Operation Lantana - Police Integrity Commission

• Stealing from the person with circumstance of aggravation pursuant to s95(1) of
the Crimes Act 1900;
• Enter dwelling house with intent to commit serious indictable offence pursuant to
s111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.
Accordingly in relation to these allegations the Commission is not of the opinion that
consideration should be given to any further prosecution under section 97(2)(a) of the
PIC Act.
4.16 As to the evidence of LP1 admitting his involvement in the three incidents involving the
tobacconist shops, pursuant to section 40 of the PIC Act that evidence is not admissible
against him in any criminal proceedings.
4.17 In relation to the first tobacconist incident at Merrylands, as previously noted in this
Report, (at paragraphs 2.12-2.17), despite initial denials Battal ultimately admitted to his
involvement with LP1 in this incident, and to also having improperly received payments as
a result. As also earlier noted, however, Battal maintained his denial of any involvement in
the second and third tobacconists’ incidents.
4.18 The question arises, in relation to LP1 and section 97(2)(a) of the PIC Act whether
the prospect of Battal giving evidence against LP1 in relation to the first tobacconist
incident (at Merrylands) is sufficient to allow for a recommendation by the Commission
of consideration of prosecution action against LP1 for a specified criminal offence. As
Counsel Assisting submitted not only as a practical matter is it a remote possibility that
Battal would give this evidence but there is also a certain paucity of essential particulars
as previously noted which would make a prosecution an extremely doubtful proposition.
There is also no corroborating evidence and the Commission’s observations as to
the caution needed in approaching LP1’s evidence would apply with even more force
in relation to Battal’s evidence to support any recommendation for consideration of
prosecution action.
4.19 For these reasons, the Commission agrees with Counsel Assisting’s submissions on the
available evidence presented at the hearing relating to the first tobacconist incident and is
therefore not of the opinion that consideration should be given to the prosecution of LP1
for a specified criminal offence involving this incident.
4.20 With regard to the second and third tobacconist incidents, the evidence before the
Commission is even more lacking in important details. Whilst LP1 gave evidence detailing
his and Battal’s role in those two incidents, Battal, in his evidence, completely denied
any involvement in either incident. Notwithstanding the observations earlier in this Report
as to the Commission’s preference for the evidence of LP1 over that of Battal where
their evidence is in conflict there is a lack of essential particulars in the evidence of LP1
POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION – REPORT TO PARLIAMENT - OPERATION LANTANA
37