times I've asked that question to me.
I'm sure it's a nonsense. Now.
Speaker 6 (21:35):
I came here at the age of four in nineteen
sixty and I was a permanent resident, and I thought permanent,
it's permanent, but.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Clearly it's not.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
And I never ever once thought to take out citizenship.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
I mean, why would I.
Speaker 6 (21:52):
I mean, I represented the country fourteen times in World championships,
winning goal for the country five times was basically, I guess,
a sporting icon back in the eighties to my sport
in particular, and I was the first Australian to ever
win a World championship or Australia in body building, and
(22:13):
then all of a sudden, I'm not Australian anymore, stroke
of a ped Look, honestly, if it was widely known
that one is in a position such a violent position,
obviously yes I would, and I guess everyone else that's
a similar position absolutely would takeouts. But I guess at
(22:33):
the time, Look, honestly, it just never entered my head,
and I guess it was like, well, what's the advantage.
Speaker 5 (22:42):
Yeah, that's right, Well, you know, fair cool.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
And while you're doing all this, the police officer alleges
to Dutton that you were forging a powerful reputation in
criminal circles as being a violent individual who has the
proven behavior and financial means to inflict harm on any
person that provides the police information about his criminal activities.
Speaker 5 (23:03):
Pretty heavy, So let's call in you a gangster.
Speaker 6 (23:06):
Basically absolutely outrageous, But you'll see with that on. My
take on that reading those allegations or statements is why
aren't you listening?
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Who is it?
Speaker 6 (23:18):
I mean, he said I was the boss of the game,
and my first question is who's the gang? Who's in
the gang? Who are you talking about? What's this in
relation to?
Speaker 2 (23:28):
I feel like I missed your story you would do
with this gangster figure on the fringes? Who was this
threat to national security? I didn't even know about you.
I feel like I've done my job.
Speaker 6 (23:37):
Well, it's like this police officer said, he said, we
couldn't atch you because he was just too smart. Really,
maybe you couldn't. You didn't catch him because he wasn't
doing it.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
Yeah, there's also this interesting stuff that's the sort of
neighborhood dispute stuff really, i'd call it in the dossier,
which is a series of alleged crimes in three fifteen
twenty sixteen, as you launched a wave of terror quote
against a family building a retirement complex next to his
former wife's Frankston home that would have affected you view
according this to the article that Sylvester wrote John sevest
(24:08):
in the Ages. First, the excavator caught fire, causing one
hundred thousand dollars worth of damage, and then a massive
hole filled with water on the Lure property caused a
landslip that wrecked concrete work on the development next door.
There were the further fires on the construction site and
two cars owned by the developers were firebombed. Their windows
were smashed, and police led to the owner's daughter was
followed by Lure. The girlfriend of a family member told
(24:30):
police she received a phone call from a man she
believed to be Lea who threatened to blow up her house,
burn her cars, and quote nail her.
Speaker 5 (24:38):
Pet dogs to the front door. What do you say
to all that?
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Absolutely outrageous.
Speaker 6 (24:45):
And that's part of when I said to you earlier
that I was never spoken to in relation to allegations.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
They're part of the allegations.
Speaker 5 (24:57):
Outrageous, yes, but true or.
Speaker 6 (24:59):
Not true except except actually I will correct that the
water part was correct. Now, at the back of the house,
I was going to fence off an area so the
dog could have a run, and to put the fence
posts in. Obviously, I got to dig down, so I
signed myself. We started digging down. There was coming down
to clay, so I said, listen, just we'll run.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Some water in there.
Speaker 6 (25:23):
Soft come back to it, I said, I don't forget
to turn the tap off. So we put the hose
in a And what does my son do if you've
got to turn the tap off. So the water ran over,
ran over into the nagger's property and washed away some
dirt retaining wall.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
There was no concrete works there.
Speaker 5 (25:42):
I see, So that partially partially correct. What about the
nail pet dogs on the front door. That's alarming for
an animal lover.
Speaker 6 (25:51):
Yes, I mean one only has to look at my
Facebook page to see what that's about. And I mean
I couldn't kill an ant let alone.
Speaker 5 (26:00):
I've heard that you befriended the rats in the immigration
detension center.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
By this way.
Speaker 6 (26:05):
Literally, they're one of the things about place. They had
some sort of warmth. Put it that way. There ads
on the visions.
Speaker 5 (26:13):
Speaking of warmth.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
There was another allegation in two thousand and nine of
the gym owner was intimidated into allowing you to work
out for free in his gym. He canceled the arrangement
when he found that you were selling steroids in the
car park and sleeping with his girlfriend. That's very cheeky.
And then the gym was burnt down. Any truth to that?
Speaker 6 (26:32):
Oh my god, this guy now at number one, that
I intimidated into allowing me to train there for nothing,
what absolute nonsense. Now, most gyms would bend over backwards
and pay me to train there.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
That alone, me having to pay us.
Speaker 5 (26:50):
Did you bring a following with you?
Speaker 6 (26:52):
Yes, I bring credibility to the establishment. And this selling
steroids in the car park, Oh my god. Actually, and
what he even said to supposedly he said that this
gym owner said that he saw a quarter of a
million dollars in my car.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Unbelievable, unbelievable.
Speaker 6 (27:12):
Anyway, the way things started to fall apart with this guy.
He would talk out of school about me. He was
one of these guys and I'm sure you wouldn't who's
a want to be try hard? And he was upping
his own status by putting others down. And he would
talk about me out of hand. And half a dozen
(27:35):
times I fronted him on it and said, listen, you've
got to stop talking about me, because I'm going to
jump over the counter. Anyway, this went on on and
on and on, and it just got to a point
I was I was actually going to give him a
belt and at the time he had a falling out
with a number of people and the place did burned out.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
And as I say, I wasn't even spoken to it
in relation to that.
Speaker 6 (28:01):
You know, the way police investigate, they would see where
my phone was, was, where my car was, where everything
was on the night in particular happens. And I wasn't
even spoken to information. I had so much credibility can
they be to it?
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Okay, you've knocked out the intimidation and the steroid sales
and said, but what about sleeping with his girlfriend?
Speaker 5 (28:23):
It's not a crime, by.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
The way, No, Well that could have been true.
Speaker 5 (28:27):
Okay, let's that's actually credibility that you'll accept that one.
That's good.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
The report also alleged that you own two multimillion dollar
properties obtained through criminal activities and registered to fake companies.
Speaker 5 (28:40):
What do you say to.
Speaker 6 (28:41):
That, Well, I mean common sense must dictate if that
was correct, the tax office would have gone through and
me like those of Salts and or the Australian Criminal
Intelligence Commission also absolutely rubbish. And again these are assumptions
by this police officer. There were two homes and I
(29:03):
think renting one from one person and the other ones
in the company same and nothing to do with me.
Nothing to do with me whatsoever. So, I mean it's
outrageous that he says these were false. If they were
false or basically a fiction, there would be ramifications to that,
as you would know.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Yeah, but suffice to say that you weren't charged. The
ATO did not go through your like a dose assaults.
So that is a non starter as well. So we
come to the end of the scoreboard. We look at
what they actually got you for was two six month
offenses in jail, which equal the aggregate twelve months. That's
enough for the bad character. The rest is all piled
(29:43):
on top. That's what's put you in this position. Do
you think you could have done anything differently to have
avoided this?
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Gary, Yes, taken out of citizenship.
Speaker 5 (29:53):
True. So what's your situation now?
Speaker 6 (29:56):
Well, for the last Bible years, I've been absolutely terrified
every single day come and drag me off to the airport,
my position having been canceled personally.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
By the minister.
Speaker 6 (30:10):
As you would know, you're not afforded any sort of
natural justice whatsoever. I like most people are able to
appeal the decision a bad character decision or vis a
cancelation by going to the Aart Tribunal. And my lawyers
said to me, you were able to if I was
before the AART. They basically passed the hat around, send
(30:33):
me home immediately. But I wasn't important that privilege or
that right, and all I could do was appealed to
the Federal Court that the Minister had a jurisdictional error.
And as you've seen by the first proceeding I had
in front of Justice Murphy, he basically said, well, tough shit,
(30:56):
that the document was false, but the Minister was entitled
to rely on it being created in good faith.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Yeah, And that's the problem with the Soule system. It
is it gives the minister too much discretion in the situation.
And it's been used against you and you're not doing
it that well. And there are you. You've got a
back injury, you're in a wheelchair. What's what are your
conditions like there?
Speaker 6 (31:22):
Well, four months after being locked up, I slipped on
the floor as I was stepping out of the cell
and they just washed it lots of circuit water. Slipped
ended up on the floor for forty five it's waiting
for the ambulance to come, ended up four nights in
the office hospital. I now sustained a permanent back injury
from this, and actually I was in twenty twenty and
(31:46):
I've been waiting from twenty twenty. I'm on the list
for a procedure for a consultation neurosurgeon to look at
my back. So to say the care in here is
substandard via an understatement, how.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Do you keep your morale up in there? I wonder
big because it's a weird place. It's not really a jail,
and you do have access to phones, you're doing the
TDV from inside the center.
Speaker 5 (32:12):
You don't get a minimum term.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
You're there until they come and drag you out or
you win some sort of release.
Speaker 5 (32:22):
And the longer you there doesn't matter. How long can
you hang out there before you just say enough's enough
and leave your family behind here in Australia and go
back to a country you barely know.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Yeah, good question.
Speaker 6 (32:35):
I think that's That's the worst thing about this is
the you're basically put here indefinitely. And I served six
months in jail and I've been here five and a
half years now, and this is equivalent to I think
it's more than a meeting security jail. The only I
diess the difference here, which is a fantastic positive. We
(32:56):
do have our phones. But other than that, this is jail.
This is jail and keeping up again very very difficult.
How long can one hold out in these places?
Speaker 1 (33:10):
I don't know.
Speaker 6 (33:10):
I guess it's different for different for everybody. But there's
been people here. There's people here that are going on
eleven now.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Unbelievable, and people have the center then go back to
freedom in the country that they're unfamiliar with.
Speaker 6 (33:24):
Absolutely, there's people here they were staying forever rather than
go to a country that they have no ties to whatsoever.
I mean, there's a poor guy, he's into his eleventh year.
I think he did eighteen months jail for holding up
the service station with a manana literally and then he
handed himself in. Anyway, he's got a permanent care his mother,
(33:47):
and for eighteen months jail, he's done.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
He's onto his elect here and insanity.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
Yeah, it's kind of ironic.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
You get this five and a half years for nothing
in particular other than a dossier of hearsay and allegations.
It'd have been better off being a better crooked and
doing these things and stashing some cash away least so
your family would be looked after, because I mean, what's
the state of your family now that you've been in there,
And if the legal fees mount up, that's the only
hope is to keep fighting on the legal front.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
I mean, how are they doing?
Speaker 6 (34:18):
Look, that's I think that's one of the things that
upsets me most is the is the collateral damage from this,
from this sort of thing. Honestly, it's incalculable the emotional
toll this takes. The emotional damage because it's a never
ending thing, and it's very hard for people to understand.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
They say, well, what did he do? Nothing?
Speaker 6 (34:41):
No, he must have done something. They don't lock you
up for nothing, Yes they do. They lock you up
for a character test for something that's not even proven.
It's it's just that it's a very subjective thing at
the will of a politician that's basically doing what he's
doing for his own personal political gain and nothing else.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
So we're basically pawns. We're all collateral.
Speaker 6 (35:04):
Damage for these politicians' political aspirations.
Speaker 5 (35:09):
Well, that's right.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
And my other contacting friend, Tom Mackie, former president of
the Descendant's Motorcycle clubin.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
Adelaide has been deported to New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
He was there for a similar time to you, and
that's how I met you through Tom. He recommended talking
to you and gave you a glowing character reference by
the way, which I took seriously. He fought and fought
and fought, and finally had to accept deportation and has
left the country. And at no stage was there a
real test of fairness in all this. And this is
(35:39):
what bothers me about this. I mean, you may or
may not be a serious crook. I don't even know.
And we'll let the listeners judge on this. But the
point to me is that these allegations, if they're going
to be used at such a high level, they need
to be tested. They need to be corroborated, the motivations assessed,
and they're simply.
Speaker 6 (35:58):
Not absolutely no way shape or are they tested, as
you would probably know too for one to be have there,
these are canceled, be locked up here for an indefinite
amount of time five six, seven, ten years and supported
to a country that you have no ties with whatsoever,
(36:21):
you have a family, no friends. There's some people who
have been sent to countries they don't speak the language.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
You don't have to.
Speaker 6 (36:27):
Even have committed a crime, even if you associate with
persons of bad character. Will say, like a motorcycle group,
you only have to associate with someone there and that's.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
Enough to put you in here.
Speaker 6 (36:40):
And again you don't even have to go to jail
Yet's say twelve month good behavior bond, if someone gets
twelve months community based order, if someone gets a twelve
month of course in drug and alcohol rehabilitation, that is
enough to put you in here, sent to the other
side of the world, away from your home, away from
(37:01):
everything done.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
It's insanity.
Speaker 6 (37:04):
The costs associated with the cost of the taxpayer is
eye watering.
Speaker 5 (37:10):
It really is. And how's the food, by the way.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
It's disgusting. It's disgusting.
Speaker 5 (37:19):
You're a vegetarian, aren't you.
Speaker 6 (37:21):
Well, I'm vegan, so vegetarian in here. So yeah, it's
our choices here.
Speaker 5 (37:31):
Listen.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
I do wish you well on a personal level, and
it's not just because I believe that you are innocent
or guilty.
Speaker 5 (37:36):
I think just think that.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
As I said before, the transparency of the situation is very,
very lacking, and we've seen a lot of commentary in
the Australian media about the iniquities of the system in
America going on, where so called illegal aliens are being
ripped out of their homes and deported to countries and
so forth, And there's the commentary there is about the
lack of natural justice. But we've got it going on
in our own country here, yet we've sort of accepted this,
(37:58):
that this is the standard practice. So there's a fair
amount of hypocrisy in this situation that your case demonstrates.
And I do hope that you get to clean your
name one way or the other. If they can bring
evidence against you to charge you with something, well, well
and good in my opinion.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
You know, I don't want.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Drug manufacturers or gangsters or any other people running around
our streets. But let's get people for what they've actually done,
not what people suspect them of. So Gary and John Lewell,
I wish you well and keep me in touch with
what goes And you've still got a few appeals of
options up your sleeve.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
I believe we've got a few things in the works.
Speaker 6 (38:31):
But if I could adam you, I think even to
Tom mentioned this is the inequities of what's happening in
Australia with immigration and so forth all the other five
eyes countries on countries in the USA, Canada, New Zealand,
the UK if you'd lived there for ten years, you
can't be sported in Australia up until the nineties, if
(38:55):
you've lived here for ten years, it could be apported
the five oh one criteria came in in relation to terrorism,
really really seriously like that. Then they've expanded in twenty fourteen,
they changed the legislation, and they changed the legislation right
at the end when they were to stop the boats
coming in.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
So the boats stopped coming.
Speaker 6 (39:17):
And so, I mean all of us here have spent
time trying to work out what the hell is going
on and what is the rationale behind these places. And
as we all would have thought, immigration detentions for illegal
people coming illegally by boats, et cetera fair enough.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
So they stopped the votes coming.
Speaker 6 (39:40):
And therefore there's no one coming into these places. But
then they changed the legislation and they make it retrospective.
In other words, from that day on in twenty fourteen,
this legislation was applicable to if you committed a crime
fifty years ago, you come under the heading of that.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
So it's not that anyone in here. I'll take myself.
Speaker 6 (40:03):
Tom committed these and an offense became a five zero
one from an defence in.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
Iteen ninety five. Twenty five years later.
Speaker 6 (40:11):
They scoop you up off the street and lock you
up and saying, well, because you committed this defense back then,
now we're going to punish you here as well. And
the way for people to understand this it would be like,
now we've all committed a defense. Let's say a driving offense,
speeding whatever going up, don't wear your seatbelt, and we've
all coppied fine and demerit points loss. So let's say you, Adam,
(40:37):
committed a driving offense twenty five thirty years ago, and
you lost your points and you paid fines, yes, as
we all have. And then you get a knock on
the door twenty five thirty years later, I say, Adam,
we've come to take a car. You excuse me, and
we come to take your car. Car is going to
be taken to be seized, and it's going to be
crushed and you go hang on a seton Once they thought, well,
(40:59):
you give it an efense thirty years ago and you
paid the fine, you lost your points, but they've changed
the legislation which makes it retrospective. So anyone that's committed
PA's thirty years ago, we now come and take their
cars and we quesh them.
Speaker 2 (41:16):
Yeah, listen, the other getting punished twice is questionable. Gary,
thanks for your time today, mate. I appreciate you telling
the story and I do wish you well and you
received some form of justice, whether it's positive or negative,
but some transparent process I think is due.
Speaker 5 (41:32):
Thanks for your time today.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
Thank you so much. Eric.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
That's Gary Lewe on his present situation. Multiple mister Australia
winner who's apparently not Ozzy enough and he's facing deportation
back to his native England place that he hasn't lived
for many, many years.
Speaker 5 (41:51):
Does this pass the smell test? You've heard the allegations
against Goar, and I stress their allegations, they're not charges,
are not proven. What do you think?
Speaker 2 (42:00):
I certainly think these things, as I've said before in
this interview, should be tested in a court, and I
think that's just fair. And we did expect that the
new Labor government, once Dutton's mob were kicked out, would
address this, but they haven't. Maybe it's just politically convenient
to retain this. And there are some people in our
society who should be deported, and maybe you can make
(42:22):
an argument that they're too clever and should be deported
on this character test. But I'd like to see a
lot more natural justice apply to the situation. If you've
got a story you want to share with me, please
get in touch. You could call crime stoppers if it's
conventional information one one hundred, triple three, triple zero, or
maybe call me first or send me an email Adam Shanner,
writer at gmail dot com. This has been real crum
(42:45):
At Adam shann thank you for listening.
Approche Production.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Welcome to Real Crime with Adam Shanned. I'm your host,
Adam shann. If you like the content of this podcast,
please like and subscribe it. I've always believed in the
credo that if you do the crime, you do the time,
but if there's reasonable doubt, then you're entitled to the
benefit of that doubt. This is frustrating to some police
officers who take it personally when a crook gets away
(00:35):
with their crimes doesn't mean they can load up a
suspect and find a way to punish them when they
haven't done their job well enough to lock them up
fair and square. Out of the reign of former Home
Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, a new form of punishment was
inactive was called the Character Test, where non citizens living
in this country were deported solely for more than twelve
(00:56):
months in prison and being a so called bad character.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
We've got Australian citizens who are falling victim where people
are sexual affect against children. Have had a big push
to try and to port those pedophiles, and I believe
strongly that these Traine people would support that stance.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
I think there's really appeal to Dutton himself a former
police officer, he could play judge and jury and eject
people who paid their debt to society or hadn't offended.
In decades, I've had two close contacts and friends deported
from Australia on this basis without the benefit of natural
justice or indeed basic fairness. In both cases, dossier is
(01:33):
prepared by police, represented as fact, even though the information
was hearsay and perhaps motivated by malice, a square up
by police who couldn't do their job well enough.
Speaker 4 (01:45):
The Opposition leader Peter Dutton has the view that if
somebody has committed a terrorism fence, they have broken the
oath to Australia and should therefore be deported.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Another man recently who's facing deportation based on this character test,
Gary John Lewer, is a former champion bodybuilder, Mister Australia
winner who represented this country internationally, winning Mister World and
Mister Universe titles. However, he was born in England and
(02:18):
failed to get his citizenship to one suburban police officer,
Lewer was a clever, calculating master criminal who'd gotten away
with a string of crimes and was a danger to
this nation. He compiled the dossier of hearsay and unproven
allegations that have never been tested in court. But on
that basis, in twenty twenty, Peter Dutton invoked the character
(02:40):
test and ordered his deportation. He's been fighting this order
ever since and contacted me to tell his story from
inside the broad Meadows Immigration Detention Center in Melbourne.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
Welcome to Real Crime, Gary.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
Thank you so much, Evamo to be here.
Speaker 5 (02:56):
You're in on the podcast Real Crime. Are you a
real criminal?
Speaker 6 (03:00):
Purportedly or allegedly particular by one police officer's got this
story and there own particular stories for me. The dossier
of terror that this police officer compiled was basically replete
with not even allegations but suppositions. And there were sixteen
(03:22):
points that he put in there. Out of the sixteen
points of not even allegations, actually just beliefs, his beliefs.
Out of those sixteen, I was never spoken to on
fifteen of those, So one would think how strong are
the beliefs if you kind of interview me, let alone, charge.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
Me or comfit me. So yeah, it's a very convon story,
actually it is.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
And you know, I've been knocking around the underworld and
police and things for about twenty five years in Melbourne,
and I must confess I've never heard your name before,
which tells me that you're a very good, low key
criminal or you haven't got much form.
Speaker 5 (04:00):
What is your form in the criminal sense, my.
Speaker 6 (04:04):
Forming the criminal scene, it's I've been convicted for eleven
times in sixty years, and the majority of those offenses
were for possess or restricted substance.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
I e.
Speaker 6 (04:17):
Steroids for my bodyhood e avctually before the right up
until the eighth Possession of steroids wasn't an offense. They
made it so. And because I was so outspoken in
relation to using them, I was very honest I always
have been in relation to that.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I mean, you couldn't be in that game without taking them, right,
really in those days.
Speaker 6 (04:39):
Never all professional sportsmen take performance enhancing things, but in
one form or another. So police targue with me and
charge me with possess a restricted substance, and restricted in
the sense of one needed a prescription to have it.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
That was it.
Speaker 6 (04:58):
And I do note though, that in a newspaper article
one of your colleagues that was mentioned that I was
convicted of selling steroids to other bodybuilders, animal steroids. Even
that's correct, and well, there isn't. Actually, this is the
way they're laid and packaged. I have never been charged
(05:21):
with selling anything to anybody, let alone.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
I do know them the same story that he talks about.
And I haven't had the benefit of reading this dossier
that there's a prior conviction for firearms, which is a
serious offense.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
What's that all about?
Speaker 1 (05:35):
Well, the firearms offenses?
Speaker 6 (05:37):
Why I was relegated to the position of five oho
one that character. In nineteen ninety five, I was convicted
of possess and illegal firearm, And the possession part of it,
some people might think that you're walking around. It was
wrapped up under the house, put away, no ammunition, no nothing,
And the police did come. They rate again because of steroids,
(06:01):
and they found the firearm. And twelve months after this raid,
I was summons and went to court and I received
two six months sentences to be served concurrently.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
So I served six months, but.
Speaker 6 (06:15):
The aggregated sentence brought it up to twelve months. So
therefore you were automatically bad character.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
The magic number? Tell me what sort of gun? And
why what sort of gun?
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Why?
Speaker 6 (06:28):
Well, I'm just an average boy, I guess, and look
I don't think I've ever come across a boy who
wasn't some somewhat fascinated firearms, cowboys and all that sort
of bit. My son and I used to go target shooting.
I mean, there's no way on God's green Earth I
could shoot anything like that.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
So we used to go up the bush and we
chewed targets.
Speaker 5 (06:49):
That's it, Okay, what sort of gun was it?
Speaker 1 (06:52):
Was it twenty two?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Right, Just a little twenty two basically bounce off a
thick jumper. Not really a very serious weapon at all,
you'd say, no, not a serious weapon, right, because this
was the basis of the dossier, or the beginning of
the dossier.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
But there was a lot more.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
When I look at this story that was written about you,
Sylvester talks about you as being an intimidator, a drug importer,
a person behind a threat to nail your dogs to
the door, and the quote what is beyond dispute? Is
it by accident or design? If you get on the
wrong side of it? Was massive bodybuilders frame bad things happen.
What's he talking about?
Speaker 6 (07:29):
He really made a license to create a fiction there.
I mean, that's just actually, when I read the dossier,
I was absolutely horrified. And I actually said to the
Immigration that I said, if I had read that, if
I thought this was true of someone, I'd want orton too.
But there's absolutely no substance to that whatsoever. And like
(07:50):
I say, these are the things that were in the dossier,
But how strong is their belief that I'm responsible for
any of those things?
Speaker 1 (08:00):
I wasn't even spoken to in relation to that.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Right thoroughly bricked in by all this. You've got a
dossier which has taken as fact from police officer. You've
got a journalist who's writing corroborating material. More trouble than
the early settlers here, really, And the bottom line is
when it was tested by a court and so forth,
there seemed to have taken as fact that this came
from police intelligence holdings, which gives it a very authoritative ring,
(08:28):
as if you were such a master criminal that they
had always intelligence on you, but they couldn't pin you
with anything. What's the reality here, I mean, what was
the basis of what you call a vendetta against you?
Speaker 6 (08:43):
Well, let me just begin by correcting you that you
said this was tested by a court. These allegations were
tested by court. The allegations were never tested by a court.
As I say, the allegations, ninety percent of these allegations
were never put to me. I was never questioned by
anyone in relation to ninety percent of those allegations, let
(09:05):
alone charged or convicted.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Nothing, and that ever went to court.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
I should direct myself there when I say tested by
a court. It was in the Federal Court judgment of
the Judiciary Review that you sought. Justice Murphy found the
document to be reliable as it emanated from the quote
police intelligence unit.
Speaker 6 (09:25):
Yes, what he actually said, because we disputed the document
as aubrication fiction. What he said in sexual judgment was
the Minister was entitled to rely upon the document as
having been properly constructed and in good faith, So regardless
(09:45):
of what that document contained, as outrageous as it is,
it was, the Minister is entitled to rely upon its
credibility or validity.
Speaker 5 (09:58):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
And then of course the Minister for Home Affairs, then
Peter Dutton relies on this document referencing quote Police Intelligent
Holdings twenty seven times. So it does give us all
a pretty authoritative ring. But you say this all came
from some years earlier twenty thirteen when this police officer
(10:19):
began a vendetta we can call it that against a
friend of yours, Andrew Hutton, his wife Lisa, and their
four little girls, all under the age of ten.
Speaker 5 (10:29):
What on earth was going on?
Speaker 6 (10:31):
Okay, A long story, short as look as short as
it can be. Andrew was running a chemical business. He
was taking excess leftover chemicals from companies and then reselling them.
And what sort of chemicals time, all sorts of chemicals whatever. Basically, companies,
when they have excess chemicals, they pay somewhere to come
(10:53):
and take them and dispose of them.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
So he thought, well, hang on a second, these things
are worth money.
Speaker 6 (10:59):
So I'll take them free and then I'll resell them
instead of the company's paying for someone to take it
and dispose it. I mean, it was costing them thousands
of thousands of dollars to pay for disposal of these chemicals.
So he just lashed onto something a bit like recycling,
I guess. And at this time, probably a few years
(11:20):
after the met Andrew was widely advertising the company, bettered
by Seculda Road drug Squad ticked all the boxes. Anyway,
As time went on, Andrew became embroiled in a custody
battle for his children with his then wife Lisa, and
(11:40):
as time went on they separated. They moved home, and
then they split up. Lisa took some chemicals and she
took it back to the house that they ran crime
stoppers and said, look, there's some chemicals at this place
he had. So they went there and turned into a
whole circus, rove off all the area and so forth. Anyway,
(12:03):
so then the police did the police who they investigated,
who lived here, where the chemicals come from.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
It came back to Andrew.
Speaker 6 (12:12):
So they charged Andrew with having precursor chemicals, chemicals that
can be used in the manufacture of aphetamines.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Well, I was going to say, sorry to stop you there,
but I mean, my suspicious and skeptical mind gets a
bit excited when I hear people talking about buying and
selling excess chemicals. And this is not chlorine for the
backyard pool. These are precursor chemicals for the production of methamphetamine.
Speaker 5 (12:35):
That's pretty serious to me.
Speaker 6 (12:37):
No, no, no, some of them can be It's like acetone.
Now everyone uses acetone. Yeah, you know what acetone is?
Speaker 5 (12:44):
I do and to make methamphetamine as.
Speaker 6 (12:46):
Well, well, it can be used in the process. It's
a basically a solvent.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
I mean, I make no allegations against mister Hutton. I
don't even know it. But it is suspicious.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
Well, it became suspicious because it suited the police as
a gender. They liked things to be probably more than
they actually are, because it's good for their position. As
things went along, they charged Andrew having these briefs and
chemicals with the intent to do whatever with them in
(13:20):
this process. Andrew had one child. She was under the
age of five years. She was very ill in hospital.
She was basically dying serious aggressive cancer, and he had
his other three children removed from his custody and put
into foster care. This police officer informed his landlord that
(13:42):
he was manufacturing drugs in the house. He lost his home,
he lost the business. His wife, Lisa, through all the
stress that was put on her by the police, committed suicide.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
Charlotte.
Speaker 6 (13:58):
Charlotte, who was in hospital at the time. The police
officer questioned entered Andrew visiting her company.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
Sorry it's.
Speaker 6 (14:13):
Me, and he prevented him visiting her when she was dying,
and poor little thing ends up dying by herself because
of this police officer, and as I say, Lisa committed suicide.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
And this piece of bil this police officer.
Speaker 6 (14:33):
Even prevented Andrew from going to a funeral by advising
that the funeral home his presence there would bring a
lot of trouble with it, et cetera, cetera. So he
was basically barred from his wife's funeral. So at the
end of the day, he's lost his he's lost his business,
lost his home, lost his three children, the other one
(14:55):
dies in hospital by herself, and Lisa commits suicide. Now
a few months later, this all goes to court. Business Well,
first of all the children did the court turned around
and said give him all his children back. There is
no substance to the police allegations. So he gets his
(15:17):
children back. Then he goes to court in relation to
the chemicals and inso much with this, the police were
telling everyone that Andrew was going to get twenty five
years in jail for these offenses.
Speaker 5 (15:33):
What do you get?
Speaker 6 (15:34):
He got a twelve month good behavior b four dangerous
stories of the chemicals. He had some chemicals sitting next
to otherlands that it shouldn't have been. It was basically
the improper stories of chemics. He got a twelve month good.
Speaker 5 (15:47):
Behavior So there was no evidence.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
There was no evidence that these chemicals were being used
to produce less of drugs.
Speaker 1 (15:55):
None whatsoever, not even the sniff of it.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
So you at this point feel a sense of outrage
about all this, and you decide to pursue this police
officer through every legal channel available to bring some justice
to Andrew.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
You've sent me a list of the things that you did.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
You compiled a brief of evidence that the police officers
had committed gross misconduct. You made official complaints to the
Police Professional Standards Command twice. I back the Independent. I
don't even know what it stands for. It's so useless.
Speaker 5 (16:23):
Highback anyway, the Corruption Commission here in Victoria, yes, Victorian Inspectorate,
the Chief Commissioner of Police, the Attorney General, the Shadow
Attorney General, the Minister for Police, the Shadow Minister of Police,
Premier Victoria, and the obbudsman. And what happened from all.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
That Absolutely nothing.
Speaker 6 (16:40):
As you would know, probably better than most police investigating polices.
It's just a non starter. So nothing of substance actually happened.
I mean, the guy should have been criminally charged the
damage he caused from his outrageous fictions is in calculable. However,
it was obviously caused through the police force and to him.
(17:03):
He was demoted out of the Frankston drug squad and
basically placed on desk duties. So he wasn't happy. He
wasn't happy at all. Then he started his pursuit of me.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
How do you feel about what's happened to you in
light of your advocacy on behalf of your friend? Because
I guess the casual observer might say, well, why is
Gary getting involved in this? Look at the stakes of
all this, and maybe he had something to do with
the alleged wrongdoing that the police officer was trying to
bring against your friend.
Speaker 5 (17:37):
Mister Hutton.
Speaker 6 (17:38):
No, look, that's it. I was going to say, it's
a bolt of mine. I can't stand injustice. It was injustice.
If it happened to a stranger, I'd want to help them,
let alone a friend of mine. I mean, what happened.
I'm surprised Andrew was able to live through this. I
honestly had stress. The turmoil of the emotional told this
(18:02):
had on this man and his children, all these.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
Little girls around under the ten for God.
Speaker 6 (18:07):
So they put in foster care, the assistant eyes, their
mum dies, they lose their home. The damage this guy
did was incalculable. So I mean I was incensed. And
Andrew just wasn't in any state to do anything. I mean,
he was lucky. Like I say, I think it's very
very lucky to be able to live through that. I
(18:28):
think the reality is that Pau wasn't for his little girls.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
You would have thought the good sense and fair play
would have dictated that there should have an end to
all this, that you both inflicted damage on each other,
all three of you. But it didn't end there because
the police officer continued. You say, he furnished the ATO
with a DOSSI aliging all amount of criminal activity that
you had tens of millions of dollars buried and millions
(18:55):
of dollars worth of hidden assets. How much did you
actually have buried in the back garden? And you know,
do you know where it is today? If it's still there?
Speaker 1 (19:05):
Issue?
Speaker 6 (19:05):
I wish I took shovels straight out and started looking
for it. Again, outrageous allegations and again, I mean it
was first of all, he went to the ATO, they
found nothing of substance actually.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
What they did.
Speaker 6 (19:20):
Because I hadn't put in tax returns for about five
or six years, I was fined six thousand dollars. Oh no,
I wasn't fined six thousand dollars. Sorry, I was ordered
to pay six thousand dollars. Yeah, I did back taxes.
Speaker 5 (19:33):
But no penalties. How the hell did your no penalties?
Six years of no tax and I didn't penalize you,
no penalty? Rageous? So we did that.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
It's going to fail for your nemesis. Police officer, So
he goes again. He gives the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
the same document as the ATO, and you were examined
for four hours. You advise you'd be needed for a
further examination a couple of months.
Speaker 6 (19:58):
What happened, Well, just prior to the second examination, I
was informed by them that I will not be required
for further examination as there was basically no substance to
the allegations.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
Right, but still he's not finished. Twenty seventeen, twenty nineteen,
which you call the kill shot.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
What happened then the kill shot was well, because of
their only allegations, he wasn't getting so he compiled a
dossier and sent it to the entryp C, which is
a National Character Consideration Center. Now that existed, No, neither
did I. And they came back to him, and I
(20:38):
have internal documents from their relations to this and basically
said lewis criminal history. They're only minor offenses, so we
need much more than that. So this was in twenty seventeen,
so two years later he was informed, but there was
nothing there.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
They do. He furnishes them with.
Speaker 6 (21:00):
The dossier of terror and that's where all these outrageous
allegations and beliefs coming to play, and they send it
to mister mister dud with the stroke of a pen,
reduces me from a sixty year permanent resident to an
illegal non citizen.
Speaker 5 (21:20):
Why didn't you get citizenship? I've got to ask people
this question, because surely that's a way to ensure yourself
against this outcome.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
And I couldn't count times I've asked that question to me.
I'm sure it's a nonsense. Now.
Speaker 6 (21:35):
I came here at the age of four in nineteen
sixty and I was a permanent resident, and I thought permanent,
it's permanent, but.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Clearly it's not.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
And I never ever once thought to take out citizenship.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
I mean, why would I.
Speaker 6 (21:52):
I mean, I represented the country fourteen times in World championships,
winning goal for the country five times was basically, I guess,
a sporting icon back in the eighties to my sport
in particular, and I was the first Australian to ever
win a World championship or Australia in body building, and
(22:13):
then all of a sudden, I'm not Australian anymore, stroke
of a ped Look, honestly, if it was widely known
that one is in a position such a violent position,
obviously yes I would, and I guess everyone else that's
a similar position absolutely would takeouts. But I guess at
(22:33):
the time, Look, honestly, it just never entered my head,
and I guess it was like, well, what's the advantage.
Speaker 5 (22:42):
Yeah, that's right, Well, you know, fair cool.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
And while you're doing all this, the police officer alleges
to Dutton that you were forging a powerful reputation in
criminal circles as being a violent individual who has the
proven behavior and financial means to inflict harm on any
person that provides the police information about his criminal activities.
Speaker 5 (23:03):
Pretty heavy, So let's call in you a gangster.
Speaker 6 (23:06):
Basically absolutely outrageous, But you'll see with that on. My
take on that reading those allegations or statements is why
aren't you listening?
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Who is it?
Speaker 6 (23:18):
I mean, he said I was the boss of the game,
and my first question is who's the gang? Who's in
the gang? Who are you talking about? What's this in
relation to?
Speaker 2 (23:28):
I feel like I missed your story you would do
with this gangster figure on the fringes? Who was this
threat to national security? I didn't even know about you.
I feel like I've done my job.
Speaker 6 (23:37):
Well, it's like this police officer said, he said, we
couldn't atch you because he was just too smart. Really,
maybe you couldn't. You didn't catch him because he wasn't
doing it.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
Yeah, there's also this interesting stuff that's the sort of
neighborhood dispute stuff really, i'd call it in the dossier,
which is a series of alleged crimes in three fifteen
twenty sixteen, as you launched a wave of terror quote
against a family building a retirement complex next to his
former wife's Frankston home that would have affected you view
according this to the article that Sylvester wrote John sevest
(24:08):
in the Ages. First, the excavator caught fire, causing one
hundred thousand dollars worth of damage, and then a massive
hole filled with water on the Lure property caused a
landslip that wrecked concrete work on the development next door.
There were the further fires on the construction site and
two cars owned by the developers were firebombed. Their windows
were smashed, and police led to the owner's daughter was
followed by Lure. The girlfriend of a family member told
(24:30):
police she received a phone call from a man she
believed to be Lea who threatened to blow up her house,
burn her cars, and quote nail her.
Speaker 5 (24:38):
Pet dogs to the front door. What do you say
to all that?
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Absolutely outrageous.
Speaker 6 (24:45):
And that's part of when I said to you earlier
that I was never spoken to in relation to allegations.
Speaker 1 (24:54):
They're part of the allegations.
Speaker 5 (24:57):
Outrageous, yes, but true or.
Speaker 6 (24:59):
Not true except except actually I will correct that the
water part was correct. Now, at the back of the house,
I was going to fence off an area so the
dog could have a run, and to put the fence
posts in. Obviously, I got to dig down, so I
signed myself. We started digging down. There was coming down
to clay, so I said, listen, just we'll run.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Some water in there.
Speaker 6 (25:23):
Soft come back to it, I said, I don't forget
to turn the tap off. So we put the hose
in a And what does my son do if you've
got to turn the tap off. So the water ran over,
ran over into the nagger's property and washed away some
dirt retaining wall.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
There was no concrete works there.
Speaker 5 (25:42):
I see, So that partially partially correct. What about the
nail pet dogs on the front door. That's alarming for
an animal lover.
Speaker 6 (25:51):
Yes, I mean one only has to look at my
Facebook page to see what that's about. And I mean
I couldn't kill an ant let alone.
Speaker 5 (26:00):
I've heard that you befriended the rats in the immigration
detension center.
Speaker 1 (26:04):
By this way.
Speaker 6 (26:05):
Literally, they're one of the things about place. They had
some sort of warmth. Put it that way. There ads
on the visions.
Speaker 5 (26:13):
Speaking of warmth.
Speaker 2 (26:15):
There was another allegation in two thousand and nine of
the gym owner was intimidated into allowing you to work
out for free in his gym. He canceled the arrangement
when he found that you were selling steroids in the
car park and sleeping with his girlfriend. That's very cheeky.
And then the gym was burnt down. Any truth to that?
Speaker 6 (26:32):
Oh my god, this guy now at number one, that
I intimidated into allowing me to train there for nothing,
what absolute nonsense. Now, most gyms would bend over backwards
and pay me to train there.
Speaker 1 (26:48):
That alone, me having to pay us.
Speaker 5 (26:50):
Did you bring a following with you?
Speaker 6 (26:52):
Yes, I bring credibility to the establishment. And this selling
steroids in the car park, Oh my god. Actually, and
what he even said to supposedly he said that this
gym owner said that he saw a quarter of a
million dollars in my car.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Unbelievable, unbelievable.
Speaker 6 (27:12):
Anyway, the way things started to fall apart with this guy.
He would talk out of school about me. He was
one of these guys and I'm sure you wouldn't who's
a want to be try hard? And he was upping
his own status by putting others down. And he would
talk about me out of hand. And half a dozen
(27:35):
times I fronted him on it and said, listen, you've
got to stop talking about me, because I'm going to
jump over the counter. Anyway, this went on on and
on and on, and it just got to a point
I was I was actually going to give him a
belt and at the time he had a falling out
with a number of people and the place did burned out.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
And as I say, I wasn't even spoken to it
in relation to that.
Speaker 6 (28:01):
You know, the way police investigate, they would see where
my phone was, was, where my car was, where everything
was on the night in particular happens. And I wasn't
even spoken to information. I had so much credibility can
they be to it?
Speaker 2 (28:17):
Okay, you've knocked out the intimidation and the steroid sales
and said, but what about sleeping with his girlfriend?
Speaker 5 (28:23):
It's not a crime, by.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
The way, No, Well that could have been true.
Speaker 5 (28:27):
Okay, let's that's actually credibility that you'll accept that one.
That's good.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
The report also alleged that you own two multimillion dollar
properties obtained through criminal activities and registered to fake companies.
Speaker 5 (28:40):
What do you say to.
Speaker 6 (28:41):
That, Well, I mean common sense must dictate if that
was correct, the tax office would have gone through and
me like those of Salts and or the Australian Criminal
Intelligence Commission also absolutely rubbish. And again these are assumptions
by this police officer. There were two homes and I
(29:03):
think renting one from one person and the other ones
in the company same and nothing to do with me.
Nothing to do with me whatsoever. So, I mean it's
outrageous that he says these were false. If they were
false or basically a fiction, there would be ramifications to that,
as you would know.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Yeah, but suffice to say that you weren't charged. The
ATO did not go through your like a dose assaults.
So that is a non starter as well. So we
come to the end of the scoreboard. We look at
what they actually got you for was two six month
offenses in jail, which equal the aggregate twelve months. That's
enough for the bad character. The rest is all piled
(29:43):
on top. That's what's put you in this position. Do
you think you could have done anything differently to have
avoided this?
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Gary, Yes, taken out of citizenship.
Speaker 5 (29:53):
True. So what's your situation now?
Speaker 6 (29:56):
Well, for the last Bible years, I've been absolutely terrified
every single day come and drag me off to the airport,
my position having been canceled personally.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
By the minister.
Speaker 6 (30:10):
As you would know, you're not afforded any sort of
natural justice whatsoever. I like most people are able to
appeal the decision a bad character decision or vis a
cancelation by going to the Aart Tribunal. And my lawyers
said to me, you were able to if I was
before the AART. They basically passed the hat around, send
(30:33):
me home immediately. But I wasn't important that privilege or
that right, and all I could do was appealed to
the Federal Court that the Minister had a jurisdictional error.
And as you've seen by the first proceeding I had
in front of Justice Murphy, he basically said, well, tough shit,
(30:56):
that the document was false, but the Minister was entitled
to rely on it being created in good faith.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Yeah, And that's the problem with the Soule system. It
is it gives the minister too much discretion in the situation.
And it's been used against you and you're not doing
it that well. And there are you. You've got a
back injury, you're in a wheelchair. What's what are your
conditions like there?
Speaker 6 (31:22):
Well, four months after being locked up, I slipped on
the floor as I was stepping out of the cell
and they just washed it lots of circuit water. Slipped
ended up on the floor for forty five it's waiting
for the ambulance to come, ended up four nights in
the office hospital. I now sustained a permanent back injury
from this, and actually I was in twenty twenty and
(31:46):
I've been waiting from twenty twenty. I'm on the list
for a procedure for a consultation neurosurgeon to look at
my back. So to say the care in here is
substandard via an understatement, how.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Do you keep your morale up in there? I wonder
big because it's a weird place. It's not really a jail,
and you do have access to phones, you're doing the
TDV from inside the center.
Speaker 5 (32:12):
You don't get a minimum term.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
You're there until they come and drag you out or
you win some sort of release.
Speaker 5 (32:22):
And the longer you there doesn't matter. How long can
you hang out there before you just say enough's enough
and leave your family behind here in Australia and go
back to a country you barely know.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Yeah, good question.
Speaker 6 (32:35):
I think that's That's the worst thing about this is
the you're basically put here indefinitely. And I served six
months in jail and I've been here five and a
half years now, and this is equivalent to I think
it's more than a meeting security jail. The only I
diess the difference here, which is a fantastic positive. We
(32:56):
do have our phones. But other than that, this is jail.
This is jail and keeping up again very very difficult.
How long can one hold out in these places?
Speaker 1 (33:10):
I don't know.
Speaker 6 (33:10):
I guess it's different for different for everybody. But there's
been people here. There's people here that are going on
eleven now.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Unbelievable, and people have the center then go back to
freedom in the country that they're unfamiliar with.
Speaker 6 (33:24):
Absolutely, there's people here they were staying forever rather than
go to a country that they have no ties to whatsoever.
I mean, there's a poor guy, he's into his eleventh year.
I think he did eighteen months jail for holding up
the service station with a manana literally and then he
handed himself in. Anyway, he's got a permanent care his mother,
(33:47):
and for eighteen months jail, he's done.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
He's onto his elect here and insanity.
Speaker 5 (33:54):
Yeah, it's kind of ironic.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
You get this five and a half years for nothing
in particular other than a dossier of hearsay and allegations.
It'd have been better off being a better crooked and
doing these things and stashing some cash away least so
your family would be looked after, because I mean, what's
the state of your family now that you've been in there,
And if the legal fees mount up, that's the only
hope is to keep fighting on the legal front.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
I mean, how are they doing?
Speaker 6 (34:18):
Look, that's I think that's one of the things that
upsets me most is the is the collateral damage from this,
from this sort of thing. Honestly, it's incalculable the emotional
toll this takes. The emotional damage because it's a never
ending thing, and it's very hard for people to understand.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
They say, well, what did he do? Nothing?
Speaker 6 (34:41):
No, he must have done something. They don't lock you
up for nothing, Yes they do. They lock you up
for a character test for something that's not even proven.
It's it's just that it's a very subjective thing at
the will of a politician that's basically doing what he's
doing for his own personal political gain and nothing else.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
So we're basically pawns. We're all collateral.
Speaker 6 (35:04):
Damage for these politicians' political aspirations.
Speaker 5 (35:09):
Well, that's right.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
And my other contacting friend, Tom Mackie, former president of
the Descendant's Motorcycle clubin.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
Adelaide has been deported to New Zealand.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
He was there for a similar time to you, and
that's how I met you through Tom. He recommended talking
to you and gave you a glowing character reference by
the way, which I took seriously. He fought and fought
and fought, and finally had to accept deportation and has
left the country. And at no stage was there a
real test of fairness in all this. And this is
(35:39):
what bothers me about this. I mean, you may or
may not be a serious crook. I don't even know.
And we'll let the listeners judge on this. But the
point to me is that these allegations, if they're going
to be used at such a high level, they need
to be tested. They need to be corroborated, the motivations assessed,
and they're simply.
Speaker 6 (35:58):
Not absolutely no way shape or are they tested, as
you would probably know too for one to be have there,
these are canceled, be locked up here for an indefinite
amount of time five six, seven, ten years and supported
to a country that you have no ties with whatsoever,
(36:21):
you have a family, no friends. There's some people who
have been sent to countries they don't speak the language.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
You don't have to.
Speaker 6 (36:27):
Even have committed a crime, even if you associate with
persons of bad character. Will say, like a motorcycle group,
you only have to associate with someone there and that's.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
Enough to put you in here.
Speaker 6 (36:40):
And again you don't even have to go to jail
Yet's say twelve month good behavior bond, if someone gets
twelve months community based order, if someone gets a twelve
month of course in drug and alcohol rehabilitation, that is
enough to put you in here, sent to the other
side of the world, away from your home, away from
(37:01):
everything done.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
It's insanity.
Speaker 6 (37:04):
The costs associated with the cost of the taxpayer is
eye watering.
Speaker 5 (37:10):
It really is. And how's the food, by the way.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
It's disgusting. It's disgusting.
Speaker 5 (37:19):
You're a vegetarian, aren't you.
Speaker 6 (37:21):
Well, I'm vegan, so vegetarian in here. So yeah, it's
our choices here.
Speaker 5 (37:31):
Listen.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
I do wish you well on a personal level, and
it's not just because I believe that you are innocent
or guilty.
Speaker 5 (37:36):
I think just think that.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
As I said before, the transparency of the situation is very,
very lacking, and we've seen a lot of commentary in
the Australian media about the iniquities of the system in
America going on, where so called illegal aliens are being
ripped out of their homes and deported to countries and
so forth, And there's the commentary there is about the
lack of natural justice. But we've got it going on
in our own country here, yet we've sort of accepted this,
(37:58):
that this is the standard practice. So there's a fair
amount of hypocrisy in this situation that your case demonstrates.
And I do hope that you get to clean your
name one way or the other. If they can bring
evidence against you to charge you with something, well, well
and good in my opinion.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
You know, I don't want.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Drug manufacturers or gangsters or any other people running around
our streets. But let's get people for what they've actually done,
not what people suspect them of. So Gary and John Lewell,
I wish you well and keep me in touch with
what goes And you've still got a few appeals of
options up your sleeve.
Speaker 1 (38:28):
I believe we've got a few things in the works.
Speaker 6 (38:31):
But if I could adam you, I think even to
Tom mentioned this is the inequities of what's happening in
Australia with immigration and so forth all the other five
eyes countries on countries in the USA, Canada, New Zealand,
the UK if you'd lived there for ten years, you
can't be sported in Australia up until the nineties, if
(38:55):
you've lived here for ten years, it could be apported
the five oh one criteria came in in relation to terrorism,
really really seriously like that. Then they've expanded in twenty fourteen,
they changed the legislation, and they changed the legislation right
at the end when they were to stop the boats
coming in.
Speaker 1 (39:15):
So the boats stopped coming.
Speaker 6 (39:17):
And so, I mean all of us here have spent
time trying to work out what the hell is going
on and what is the rationale behind these places. And
as we all would have thought, immigration detentions for illegal
people coming illegally by boats, et cetera fair enough.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
So they stopped the votes coming.
Speaker 6 (39:40):
And therefore there's no one coming into these places. But
then they changed the legislation and they make it retrospective.
In other words, from that day on in twenty fourteen,
this legislation was applicable to if you committed a crime
fifty years ago, you come under the heading of that.
Speaker 1 (39:58):
So it's not that anyone in here. I'll take myself.
Speaker 6 (40:03):
Tom committed these and an offense became a five zero
one from an defence in.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
Iteen ninety five. Twenty five years later.
Speaker 6 (40:11):
They scoop you up off the street and lock you
up and saying, well, because you committed this defense back then,
now we're going to punish you here as well. And
the way for people to understand this it would be like,
now we've all committed a defense. Let's say a driving offense,
speeding whatever going up, don't wear your seatbelt, and we've
all coppied fine and demerit points loss. So let's say you, Adam,
(40:37):
committed a driving offense twenty five thirty years ago, and
you lost your points and you paid fines, yes, as
we all have. And then you get a knock on
the door twenty five thirty years later, I say, Adam,
we've come to take a car. You excuse me, and
we come to take your car. Car is going to
be taken to be seized, and it's going to be
crushed and you go hang on a seton Once they thought, well,
(40:59):
you give it an efense thirty years ago and you
paid the fine, you lost your points, but they've changed
the legislation which makes it retrospective. So anyone that's committed
PA's thirty years ago, we now come and take their
cars and we quesh them.
Speaker 2 (41:16):
Yeah, listen, the other getting punished twice is questionable. Gary,
thanks for your time today, mate. I appreciate you telling
the story and I do wish you well and you
received some form of justice, whether it's positive or negative,
but some transparent process I think is due.
Speaker 5 (41:32):
Thanks for your time today.
Speaker 1 (41:33):
Thank you so much. Eric.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
That's Gary Lewe on his present situation. Multiple mister Australia
winner who's apparently not Ozzy enough and he's facing deportation
back to his native England place that he hasn't lived
for many, many years.
Speaker 5 (41:51):
Does this pass the smell test? You've heard the allegations
against Goar, and I stress their allegations, they're not charges,
are not proven. What do you think?
Speaker 2 (42:00):
I certainly think these things, as I've said before in
this interview, should be tested in a court, and I
think that's just fair. And we did expect that the
new Labor government, once Dutton's mob were kicked out, would
address this, but they haven't. Maybe it's just politically convenient
to retain this. And there are some people in our
society who should be deported, and maybe you can make
(42:22):
an argument that they're too clever and should be deported
on this character test. But I'd like to see a
lot more natural justice apply to the situation. If you've
got a story you want to share with me, please
get in touch. You could call crime stoppers if it's
conventional information one one hundred, triple three, triple zero, or
maybe call me first or send me an email Adam Shanner,
writer at gmail dot com. This has been real crum
(42:45):
At Adam shann thank you for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.