Operation Lantana - Police Integrity Commission

38
relating to these other two tobacconist incidents which also makes prosecution action a
doubtful proposition. For these reasons the Commission is also not of the opinion that
consideration should be given to the prosecution of LP1 for specified criminal offences
involving the second and third tobacconist incidents.
4.21 The Commission is of a similar opinion in respect of the three drug matters for reasons
which have been referred to in Chapter 3 of this Report; namely, that there is insufficient
admissible evidence to support prosecution action against LP1 and accordingly, the
Commission is not of the opinion that consideration should be given to the prosecution
for a specified criminal offence against LP1 in relation to those matters.
4.22 As to the Masri truck incident, the evidence of LP1 before the Commission is also unable
to be used against him in criminal proceedings. Both Battal and Masri, in their evidence,
denied completely that the incident occurred. For these reasons, in the absence of any
other evidence of LP1’s involvement in this incident the Commission is not of the opinion
that consideration should be given to the prosecution of LP1 for a specified criminal
offence in respect of the Masri truck incident.
4.23 As regards the proposed interception of Baroudi’s truck, the same considerations apply
and LP1’s evidence is not admissible against him. LP1’s version of events was also
disputed by each of the other participants alleged to have been involved; namely, Baroudi,
Battal and Hijazi, and each also gave different accounts which in some respects were also
inconsistent with each other.
4.24 The Commission agrees with the submission of Counsel Assisting that, given that the
proposed interception, and whatever was to happen afterward, did not take place, it is
difficult to conclude with satisfaction that LP1’s evidence as to the object of the exercise
should be totally accepted. LP1’s understanding was in large part also based on hearsay
evidence.
4.25 While conceivably there might be the possibility of admissible evidence against LP1
from Battal and to a lesser extent Baroudi and Hijazi in support of a criminal offence
surrounding the use of the hire car with the intention that it be improperly passed off as
a police vehicle as part of a ‘sham’ police operation to intercept Baroudi’s truck, there
are problems in relying on such evidence given the inconsistencies in their respective
versions and the lack of relevant particulars. In the circumstances the Commission is not
of the opinion that consideration should be given to the prosecution of LP1 for a specified
criminal offence in relation to the Baroudi truck incident.
4.26 As to the allegations against LP1 regarding the proposed taking of tobacco from a
“big warehouse” at some time in the future, the evidence before the Commission points
no higher than this being floated merely as an idea. Whether or not there may have, at
some later time, been formed a firm agreement to carry out this endeavour, or indeed,
POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION – REPORT TO PARLIAMENT - OPERATION LANTANA