March 22, 2025 • 54 mins
Criminal solicitor Greg Goold has represented some of the most dangerous criminals in the country. From bikies to underworld figures, Goold reveals what it takes to do his job, how he fired a gun at a court house and why there was a contract out on his life.
Can’t get enough of I Catch Killers? Stay up to date on all the latest crime news at The Daily Telegraph.
Get episodes of I Catch Killers a week early and ad-free, as well as bonus content, by subscribing to Crime X+ today.
Like the show? Get more at icatchkillers.com.au
Advertising enquiries: newspodcastssold@news.com.au
Questions for Gary: icatchkillers@news.com.au
Get in touch with the show by joining our Facebook group, and visiting us on Instagram or Tiktok.
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 (00:01):
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective see aside of life the average person is never
exposed to. I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years, I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.
(00:46):
Today I had a conversation with Greg Gouhl, who is
a highly respected defense solicitor. They're the natural enemies of detectives,
so sitting down having a conversation with one was always
going to be a bit awkward. We learned from today's
conversation what drove our guests to defend the q's persons
with the same vigor that I pursued suspects. I found
(01:07):
out who Greg Gould is as a person. We talked
about what drives him, his thoughts on police, the legal system,
and some of his high profile and interesting cases. He's
been defending people in the courts for over forty years.
This is our chat. Okay, Greg, Well, I know that
(01:28):
you defend your clients with the same passion that I
used to pursue the suspects as a defense solicitor. Where
did that passion come from?
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Well, it just sort of developed, I would think, Gary,
I have my dad told me that my grandmother had
some interest in law or legal studies in South Australia
where she came from originally. And I sort of drifted
through high school and scored a Commonwealth scholarship which allowed
me to do arts lawrits in the university, and I didn't.
(02:01):
It wasn't much good at science, so that was all
that was left, and I ended up in law and
drifted into criminal law. And I guess coming from a
working class background and coming from a time when respect
for each other was pretty important, it was drieled into
you at school and at home, you get a feel
(02:22):
for wanting to help.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
People, Okay, And that's I speak to the defense listens
that I do speak to that. Quite often they say
about that that everyone's entitle to a defense, which we
fully understand, but there does seem to be a passion
and to do it. Do it as long as you do.
I think you're in your fifth decade now.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
I am.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Yeah, that's a lot you would have. You would have
seen some changes in that time.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I certainly have, and some for the better and some
you wonder.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Why, Yeah, when you representing someone and you're playing at
high stakes and went on the major cases, like depending
on how you do your job potentially could dictate whether
someone spends a large portion of their life behind bars.
Do you feel that sense of responsibility when you take
on a case.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Absolutely, and more so since the standard non parole periods
which apply to serious criminal activity were introduced. That puts
an extremely high large burden on criminal or practitioners to
make sure that their clients understand that if they go
(03:33):
to trial and lose, the penalty that they're going to
face is going to be substantially more than if they
decide to plead guilty.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
I'm going to ask you this because I've spent my
career in the witness box under cross examination, sitting there
and getting carved up, sometimes getting victories other times, and
most recent times, I've been sitting in there as the accused,
which is even worse, and sitting in there as the informant.
Have you ever been in the witness box?
Speaker 2 (04:00):
I spent three days in the witness box at the
Police Royal Commission, being cross examined about aspects of the
what you might call the King's Cross Underbelly saga, because
I acted for quite a few of the participants in
the Underbelly from the top Colorful Identities, the Colorful Sydney
(04:20):
Identities and I and I was being asked about things
that as the responsible partner for the legal the legal
facilities that we provided, I wasn't actually the solicitor on
the ground doing a lot of the work. It was
a couple of my employees. So but I had to
carry the can to the Crime Commission and it was
I found it nerve wracking. I found it. I was
(04:42):
angered by it and some of the inferences that were
being drawn. I've always tried to be above board with
the way I carry out my practice, and I was
a bit disappointed and.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
In the witness box, in that environment in the Royal Commission.
That's increase in the pressure. There's a lot more pressure
than what I was talking about in the witness box
of the criminal trial. Moving on past the traumas that
I suffered in the witness box by people from your profession.
And might I say, and i'd give this advice to
young detectives. I'd see some police come out of the
(05:18):
witness box absolutely shocked that they've been criticized because they
haven't done anything wrong. And I was pain to explain,
it doesn't matter if you've done everything right, there's still
going to be criticism. This is a way of an
adversarial system. They're going to try to pull apart what
you've done and the decisions you've made and the things
that you've seen and said.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
That's true, Gary, but it's probably it's less so now.
As I was saying earlier about the advances in forensic technology,
the need for police officers to get into the witness
box has become less than it was in the past.
Police officers tend to gather evidence more than being involved
(05:58):
in the case. They go out as investigators, they get
the evidence, or they've already got the evidence because it's
transcribed recording transcriptions of recordings or they are recordings, they've
got photographic evidence, which tends to make the job easier
for the prosecution in terms of its presentation and coming
(06:19):
to the defense loves and saying well, try and get
over this.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Yeah, I see what you're saying. And that probably answers
why the police don't had that experience, because I remember
my early days in playing clothes. I was in the
witness box virtually every week there'd be some matter that
you're called to give evidence on, and of course this
is going way back, but when I came in the
electronic recording of interviews, that took a lot of pressure
(06:44):
out of instead of the type written Q and as.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
While I was around when there were the verbals, the
police verbals as they were called.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
And.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Yeah, rasps are are advantageous and can be to both
sides if they use properly. But normally I would tell
my clients never participate in an ARRASP because my advice
to them is normally in a police station, so it's
in their house. They'rey asking the questions, and you've been
(07:18):
plucked and are in a state of shock, so the
worst time to try and gather your thoughts and answer questions.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Well, that comes as a surprise. I've never heard a
defenseless as say no, don't participate in an interview. I've
been at bit cynical. There, tell me about from your
point of view, if someone comes to you, someone gets
themselves in the trouble, or someone's been charged with a
by police, what's the process? So they get in contact
(07:45):
with you and say, hey, Greg, I want you to
represent me. I've been charged with this offense. Where do
you start from there? Talk us through the process.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
I started off straight away by looking at what the
charges are and then going what is set out in
the fact sheet? That's the fact sheet is a version
of events that the officer in charge has formulated based
on the evidence they've got at that particular time. Now,
that's going to tell me in a reasonably accurate way
(08:19):
the strength of the case and whether there's any holes
in it that are going to assist in me stopping
the police from eventually proving their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
Okay, you got the brief of evidence, You have a
conference with the client, I would imagine, yep, And what
sort of advice or what without giving a specific example,
what sort of advice general advice are you providing to
the client.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Well, I'm telling the client, on the basis of what
i'm reading now, what your prospects are likely to be.
And unless you can explain what is said about your behavior,
which is criminal, that's going to change my mind or
(09:04):
provide us with a defense, then I'm going to be saying, well,
you're going to have to consider your position, and these
are your options. You complete guilty and get a lot
of sentence. We can ask for particulars, we can take
various make various applications in the court to get more information.
(09:25):
But generally, as an experienced criminal lawyer, you read the facts,
You've got a pretty good idea of which way you're heading.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Yeah, okay, you've got a brief. Let's use an example.
I've charged someone with murder. It's a brief. I consider
it the strong brief murder. We're likely to be going
through the trial without giving the way you trade secrets.
What do you go through looking at the brief? Do
you look at failings in that we've legislation, that we've
(09:52):
breached something, or there's a hole in this particular proof
of the offense. What type of things are you looking
for when you're dissecting the brief evidence.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Well, first of all, you look at what the factual
circumstances are and whether the facts are based upon inferences.
That's connecting the dots on the basis of what you
expected to have happened or what the police know happened. Now,
that's firstly the thing. You look at what's the factual
(10:20):
scenario here and can that be established without speculation. The
second thing is you then go to the technical aspects
of the case in terms of what then can be
proved in a court of law, because what's put in
a fact sheet, we're in a statement is not necessarily
compliant with the rules of evidence.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
So that's okay. And then you've got the brief. You
going to court, do you get access to witnesses or
you speak to your client and make a decision whether
they're going to get in the witness box or not.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
How do you.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
Approach a strategy for prepping for a trial? I'm talking
general sense here, so each trial, I would imagine that
have its own issues. How do you prepare for a trial?
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Well, unlike other states in Australia who still have local
court proceedings where you can examine witnesses, New South Wales
is to a large extent done away with that system,
the committal system. It was as a result of a
(11:28):
legend case called the Greek Conspiracy which went for months
and months and months as a committal proceeding down at
Central Local Court and clogged up the whole local court
system for a long time, or the Court of Petty
Sessions as it was then called. But ultimately there are
there are ways of asking for further material, asking for particulars.
(11:50):
There's a procedure called section eighty two of the Criminal
PROCEDURECT which allows us to ask for witnesses. But you're
not going to get a witness or a victim of
a sexual assault because it's too traumatic. You're not going
to get a victim of a serious violent offense. So
you're really really left with looking at what's available through
(12:12):
the evidence, calculating what, as I was saying before, what
is based upon inference or speculation, and what can be
actually proved. You then have to think about what your
client's going to say and you have to make an
assessment of their ability to withstand the rigors of the
witness box. Now you've already spoken Gary about how tough
(12:34):
it is, and I know from personal experience it can
be tough and the average person is simply not equipped
generally to handle that type of pressure. And so it's
very rarely that you'd called you call your client in
a trial. In fact, as an ould saying amongst criminal
is that the best your case I'll ever be is
at the end of the crown case. It's all downhill
(12:56):
from there.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
And explaining that, I think people have a sense of
it that the crown case, that's the prosecution present their
case and then they rest their case. They've established If
they reach that benchmark and they've established the primer facy,
then it's a matter of the defense coming yes.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
And to understand why you wouldn't call your client is
because there are two levels of proof in a criminal trial,
and that is the evidence being accepted by the judge,
not the jury at that stage, but by the judge
to what we call a primer facy level, or a
first level, which requires there to be evidence of the
(13:35):
commission of the crime, but not necessarily proof beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime. And that step from knowing that
someone may have committed the crime and then elevating that
to proof beyond reasonable doubt and that means that there's
no other explanation that's really consistent with innocence that had
explained that conduct being available. Now at the end of
(13:57):
the Crown case, you might be saying, well, I've punched
enough holes in this case for the jury to have
some doubts. I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Yeah, okay, no, I've seen it, seen it happen before.
We talk about some of your high profile cases and
some of the characters you've met, and the the extraordinary
world that you've seen in the over forty years practicing
criminal law in Sydney, the lovely queen Streets of Sydney.
(14:24):
Why did you get into law? What were first of
all your background, where'd you grow up and what inspired
you to become a lawyer?
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Born in born in Couldji by the second son of
two avid rabbit o supporters. They've gled red and green.
Mum and dad ended up a rooster supporters somehow much
of their chagrin.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
He would have been a shame of you.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
And so yeah, grew up in the Southern Shire, I
delic place for me to grow up, word around on
three sides, and went to a local Christian Brothers school,
did well at school, surprised evan myself in that regard,
and ended up at Sydney University doing arts law major
it in politics. Realized that's the last place I'd ever
(15:05):
want to be and drifted into law. Got myself a
job with a commercial firm as an article, one of
the last article clerks, and within two years I was out.
I hung up my own shingle, and just for reasons
(15:28):
that were driven by where could I get work? You
ended up in criminal law.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
Okay, So it wasn't the driving passion from the day
you went to kindergarten and you were accused of something
and you were going to defend people for the rest
of your life. It was just something that you fell into.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Yeah, just something that I fell into.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
But your your reputation is that your passion and the
way that you go about your work, and you have
a good reputation. I say that not begrudgingly. It's I
think from a detective point of view, when I came
up against a good defend team, it would make me
raise my standard. So it's sort of it helps in
(16:05):
the way that you present your case. But what made
you follow the path of a defense lawyer.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Well, I've never prosecuted anyone. I can say that you
should try. It's great, but I don't know. I think
it was just, you know, I'm a bit of a
people person. I like to help people. I like to
see people who are entitled to representation get a job
(16:32):
done properly for them. And some people that say, oh,
I wasn't happy with your work, and a lot of
others would say I did a good job, and that
really pleases me, and it upsets me that someone mightn't
have thought they got the best job done for them
because as a lawyer, as a criminal lawyer, as a professional,
that's what I strive to do and make a difference
in a person's life.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Is there a point in your career when you started
out that you got someone off a serious crime, or
off a crime that you believed that they're innocent. You
got them off and you went home that night, or
you felt, Okay, this is I'm achieving some good.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
I couldn't name the cases, Gary, but there have been
cases where that's been the case, and I've felt really,
really pleased that the system worked for that person. I've
looked at systems in other parts of the world. I
haven't appeared in course elsewhere, only in Australia, and I
(17:33):
think we're reasonably lucky that in terms of the ability
of a system to provide fairness, this one does its best.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Okay. So that's interesting because I don't think it's infallible
the system. I think there's always room for improvement. I'd
like to talk talk to you about that later on,
but I got a sense and going through a police
career where I was prosecuting people for a long time
and then been on the other side of the prosecution
as the accused. It's quite confronting. And I always had
(18:06):
an understanding that you had the balance. It couldn't be
favored all for the defense or all for the prosecution,
but seeing it from having the full resources of the
state coming after you, and I was probably best set
up as anyone could be to defend myself in that
I understood the system and had the experience. But it
(18:26):
was intimidating.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Well, that's because it's an adversarial system. At the end
of the day. I regard going into a courtroom like
going onto a sporting pitch. It's no hols barred within
the rules of the game. Once you're in the courtroom.
You've got to play according to the rules. But having
(18:49):
done that, you walk outside and you'll leave it there.
But it's not for the fainthearted, and you've got to
expect that you're not going to win every game it is.
Speaker 1 (18:57):
It's and I think people need to under stand that.
And I don't know of anyone that's been exposed to court,
whether as a victim of crime or someone that's been
convicted of a crime, that it has an impact on you.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
I enjoy it, so it's my daily bread. So I
enjoy it.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Well, I'm glad you enjoy it because you've been doing
it for a very long time. I don't know if
you're considering changing careers. Oh this was a wrong career.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Well, I don't think you're going to be swopping places.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Well, don't get cocky. I thought I was going to
be a cop until the day I died. And look
at me. Now. You've met some interesting characters and had
some high profile cases, and I'll just rattle off a few.
And if there's cases that you're not comfortable talking about,
please tell me. If not, let me know of the
(19:49):
one of the people that you defended, Alan Meridian. He
was murdered in two thy and twenty three. I believe
he was, and there was a lead up to the murder.
Do you want to describe Allen and how you got
to represent him in your dealings with him, what you
thought of him and the circumstances leading up to his murder.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
I've been involved with Alan going back to the to
a case that he was he was involved in which
caused him to serve a considerable amount of time in prison.
I ran into him afterwards and he asked me would
he would he or could he use my services if
that was needed? And whilst he didn't, he wasn't in
(20:35):
any further trouble he was so far as charges were concerned.
I don't. I'm not talking about what he may have
been doing otherwise. But he came to see me, and
he also got some advice from me another another lawyer
who had had actually worked for me in relation to
(20:56):
trying to get out of the country because of fear
of being assassinated.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
And to put it in context, he was a high
ranking member of the Commoneros.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
He wasn't a particularly high ranking member, but because of
allegations about his involvement in other criminal activity, he had
a profile within that.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Okay, well established, yes, in that world. Okay, So there's
fears that he was going to be killed. And I
want to get your thoughts on some of the things
with the we call it the gang wars. I'm not
sure if that's a media so that they beat up,
but there's been a lot of public shootings and different
things going on. So at that particular point in time,
(21:39):
there was legitimate threats for his well being.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Absolutely, and he was aware of that, and he spoke
to me about that, and it was a burden on him,
it was a burden on his family, and it was
something that I think, from what we know now could
have or may have been avoided.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
And how with the benefit of hindsight, but how it
could have been avoided.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
Well, perhaps the police could have stepped in earlier. My
history of an experience of police officers, particularly in relation
to listening device availability and monitoring devices. When they hear
guns are involved, they jump in. If a shipment of
drugs is coming in, they'll watch it, but if someone
(22:32):
pulls out a gun, they're straight there. It didn't happen
with Allan, and that's a real disappointment that I feel
in relation to the way the police acted. Now, I
may be offbeen, but as I understand it, they watched
these people plan an assassination for a considerable period of time,
and maybe they could have done something better.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
We see these people played out in the media, and
the media love the picture of the gangs on the
front page of the paper or the lead story in
the news. What was this particular person?
Speaker 2 (23:05):
What was he like? So with me, he was a
very very intense type of person. On the one hand,
he could be he could be like your next door neighbor,
nice block on the other but Alan was certainly not
someone to be messed with. But in my dealings with him,
I always found him to be straight up, honest and
(23:27):
reliable in what he said and what he would do.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Okay, you had in dealings with him, and correct me
if I'm wrong, if I've got the information wrong. But
handing in a lot of firearms.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Too, I did. I've been asked sort of not to
talk about that back in the day, But yeah, that
was that that assisted in him in his case, and
it's on public record that it did assist him.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Yeah. Okay, we'll speaking taken away from allan, but you've
had clients that have yeah to show that, Okay, I'm
changing my ways of handed in firearms and the police
are always keen to get firearms off the street. Have
you the gun buyback scheme run by Greg gul.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
I had an interesting experience. And I'm not a particularly
a particular lover of firearms. My dad out of twenty
two back in the day when everyone had a twenty two.
Unfortunately shoot bandicoots in the backyard. But I got called
on to go down to Westpac Bank in Martin Place
(24:32):
and go to the vault and pick up what turned
out to be an old red Quantus bag with the
white flying kangaroo. And anyone who would have traveled with
the sixties or seventies in Quantus would have got one
of these carry on bags, little sports bag. It was
fall to the brim. It was absolutely chopper with ammunition
(24:52):
and pistols. And I won't name the name of the
person that gave it to, but I had. But I
was glad. I was a bit of a bit of
exercise at the time because I had to walk from
Martin Place up to the police center all right and
handed in and the sergeant looked at me when I
handed in and he said, ask me, was I serious
(25:12):
handing this in? And I said, well, absolutely, it's an amnesty.
He said, well, are you going to tell me anything
about it, mister Gilder, And I said, no names, no
pact or serge. It's yours.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
I remember when the gun amnesty was in and people
would walk into the police station and hand hand weapons in.
Just over the county. You'd be there and they walk
in with all sorts of rifles and different things. One
of the things that was handed into you had resulted
in the army being notified and called the outher Blue.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
I got an AR fifteen semi automatic Army Army Well
I think they're automatic weapons, but it had had the
grenade launcher attached to it, and I also got a
grenade with it.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Okay, they're always good there.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
And it was this. It was about I'm not talking.
It was about five or six inches long, round around,
with a sort of a sort of round knob on
the end of it. And so I put it in
the bird of my car and drove up to First
of all, I rang the particular inspector who I was
(26:19):
dealing with. I think it might have been Arthur Cat
and Arthur had put a sergeant in touch with me
to deal with these sorts of things, and I told
them I was bringing in the rocket, the grenade, launch
around the grenade. It was all sorts also, who we
can't touch that, We've got to get the We've got
(26:40):
to get the army involved. And ended up having a
major from Ordinance come down and take control and I
had the bloody thing bumping around in the boot of
a car.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Yeah, well, we'll send you to a lecture about firearm
safety later. But it's amazing the type of things that
you get get called up in doing the work that
you're doing, and the time characters that you meet, and
there is you know, there's a fascination with true crime,
and I think people are particularly interested in the gangster types.
And you know, we see these these public shootings and
(27:13):
you think, how does this happen? You've had dealings with
other clients. Wally Ahmed also ended up on the wrong
end of a gun too.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Yeah, well I was. I acted for Wally and when
he was involved in a shooting at Condall Park of
Long Haired Danny. When I was involved in that, that
was an interesting one. And then so i'd sort of
acted for both sides, and I don't and I don't
take sides. Yeah, when a client comes into me, provided
there's no immediate conflict.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
Right, Okay, Yeah, And I've heard that because I worked
Gang Squad for a while and I heard some solicitors
are associated with this gang other because if there's a crossover,
there can be a conflict of interest.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
I've been I've been warned off cases only once or twice,
and I won't go into who it was and who
it wasn't, but yeah, I was contacted and said, it's
not politically correct for you to be acting on this case.
There's a lot of people that are upset about what happened.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Okay, all right, there's a lot of threatened menace in
a comment like that, if it's from a particular person.
Have you ever felt concerned for your welfare or compromise
with the type of people that you're dealing with, Like
I would imagine, and I know the characters and we
don't have to name particular ones, but someone would come
in and get Greg, I want to you get me off,
(28:30):
You get me off this. I don't care what it costs,
what you've got to do, get me off. And they
would really be going at you that way.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
I haven't really had that sort of intensity Gary. People
come in and they say, you know it, can't you
do better than that? I say, look on what I've
got before me, on the case that the prosecution have
assembled against you, your chances of winning this case are minimal. Now.
If you want to waste your money and put yourself
(28:59):
up for a much higher sentence, then I suggest that
you reconsider. But if you want to get better news
from some other lawyer who's prepared to tell you that,
then off you go.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
I think that probably safeguarded you because my under or
not my understanding, my dealings with people like that. If
you're up front, then they know where you stand, where
they stand, you're probably better off than making a false
promise you I'll get you off and then you'll be
looking living in fear for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
I don't have any I don't have any sleepless nights
because of that. The only time I was ever concerned
was when to senior detectives came to see me back
at a time when heroin was the drug of choice,
and it was might have been the late nineties or something,
(29:51):
and a senior sergeant from the Drug Task Force came
to see me and told me that there was a
contract on me. I was a bit disappointed to know
that it's not as much as get you get paid
these days. And it turned out that a rather roguish
Chinese client of mind had asked me to send money
overses back in the day when you could, and what
(30:14):
he told me it was going for was totally different
to what the reason it was going for, and then
he'd pocketed it when it got to Hong Kong. Okay,
So I got the blame.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
You got called up in that. Well, there is potential
to get caught up in that as innos an agent
doing your job. Were you Were you involved in the
airport brawl the flow on effect from the airport brawl
I think two thousand and nine Common Cerios and the
Hell's Angels came to blows at Sydney Airport.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
I was. I was acting for one of the common
Cero's and got to know quite a few of them
and was always of the opinion that my particular client
was innocent because he had no real involvement in it,
but because of the arduous nature of leaving a jail
(31:02):
at four thirty in the morning, traveling to the traveling
to the court, being kept in cells underground, never seen
the light of day, and getting back to the jail
at eight o'clock is first arduous and difficult for anyone
when you're morbidly obese and your health is a real issue. Michael,
(31:24):
I didn't think you could take it and pleaded guilty
to Manselord, totally against my advice.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
I was on call in gang squad when it happened,
and there was a lot of trouble brewing within the
gangs at the time. I'd been out all night. There'd
been sixth places, six or seven places shot up that night. Men,
I'm just driving home. And then the stuff that happened
at the airport, I think there was. I was in
gang squad at the time. I didn't work the case.
I had some other cases. I think Steve French, detective inspector,
(31:54):
was the officer in charge. But fifteen people were charged
all up with a fray and different offenses.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Is that and murder? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (32:03):
And murder? Mick Howie, Mick Howie, you again is another
person that ended up at the wrong end of a gun?
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Yeah, I think that's well. It seems to be that Sydney,
particularly in the last twenty to thirty years, has changed
in that respect. I think for those who know what
the Raptor Squad does and what they deal with mostly,
I think there's been a distinct change in the way
(32:34):
criminals conduct themselves in their dealings with each other. The
ego seems to be so important. Greed seems to be paramount,
and you would think when you hear the statistics of
the amount of drugs that are brought into Australia and
what comes in, that there's enough for everybody. Not that
that's right, Not that I'm saying that's right in the
context of you know, how many midiings do you want?
(32:57):
And do you have to go and kill someone because
they got more than you.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
I'm watching it, watching it from the sidelines now, obviously,
But in my early days in major crime, the shootings
were quite often the person that disappear, you know, put
on the boat and taken out the sea and never
never seen again. That those were the type of murders
that were investigating. Now it almost seems like there's a
statement being made that the amount of people who are
(33:22):
shot coming out of the gym or whatever in public
places and letting shots fire. I don't you know, I
don't want to compromise you talking about specific cases. But
do you see because you've been involved in it and
seeing it, do you see that nature of the crime
crime change?
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Well? I do, and I see and what I see,
Gary is that And you'd recognize this that twenty years
ago these guys who were prepared to do this sort
of thing were doing drive by. Now they're prepared to
stake out a location, watch the intended victim, and then
(33:59):
get out of cars, walk up to the victim and
pump a magazine full of bullet to him from point
blank range.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
Yeah. Well you're right on that because the day or
the night before the airport brawl. Yeah, as I said,
seven houses have been shut up, and they were all
drive by. They were the statements. But then it's escalated
to the point, well, we're not going to do it
just random drive by. We're going to wait till the
target comes out and blow them my way.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
It's yeah, it's a violent, violent situation and an extreme situation.
But you mentioned Raptor, and I talk about Raptor in
that Raptor was formed on the back of what happened
at the airport, because that was up until that point
in time. You had the Father's Day massacre with the
bikes where six or seven people were killed way back
(34:49):
in the back in the eighties, but the violence wasn't public.
And when that happened at the airport, you can't have
Sydney Airport and someone caught up in the brawl and
someone dying die in a brawl like that, them Raptor
was formed and it was really the public had had enough,
the politicians had had enough, and the police had to
(35:10):
do something. Now, I know there's different views on Raptor,
and I don't need you the comment, but I know
the difference it made in that world at the time.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
Well, it's when I look back on my career, what
I've seen is that when I first started it, there
was a lot of There was a lot of robberies,
armed robberies. Drugs weren't Drugs weren't as available. But with
the Vietnam War particularly, and the influx of what we
(35:39):
used to be buddhistics, which was cannabis coming in and
heroin coming in. Cocaine had been around few years but
was sort of running under the radar. And having been criminalized.
Back in the early part of the last century, meth
was really just speed, it was a it was a
(36:00):
biky drug, which was we used to say it's poor
man's cocaine. And most crime was under the radar. But
the last twenty five thirty years have seen ego and
I think sort of the look at me generation has
influenced the way that crime has exploded. People want to
(36:23):
be seen as criminals rather than criminals being under the radar,
out of sight, making their money punting most of it
away at the races of the tab But these days
it's a look at me generation and the influences the
criminal influencers want to.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
Be saying, I hadn't thought of it that way, but
these almost generational because I know, as you know, some
of the good crooks getting around, they slip under the radar.
They don't stick their head up and you know they're
doing major stuff, but they don't flaunt it. So yeah,
it's interesting, but it's problematic. That makes it. Yeah, police
(37:02):
have got to respond, like the underworld could operate and
I think the word the underworld operate under the cover,
but when they commit crime so publicly, well, the public
are not going to accept that, and the politicians and
the police and everyone's got to act on it. Let's
let's just change change tacked a little bit. We'll get
more into your stories, because you've got thousands of them
(37:25):
on different people that you've come across. But we guilty, please,
And we touched on it briefly about that. Have you
when you're representing the client? Have you ever had a
client that you've just gone, I can't represent you. Has
it ever got to that point?
Speaker 2 (37:45):
I can't immediately think of anybody, But I've been lucky
in that I haven't been or my practice hasn't been
one of those practice that does a lot of historical sex.
I've filed myself lucky in that respect, and not for
(38:08):
my own personal experience, but from experience within my extended family.
I've had experience that how sexual assaults, both in a
family situation or an extended family situation, can have really
lasting effects. And I actually have a lot of respect
(38:29):
for those practitioners who do that work, because not only
the practitioners, but the judges who are involved in it.
It's a really difficult area of and I'm lucky enough
not to have to deal with that when you've got
juveniles and young people involved who've been sexually abused, it's
terrific stuff.
Speaker 1 (38:45):
I've got a greater understanding any the work that I've done,
more so since i've been from the police, speaking to
a lot of people who have been victims of childhood
sexual assault. And even the time that I spent in
prison doing the Breaking Bad podcast series, the amount of
people in prison that were victims of child sexual abuse
(39:06):
was quite frightening. And when you sat down and heard
their stories. And we're always looking at ways of reducing crime,
society wants crime to be reduced, I think we've really
got to look at the impact that child sexual abuse
has because people carry that with them. And yeah, you've
talked and I'm not saying any of the clients you've had,
(39:29):
all the people that we've mentioned here on the podcast,
but quite often these big, tough, taboo covered bikis that
you don't mess with me, look about them. When you
scratch the surface, go right back. It's because something that's
happened in their childhood and they never want to be
victims again.
Speaker 2 (39:45):
Oh well, we're all products of our upbringings. Yeah, and
the influences that we've had in our lives, and hopefully
for most of us they're all positive. But for those
who haven't been that fortunate and haven't had the breaks
with their parents, with their schooling, with the amount of
money in the family, with food on the table, you know,
(40:06):
life could be pretty tough, and you make choices that
you might have otherwise made if you'd had the breaks
that the bloke standing next to you had.
Speaker 1 (40:12):
I suppose you get to see that too. You would
get closer to the people who have been in charge
with criminal offenses than I would from the police point
of view, So you get to understand, you get to
meet the family more. You would understand that. That's your
take on it. And you said before we sat down
that you don't like to be judgmental on people unless
(40:33):
you understand where what path they've walked.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
Now, that's been one of my one of my sort
of mantras that I go, but you can't walk in
another man's shoes, and there but for the grace of
God go I. And coming from a person who doesn't
believe in God, that was called well in Catholicism. You know,
you've got to be very careful about how you judge
(40:57):
a fellow man, and in relation to do a criminal practice,
as I indicated to you Willia Gary, I think sentencing,
particularly for judges, is an extremely difficult area of law.
Speaker 1 (41:09):
What do I cringe from a police point of view
where I hear mandatory sentencing and I know that's a
chest beating comment that's made where crime appears to be
out of control and okay, we're going to get tough
and mandatory sentencing. What horrifies me about that is that
each case should be judged on its own individual merits.
(41:29):
You can't just if you've committed that offense you should
be there's non negotiable, You're going the way for ten years.
It just doesn't sit with me. Well, what's your thoughts on.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
I agree with that, and there are very few crimes
in our criminal calendar, in the Crimes Act that carry
a mandatory sentence. Interestingly enough, is assault occasioning death as
an aggravated offense carries a mandatory sentence of eight years.
(42:01):
So that's like the coward punch and the history of
all that is unfortunate because of what happened with that
poor young Kelly Fellow and the reaction to that was
was quite remarkable. But all political more than legal.
Speaker 1 (42:18):
We had Kelly's parents on the podcast and it's yeah,
it's just such a sad situation, sad, sad story. And
I like the fact that they've changed the narrative and
calling it the coward punch. I think that's good changing
changing that. But I'm also very much aware that you know,
people walking down the street, you know someone could lash
(42:40):
out and you know, horrible situation happens and they're mandatory
eight years in eight years in prison or whatever did
you say? Eight years mandatory eight years and the nature
of the offense might warrant that, but the judge's hands
are tied to send that person.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
That's true. That was all round. That was an absolutely
disastrous piece of history that New South Wales has got
to live with because it wasn't just the Kelly family
that was decimated, which is tragic. About two thousand people
lost their jobs in King's Cross and these people who
have been working in that industry for a long time.
(43:19):
And if anyone knows what it's like to go to
work every day with the same people for years and
years and years and all of a sudden you haven't
got a job.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
The licensing law changes and yeah, all that that impacted
on it.
Speaker 2 (43:32):
You're in no man's land. Your whole life goes down
the drain. So it wasn't just that aspect of a
person who deserved to be punished going to jail and
a poor family being totally decimated. Thousands of people were
impacted by all that.
Speaker 1 (43:46):
Well, yeah, if it was cleaning up the streets of
King's Cross. I was living at Piermouth at the time
and all ended up down that end of town.
Speaker 2 (43:53):
Well the Star city got it all. Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (43:56):
I was living there there for a running the morning, dodging,
dodging things.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
And the impact of that on Sydney as an after
dark city we're still suffering from it. I think Christmins
is trying to do an admirable job in bringing the
life back to Sydney after dark.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
Yeah, no, I agree. I think we need to know
we're a big world city and needs needs to have
that after ours sensing for drug matters and again, and
you learn a lot putting a foreign into a something,
a different environment, foreign environment that you're not used to,
(44:36):
but time spending in prison speaking to the inmates and
the amount of prisoners there that started using drugs and
then I'll buy a bigger bag and I'll give that
to my mates, and then I'll buy a bigger and
end up in jail and then doing very very long
sentences in jail. And I'm thinking, well, I've been charging
(44:56):
people with murder that aren't getting this, and I know
the damage that drugs done, that can do. But I
was shocked how many people are doing such lengthy senses
for drug dealing.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
I'm pleased to say that in New South Wales our
sentencing in relation to drugs is generally pretty humane. Don't
go to Western Australia. They wack you out of the
park over there unnecessarily. I think it's in humane the
sentences they give over there. But yeah, there's a lot
of people doing long sentences, and it's strange that because
(45:31):
of the fact that you've got to demand, which is
informed by people wanting to enjoy themselves or think they're
going to enjoy themselves, but being totally ignorant of how
that drug got to them, the journey from South America
or from some meth lab or from the Netherlands of
its pills and so forth. But generally it's quite it's
(45:53):
quite difficult to understand the sentences that people do get
when you're being asked to provide something to a group
of people who want something. No one wants to be murdered,
no one wants to be sexually assaulted, and that's done
by a person who is is not is deserved a
(46:18):
greater deal of punishment. So it's a really typical area
of the law. But we're told in the in a
society where I think there's got a lot to do
with Queen Victoria and Catholics who said, if it makes
you feel good, you must it must be bad, it
must be a sin. I can't understand in the society
(46:39):
in which we can we can do heart transplants and
we can save people's lives on an operating table, and
we can have drugs for this and drugs for that
that they can't give drugs to keep people who want
to use them as safe and allow them to have
a different experience. I just don't understand it. And all this,
all this industry that creates death and stryduction could be avoided.
Speaker 1 (47:02):
Yeah, well, it's thinking outside the square and it wouldn't
be without controversy. Taking what you're saying and putting it
in practice, but.
Speaker 2 (47:12):
One provides a way Tiller retire.
Speaker 1 (47:16):
Bears your business, Greg, jeez, well done. But yeah, I've
often looked at what we're doing and you hear the
war on drugs and all the commentary that comes with it,
and it hasn't really worked. Drugs are still on the street,
and maybe we're going to change our thinking well transportation.
Speaker 2 (47:35):
When the first letter I didn't work either, I was
still stuff and we're still going through the same process.
What I'm really really pleased about, though, Gary, is the
way that that jails are changing, and there we're starting
that the people who run the jails are starting to
turn out human beings rather than criminals, and that's something
(47:57):
that we can be pleased with. I know a lot
of people want revenge and they want to see people
locked up forever because they've been individually affected by it.
But we live in a state run society where the
state determines punishment the state, and we don't sort of
live in a tribal society where you go and get
an eye for an eye and so forth. And it's
(48:18):
pleasing from certainly a criminal lawyer's point of view, that
the jails are starting to improve and people might look
at the new Hunter section of the CESSNA and say,
I look what these criminals are getting. They haven't got
their freedom.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
We greg You've got. I concur one hundred percent with
what you're talking about there. And Macquarie Correctional Center, which
is on the same vein as Hunter, and what they're
doing there and the way that they're treating prisoners. That
was the whole premise of going in corrective services in
by the men in the prison. They had a look
at it and I can't champion it enough. What is
(48:54):
happening in there, because the high recidivism rate that we have,
we've got to try and break that. So Michael, and Yeah,
someone that's known to you and someone that I've mentioned
often here became a good friend before he passed away,
Bernie Matthews, who did a lot of time in prison,
a lot of time in the hard prisons in Grafton
and Ktingle. He was the longest serving prisoner in Ktingle,
(49:16):
the first supermax. And he said to me, you treat
this like animals were going to come out like animals.
And what I saw at Macquarie Correctional Center there was
respect between the inmates and the corrective services stuff, and
you know it's not always perfect, but there was definitely
a different vibe in that prison, and the people I
(49:37):
was talking to seemed a lot more prepared to come
out into society and integrate back into society than other
prisons that I've been in, where you feel the tension
you walk in there. Everyone's bridged up and everyone's ready
to go. And some of the prisoners said to me
when I was in there, you put us in a
jar when you open the cell doors, and the moment
(49:58):
we walk out, we're looking for where the next bit
of dangers coming from, and it's about survival, and then
you open the door and put us back in the streets.
We've still got that attitude. So if someone that insults
me or someone does something that annoys me, my natural
reaction is I'm going to react like I would in prison.
And it makes sense when it's explained that way, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (50:19):
It does, it doesn't. And that's built upon looking at
people in terms of why they committed a cry and
then going back to that sentencing aspect that we're talking
about before, and crafting a sentence that's going to punish them.
Because there are seven different aspects to sentencing which includes
deterrents and acknowledgment and protection of the community and the
(50:39):
punishment of the offender.
Speaker 1 (50:41):
Can you break that down? That just explain that because
I don't think a lot of people we all make comments,
so that person didn't get enough or that was a
big sentence. What's the criteria when you're looking at that.
Speaker 2 (50:52):
There are seven criteria. Don't ask me to name them all,
but there's and they each have equal value. First of all,
person's got to be punished for what they've done. They've
got to acknowledge what they've done. They've got to be
put in a position where the community is safe. Other
members of our society have got to be deterred from
(51:15):
doing the same things by virtue of the punishment that
that particular criminal receives. And importantly too, that person's got
to be rehabilitated. In the children's court, rehabilitation takes the
primary place because there's a view which is right that
children that have a chance of being saved. Unfortunately, that
(51:37):
doesn't always happen because a lot of the times they
go into the very environments which cause them to commit
crime in the first place. But yeah, sentencing has to
look at all those aspects and if you go into
an environment where everything's taken away from including respect, then
you're never going to have any respect. And ultimately it
(51:58):
saves the community money. People don't go back to jail.
Speaker 1 (52:02):
Well, it saves money. And I spoke to someone about
a family member of victim of crime about what they're
doing in Macquarie and Hunter and this person, I've mentioned
him before, I can mention him again. I know he's
comfortable with me talking about it. Ken marslw whose son
was some was murdered and he set up enough is
(52:23):
Enough and was protesting and truth in sentencing and all
sorts of things. Over the past twenty years, he's channeled
his energy differently in that how can we prevent crime?
And I asked Ken, because I get on this platform
about what they're doing in prison, I think is better
than the more traditional way prisons were done. But I
wanted to feel comfortable that I'm not forgetting the victim's
(52:47):
point of view on this. And Ken made the point
that it's not about getting tough on crime, it's getting
smart on crime, and that if you reduce crime, you
reduce victims. So it seems like a no brainer. And
if that's what that prison system that we've been talking
about does, it makes a lot of sense, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (53:04):
It does, And I think that you might remember that
you need a copy.
Speaker 1 (53:07):
Yep, yep.
Speaker 2 (53:08):
Her father had a very very pragmatic view, very much
like Ken's, and it was not put aside his anger
and his revenge and thought about how can we make
the system better. That's it's hard for victims or victims
families to come to that position, but it's a position,
(53:30):
you know, that is worthwhile.
Speaker 1 (53:32):
Yeah, I agree, it's worthwhile and utmost respect for them
that they can do that. Ken would say, and Gary
Lynch neither Cobby's father. Ken would make the point that
he's still got the anger, he will always have the anger,
but he's not going to let it destroy him. He's
going to channel it into something positive. And I find
that quite inspirational. On what Gary Lynch did as well,
(53:55):
we might we might take a break now when we
get back, we're going to talk about more of your
k I'm also going to ask you, if you've ever
fired a gun in the courthouse, have a think about that.
You can get you can get some legal advice during
the break.
Speaker 2 (54:08):
If you need.
Speaker 1 (54:09):
And I'm going to give you another question on notice.
Have you ever come across a good detective, Like forty
years you must have had someone that you can say.
Think about it, and we'll come back in part two
and talk about your more about your fascinating career and
your insights in the law and order.
Speaker 2 (54:28):
I'll put my mind to it and during the break
carry cas.
Speaker 1 (54:31):
Jeez,
The public has had a long held fascination with detectives.
Detective see aside of life the average person is never
exposed to. I spent thirty four years as a cop.
For twenty five of those years, I was catching killers.
That's what I did for a living. I was a
homicide detective. I'm no longer just interviewing bad guys. Instead,
I'm taking the public into the world in which I operated.
(00:23):
The guests I talk to each week have amazing stories
from all sides of the law. The interviews are raw
and honest, just like the people I talk to. Some
of the content and language might be confronting. That's because
no one who comes into contact with crime is left unchanged.
Join me now as I take you into this world.
(00:46):
Today I had a conversation with Greg Gouhl, who is
a highly respected defense solicitor. They're the natural enemies of detectives,
so sitting down having a conversation with one was always
going to be a bit awkward. We learned from today's
conversation what drove our guests to defend the q's persons
with the same vigor that I pursued suspects. I found
(01:07):
out who Greg Gould is as a person. We talked
about what drives him, his thoughts on police, the legal system,
and some of his high profile and interesting cases. He's
been defending people in the courts for over forty years.
This is our chat. Okay, Greg, Well, I know that
(01:28):
you defend your clients with the same passion that I
used to pursue the suspects as a defense solicitor. Where
did that passion come from?
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Well, it just sort of developed, I would think, Gary,
I have my dad told me that my grandmother had
some interest in law or legal studies in South Australia
where she came from originally. And I sort of drifted
through high school and scored a Commonwealth scholarship which allowed
me to do arts lawrits in the university, and I didn't.
(02:01):
It wasn't much good at science, so that was all
that was left, and I ended up in law and
drifted into criminal law. And I guess coming from a
working class background and coming from a time when respect
for each other was pretty important, it was drieled into
you at school and at home, you get a feel
(02:22):
for wanting to help.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
People, Okay, And that's I speak to the defense listens
that I do speak to that. Quite often they say
about that that everyone's entitle to a defense, which we
fully understand, but there does seem to be a passion
and to do it. Do it as long as you do.
I think you're in your fifth decade now.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
I am.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Yeah, that's a lot you would have. You would have
seen some changes in that time.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I certainly have, and some for the better and some
you wonder.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Why, Yeah, when you representing someone and you're playing at
high stakes and went on the major cases, like depending
on how you do your job potentially could dictate whether
someone spends a large portion of their life behind bars.
Do you feel that sense of responsibility when you take
on a case.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Absolutely, and more so since the standard non parole periods
which apply to serious criminal activity were introduced. That puts
an extremely high large burden on criminal or practitioners to
make sure that their clients understand that if they go
(03:33):
to trial and lose, the penalty that they're going to
face is going to be substantially more than if they
decide to plead guilty.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
I'm going to ask you this because I've spent my
career in the witness box under cross examination, sitting there
and getting carved up, sometimes getting victories other times, and
most recent times, I've been sitting in there as the accused,
which is even worse, and sitting in there as the informant.
Have you ever been in the witness box?
Speaker 2 (04:00):
I spent three days in the witness box at the
Police Royal Commission, being cross examined about aspects of the
what you might call the King's Cross Underbelly saga, because
I acted for quite a few of the participants in
the Underbelly from the top Colorful Identities, the Colorful Sydney
(04:20):
Identities and I and I was being asked about things
that as the responsible partner for the legal the legal
facilities that we provided, I wasn't actually the solicitor on
the ground doing a lot of the work. It was
a couple of my employees. So but I had to
carry the can to the Crime Commission and it was
I found it nerve wracking. I found it. I was
(04:42):
angered by it and some of the inferences that were
being drawn. I've always tried to be above board with
the way I carry out my practice, and I was
a bit disappointed and.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
In the witness box, in that environment in the Royal Commission.
That's increase in the pressure. There's a lot more pressure
than what I was talking about in the witness box
of the criminal trial. Moving on past the traumas that
I suffered in the witness box by people from your profession.
And might I say, and i'd give this advice to
young detectives. I'd see some police come out of the
(05:18):
witness box absolutely shocked that they've been criticized because they
haven't done anything wrong. And I was pain to explain,
it doesn't matter if you've done everything right, there's still
going to be criticism. This is a way of an
adversarial system. They're going to try to pull apart what
you've done and the decisions you've made and the things
that you've seen and said.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
That's true, Gary, but it's probably it's less so now.
As I was saying earlier about the advances in forensic technology,
the need for police officers to get into the witness
box has become less than it was in the past.
Police officers tend to gather evidence more than being involved
(05:58):
in the case. They go out as investigators, they get
the evidence, or they've already got the evidence because it's
transcribed recording transcriptions of recordings or they are recordings, they've
got photographic evidence, which tends to make the job easier
for the prosecution in terms of its presentation and coming
(06:19):
to the defense loves and saying well, try and get
over this.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Yeah, I see what you're saying. And that probably answers
why the police don't had that experience, because I remember
my early days in playing clothes. I was in the
witness box virtually every week there'd be some matter that
you're called to give evidence on, and of course this
is going way back, but when I came in the
electronic recording of interviews, that took a lot of pressure
(06:44):
out of instead of the type written Q and as.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
While I was around when there were the verbals, the
police verbals as they were called.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
And.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Yeah, rasps are are advantageous and can be to both
sides if they use properly. But normally I would tell
my clients never participate in an ARRASP because my advice
to them is normally in a police station, so it's
in their house. They'rey asking the questions, and you've been
(07:18):
plucked and are in a state of shock, so the
worst time to try and gather your thoughts and answer questions.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Well, that comes as a surprise. I've never heard a
defenseless as say no, don't participate in an interview. I've
been at bit cynical. There, tell me about from your
point of view, if someone comes to you, someone gets
themselves in the trouble, or someone's been charged with a
by police, what's the process? So they get in contact
(07:45):
with you and say, hey, Greg, I want you to
represent me. I've been charged with this offense. Where do
you start from there? Talk us through the process.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
I started off straight away by looking at what the
charges are and then going what is set out in
the fact sheet? That's the fact sheet is a version
of events that the officer in charge has formulated based
on the evidence they've got at that particular time. Now,
that's going to tell me in a reasonably accurate way
(08:19):
the strength of the case and whether there's any holes
in it that are going to assist in me stopping
the police from eventually proving their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
Okay, you got the brief of evidence, You have a
conference with the client, I would imagine, yep, And what
sort of advice or what without giving a specific example,
what sort of advice general advice are you providing to
the client.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Well, I'm telling the client, on the basis of what
i'm reading now, what your prospects are likely to be.
And unless you can explain what is said about your behavior,
which is criminal, that's going to change my mind or
(09:04):
provide us with a defense, then I'm going to be saying, well,
you're going to have to consider your position, and these
are your options. You complete guilty and get a lot
of sentence. We can ask for particulars, we can take
various make various applications in the court to get more information.
(09:25):
But generally, as an experienced criminal lawyer, you read the facts,
You've got a pretty good idea of which way you're heading.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Yeah, okay, you've got a brief. Let's use an example.
I've charged someone with murder. It's a brief. I consider
it the strong brief murder. We're likely to be going
through the trial without giving the way you trade secrets.
What do you go through looking at the brief? Do
you look at failings in that we've legislation, that we've
(09:52):
breached something, or there's a hole in this particular proof
of the offense. What type of things are you looking
for when you're dissecting the brief evidence.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
Well, first of all, you look at what the factual
circumstances are and whether the facts are based upon inferences.
That's connecting the dots on the basis of what you
expected to have happened or what the police know happened. Now,
that's firstly the thing. You look at what's the factual
(10:20):
scenario here and can that be established without speculation. The
second thing is you then go to the technical aspects
of the case in terms of what then can be
proved in a court of law, because what's put in
a fact sheet, we're in a statement is not necessarily
compliant with the rules of evidence.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
So that's okay. And then you've got the brief. You
going to court, do you get access to witnesses or
you speak to your client and make a decision whether
they're going to get in the witness box or not.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
How do you.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
Approach a strategy for prepping for a trial? I'm talking
general sense here, so each trial, I would imagine that
have its own issues. How do you prepare for a trial?
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Well, unlike other states in Australia who still have local
court proceedings where you can examine witnesses, New South Wales
is to a large extent done away with that system,
the committal system. It was as a result of a
(11:28):
legend case called the Greek Conspiracy which went for months
and months and months as a committal proceeding down at
Central Local Court and clogged up the whole local court
system for a long time, or the Court of Petty
Sessions as it was then called. But ultimately there are
there are ways of asking for further material, asking for particulars.
(11:50):
There's a procedure called section eighty two of the Criminal
PROCEDURECT which allows us to ask for witnesses. But you're
not going to get a witness or a victim of
a sexual assault because it's too traumatic. You're not going
to get a victim of a serious violent offense. So
you're really really left with looking at what's available through
(12:12):
the evidence, calculating what, as I was saying before, what
is based upon inference or speculation, and what can be
actually proved. You then have to think about what your
client's going to say and you have to make an
assessment of their ability to withstand the rigors of the
witness box. Now you've already spoken Gary about how tough
(12:34):
it is, and I know from personal experience it can
be tough and the average person is simply not equipped
generally to handle that type of pressure. And so it's
very rarely that you'd called you call your client in
a trial. In fact, as an ould saying amongst criminal
is that the best your case I'll ever be is
at the end of the crown case. It's all downhill
(12:56):
from there.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
And explaining that, I think people have a sense of
it that the crown case, that's the prosecution present their
case and then they rest their case. They've established If
they reach that benchmark and they've established the primer facy,
then it's a matter of the defense coming yes.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
And to understand why you wouldn't call your client is
because there are two levels of proof in a criminal trial,
and that is the evidence being accepted by the judge,
not the jury at that stage, but by the judge
to what we call a primer facy level, or a
first level, which requires there to be evidence of the
(13:35):
commission of the crime, but not necessarily proof beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime. And that step from knowing that
someone may have committed the crime and then elevating that
to proof beyond reasonable doubt and that means that there's
no other explanation that's really consistent with innocence that had
explained that conduct being available. Now at the end of
(13:57):
the Crown case, you might be saying, well, I've punched
enough holes in this case for the jury to have
some doubts. I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Yeah, okay, no, I've seen it, seen it happen before.
We talk about some of your high profile cases and
some of the characters you've met, and the the extraordinary
world that you've seen in the over forty years practicing
criminal law in Sydney, the lovely queen Streets of Sydney.
(14:24):
Why did you get into law? What were first of
all your background, where'd you grow up and what inspired
you to become a lawyer?
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Born in born in Couldji by the second son of
two avid rabbit o supporters. They've gled red and green.
Mum and dad ended up a rooster supporters somehow much
of their chagrin.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
He would have been a shame of you.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
And so yeah, grew up in the Southern Shire, I
delic place for me to grow up, word around on
three sides, and went to a local Christian Brothers school,
did well at school, surprised evan myself in that regard,
and ended up at Sydney University doing arts law major
it in politics. Realized that's the last place I'd ever
(15:05):
want to be and drifted into law. Got myself a
job with a commercial firm as an article, one of
the last article clerks, and within two years I was out.
I hung up my own shingle, and just for reasons
(15:28):
that were driven by where could I get work? You
ended up in criminal law.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
Okay, So it wasn't the driving passion from the day
you went to kindergarten and you were accused of something
and you were going to defend people for the rest
of your life. It was just something that you fell into.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Yeah, just something that I fell into.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
But your your reputation is that your passion and the
way that you go about your work, and you have
a good reputation. I say that not begrudgingly. It's I
think from a detective point of view, when I came
up against a good defend team, it would make me
raise my standard. So it's sort of it helps in
(16:05):
the way that you present your case. But what made
you follow the path of a defense lawyer.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
Well, I've never prosecuted anyone. I can say that you
should try. It's great, but I don't know. I think
it was just, you know, I'm a bit of a
people person. I like to help people. I like to
see people who are entitled to representation get a job
(16:32):
done properly for them. And some people that say, oh,
I wasn't happy with your work, and a lot of
others would say I did a good job, and that
really pleases me, and it upsets me that someone mightn't
have thought they got the best job done for them
because as a lawyer, as a criminal lawyer, as a professional,
that's what I strive to do and make a difference
in a person's life.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Is there a point in your career when you started
out that you got someone off a serious crime, or
off a crime that you believed that they're innocent. You
got them off and you went home that night, or
you felt, Okay, this is I'm achieving some good.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
I couldn't name the cases, Gary, but there have been
cases where that's been the case, and I've felt really,
really pleased that the system worked for that person. I've
looked at systems in other parts of the world. I
haven't appeared in course elsewhere, only in Australia, and I
(17:33):
think we're reasonably lucky that in terms of the ability
of a system to provide fairness, this one does its best.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Okay. So that's interesting because I don't think it's infallible
the system. I think there's always room for improvement. I'd
like to talk talk to you about that later on,
but I got a sense and going through a police
career where I was prosecuting people for a long time
and then been on the other side of the prosecution
as the accused. It's quite confronting. And I always had
(18:06):
an understanding that you had the balance. It couldn't be
favored all for the defense or all for the prosecution,
but seeing it from having the full resources of the
state coming after you, and I was probably best set
up as anyone could be to defend myself in that
I understood the system and had the experience. But it
(18:26):
was intimidating.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Well, that's because it's an adversarial system. At the end
of the day. I regard going into a courtroom like
going onto a sporting pitch. It's no hols barred within
the rules of the game. Once you're in the courtroom.
You've got to play according to the rules. But having
(18:49):
done that, you walk outside and you'll leave it there.
But it's not for the fainthearted, and you've got to
expect that you're not going to win every game it is.
Speaker 1 (18:57):
It's and I think people need to under stand that.
And I don't know of anyone that's been exposed to court,
whether as a victim of crime or someone that's been
convicted of a crime, that it has an impact on you.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
I enjoy it, so it's my daily bread. So I
enjoy it.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Well, I'm glad you enjoy it because you've been doing
it for a very long time. I don't know if
you're considering changing careers. Oh this was a wrong career.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Well, I don't think you're going to be swopping places.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Well, don't get cocky. I thought I was going to
be a cop until the day I died. And look
at me. Now. You've met some interesting characters and had
some high profile cases, and I'll just rattle off a few.
And if there's cases that you're not comfortable talking about,
please tell me. If not, let me know of the
(19:49):
one of the people that you defended, Alan Meridian. He
was murdered in two thy and twenty three. I believe
he was, and there was a lead up to the murder.
Do you want to describe Allen and how you got
to represent him in your dealings with him, what you
thought of him and the circumstances leading up to his murder.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
I've been involved with Alan going back to the to
a case that he was he was involved in which
caused him to serve a considerable amount of time in prison.
I ran into him afterwards and he asked me would
he would he or could he use my services if
that was needed? And whilst he didn't, he wasn't in
(20:35):
any further trouble he was so far as charges were concerned.
I don't. I'm not talking about what he may have
been doing otherwise. But he came to see me, and
he also got some advice from me another another lawyer
who had had actually worked for me in relation to
(20:56):
trying to get out of the country because of fear
of being assassinated.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
And to put it in context, he was a high
ranking member of the Commoneros.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
He wasn't a particularly high ranking member, but because of
allegations about his involvement in other criminal activity, he had
a profile within that.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Okay, well established, yes, in that world. Okay, So there's
fears that he was going to be killed. And I
want to get your thoughts on some of the things
with the we call it the gang wars. I'm not
sure if that's a media so that they beat up,
but there's been a lot of public shootings and different
things going on. So at that particular point in time,
(21:39):
there was legitimate threats for his well being.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Absolutely, and he was aware of that, and he spoke
to me about that, and it was a burden on him,
it was a burden on his family, and it was
something that I think, from what we know now could
have or may have been avoided.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
And how with the benefit of hindsight, but how it
could have been avoided.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
Well, perhaps the police could have stepped in earlier. My
history of an experience of police officers, particularly in relation
to listening device availability and monitoring devices. When they hear
guns are involved, they jump in. If a shipment of
drugs is coming in, they'll watch it, but if someone
(22:32):
pulls out a gun, they're straight there. It didn't happen
with Allan, and that's a real disappointment that I feel
in relation to the way the police acted. Now, I
may be offbeen, but as I understand it, they watched
these people plan an assassination for a considerable period of time,
and maybe they could have done something better.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
We see these people played out in the media, and
the media love the picture of the gangs on the
front page of the paper or the lead story in
the news. What was this particular person?
Speaker 2 (23:05):
What was he like? So with me, he was a
very very intense type of person. On the one hand,
he could be he could be like your next door neighbor,
nice block on the other but Alan was certainly not
someone to be messed with. But in my dealings with him,
I always found him to be straight up, honest and
(23:27):
reliable in what he said and what he would do.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Okay, you had in dealings with him, and correct me
if I'm wrong, if I've got the information wrong. But
handing in a lot of firearms.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Too, I did. I've been asked sort of not to
talk about that back in the day, But yeah, that
was that that assisted in him in his case, and
it's on public record that it did assist him.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Yeah. Okay, we'll speaking taken away from allan, but you've
had clients that have yeah to show that, Okay, I'm
changing my ways of handed in firearms and the police
are always keen to get firearms off the street. Have
you the gun buyback scheme run by Greg gul.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
I had an interesting experience. And I'm not a particularly
a particular lover of firearms. My dad out of twenty
two back in the day when everyone had a twenty two.
Unfortunately shoot bandicoots in the backyard. But I got called
on to go down to Westpac Bank in Martin Place
(24:32):
and go to the vault and pick up what turned
out to be an old red Quantus bag with the
white flying kangaroo. And anyone who would have traveled with
the sixties or seventies in Quantus would have got one
of these carry on bags, little sports bag. It was
fall to the brim. It was absolutely chopper with ammunition
(24:52):
and pistols. And I won't name the name of the
person that gave it to, but I had. But I
was glad. I was a bit of a bit of
exercise at the time because I had to walk from
Martin Place up to the police center all right and
handed in and the sergeant looked at me when I
handed in and he said, ask me, was I serious
(25:12):
handing this in? And I said, well, absolutely, it's an amnesty.
He said, well, are you going to tell me anything
about it, mister Gilder, And I said, no names, no
pact or serge. It's yours.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
I remember when the gun amnesty was in and people
would walk into the police station and hand hand weapons in.
Just over the county. You'd be there and they walk
in with all sorts of rifles and different things. One
of the things that was handed into you had resulted
in the army being notified and called the outher Blue.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
I got an AR fifteen semi automatic Army Army Well
I think they're automatic weapons, but it had had the
grenade launcher attached to it, and I also got a
grenade with it.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
Okay, they're always good there.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
And it was this. It was about I'm not talking.
It was about five or six inches long, round around,
with a sort of a sort of round knob on
the end of it. And so I put it in
the bird of my car and drove up to First
of all, I rang the particular inspector who I was
(26:19):
dealing with. I think it might have been Arthur Cat
and Arthur had put a sergeant in touch with me
to deal with these sorts of things, and I told
them I was bringing in the rocket, the grenade, launch
around the grenade. It was all sorts also, who we
can't touch that, We've got to get the We've got
(26:40):
to get the army involved. And ended up having a
major from Ordinance come down and take control and I
had the bloody thing bumping around in the boot of
a car.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
Yeah, well, we'll send you to a lecture about firearm
safety later. But it's amazing the type of things that
you get get called up in doing the work that
you're doing, and the time characters that you meet, and
there is you know, there's a fascination with true crime,
and I think people are particularly interested in the gangster types.
And you know, we see these these public shootings and
(27:13):
you think, how does this happen? You've had dealings with
other clients. Wally Ahmed also ended up on the wrong
end of a gun too.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Yeah, well I was. I acted for Wally and when
he was involved in a shooting at Condall Park of
Long Haired Danny. When I was involved in that, that
was an interesting one. And then so i'd sort of
acted for both sides, and I don't and I don't
take sides. Yeah, when a client comes into me, provided
there's no immediate conflict.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
Right, Okay, Yeah, And I've heard that because I worked
Gang Squad for a while and I heard some solicitors
are associated with this gang other because if there's a crossover,
there can be a conflict of interest.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
I've been I've been warned off cases only once or twice,
and I won't go into who it was and who
it wasn't, but yeah, I was contacted and said, it's
not politically correct for you to be acting on this case.
There's a lot of people that are upset about what happened.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Okay, all right, there's a lot of threatened menace in
a comment like that, if it's from a particular person.
Have you ever felt concerned for your welfare or compromise
with the type of people that you're dealing with, Like
I would imagine, and I know the characters and we
don't have to name particular ones, but someone would come
in and get Greg, I want to you get me off,
(28:30):
You get me off this. I don't care what it costs,
what you've got to do, get me off. And they
would really be going at you that way.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
I haven't really had that sort of intensity Gary. People
come in and they say, you know it, can't you
do better than that? I say, look on what I've
got before me, on the case that the prosecution have
assembled against you, your chances of winning this case are minimal. Now.
If you want to waste your money and put yourself
(28:59):
up for a much higher sentence, then I suggest that
you reconsider. But if you want to get better news
from some other lawyer who's prepared to tell you that,
then off you go.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
I think that probably safeguarded you because my under or
not my understanding, my dealings with people like that. If
you're up front, then they know where you stand, where
they stand, you're probably better off than making a false
promise you I'll get you off and then you'll be
looking living in fear for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
I don't have any I don't have any sleepless nights
because of that. The only time I was ever concerned
was when to senior detectives came to see me back
at a time when heroin was the drug of choice,
and it was might have been the late nineties or something,
(29:51):
and a senior sergeant from the Drug Task Force came
to see me and told me that there was a
contract on me. I was a bit disappointed to know
that it's not as much as get you get paid
these days. And it turned out that a rather roguish
Chinese client of mind had asked me to send money
overses back in the day when you could, and what
(30:14):
he told me it was going for was totally different
to what the reason it was going for, and then
he'd pocketed it when it got to Hong Kong. Okay,
So I got the blame.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
You got called up in that. Well, there is potential
to get caught up in that as innos an agent
doing your job. Were you Were you involved in the
airport brawl the flow on effect from the airport brawl
I think two thousand and nine Common Cerios and the
Hell's Angels came to blows at Sydney Airport.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
I was. I was acting for one of the common
Cero's and got to know quite a few of them
and was always of the opinion that my particular client
was innocent because he had no real involvement in it,
but because of the arduous nature of leaving a jail
(31:02):
at four thirty in the morning, traveling to the traveling
to the court, being kept in cells underground, never seen
the light of day, and getting back to the jail
at eight o'clock is first arduous and difficult for anyone
when you're morbidly obese and your health is a real issue. Michael,
(31:24):
I didn't think you could take it and pleaded guilty
to Manselord, totally against my advice.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
I was on call in gang squad when it happened,
and there was a lot of trouble brewing within the
gangs at the time. I'd been out all night. There'd
been sixth places, six or seven places shot up that night. Men,
I'm just driving home. And then the stuff that happened
at the airport, I think there was. I was in
gang squad at the time. I didn't work the case.
I had some other cases. I think Steve French, detective inspector,
(31:54):
was the officer in charge. But fifteen people were charged
all up with a fray and different offenses.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Is that and murder? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (32:03):
And murder? Mick Howie, Mick Howie, you again is another
person that ended up at the wrong end of a gun?
Speaker 2 (32:11):
Yeah, I think that's well. It seems to be that Sydney,
particularly in the last twenty to thirty years, has changed
in that respect. I think for those who know what
the Raptor Squad does and what they deal with mostly,
I think there's been a distinct change in the way
(32:34):
criminals conduct themselves in their dealings with each other. The
ego seems to be so important. Greed seems to be paramount,
and you would think when you hear the statistics of
the amount of drugs that are brought into Australia and
what comes in, that there's enough for everybody. Not that
that's right, Not that I'm saying that's right in the
context of you know, how many midiings do you want?
(32:57):
And do you have to go and kill someone because
they got more than you.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
I'm watching it, watching it from the sidelines now, obviously,
But in my early days in major crime, the shootings
were quite often the person that disappear, you know, put
on the boat and taken out the sea and never
never seen again. That those were the type of murders
that were investigating. Now it almost seems like there's a
statement being made that the amount of people who are
(33:22):
shot coming out of the gym or whatever in public
places and letting shots fire. I don't you know, I
don't want to compromise you talking about specific cases. But
do you see because you've been involved in it and
seeing it, do you see that nature of the crime
crime change?
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Well? I do, and I see and what I see,
Gary is that And you'd recognize this that twenty years
ago these guys who were prepared to do this sort
of thing were doing drive by. Now they're prepared to
stake out a location, watch the intended victim, and then
(33:59):
get out of cars, walk up to the victim and
pump a magazine full of bullet to him from point
blank range.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
Yeah. Well you're right on that because the day or
the night before the airport brawl. Yeah, as I said,
seven houses have been shut up, and they were all
drive by. They were the statements. But then it's escalated
to the point, well, we're not going to do it
just random drive by. We're going to wait till the
target comes out and blow them my way.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
It's yeah, it's a violent, violent situation and an extreme situation.
But you mentioned Raptor, and I talk about Raptor in
that Raptor was formed on the back of what happened
at the airport, because that was up until that point
in time. You had the Father's Day massacre with the
bikes where six or seven people were killed way back
(34:49):
in the back in the eighties, but the violence wasn't public.
And when that happened at the airport, you can't have
Sydney Airport and someone caught up in the brawl and
someone dying die in a brawl like that, them Raptor
was formed and it was really the public had had enough,
the politicians had had enough, and the police had to
(35:10):
do something. Now, I know there's different views on Raptor,
and I don't need you the comment, but I know
the difference it made in that world at the time.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
Well, it's when I look back on my career, what
I've seen is that when I first started it, there
was a lot of There was a lot of robberies,
armed robberies. Drugs weren't Drugs weren't as available. But with
the Vietnam War particularly, and the influx of what we
(35:39):
used to be buddhistics, which was cannabis coming in and
heroin coming in. Cocaine had been around few years but
was sort of running under the radar. And having been criminalized.
Back in the early part of the last century, meth
was really just speed, it was a it was a
(36:00):
biky drug, which was we used to say it's poor
man's cocaine. And most crime was under the radar. But
the last twenty five thirty years have seen ego and
I think sort of the look at me generation has
influenced the way that crime has exploded. People want to
(36:23):
be seen as criminals rather than criminals being under the radar,
out of sight, making their money punting most of it
away at the races of the tab But these days
it's a look at me generation and the influences the
criminal influencers want to.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
Be saying, I hadn't thought of it that way, but
these almost generational because I know, as you know, some
of the good crooks getting around, they slip under the radar.
They don't stick their head up and you know they're
doing major stuff, but they don't flaunt it. So yeah,
it's interesting, but it's problematic. That makes it. Yeah, police
(37:02):
have got to respond, like the underworld could operate and
I think the word the underworld operate under the cover,
but when they commit crime so publicly, well, the public
are not going to accept that, and the politicians and
the police and everyone's got to act on it. Let's
let's just change change tacked a little bit. We'll get
more into your stories, because you've got thousands of them
(37:25):
on different people that you've come across. But we guilty, please,
And we touched on it briefly about that. Have you
when you're representing the client? Have you ever had a
client that you've just gone, I can't represent you. Has
it ever got to that point?
Speaker 2 (37:45):
I can't immediately think of anybody, But I've been lucky
in that I haven't been or my practice hasn't been
one of those practice that does a lot of historical sex.
I've filed myself lucky in that respect, and not for
(38:08):
my own personal experience, but from experience within my extended family.
I've had experience that how sexual assaults, both in a
family situation or an extended family situation, can have really
lasting effects. And I actually have a lot of respect
(38:29):
for those practitioners who do that work, because not only
the practitioners, but the judges who are involved in it.
It's a really difficult area of and I'm lucky enough
not to have to deal with that when you've got
juveniles and young people involved who've been sexually abused, it's
terrific stuff.
Speaker 1 (38:45):
I've got a greater understanding any the work that I've done,
more so since i've been from the police, speaking to
a lot of people who have been victims of childhood
sexual assault. And even the time that I spent in
prison doing the Breaking Bad podcast series, the amount of
people in prison that were victims of child sexual abuse
(39:06):
was quite frightening. And when you sat down and heard
their stories. And we're always looking at ways of reducing crime,
society wants crime to be reduced, I think we've really
got to look at the impact that child sexual abuse
has because people carry that with them. And yeah, you've
talked and I'm not saying any of the clients you've had,
(39:29):
all the people that we've mentioned here on the podcast,
but quite often these big, tough, taboo covered bikis that
you don't mess with me, look about them. When you
scratch the surface, go right back. It's because something that's
happened in their childhood and they never want to be
victims again.
Speaker 2 (39:45):
Oh well, we're all products of our upbringings. Yeah, and
the influences that we've had in our lives, and hopefully
for most of us they're all positive. But for those
who haven't been that fortunate and haven't had the breaks
with their parents, with their schooling, with the amount of
money in the family, with food on the table, you know,
(40:06):
life could be pretty tough, and you make choices that
you might have otherwise made if you'd had the breaks
that the bloke standing next to you had.
Speaker 1 (40:12):
I suppose you get to see that too. You would
get closer to the people who have been in charge
with criminal offenses than I would from the police point
of view, So you get to understand, you get to
meet the family more. You would understand that. That's your
take on it. And you said before we sat down
that you don't like to be judgmental on people unless
(40:33):
you understand where what path they've walked.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
Now, that's been one of my one of my sort
of mantras that I go, but you can't walk in
another man's shoes, and there but for the grace of
God go I. And coming from a person who doesn't
believe in God, that was called well in Catholicism. You know,
you've got to be very careful about how you judge
(40:57):
a fellow man, and in relation to do a criminal practice,
as I indicated to you Willia Gary, I think sentencing,
particularly for judges, is an extremely difficult area of law.
Speaker 1 (41:09):
What do I cringe from a police point of view
where I hear mandatory sentencing and I know that's a
chest beating comment that's made where crime appears to be
out of control and okay, we're going to get tough
and mandatory sentencing. What horrifies me about that is that
each case should be judged on its own individual merits.
(41:29):
You can't just if you've committed that offense you should
be there's non negotiable, You're going the way for ten years.
It just doesn't sit with me. Well, what's your thoughts on.
Speaker 2 (41:40):
I agree with that, and there are very few crimes
in our criminal calendar, in the Crimes Act that carry
a mandatory sentence. Interestingly enough, is assault occasioning death as
an aggravated offense carries a mandatory sentence of eight years.
(42:01):
So that's like the coward punch and the history of
all that is unfortunate because of what happened with that
poor young Kelly Fellow and the reaction to that was
was quite remarkable. But all political more than legal.
Speaker 1 (42:18):
We had Kelly's parents on the podcast and it's yeah,
it's just such a sad situation, sad, sad story. And
I like the fact that they've changed the narrative and
calling it the coward punch. I think that's good changing
changing that. But I'm also very much aware that you know,
people walking down the street, you know someone could lash
(42:40):
out and you know, horrible situation happens and they're mandatory
eight years in eight years in prison or whatever did
you say? Eight years mandatory eight years and the nature
of the offense might warrant that, but the judge's hands
are tied to send that person.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
That's true. That was all round. That was an absolutely
disastrous piece of history that New South Wales has got
to live with because it wasn't just the Kelly family
that was decimated, which is tragic. About two thousand people
lost their jobs in King's Cross and these people who
have been working in that industry for a long time.
(43:19):
And if anyone knows what it's like to go to
work every day with the same people for years and
years and years and all of a sudden you haven't
got a job.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
The licensing law changes and yeah, all that that impacted
on it.
Speaker 2 (43:32):
You're in no man's land. Your whole life goes down
the drain. So it wasn't just that aspect of a
person who deserved to be punished going to jail and
a poor family being totally decimated. Thousands of people were
impacted by all that.
Speaker 1 (43:46):
Well, yeah, if it was cleaning up the streets of
King's Cross. I was living at Piermouth at the time
and all ended up down that end of town.
Speaker 2 (43:53):
Well the Star city got it all. Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (43:56):
I was living there there for a running the morning, dodging,
dodging things.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
And the impact of that on Sydney as an after
dark city we're still suffering from it. I think Christmins
is trying to do an admirable job in bringing the
life back to Sydney after dark.
Speaker 1 (44:13):
Yeah, no, I agree. I think we need to know
we're a big world city and needs needs to have
that after ours sensing for drug matters and again, and
you learn a lot putting a foreign into a something,
a different environment, foreign environment that you're not used to,
(44:36):
but time spending in prison speaking to the inmates and
the amount of prisoners there that started using drugs and
then I'll buy a bigger bag and I'll give that
to my mates, and then I'll buy a bigger and
end up in jail and then doing very very long
sentences in jail. And I'm thinking, well, I've been charging
(44:56):
people with murder that aren't getting this, and I know
the damage that drugs done, that can do. But I
was shocked how many people are doing such lengthy senses
for drug dealing.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
I'm pleased to say that in New South Wales our
sentencing in relation to drugs is generally pretty humane. Don't
go to Western Australia. They wack you out of the
park over there unnecessarily. I think it's in humane the
sentences they give over there. But yeah, there's a lot
of people doing long sentences, and it's strange that because
(45:31):
of the fact that you've got to demand, which is
informed by people wanting to enjoy themselves or think they're
going to enjoy themselves, but being totally ignorant of how
that drug got to them, the journey from South America
or from some meth lab or from the Netherlands of
its pills and so forth. But generally it's quite it's
(45:53):
quite difficult to understand the sentences that people do get
when you're being asked to provide something to a group
of people who want something. No one wants to be murdered,
no one wants to be sexually assaulted, and that's done
by a person who is is not is deserved a
(46:18):
greater deal of punishment. So it's a really typical area
of the law. But we're told in the in a
society where I think there's got a lot to do
with Queen Victoria and Catholics who said, if it makes
you feel good, you must it must be bad, it
must be a sin. I can't understand in the society
(46:39):
in which we can we can do heart transplants and
we can save people's lives on an operating table, and
we can have drugs for this and drugs for that
that they can't give drugs to keep people who want
to use them as safe and allow them to have
a different experience. I just don't understand it. And all this,
all this industry that creates death and stryduction could be avoided.
Speaker 1 (47:02):
Yeah, well, it's thinking outside the square and it wouldn't
be without controversy. Taking what you're saying and putting it
in practice, but.
Speaker 2 (47:12):
One provides a way Tiller retire.
Speaker 1 (47:16):
Bears your business, Greg, jeez, well done. But yeah, I've
often looked at what we're doing and you hear the
war on drugs and all the commentary that comes with it,
and it hasn't really worked. Drugs are still on the street,
and maybe we're going to change our thinking well transportation.
Speaker 2 (47:35):
When the first letter I didn't work either, I was
still stuff and we're still going through the same process.
What I'm really really pleased about, though, Gary, is the
way that that jails are changing, and there we're starting
that the people who run the jails are starting to
turn out human beings rather than criminals, and that's something
(47:57):
that we can be pleased with. I know a lot
of people want revenge and they want to see people
locked up forever because they've been individually affected by it.
But we live in a state run society where the
state determines punishment the state, and we don't sort of
live in a tribal society where you go and get
an eye for an eye and so forth. And it's
(48:18):
pleasing from certainly a criminal lawyer's point of view, that
the jails are starting to improve and people might look
at the new Hunter section of the CESSNA and say,
I look what these criminals are getting. They haven't got
their freedom.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
We greg You've got. I concur one hundred percent with
what you're talking about there. And Macquarie Correctional Center, which
is on the same vein as Hunter, and what they're
doing there and the way that they're treating prisoners. That
was the whole premise of going in corrective services in
by the men in the prison. They had a look
at it and I can't champion it enough. What is
(48:54):
happening in there, because the high recidivism rate that we have,
we've got to try and break that. So Michael, and Yeah,
someone that's known to you and someone that I've mentioned
often here became a good friend before he passed away,
Bernie Matthews, who did a lot of time in prison,
a lot of time in the hard prisons in Grafton
and Ktingle. He was the longest serving prisoner in Ktingle,
(49:16):
the first supermax. And he said to me, you treat
this like animals were going to come out like animals.
And what I saw at Macquarie Correctional Center there was
respect between the inmates and the corrective services stuff, and
you know it's not always perfect, but there was definitely
a different vibe in that prison, and the people I
(49:37):
was talking to seemed a lot more prepared to come
out into society and integrate back into society than other
prisons that I've been in, where you feel the tension
you walk in there. Everyone's bridged up and everyone's ready
to go. And some of the prisoners said to me
when I was in there, you put us in a
jar when you open the cell doors, and the moment
(49:58):
we walk out, we're looking for where the next bit
of dangers coming from, and it's about survival, and then
you open the door and put us back in the streets.
We've still got that attitude. So if someone that insults
me or someone does something that annoys me, my natural
reaction is I'm going to react like I would in prison.
And it makes sense when it's explained that way, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (50:19):
It does, it doesn't. And that's built upon looking at
people in terms of why they committed a cry and
then going back to that sentencing aspect that we're talking
about before, and crafting a sentence that's going to punish them.
Because there are seven different aspects to sentencing which includes
deterrents and acknowledgment and protection of the community and the
(50:39):
punishment of the offender.
Speaker 1 (50:41):
Can you break that down? That just explain that because
I don't think a lot of people we all make comments,
so that person didn't get enough or that was a
big sentence. What's the criteria when you're looking at that.
Speaker 2 (50:52):
There are seven criteria. Don't ask me to name them all,
but there's and they each have equal value. First of all,
person's got to be punished for what they've done. They've
got to acknowledge what they've done. They've got to be
put in a position where the community is safe. Other
members of our society have got to be deterred from
(51:15):
doing the same things by virtue of the punishment that
that particular criminal receives. And importantly too, that person's got
to be rehabilitated. In the children's court, rehabilitation takes the
primary place because there's a view which is right that
children that have a chance of being saved. Unfortunately, that
(51:37):
doesn't always happen because a lot of the times they
go into the very environments which cause them to commit
crime in the first place. But yeah, sentencing has to
look at all those aspects and if you go into
an environment where everything's taken away from including respect, then
you're never going to have any respect. And ultimately it
(51:58):
saves the community money. People don't go back to jail.
Speaker 1 (52:02):
Well, it saves money. And I spoke to someone about
a family member of victim of crime about what they're
doing in Macquarie and Hunter and this person, I've mentioned
him before, I can mention him again. I know he's
comfortable with me talking about it. Ken marslw whose son
was some was murdered and he set up enough is
(52:23):
Enough and was protesting and truth in sentencing and all
sorts of things. Over the past twenty years, he's channeled
his energy differently in that how can we prevent crime?
And I asked Ken, because I get on this platform
about what they're doing in prison, I think is better
than the more traditional way prisons were done. But I
wanted to feel comfortable that I'm not forgetting the victim's
(52:47):
point of view on this. And Ken made the point
that it's not about getting tough on crime, it's getting
smart on crime, and that if you reduce crime, you
reduce victims. So it seems like a no brainer. And
if that's what that prison system that we've been talking
about does, it makes a lot of sense, doesn't it.
Speaker 2 (53:04):
It does, And I think that you might remember that
you need a copy.
Speaker 1 (53:07):
Yep, yep.
Speaker 2 (53:08):
Her father had a very very pragmatic view, very much
like Ken's, and it was not put aside his anger
and his revenge and thought about how can we make
the system better. That's it's hard for victims or victims
families to come to that position, but it's a position,
(53:30):
you know, that is worthwhile.
Speaker 1 (53:32):
Yeah, I agree, it's worthwhile and utmost respect for them
that they can do that. Ken would say, and Gary
Lynch neither Cobby's father. Ken would make the point that
he's still got the anger, he will always have the anger,
but he's not going to let it destroy him. He's
going to channel it into something positive. And I find
that quite inspirational. On what Gary Lynch did as well,
(53:55):
we might we might take a break now when we
get back, we're going to talk about more of your
k I'm also going to ask you, if you've ever
fired a gun in the courthouse, have a think about that.
You can get you can get some legal advice during
the break.
Speaker 2 (54:08):
If you need.
Speaker 1 (54:09):
And I'm going to give you another question on notice.
Have you ever come across a good detective, Like forty
years you must have had someone that you can say.
Think about it, and we'll come back in part two
and talk about your more about your fascinating career and
your insights in the law and order.
Speaker 2 (54:28):
I'll put my mind to it and during the break
carry cas.
Speaker 1 (54:31):
Jeez,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com