Chapter 6

Introduction

This chapter outlines the key periods of interaction between Ms Nicola Gobbo and Victoria Police and associated events from 1993 to 2018. It details Ms Gobbo’s history of providing information to Victoria Police and her three registrations as a human source, based on evidence provided to the Commission during its inquiry.

These events are explored in more detail in Volume II of this final report, which examines the conduct of Ms Gobbo and Victoria Police officers. The narrative presented in this chapter does not seek to interrogate the evidence of witnesses or the material received by the Commission. That is reserved for later chapters.

The first part of this chapter addresses Ms Gobbo’s interactions with Victoria Police between 1993 and 1999. Following a search of Ms Gobbo’s property in 1993, she was charged with drug offences and provided information to police about her then de facto partner, leading to her first registration as a human source in 1995. After being admitted to practise as a lawyer in 1997, Ms Gobbo gave Victoria Police information about her employer at the time, leading to her second registration as a human source in 1999.

The second part of this chapter outlines Ms Gobbo’s involvement with Victoria Police between 2000 and 2005. During this time, she continued to provide information to Victoria Police informally. This period also covers the escalation of Melbourne’s ‘gangland wars’ and Ms Gobbo’s representation of Mr McGrath (a pseudonym), who provided evidence against several criminal identities. In 2003–04, Ms Gobbo had a series of conversations with officers of Victoria Police’s Purana Taskforce, which was investigating several murders associated with the gangland wars. These conversations laid the groundwork for Ms Gobbo’s most prolific period of informing, between 2005 and 2009.

The third part of this chapter outlines events that occurred between 2005 and 2009, when Ms Gobbo wasregistered as a human source for the third time and, through almost daily contact with Victoria Police’s Source Development Unit (SDU), provided information about many individuals involved in organised crime, including her clients. Ms Gobbo’s role as a human source ended when Victoria Police tried to transition her to the role of a witness in two high-profile investigations.

The final part of this chapter provides an overview of the period from 2010 to 2018, starting with Ms Gobbo’s decision to commence civil litigation against Victoria Police. After she was withdrawn as a witness, a series of confidential external reviews were undertaken into Ms Gobbo’s use as a human source. This resulted in Victoria Police pursuing court proceedings to suppress her identity and, in 2018, to the establishment of the Commission.

1993 to 2000: Initial involvement with Victoria Police and use as a human source

An overview of Ms Gobbo’s initial involvement with Victoria Police is outlined in Figure 6.1 and discussed below.

Figure 6.1: Timeline of Ms Gobbo’s initial involvement with Victoria Police, 1993 to 2000

Ms Gobbo’s first contact with Victoria Police (Operation Yak)

Ms Gobbo’s first relevant contact with Victoria Police was in September 1993. At the time, she was a law student at the University of Melbourne.

Ms Gobbo lived with her de facto partner, Mr Brian Wilson, in a house in Rathdowne Street, Carlton.¹ They had bought the property in July 1993 as tenants in common.² At the time, Mr Wilson worked as a hotel bouncer.³ Ms Gobbo later said that she became acquainted with Mr Wilson about three months before they bought the property.⁴

On 19 August 1993, Victoria Police received a Crime Stoppers tip-off alleging that Mr Wilson was trafficking drugs, and launched an investigation known as ‘Operation Yak’.⁵

On 3 September 1993, Victoria Police executed a search warrant on the property. Among the officers present at the raid were then Sergeant Trevor Ashton, Sergeant Michael Holding and Constable Peter Trichias.⁶ Ms Gobbo was not present when police initially entered and began searching the house at about 5.25 pm. She arrived around two hours later.⁷ During a search of Ms Gobbo’s bedroom, officers found a small amount of cannabis and amphetamine in a cigarette packet in a chest of drawers.⁸

During the search, Ms Gobbo informed Mr Ashton that drugs were hidden behind a vent in the laundry.⁹ A search of the vent revealed two bags of amphetamine.¹⁰ A total of three pounds of amphetamine and three-quarters of a pound of cannabis were seized.¹¹

Ms Gobbo was charged with use and possession of cannabis and amphetamine.¹² Mr Wilson was charged with trafficking, use and possession of a drug of dependence. Ms Gobbo admitted that she knew that drugs were being kept at the premises, but denied being involved in the trafficking operation.¹³ Mr Holding recalled that the evidence against her in relation to the trafficking operation was not strong.¹⁴ He also recalled his impression of Ms Gobbo as ‘very confident and opinionated. I felt that she thought the process was like a game’.¹⁵

In late September 1993, Ms Gobbo spoke with Mr Holding about providing a statement against Mr Wilson, though she did not ultimately make any statement to police.¹⁶

On 29 November 1993, Ms Gobbo pleaded guilty to the possession and use of amphetamine and cannabis and received a 12-month good behaviour bond without the recording of a conviction. Mr Wilson received a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months.

Later police intelligence revealed that Ms Gobbo was considered a ‘significant’ supplier of drugs at the University of Melbourne.¹⁷

Ms Gobbo’s initial registration as a human source

Throughout 1994 and 1995, Mr Trevor Ashton remained in contact with Ms Gobbo. He led a team in District Support Group ‘A’ (DSG-A) and was the primary point of contact between Victoria Police and Ms Gobbo. The core functions of the DSG-A included detection and investigation of drug-related offending, as well as other crimes. Mr Ashton met Ms Gobbo several times at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, where she had a part-time job with a catering company.¹⁸ A member of his team, then Constable Timothy (Tim) Argall, also attended at least one of those meetings.¹⁹

Then Senior Constable Rodney (Rod) Arthur also recalled meeting with Mr Ashton and Ms Gobbo in early 1995 on about three occasions on the street near the old Magistrates’ Court.²⁰ Mr Arthur did not recall Ms Gobbo providing any information valuable to an investigation during these meetings.²¹ In his statement, Mr Arthur said that he recalled Mr Ashton telling him prior to the meeting that Ms Gobbo’s father was a judge.²² In fact, for many years, her uncle served as a judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

On 3 April 1995, another search warrant was executed at Ms Gobbo’s home in Rathdowne Street. Small quantities of drugs were seized during the raid, and Mr Wilson was charged with possession and use of cannabis. He was ultimately convicted of these offences and fined $500. Ms Gobbo was not present at the time, nor was she charged with any offences arising from this search warrant.

In July 1995, due to the information that Ms Gobbo was providing to police about Mr Wilson, Mr Ashton and Mr Argall registered her as a human source.²³ The following details were included in the registration form:

Informer is a law student at Melbourne [University] currently living with a known criminal. She was charged with [possessing amphetamine] last year as a result of the criminal that was living with her, is quite reliable and seeking a career as a solicitor.²⁴

The registration form specified that the reason for Ms Gobbo being registered as a human source was that she ‘genuinely want[ed] to assist police’. Mr Ashton thought that it was likely that she was registered as a human source due to the ‘substantial’ nature of the information that she was providing.²⁵

At that time, Victoria Police’s process for registering a human source involved an officer giving a registration form in an unsealed envelope to a more senior officer, who would review the information and seal the envelope. A number would then be allocated to the human source.²⁶

Ms Gobbo’s registration number was ‘G3/95’.²⁷

On 12 July 1995, Mr Ashton and Mr Argall took Ms Gobbo to the St Kilda Road Police Station to meet officers of the Special Response Squad.²⁸ The purpose of the meeting was for Ms Gobbo to provide information to Victoria Police about Mr Wilson’s involvement in drug trafficking and firearm possession.²⁹

Throughout the latter part of 1995, Ms Gobbo continued to give information about Mr Wilson to police.³⁰ The Commission understands that Victoria Police has not located any contact reports or information reports (IRs) made by officers documenting their interactions with Ms Gobbo during this period.³¹

Ms Gobbo is a ‘loose cannon’ (Operation Scorn)

By February 1996, Victoria Police had started another operation in relation to Mr Wilson, known as ‘Operation Scorn’.

In March 1996, police discontinued that operation. At the time, then Detective Senior Sergeant John (Jack) Blayney, APM noted in a report that Ms Gobbo was a ‘loose cannon’ because she was ‘making her own arrangements and not liaising with investigators’.³² He also noted that Ms Gobbo was the ‘informer re ALP/LIB document leaked prior to election’. This was a reference to a recent public dispute that Ms Gobbo was believed to have involved herself in that was occurring between Victorian political parties concerning the source of a forged letter.³³

Later, in 2006 and 2007, Mr Blayney came across Ms Gobbo again, when he was a Detective Superintendent and held the position of Major Crime Tasking and Coordination Manager within the Crime Department.

In a statement to the Commission, then Assistant Commissioner Neil Paterson, APM, Intelligence and Covert Support Command, noted that it is unlikely that the observation that Ms Gobbo was a ‘loose cannon’ would have been known by other officers who later had contact with her, as Victoria Police did not keep an electronic database of information relevant to human sources at the time.³⁴

Ms Gobbo’s admission to practise as a lawyer

On 7 April 1997, Ms Gobbo was admitted to practise as a lawyer in Victoria.³⁵ She completed her articles at Molomby & Molomby Solicitors.³⁶

In her affidavit to the Board of Examiners dated 4 February 1997, Ms Gobbo set out details of her arrest in 1993.³⁷ She described Mr Wilson as a friend who had moved in with her to help with the mortgage, rather than as her de facto partner and a co-owner of her property. She said that she had contacted Victoria Police upon becoming suspicious that Mr Wilson was engaging in drug-related criminal activities and further, that when the police found the drugs at the premises, she had been ‘embarrassed’ and ‘shocked’ as she did not know what had been happening at her house.

Ms Gobbo did not mention that drugs had been located in her bedroom or that she had been found in possession of them, nor that she had shown police where three pounds of amphetamine was hidden. Instead she stated that she had been deemed liable because she was the owner and occupier of the premises where the drugs were found and had followed advice to plead guilty, feeling no other option was available to her.³⁸

Ms Gobbo provides information to police about her employer

By November 1997, Ms Gobbo had left Molomby & Molomby Solicitors and moved to a different Melbourne law firm, Law Firm 1 (a pseudonym). That firm was acting for a number of people charged with drug offences arising from an investigation by the Victoria Police Drug Squad.³⁹ Officer Kruger (a pseudonym) was the informant (the officer responsible for charging the accused person) in proceedings related to some of the accused persons.⁴⁰

Between 1997 and 1998, Mr Kruger had a number of meetings and telephone conversations with Ms Gobbo about the investigation.⁴¹ At some point, Ms Gobbo made allegations to Mr Kruger that her employer, Solicitor 1 (a pseudonym), was engaging in fraudulent activity.⁴²

In July 1998, Mr Kruger and then Detective Senior Constable Christopher Lim, also an officer in the Drug Squad, met Ms Gobbo in relation to Solicitor 1.⁴³ Mr Kruger prepared an IR, which recorded that during the meeting, Ms Gobbo alleged that Solicitor 1 was involved in money laundering.⁴⁴

Mr Lim thought that it was inappropriate for Ms Gobbo to be used as a human source because she was a lawyer. He also felt she had inappropriate relationships with police officers and was too ‘overt’ in her desire to provide information to police.⁴⁵

In November 1998, Ms Gobbo left Law Firm 1 to become a barrister.

Around the same time, Ms Gobbo considered undertaking a thesis about police powers of investigation, including the use of undercover operatives and human sources.⁴⁶

Ms Gobbo’s early conflicts of interest

Representation of Mr Dragan Arnautovic

On 18 November 1997, Mr Dragan Arnautovic was arrested and charged by the Victoria Police Drug Squad in relation to commercial drug trafficking offences. He was subsequently sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nine years.⁴⁷ Ms Gobbo represented Mr Arnautovic, both while as a solicitor employed at Law Firm 1 and after she became a barrister, including appearing as junior counsel at his trial.

While representing Mr Arnautovic, Ms Gobbo also represented other accused persons who had been arrested as part of the same investigation. Evidence before the Commission indicates that there may have been a conflict between the interests of these clients.⁴⁸

Throughout this period, Ms Gobbo was communicating with then Detective Senior Sergeant Wayne Strawhorn of the Drug Squad about another client. According to Mr Strawhorn’s diaries and day books, he and Ms Gobbo met on around nine occasions between May 1998 and August 1999, including six times in relation to some of the clients she was representing referred to above.⁴⁹

Ms Gobbo acknowledged that during meetings with Mr Strawhorn, he was able to elicit from her information that she had gained in her role as a lawyer acting for people charged by the Drug Squad, and that it was improper for her to provide this information.⁵⁰

Operation Ramsden

Evidence before the Commission suggests that, around this time, Victoria Police Drug Squad officers investigated whether Ms Gobbo’s then employer, Solicitor 1, was engaging in criminal activity.⁵¹ On 2 February 1998, Ms Gobbo recorded in her diary a conversation with then Detective Senior Sergeant Mark Bowden and Mr Kruger. Her notes indicate that they pressured her to help the investigation by implicating Solicitor 1 and told her that her name had appeared ‘on tapes’.⁵² She wrote in her diary ‘mud sticks; get a raincoat soon’.⁵³

Between May and October 1998, Ms Gobbo met with officers of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) a number of times, and provided information about Solicitor 1, along with information about her clients.⁵⁴ The AFP told the Commission that Ms Gobbo was never registered as a human source for that agency.⁵⁵

The following year, on 28 April 1999, Mr Kruger told then Detective Senior Constable Jeffrey (Jeff) Pope of the Asset Recovery Squad about Ms Gobbo’s information that Solicitor 1, her now former employer, had engaged in money laundering.⁵⁶

The Asset Recovery Squad began an investigation into Solicitor 1 known as ‘Operation Ramsden’.⁵⁷ At this time, the Asset Recovery Squad was part of the Crime Department in the Major Fraud Group at Victoria Police. It investigated activities including the confiscation of illicit profits pursuant to the Confiscation Act 1997 (Vic) and often interacted with the Drug Squad because of the common cross-overs in their investigations.⁵⁸

Officers of the Asset Recovery Squad and the Drug Squad met several times about this investigation. A former Victoria Police officer recalled that these meetings often occurred in the open area muster room of the Drug Squad. Consequently, he believed many people may have known that Ms Gobbo was providing information to Victoria Police.⁵⁹

On 12 May 1999, there was another meeting between Mr Kruger, Mr Strawhorn, Mr Pope and then Detective Sergeant Gavan Segrave, who was also an officer in the Asset Recovery Squad. Mr Kruger recalled that the likely purpose of that meeting was to prepare for the introduction of Ms Gobbo to the Asset Recovery Squad.⁶⁰

Later that day, Mr Strawhorn and Mr Kruger introduced Mr Pope to Ms Gobbo at the Emerald Hotel in South Melbourne, where they met to discuss her allegations about Solicitor 1.⁶¹ This meeting lasted a couple of hours.⁶²

The following day, Mr Pope applied to register Ms Gobbo as a human source.⁶³ In this application, he stated that she was to provide information largely related to ‘fraud/money laundering’. The application also included her criminal record.

On 17 May 1999, Mr Pope and Mr Segrave met with Ms Gobbo to discuss her allegations against Solicitor 1. Mr Pope’s IR recorded that she had made a range of allegations against Solicitor 1, including that he was:

• fraudulently charging clients eligible for funding from Legal Aid, and simultaneously receiving payments from Legal Aid
• charging clients for money that was already paid under cost certificates
• breaching his obligations in relation to his trust account
• breaching his obligations under the Legal Practice Act 1996 (Vic).⁶⁴

On 26 May 1999, Mr Segrave approved the application to register Ms Gobbo as a human source. Mr Pope was assigned as her handler. In Mr Segrave’s comments on the application recommending her registration, he noted:

It is believed [Ms Gobbo] will be an ongoing source of info re money laundering/fraud activities. Is both credible/reput … informer had no known previous history of supplying information to law enforcement agencies.⁶⁵

Ms Gobbo’s registration number was ‘MFG 13’.⁶⁶

In a statement to the Commission, Mr Segrave noted that Victoria Police policy at the time would have provided little guidance on the appropriate registration of human sources and that registration and other details were recorded in an unsophisticated, paper-based system.⁶⁷

Around this time, the National Crime Authority (NCA) started an investigation into Solicitor 1 and a real estate agent, Mr Peter Reid, known as Operation Adesine.⁶⁸ Mr Pope recorded in an IR submitted on 26 May 1999 that Mr Kruger and Mr Lim had introduced Ms Gobbo to Member 1 (a pseudonym) at the NCA.⁶⁹ Member 1 had informed Mr Pope that Ms Gobbo ‘told them the exact same information which is outlined in previous information reports for this job’.⁷⁰ In a statement to the Commission, Member 1 said that, having not had access to all of the relevant diaries for that period, they could not recall having had any involvement in any investigation involving Ms Gobbo.⁷¹

In a conversation with the Commission, Ms Gobbo recalled that Mr Kruger believed that Mr Reid was using his financial position as a real estate agent to launder money, and that Solicitor 1 was somehow involved. She recalled that she told Solicitor 1 that Mr Kruger and Mr Strawhorn were pressuring her to provide information. She told the Commission that Solicitor 1 wrote to Mr Kruger telling him to stop asking her to speak about Solicitor 1 and the firm’s clients.⁷²

In late May and early June 1999, Mr Pope and Mr Segrave met with other people in relation to the investigation.⁷³ During this time, Mr Pope was in regular contact with Ms Gobbo. Mr Pope submitted IRs recording that they discussed personal matters, such as Mr Pope’s law studies, and Solicitor 1.⁷⁴ Ms Gobbo gave him computer disks containing documents from Solicitor 1’s computer that she said were relevant to her allegations that he was laundering money.⁷⁵ In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Paterson advised that Victoria Police has been unable to locate those disks. These disks have not otherwise been provided to the Commission, so it has been unable to ascertain their contents.⁷⁶

Mr Pope’s IRs also indicated that he and Ms Gobbo discussed her ongoing contact with Mr Reid, and the progression of Mr Reid’s matter in court.⁷⁷ Mr Pope could not recall whether she was representing Mr Reid at the time.⁷⁸

During a telephone conversation on 23 June 1999, Ms Gobbo asked Mr Pope whether consent could be obtained to a variation of a restraining order on a property owned by one of her clients.⁷⁹ Mr Pope told her that he would speak to the informant in the matter. During his evidence to the Commission, Mr Pope agreed that this would not be the ‘appropriate way’ of seeking consent to a variation, as Ms Gobbo should ordinarily have approached the informant.⁸⁰ In approaching Mr Pope instead, Ms Gobbo was likely ‘testing the relationship’ between them.⁸¹

Between August and October 1999, Mr Pope continued to have contact with Ms Gobbo in relation to Operation Ramsden. He described the information she provided during that time as being of no value. In an IR, he recorded that she did not have any new information to provide and was mainly interested in how the investigation was progressing.⁸²

Operation Ramsden did not result in any charges being laid against any individuals.⁸³

Relationship with Detective Senior Constable Stephen Campbell

In around January 1999, Ms Gobbo met then Detective Senior Constable Stephen Campbell, who was a police officer stationed in St Kilda as part of the Embona Taskforce. They began a casual intimate relationship that continued for several years.⁸⁴

Between 1999 and 2000, during their relationship, Ms Gobbo appeared as defence counsel for Mr John Genis. Mr Campbell was the informant in that matter.⁸⁵ Mr Campbell told the Commission that he was not aware whether Ms Gobbo had told her client that he and Ms Gobbo were involved in a relationship.⁸⁶ He considered that the onus was on Ms Gobbo to inform her client but agreed that if the relationship had not been disclosed, it could appear improper.⁸⁷

In a conversation with the Commission, Ms Gobbo said that it was unlikely that she would have told her client about the relationship.⁸⁸ She told the Commission she did not believe that she needed to disclose her involvement with an informant if there were no facts in dispute or it would not affect the outcome.⁸⁹

Declassification as a human source

On 3 January 2000, Mr Segrave requested that Ms Gobbo’s status as a human source be reclassified as inactive.⁹⁰ The document records the reason for doing so as:

Investigators have had no contact with [Ms Gobbo] since the 23rd September 1999. A final report will shortly be submitted in relation to ‘Operation Ramsden’. Accordingly, it is requested that [Ms Gobbo] be reclassified from ‘active’ to ‘inactive’.⁹¹

2000 to 2005: Gangland wars and further involvement with Victoria Police

An overview of Ms Gobbo’s continued involvement with Victoria Police during Melbourne’s ‘gangland wars’ is outlined in Figure 6.2 and discussed further below.

During this period, Victoria Police established the Dedicated Source Unit (DSU). In 2006, the DSU changed its name to the ‘Source Development Unit’ (SDU).⁹² In this chapter, the Commission refers to both as the ‘SDU’.

Figure 6.2: Timeline of Ms Gobbo’s further involvement with Victoria Police, 2000–05

Beginning of the gangland wars

The gangland wars involved violent disputes between rival gangs in Melbourne, including multiple murders of organised crime figures, which occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Two of the major rival gangs were individuals associated with the Moran family and with the Williams family.

Although there had been conflict between gangland identities throughout the 1990s, the wars appear to have escalated when Mr Carl Williams was shot in the stomach by Mr Jason and Mr Mark Moran due to a dispute about money in late 1999. Mr Williams survived and sought revenge against the Morans.

Approximately 17 people were murdered between 1998 and mid-2003.

Escalation of the gangland wars

Establishment of Purana Taskforce

Between 2000 and 2002, many criminal figures were murdered as the violence associated with the gangland wars continued.

It became clear that the murders and shootings were retributive or pre-emptive strikes involving various organised crime groups fighting for control and influence in Melbourne’s illicit drug trade.

On 12 May 2003, in response to public concern over the escalation of violence, Victoria Police set up the Purana Taskforce. Its goal was to dismantle the criminal syndicates responsible for these murders. Initially, it was tasked to investigate three unsolved homicides, those of Mr Dino Dibra, Mr Paul Kallipolitis and Mr Nikolai Radev. Its first target was Mr Andrew Veniamin, a hitman associated with Mr Williams’ crew.⁹³

In a statement to the Commission, former Detective Senior Sergeant Gavan Ryan, an officer of the newly formed taskforce, described the environment as ‘pressure-packed’.⁹⁴ He said police were under pressure from Government to halt the shootings and the flow of drugs through Melbourne. Mr Ryan gave evidence that the Purana Taskforce was receiving ‘constant’ intelligence about impending murders from a variety of sources.⁹⁵

There are two key phases of the investigative activities of the Purana Taskforce that are of relevance to the Commission:

• phase one, which focused on the gangland murders and Mr Williams’ criminal enterprise (May 2003–November 2005)
• phase two, which focused on the criminal enterprise of Mr Antonios (Tony) Mokbel (November 2005 onwards).⁹⁶

Ms Gobbo’s involvement spanned both phases.

On 21 June 2003, just weeks after the formation of the Purana Taskforce, Mr Jason Moran and his associate Mr Pasquale Barbaro were shot and killed while sitting in a van with a number of children after an Auskick football clinic. This was a significant event, as it was the first gangland murder that occurred in a public place, in front of children. Community concerns about the violence and fears for public safety increased, and as a result, the Purana Taskforce received significant additional resources.

On 25 October 2003, Mr Michael Marshall died after being shot five times outside his home in front of his young son in South Yarra. The individuals who carried out this murder were also involved in the murders of Mr Moran and Mr Barbaro.

Ms Gobbo’s connections with gangland identities

Ms Gobbo was developing a client base that included many members of various Melbourne organised crime groups. By 2002, she was acting for a range of clients who Victoria Police suspected were engaging in serious criminal conduct, including drug trafficking and murder.⁹⁷ Those clients included Mr Williams, Mr Mokbel and many of their associates.⁹⁸

In his evidence to the Commission, Commander Stuart Bateson, who was a Detective Sergeant in the Purana Taskforce at the time, said that he believed Ms Gobbo was a close associate of many of her clients. He added that Purana detectives considered that she was part of a ‘small cadre’ of criminal lawyers who ‘were willing to do anything to keep their clients out [of prison] and operating their criminal enterprises’.⁹⁹

Ms Gobbo’s conflict in representing Person 12 (a pseudonym)

In 2003, Mr Campbell and others were charged with several offences.¹⁰⁰ Mr Campbell said that, on the day he was charged, Ms Gobbo approached him and offered assistance. He continued to speak to her about his case as it progressed.¹⁰¹ During this time, Mr Campbell maintained his casual intimate relationship with Ms Gobbo, including when she represented Person 12 (a pseudonym), who had agreed to give evidence against Mr Campbell and his co-accused.¹⁰² Mr Campbell told the Commission that he was aware Ms Gobbo was representing Person 12 at that time.¹⁰³

In his evidence to the Commission, Person 12 told the Commission that he only learned of Ms Gobbo’s personal relationship with Mr Campbell, and that she was providing advice to him about his charges, when Counsel Assisting the Commission told him during cross-examination. He said he was shocked that this occurred; that he would not have engaged Ms Gobbo to represent him had he known; and that he was concerned she may have divulged his instructions to Mr Campbell and his other co-accused.¹⁰⁴

Corruption in the Drug Squad and Ms Gobbo’s interactions with the Major Drug Investigation Division

In 2001, an investigation known as Operation Hemi found longstanding corrupt practices in the Victoria Police Drug Squad. This led then Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon, APM to commission the Review of the Victoria Police Drug Squad (Purton Review) which was finalised later that year.¹⁰⁵

The Purton Review identified concerns about the internal workings of the Drug Squad, including its management and structure. In early 2002, the Ceja Taskforce was established in the Victoria Police Ethical Standards Department (ESD) to investigate the Drug Squad’s corrupt activities.

The Drug Squad was later disbanded and replaced with the Major Drug Investigation Division (MDID). Although Ms Nixon’s intention was to staff the MDID with officers who were not part of the former Drug Squad so as to end corruption, some former Drug Squad officers were transferred to the newly established MDID due to industrial relations issues.¹⁰⁶

Meetings with the Ethical Standards Department

In 2002 and 2003, Ms Gobbo spoke to investigators attached to the ESD. She spoke primarily to then Detective Inspector Peter De Santo, who was involved in the Ceja Taskforce.¹⁰⁷

Mr De Santo told the Commission that, in around 2002, he had several interactions with Ms Gobbo when she was acting for Mr Mokbel. At the time, Mr De Santo was investigating police officers involved in targeting Mr Mokbel as part of the Taskforce Kayak. It was alleged that those police officers had engaged in corruption.¹⁰⁸ Taskforce Kayak is explained in further detail below.

In his evidence to the Commission, Mr De Santo said that Ms Gobbo, who had become aware of the investigation, would seek information from him.

Mr De Santo perceived that she:

… saw that Kayak [Taskforce] had charged Mokbel and others, that there was corruption within Kayak; that if [he] proved that corruption by way of conviction she was able to leverage off those convictions in order to taint the evidence that they were going to give in the trials against Mokbel and others.¹⁰⁹

First meetings with Mr Paul Dale

On 17 June 2002, Mr Paul Dale was promoted to Detective Sergeant in the MDID. He told the Commission that he first met Ms Gobbo in 2002 in a professional capacity.¹¹⁰ She made a bail application for an individual who had been charged with drug trafficking and Mr Dale was the informant in that matter.¹¹¹

In 2003, Mr Dale found out that Ms Gobbo was speaking to Mr De Santo about corruption within the disbanded Drug Squad.¹¹² In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Dale said he saw this as a delaying tactic to enable her clients, such as Mr Williams and Mr Mokbel, to get bail.¹¹³

Mr Dale added that as Ms Gobbo had represented many accused persons charged by the MDID, he encountered her regularly. He said that it was clear that she was a ‘go to’ lawyer for people charged with major drug trafficking offences.¹¹⁴

Mr Dale stated that they began to develop a more social relationship after they met at a Victoria Police function and that he began to recommend her to those whom the MDID had arrested.¹¹⁵ In a conversation with the Commission, Ms Gobbo denied that Mr Dale referred accused persons to her.¹¹⁶

Mr Dale and Ms Gobbo developed a personal relationship in 2003 or 2004 including, at least at one time, an intimate relationship.¹¹⁷

Registration and use of Mr Terry Hodson as a human source

The Drug Squad’s Taskforce Kayak commenced in mid-October 2000, targeting large-scale drug traffickers including Mr Mokbel and Mr Rabie (Rob) Karam. One of the taskforce’s many ongoing investigations focused on the Hodson family. Mr Terrence (Terry) Hodson was a career criminal well known to police. As earlier attempts to target him had been unsuccessful, investigators now concentrated on his children, Mr Andrew Hodson and Ms Mandy Leonard.

As part of that operation, the Hodson children were arrested for trafficking 1,500 ecstasy tablets. Mr Terry Hodson was also arrested by then Detective Senior Constable David Miechel, an officer in Mr Dale’s team.¹¹⁸

Following these arrests, Mr Miechel and Mr Strawhorn cultivated Mr Terry Hodson as a human source, using the charges against his children as leverage.¹¹⁹ A few weeks after Mr Terry Hodson’s arrest, Mr Miechel recruited and registered him as a human source.

Mr Terry Hodson was a prolific human source. He provided information on numerous high-profile targets, leading the MDID to many successful investigations and arrests in 2002 and 2003.¹²⁰

Ms Gobbo had previously acted for Mr Terry Hodson’s son, Mr Andrew Hodson, in relation to a bail application in 2002.¹²¹

Then Detective Senior Constable Cameron Davey of the Homicide Squad conducted an interview with Ms Gobbo in July 2004. In the IR submitted later, he noted that Ms Gobbo said she was well aware of Mr Terry Hodson’s status as a human source. When representing someone else charged by Mr Miechel, Ms Gobbo said that she had obtained police notes, surveillance logs and possibly some IRs that suggested a human source was involved. By February 2002, she was aware that the human source was Mr Terry Hodson due to her association with Mr Mokbel. She also knew Mr Terry Hodson was the human source in relation to another of her clients.¹²²

Ms Gobbo and the Dublin Street burglary

In June 2003, the MDID launched Operation Galop, targeting large-scale manufacturing and trafficking of ecstasy tablets. On 27 September 2003, a ‘drug house’ in Dublin Street, Oakleigh was burgled. Police arrested Mr Miechel and Mr Terry Hodson near the scene. Others arrested on drug charges in the fallout from the burglary included Mr Azzam Ahmed, Ms Abby Haynes and Ms Colleen O’Reilly.

The ESD attended the scene on the night of the arrests because Mr Miechel was a serving police officer.¹²³ Mr Miechel and Mr Terry Hodson were both later released without being charged.¹²⁴

Victoria Police set up Operation Nutation to investigate the burglary. Then Detective Senior Sergeant Andrew (Murray) Gregor of the ESD was the principal investigator and informant. Early in the investigation, the ESD identified that Mr Terry Hodson’s cooperation could be useful.¹²⁵

On 29 September 2003, the ESD decided that Mr De Santo would approach Mr Terry Hodson via his son, Mr Andrew Hodson, and Ms Gobbo. Later that day, Ms Gobbo telephoned Mr De Santo and said that Mr Terry and Mr Andrew Hodson were to attend her chambers the next day, and that Mr Andrew Hodson had told her that his father was ‘very scared’ of police.¹²⁶

On 3 October 2003, Mr Gregor met with Mr Terry and Mr Andrew Hodson. According to Mr Gregor, Mr De Santo arranged the meeting to ascertain whether Mr Terry Hodson would cooperate and provide a statement.¹²⁷ Mr Gregor told the Commission that, during the meeting, Mr Terry Hodson said that a police sergeant had been involved in the burglary, and ‘intimated’ that this was Mr Dale.¹²⁸ Mr Gregor also said that Mr Terry Hodson claimed Mr Dale and Mr Miechel had threatened him and his family.¹²⁹

Mr De Santo told the Commission that on the following day, 4 October 2003, Mr Terry Hodson called him and said that contact had been made by the ‘three striper’, who told him that they should ‘stick together’ and that there was ‘no need to get into bed with anyone’. Mr Terry Hodson also told Mr De Santo that the ‘three striper’ was sleeping with the ‘blonde lady’.¹³⁰ In his evidence to the Commission, Mr De Santo confirmed his view that the ‘three striper’ was Mr Dale and the ‘blonde lady’ was Ms Gobbo.¹³¹

Mr Gregor said that, on 6 October 2003, he, along with Mr De Santo, met with Mr Terry Hodson, who agreed to assist police and attend an interview.¹³²

On 16 October 2003, Mr Terry Hodson called Mr Gregor and told him that he met with Ms Gobbo and that she was ‘feeling him out’ and trying to obtain information from him to pass on to Mr Dale.¹³³

The following day, Mr Gregor spoke with Mr Terry Hodson on the phone and they discussed a further meeting between Mr Terry Hodson and Ms Gobbo that had occurred the previous day.¹³⁴ Mr Terry Hodson said that Ms Gobbo had told him that she had seen Mr Dale recently and that Mr Dale was ‘sticking by’ Mr Miechel.¹³⁵

On 25 October 2003, Mr Gregor met with Mr Terry Hodson and obtained a signed statement from him.¹³⁶ He also gave him a covert recording device, which he was to use if he met with Mr Dale. Mr Gregor encouraged him to meet with Ms Gobbo to gather information against Mr Dale in relation to the burglary.

Mr Gregor said he encouraged Mr Terry Hodson to speak to Ms Gobbo because he knew that Ms Gobbo and Mr Dale were in contact. He said that it did not cross his mind that Ms Gobbo may have acted as Mr Dale’s lawyer, though he suspected that she might have given him informal or ‘off the record’ advice. According to Mr Gregor, Ms Gobbo had never held herself out as Mr Dale’s lawyer.¹³⁷

On 6 November 2003, Mr Gregor again met with Mr Terry Hodson, together with then Detective Senior Sergeant Ian Snare.¹³⁸ During this discussion, Mr Terry Hodson recounted an earlier meeting with Ms Gobbo. He told Mr Gregor that she said:

• she met with Mr Dale on 30 October 2003 and he seemed physically ill and paranoid
• she thought Mr Dale was involved in the Dublin Street burglary
• Mr Miechel and Mr Dale could be doing things without her knowledge
• Mr Dale had not asked her for legal advice
• she had heard a rumour that Mr Miechel had made a statement to ESD
• Mr Dale was paranoid that Mr Miechel was cooperating with ESD.¹³⁹

Ms Gobbo as Mr Paul Dale’s legal adviser

In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Dale said of his relationship with Ms Gobbo that there was a ‘crossover of professional and personal’. He explained:

… a number of those occasions where we met either as a result of either I contacting her or however it happened, those went from speaking at a café, bar, whatever, over lunch, dinner, whatever happens to be to too many drinks and a lot of things were said and she certainly told me a lot of things that you wouldn’t expect her to tell about her clients.¹⁴⁰

He said that Ms Gobbo was at times his legal adviser and they had conversations that he considered were legally privileged.¹⁴¹

On 5 December 2003, Mr Dale, Mr Miechel and Mr Terry Hodson were arrested in relation to the Dublin Street burglary. Mr Dale’s charge was based on information provided by Mr Terry Hodson. Mr Dale contacted Ms Gobbo because he viewed her as his best chance of obtaining bail.¹⁴²

In evidence to the Commission, Mr Dale said that he could not recall the details of their conversation but that he sought her out previously for legal advice in preparation for being arrested, and that because she was aware of his legal situation and circumstances, she was his ‘go to’ lawyer.¹⁴³

He understood that Ms Gobbo could not represent him because she was acting for others who had been charged in relation to the burglary.¹⁴⁴ In a statement to the Commission, Mr Dale said that he discussed the conflict with Ms Gobbo, ‘who maintained that she could still assist me in a semi-formal manner and we agreed I would run most things by her when I needed her expert legal advice in regards to drug trafficking charges that I was facing’.¹⁴⁵ He said he was in regular contact with her to seek legal advice and it was his belief these conversations were all confidential.¹⁴⁶

Mr Dale said that in the lead up to his bail application, he believed that Ms Gobbo would assist his solicitor, Mr Tony Hargreaves, with the application.¹⁴⁷ Mr Dale also told the Commission that Ms Gobbo and Mr Hargreaves had advised him not to make a bail application at that time, so he did not pursue it.¹⁴⁸

In relation to the arrest of Mr Dale, Ms Gobbo noted in her court book that Mr Gregor arrested Mr Dale, and that ‘either Miechel or Hodson has rolled’.¹⁴⁹ She also noted that she had read a statement made in relation to the matter, and the contents of it was too detailed to be made up.¹⁵⁰

On 7 December 2003, Ms Gobbo visited Mr Dale in prison.¹⁵¹ According to Mr Dale, he gave her some handwritten notes about matters relevant to his bail application and instructed her to hand those notes to Mr Hargreaves.¹⁵²

Mr Dale said that he was advised he could only be represented by Mr Hargreaves and a specific counsel, who was not Ms Gobbo, if he wanted to receive funding from The Police Association for the matter.¹⁵³ Despite discussions about engaging alternative counsel, Mr Dale told the Commission that he had still considered that Ms Gobbo was acting for him because they continued to meet and discuss his legal matters:

I still believed she was acting for me, because I kept continually meeting with her and discussing criminal matters, my issues, my matters. When I say she’s acting for me, you’re right, she couldn’t act at court for me, I guess, but I was still seeking her out for advice.¹⁵⁴

Ms Gobbo’s diary records that, on 14 December 2003, she visited Mr Dale in prison in a professional capacity.¹⁵⁵ She made notes that indicate they discussed Mr Dale’s case, and that as a result Ms Gobbo was to speak to various people.¹⁵⁶

On 15 December 2003, Mr Dale was released on bail.

The Hodsons murders

On 15 or 16 May 2004, Mr Terry Hodson and his wife, Mrs Christine Hodson, were murdered in their home in Kew. Mr Terry Hodson’s plea in relation to the Dublin Street burglary was scheduled to be heard at the Supreme Court of Victoria on 19 August 2004.¹⁵⁷ He had orally agreed to give evidence against Mr Dale and Mr Miechel and had been advised by police that this assistance would substantially reduce his sentence.¹⁵⁸

The committal hearing for Mr Dale and Mr Miechel was scheduled for 4 October 2004.

Mr Charlie Bezzina, then Senior Sergeant in the Homicide Squad, attended the scene and was in charge of the investigation.

Mr De Santo also attended the scene.¹⁵⁹ Mr De Santo told the Commission that Ms Gobbo contacted him; that she told him Mr Andrew Hodson believed his parents had been murdered; and that she wanted to give Mr De Santo’s telephone number to Mr Jim Valos, Mr Andrew Hodson’s solicitor. Mr De Santo agreed to her providing his telephone number directly to Mr Andrew Hodson.¹⁶⁰

Mr De Santo said that Mr Andrew Hodson then called him and told him that he was at his parents’ house, that they had been murdered and that he believed that Mr Dale was involved. He said that it was he who had called the police. He wanted Mr De Santo to come to the house.¹⁶¹

On 1 July 2004, Ms Gobbo attended a meeting with Mr Bezzina and Mr Davey at the Homicide Squad offices at St Kilda Road Police Station, to discuss the Hodson murders. She was interviewed as a potential witness, but the interview was video recorded, something usually reserved for suspects. Although they discussed a range of matters, the resulting IR showed that she did not supply any information of value to the investigation.¹⁶²

Ms Gobbo told Mr Bezzina and Mr Davey that she was aware an IR identifying Mr Terry Hodson as a human source was circulating within the criminal community for several months prior to his murder.¹⁶³

Mr Bezzina demonstrated a willingness to receive further information from Ms Gobbo in the following exchange from that interview:

MR BEZZINA: Well, that’s about where we’re at and down the track if—and I don’t want you to put yourself in any position where you shouldn’t be but because of the people that you come in contact with…

MS GOBBO: Yeah.

MR BEZZINA: …and things you’re obviously going to hear and, as I said, putting ESD aside and everybody else, if you come across information you think we should be aware of to try and solve it, that’s all I’m—you know, if you can give us a call.

MS GOBBO: As long as I’m not video-taped, Charlie.

MR BEZZINA: Yeah, no. No, well, you’re right. So all I want is a phone call to say well, if we need a push in the right direction, that’s what I ask and the end of the day there’s someone out there who’s callous enough to commit the murder in the way it was committed. And if they had an issue with Terry that’s all one thing but then to take out Christine.¹⁶⁴

In a statement to the Commission, Mr Bezzina recalled that Ms Gobbo could have been identified as a potential witness to the Hodson murders due to her association with Mr Mokbel, as Victoria Police had identified evidence linking Mr Mokbel to the murders.¹⁶⁵ Mr Bezzina told the Commission that at the time of the interview, he was unaware of Ms Gobbo’s personal relationship with Mr Dale.¹⁶⁶

Contact with Purana Taskforce

‘Our door is always open’: Victoria Police

As Ms Gobbo’s legal career continued, she became more entrenched in her role as a legal adviser to organised crime figures. In 2003, she received threats from a close associate of Mr Williams following her representation of members of the Moran family, perceived by Mr Williams and Mr Mokbel as rivals.¹⁶⁷

On 21 July 2003, Ms Gobbo represented Mr Lewis Moran in a successful application for bail.¹⁶⁸ In the days following that hearing, she was threatened by Mr Veniamin.¹⁶⁹ Ms Gobbo said Mr Veniamin went to her apartment building and confronted her about this perceived disloyalty, including calling her a ‘dog’.¹⁷⁰

On 22 September 2003, Ms Gobbo again appeared for Mr Moran in relation to a variation of bail.¹⁷¹ Afterwards, on the steps of the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, Ms Gobbo said she was approached by Mr Philip Swindells, at that time a Detective Senior Sergeant in the Purana Taskforce.¹⁷² Ms Gobbo stated that Mr Swindells told her the police were aware of Mr Veniamin’s threats and that she should contact police if she wanted to discuss the situation.¹⁷³

In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Swindells said that Ms Gobbo declined to make a formal report due to her fear of reprisal. She told him she had made a statutory declaration detailing the threats and placed it in a safe, so that if she were killed, Victoria Police would know who was responsible.¹⁷⁴

Between 2003 and 2004, Ms Gobbo had numerous discussions with Mr Bateson of the Purana Taskforce, about assisting Victoria Police and about her safety concerns.¹⁷⁵ Mr Bateson told the Commission that, after a hearing in 2004 concerning her client, Mr McGrath, Ms Gobbo told him that she was concerned for her welfare if it were to become known that she was representing this client. In a statement to the Commission, Mr Bateson said he told Ms Gobbo ‘our door was always open if she needed assistance’.¹⁷⁶

The crack in the dam wall of silence: contact with Purana Taskforce

Victoria Police knew of Ms Gobbo’s knowledge of and connection to Melbourne’s organised crime networks. Ms Gobbo told the Commission that she had come to know ‘who’s who in the zoo … and [had] a great deal of knowledge about the intricacies of the drug trade in Melbourne’.¹⁷⁷ It became apparent to her over time that officers were aware that she possessed this in-depth knowledge of gangland identities.¹⁷⁸

By 2003, many murders that had occurred in the context of the gangland wars remained unsolved.

The Purana Taskforce attempted to dismantle the criminal networks by gathering intelligence and targeting their weakest and most susceptible members. It considered that this method would mean that those arrested and charged would be more likely to cooperate with police and provide evidence against their co-accused, or against those higher up in the criminal network.¹⁷⁹ In evidence to the Commission, Mr Swindells said that the Purana Taskforce was keen to encourage these criminals to cooperate with police.¹⁸⁰

From 2003, Ms Gobbo was representing Mr McGrath, who had been charged in relation to the murders of Mr Jason Moran, Mr Barbaro, and Mr Marshall.

Purana Taskforce investigators met with Mr McGrath while he was in prison, as he had shown a willingness to assist police. They hoped to obtain information from him about a series of murders. In turn, Mr McGrath wanted to negotiate a plea deal in relation to his charges. In colloquial police terminology, they hoped he would 'roll'.

Mr McGrath complied and provided a number of statements against other criminal identities, becoming the first of a number of significant ‘roll over’ witnesses for the Purana Taskforce.¹⁸¹ Ms Gobbo later asserted that he was the ‘crack in the [dam] wall of silence that led to a flood’.¹⁸²

In June 2004, Mr Bateson attended prison several times to meet with and take statements from Mr McGrath. The following month, Mr Bateson and Mr Mark Hatt, then a Detective Senior Constable in the Purana Taskforce, attended prison to give Mr McGrath draft versions of those statements. Mr McGrath said that he was largely happy with their contents but asked that Ms Gobbo review and ‘sign off’ on them.¹⁸³ Mr Bateson arranged this with Ms Gobbo.¹⁸⁴

On 10 July 2004, Mr Hatt attended Ms Gobbo’s chambers with the statements. She reviewed them and made some comments, including that she was sceptical of her client’s assertions about the murder of Mr Marshall.¹⁸⁵

The next day, Ms Gobbo visited Mr McGrath in prison.¹⁸⁶ The following day, Mr Bateson and Mr Hatt visited him to revise his statements.¹⁸⁷ Mr McGrath altered his statement as to whether he believed he and his co-accused were going to Mr Marshall’s home to collect a debt rather than to kill him and whether Mr McGrath was to be paid.¹⁸⁸

Due to her representation of Mr McGrath at this time, Ms Gobbo was in regular contact with key Purana Taskforce investigators.¹⁸⁹ This contact continued into 2005 in relation to a range of matters not limited to Mr McGrath, prior to her formal registration as a human source.

Ms Gobbo’s health issues

On 24 July 2004, Ms Gobbo was hospitalised after suffering a stroke.¹⁹⁰ This caused left-sided paralysis and temporary loss of speech. She had been taken to hospital by her client and close friend, Mr Ahmed, who was an associate of Mr Mokbel.¹⁹¹ She said that, while she was in hospital, the Mokbel family and many of their associates visited her.¹⁹²

She later underwent heart surgery, after a hole in her heart was identified.¹⁹³ In the ensuing years, she claimed to experience chronic pain, likely a result of her stroke.¹⁹⁴

Ongoing contact with Mr Stuart Bateson

On 1 March 2005, the committal proceedings of Mr Williams, Mr Andrews (a pseudonym) and Mr Thomas (a pseudonym) for the murders of Mr Jason Moran, Mr Barbaro and Mr Marshall took place. Mr McGrath was a key witness. Victoria Police argued a public interest immunity (PII) claim before the Chief Magistrate to prevent the disclosure of their notes identifying that Ms Gobbo was acting for Mr McGrath.¹⁹⁵ Mr Bateson had made the redactions to the notes after Ms Gobbo had expressed concern for her safety, fearing that Mr Williams and others might find out that she had acted for and not stopped Mr McGrath from assisting police.¹⁹⁶ The Chief Magistrate allowed the PII claim.¹⁹⁷

On 23 March 2005, Ms Gobbo phoned Mr Bateson to thank him for ensuring that her name was not mentioned during the committal proceeding.¹⁹⁸ She raised concerns about various lawyers who acted for individuals involved in the gangland wars. Mr Bateson was interested in gathering intelligence about these lawyers, as the Purana Taskforce thought that they were part of criminal enterprises and were facilitating criminal activity.¹⁹⁹

Mr Bateson and Ms Gobbo later had several phone conversations and meetings.²⁰⁰ Many related to Operation Pedal, an investigation into money laundering allegations about Solicitor 2 (a pseudonym). In a discussion on 21 July 2005, Ms Gobbo suggested that Solicitor 2 should be questioned about the source of client funds.²⁰¹

During these conversations, they also discussed her clients, including Mr Mokbel and Mr George Williams.²⁰²

Ms Gobbo continued to press for Victoria Police to conceal her role in providing legal advice to Mr McGrath. On 22 May 2005, she called Mr Bateson to say she was worried about her safety if Mr Hatt was cross-examined about taking Mr McGrath’s statement in the Mark Moran murder as this could reveal that she had represented Mr McGrath.²⁰³ Ms Gobbo expressed similar concerns for her safety in a telephone call to Mr Bateson on 1 September 2005. She was concerned that Solicitor 2, who was representing Mr Carl Williams in relation to the murder of Mr Moran, would receive unedited notes revealing Ms Gobbo’s representation of Mr McGrath through the disclosure process. Mr Bateson assured her that Victoria Police would resist this.²⁰⁴

Ms Gobbo also appeared to be motivated in speaking to Mr Bateson by her personal dislike and jealousy of Solicitor 2, who had effectively usurped Ms Gobbo in providing legal advice to Mr Mokbel.²⁰⁵

Further contact with the Major Drug Investigation Division

Knowledge and interest in Ms Gobbo

By mid-2004, the MDID was receiving information that Ms Gobbo’s involvement with her clients went beyond a professional relationship and that she may be willing to share information with Victoria Police about these clients.²⁰⁶

During a meeting on 10 August 2004, attended by then Detective Senior Sergeant James (Jim) O’Brien, Detective Sergeant Steve Mansell, then Detective Senior Constable Paul Rowe, Officer Sandy White (a pseudonym) and other MDID officers, the possibility of applying to intercept Ms Gobbo’s telephone was discussed.²⁰⁷

It is clear that around this time, Mr White, who later went on to register Ms Gobbo as a human source, considered that Ms Gobbo may have information about organised crime due to her high-profile association with major criminals that could be of assistance to police.²⁰⁸ After Ms Gobbo’s stroke a month earlier, he thought that she might be ‘vulnerable to an approach’.²⁰⁹

On 26 August 2004, the MDID produced a profile of Ms Gobbo, which referred to her criminal history and her association with criminal figures.²¹⁰

Arrest of Mr Bickley (a pseudonym)

On 15 August 2005, Mr Bickley was arrested in relation to serious drug offending arising from ‘Operation Quills’, an investigation into an aspect of the Mokbel drug operation that the MDID had been running since 2004.²¹¹ Mr Mokbel asked Ms Gobbo to act for Mr Bickley.²¹²

On 31 August 2005, Ms Gobbo called Mr Rowe about Mr Bickley’s bail application, which was listed for hearing that day.²¹³ Ms Gobbo said that she did not want to represent Mr Bickley, but she felt compelled to do so as Mr Mokbel was pressuring her. She also told Mr Rowe it was not in Mr Bickley's best interests for her to represent him and that she had a conflict of interest as it appeared that Mr Bickley could provide evidence about Mr Mokbel’s involvement in criminal activities.²¹⁴ It appeared obvious to Mr Rowe that Mr Mokbel was paying Mr Bickley’s legal fees and pressuring her to look after Mr Mokbel’s rather than Mr Bickley’s interests.²¹⁵

Mr Rowe suggested that he and Mr Mansell would meet Ms Gobbo at court to discuss the matter in person.²¹⁶ Mr Rowe told the Commission that police had long suspected Mr Mokbel was controlling his associates’ legal representation and that Ms Gobbo may herself have been involved in some level of criminality.²¹⁷

At 9.30am on the same day, Mr Mansell and Mr Rowe spoke to Ms Gobbo at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.²¹⁸ Mr Rowe said that she was open and candid in the details she provided during this conversation.²¹⁹

Mr Rowe’s evidence to the Commission was that:

• Ms Gobbo discussed her association with Mr Mokbel at length, including that he used her to gather information to benefit him and his associates.²²⁰
• She was forced to represent Mr Mokbel’s associates in a way that suited Mr Mokbel’s interests, rather than those of her other clients.²²¹
• She was concerned that her continued representation of Mr Mokbel was affecting her reputation within the criminal justice system and that she may be committing criminal offences in assisting him.²²²
• This arrangement with Mr Mokbel was putting her under a lot of pressure and causing her stress, which she was concerned was affecting her health.²²³
• Towards the end of their conversation, Mr Mansell said to her something like ‘you should get on board’, and she responded to the effect, ‘if anyone finds out I’d end up dead’.²²⁴

In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Rowe said:

She was 100 per cent looking for a way out of that environment where she felt compelled to do these things on behalf of people that, let’s face it, were involved in serious organised crime for many, many years, homicides, large-scale drug trafficking and—don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying she doesn’t have a level of responsibility for her own behaviour, but she was under enormous pressure and looking for a way out, a hand of friendship.²²⁵

He also agreed that Ms Gobbo’s deciding to ‘get on board’ was ‘a way out’ that Victoria Police could offer her but ‘ultimately that decision was up to her’.²²⁶

Later that afternoon, Mr Rowe and Mr Mansell had a further conversation with Ms Gobbo.²²⁷ Mr Rowe, in a statement to the Commission regarding that conversation, said that:

• Ms Gobbo seemed to be ‘venting to get a lot of information off her chest’, particularly in relation to Mr Mokbel.
• She said that she felt conflicted in relation to Mr Bickley, as Mr Mokbel expected her to ensure he did not cooperate with police, which she thought was against his interests.
• She said that she viewed aligning herself with the police as a way out of her arrangement with Mr Mokbel.
• They discussed the process of cooperating with police, to which Ms Gobbo said something to the effect that ‘she would be killed’ if people found out and she wanted assurances that she would be looked after if she did give information to police.
• He and Mr Mansell told her that, if she did cooperate, she would be managed by other officers who were ‘specialists’.
• By the end of the conversation, he felt that Ms Gobbo had already made up her mind to cooperate with police. He said that neither he nor Mr Mansell pressured her to do so.²²⁸

Mr Rowe and Mr Mansell reported this conversation to Mr O’Brien.²²⁹ Mr O’Brien told the Commission that, on this conversation being reported to him, he either advised Mr Mansell and Mr Rowe to contact the SDU, or he spoke directly to someone from the SDU.²³⁰

As described below, the SDU was a newly established unit that specialised in managing high-risk human sources. Mr O’Brien said that he referred Ms Gobbo to the SDU as, when Ms Gobbo indicated a willingness to assist police, it was proper procedure for her to be sent to that unit as the MDID no longer played any role in assessing, registering or handling human sources.²³¹

2005 to 2009: Human source and witness

An overview of Ms Gobbo’s interaction with Victoria Police, including as a registered human source in 2005–09, is outlined in Figure 6.3 and discussed further below.

Figure 6.3: Timeline of Ms Gobbo’s use as a human source, 2005–09

The Source Development Unit

Human source management reform and the establishment of a dedicated source unit

As indicated above, serious corruption within the Drug Squad was identified in late 2000.²³² A review of the Drug Squad, the Purton Review, recommended reform of human source management processes.

As part of these reforms, on 27 July 2003, Victoria Police initiated a project, Review and Develop Best Practice Human Source Management Policy. A recommendation of that project led to a trial of a new unit, known initially as the DSU and later the SDU. After the pilot program was completed, the SDU was established on a permanent basis.²³³

Part of the SDU's purpose was to identify, recruit and register high-risk human sources.²³⁴ It was envisaged that members of this unit, known as handlers and controllers, would recruit these sources and obtain information from them.²³⁵ For the first time, investigators would be separated from contact with and the management of human sources, a concept known as the ‘sterile corridor’, largely to better protect the human source.²³⁶

Other reforms involved establishing ‘clearly defined procedures’ to better manage interactions with police officers and human sources.²³⁷ Reports prepared by the SDU included:

• An Informer Contact Report (ICR) that was prepared after a handler communicated (either by phone, email or in person) with a human source.
• An IR that was prepared from records of physical meetings and the ICR, extracting usable intelligence that was then assessed and disseminated to investigators.²³⁸ These reports were ‘sanitised’ so that the provenance of the information, including the identity of the human source, was completely removed from the documents.²³⁹

A Source Management Log (SML), also known as a ‘Controller’s Log’, was kept by the controller and summarised a human source’s activities, as well as the supervision and management protocols in relation to that source.²⁴⁰

First meeting with the handlers

On 8 September 2005, Mr Rowe attended a meeting with then Detective Acting Superintendent Robert Hill, Mr White, Mr Mansell and other SDU officers.²⁴¹ Mr Rowe’s diary records that the outcome of the meeting was that the SDU was to meet with Ms Gobbo and assess her suitability as a human source.²⁴²

On 16 September 2005, Mr Rowe and Mr Mansell collected Ms Gobbo and took her to a private meeting room where she met with officers from the SDU for the first time. Officer Peter Smith (a pseudonym) wrote an ICR that summarised the meeting.²⁴³ The matters they discussed in this meeting are outlined below. This meeting was also recorded, despite Mr White assuring Ms Gobbo that it would not be.²⁴⁴

Ms Gobbo raised concerns that, if revealed as a human source, she would be ‘judged as a lawyer, not just as a person assisting police’.²⁴⁵ She said her motivation for becoming a human source was that she ‘had had enough of [the] stressful lifestyle dealing with [those] people’ and she did not ‘know a way out’, including how to get out of her arrangement with the Mokbels.²⁴⁶

Ms Gobbo referred to her 2004 stroke, describing it as a ‘very big scare’. She added that she had initially changed her lifestyle but had since ‘slipped’ into a worse one and now wanted to stop. She believed if the Mokbels were arrested and jailed, she could escape their clutches.²⁴⁷

When discussing Ms Gobbo’s clients and associates, Mr White made no secret of the SDU’s eagerness to obtain intelligence regarding the Mokbels. He began with, ‘Tell us everything you know about Tony Mokbel’.²⁴⁸ She replied, ‘How many weeks have you got?’.²⁴⁹

During this meeting, Ms Gobbo discussed Mr Mokbel and his associates, including Mr Bickley and Mr Cooper (a pseudonym) at length.²⁵⁰

She referred to ‘a client’ who ultimately became an important prosecution witness and said that she checked this person’s statement and edited it before the witness signed it. Ms Gobbo said she would be in serious trouble if people like the Mokbels found out.²⁵¹ She also said that the stress of this contributed to her stroke.²⁵²

Her handler commented in the ICR that his ‘initial impression is that, at the very least, this [human source] can definitely be of high value in relation to current intelligence on Mokbel family and associates’.²⁵³

In her evidence to the Commission, Ms Gobbo said she formed the belief that, if she did not cooperate with police, she would be charged with something.²⁵⁴ She added that she felt as though she ‘couldn’t walk away or would have difficulty walking away’, and that if she did walk away, she was scared of what might happen if she did not meet their expectations.²⁵⁵

Four face-to-face assessment meetings took place between Ms Gobbo and the SDU between September and November 2005, when she was registered as a human source with the number ‘21803838’, commonly shortened to ‘3838’.²⁵⁶

Risk assessment

On 15 November 2005, her handler drafted a risk assessment of Ms Gobbo. At that time, Victoria Police policy for registering a human source required such an assessment.²⁵⁷ The risk to her was rated as ‘high’ with a number of specified risks identified, including that she:

• was a criminal defence barrister, and well known in the legal fraternity
• was acting for several members of the Mokbel criminal syndicate
• had previously spoken to other police officers, including the MDID and the Purana Taskforce.²⁵⁸

The risk to Victoria Police was also considered ‘high’, in particular because of her ‘occupation and particular position’. The assessment noted, ‘If compromised, the handling of this Source would come under extreme scrutiny’, which could ultimately ‘cause embarrassment and criticism of the Force’.²⁵⁹

The following description in that risk assessment was assessed as a ‘moderate’ risk:

Within a short time, the Source has provided credible and valuable intelligence to police. The Source is well positioned to obtain tactically viable intelligence in relation to the criminal activities of the MOKBEL cartel. Intelligence supplied by the Source is considered accurate, however, on occasion the information may be obtained via third parties who may not be directly involved in the matters reported on. This may cause concern regarding the accuracy of information supplied.²⁶⁰

The risk to public harm was also thought ‘moderate’:

The Source displays to Handlers a high degree of a feeling of moral duty to uphold the law. Whereas this position must be constantly [scrutinised], it appears unlikely that the Source would be openly involved in activities that would have a negative impact on her position, and thus the general community.²⁶¹

On 23 November 2005, Mr Black (a pseudonym), who was acting as Ms Gobbo’s controller at the time, completed the risk assessment with the overall risk assessed as ‘high’.²⁶² He noted, however, that her effective use had the ‘potential to impede major crime and reduce the illicit drug trade and that failure to use Ms Gobbo would have the opposite effect’.²⁶³ He recommended that the SDU manage Ms Gobbo as a human source.

Victoria Police’s approach to managing Ms Gobbo

During the SDU’s early management of Ms Gobbo as a human source, she had one dedicated source handler.²⁶⁴ Over time, it became apparent that she was a ‘labour intensive’ human source; it was an ‘immensely challenging undertaking’ to manage her; and too much work for one handler to manage alone.²⁶⁵

Consequently, Mr White determined that a number of handlers would have responsibility for Ms Gobbo on a rotating basis.²⁶⁶ In all, Ms Gobbo had six handlers.²⁶⁷ This was primarily due to the number of contacts between the handlers and Ms Gobbo.²⁶⁸ She interacted with them almost daily, often phoning them many times a day.²⁶⁹ On occasions she contacted them more than 15 times in one day.²⁷⁰ These calls were not just during regular working hours but often late at night and on public holidays and weekends.²⁷¹ The handlers also met with Ms Gobbo face-to-face, often for meetings lasting more than five hours.²⁷²

The topics covered during these conversations were wide-ranging. As well as discussing the activities of her clients and other associates, Ms Gobbo regularly discussed her health and general wellbeing, including her mental health, the stress and pressure she was under, and her various physical ailments.

Ms Gobbo did not like her handlers to rotate. She described it as ‘frustrating … to change from one person to someone else and to be repeating myself’.²⁷³

Information provided by Ms Gobbo and Victoria Police records

During her meetings and calls with handlers, Ms Gobbo provided a significant amount of information, which her handlers recorded. Between 16 September 2005 and 13 January 2009, 172 ICRs were generated by the SDU. The information she provided to Victoria Police also resulted in the compilation of 517 IRs, which were disseminated to various parts of Victoria Police, including the Purana Taskforce, the ESD and the MDID. Additionally, information was disseminated verbally to investigators such as Mr O’Brien, with some of those conversations recorded in diaries. The Commission has been unable to ascertain the precise number of these verbal disseminations.

Due to the large volume of information Ms Gobbo provided, the handlers fell behind in their record keeping, including ICRs and official diaries.²⁷⁴ Often, they wrote notes and summaries of meetings months after they occurred.²⁷⁵ Ms Gobbo disputed the accuracy of some ICRs and diaries when shown them by the Commission.²⁷⁶

The evidence before the Commission suggests that she provided her handlers with information relating to approximately 520 people mentioned in the SDU documents produced during this period.²⁷⁷

The intelligence Ms Gobbo provided to Victoria Police related to both her social relationships and her client relationships, and the line between these relationships was blurred. In his evidence to the Commission, Mr White said that Ms Gobbo was valuable as a human source as she had a huge social network of individuals involved in organised crime about whom she could provide intelligence.²⁷⁸

The SDU was not aware of all of Ms Gobbo’s clients, although she would on occasion tell them for whom she was acting.²⁷⁹ In his evidence to the Commission, Mr White said that it became apparent as time progressed that Ms Gobbo was providing information about her clients and SDU officers told her on ‘numerous occasions’ that they did not want any information that could be privileged.²⁸⁰ He considered any conflict of interest issues to be Ms Gobbo’s own responsibility to manage.²⁸¹ He conceded that it would have been beneficial to have kept a list of those for whom she was acting.²⁸²

Ms Gobbo’s handlers tasked her to further her social relationships with clients in order to gather more intelligence about their activities.²⁸³ She also took it upon herself to develop these relationships and offered ways to elicit information for Victoria Police. For example, Ms Gobbo offered to handle the RSVP list for the party of Mr Cooper, who was a well-known associate of the Mokbels, and to take photos at the event in order to collect contact details and images of people of interest to police.²⁸⁴

Over the period that Ms Gobbo was registered as a human source with the SDU, she was acting for, and providing information about, individuals under investigation by several Victoria Police taskforces, including Purana, Petra and Briars.

Ms Gobbo’s handlers routinely asked her to provide information about her clients’ car registrations, phone numbers, addresses, nicknames and financial affairs. She was regularly tasked by handlers to ascertain the movements of her clients, including Mr Mokbel and Mr Karam.²⁸⁵

She also provided significant information that related to operations targeting Mr Mokbel’s criminal enterprise from his associates, such as Mr Thomas, Mr Cooper and Mr Karam. During one of her early meetings with the SDU on 22 September 2005, she told them that Mr Thomas and Mr Cooper would both have sufficient information about Mr Mokbel to put him away for a long time.²⁸⁶

Ms Gobbo’s informing on her clients

By 2006, Ms Gobbo had provided significant information to Victoria Police about individuals involved in criminal activity, which resulted in several arrests.

During conversations with her handlers, Ms Gobbo provided wide-ranging information about:

• the criminal activities of her clients
• how Victoria Police could encourage her clients to roll and cooperate with police
• defence tactics she proposed using in relation to her clients
• the relative strengths of her clients’ cases
• the mobile phone numbers and vehicles of targets, including those of her clients
• addresses that targets, including clients, were known to frequent
• code names
• code words used in communication.²⁸⁷

The specifics of Ms Gobbo’s informing are detailed in Chapter 7. The following summaries of notable case studies are set out below to illustrate Ms Gobbo’s most significant period of informing on clients.

Mr Cooper (a pseudonym)

Mr Cooper was a client of Ms Gobbo between 2002 and 2007. He was a key target of Victoria Police due to his close business association with Mr Mokbel.

After Ms Gobbo’s early indications that she could provide information about Mr Cooper and his activities, the SDU tasked her to do so. Ms Gobbo said that, with the SDU’s encouragement, she spent more time with Mr Cooper and they developed a social relationship.²⁸⁸ She frequently met him for dinner.²⁸⁹ He said that he believed that she was his ‘best friend’.²⁹⁰ Ms Gobbo said that over time they began discussing his criminal activities.²⁹¹

Around Christmas 2005, Ms Gobbo told the SDU that she thought Mr Cooper was manufacturing amphetamine or was about to start production.²⁹² In early 2006, Ms Gobbo provided her handlers with information regarding his activities sourcing precursor chemicals and manufacturing amphetamine.²⁹³ On 16 March 2006, Ms Gobbo gave her handler the approximate location of his laboratory.²⁹⁴

In early 2006, as Victoria Police investigated Mr Cooper, Ms Gobbo provided the SDU with advice about how police could encourage him to roll on others in the Mokbel criminal enterprise.²⁹⁵ She discussed targeting him financially and using his fear of the Mokbels as leverage.²⁹⁶ She also advised on how to achieve his cooperation, on which officers he preferred, and that she believed he would listen to her advice once arrested.²⁹⁷

Prior to Mr Cooper’s arrest, Ms Gobbo told SDU officers she planned to attend the police station on the night of his arrest.²⁹⁸ The SDU attempted to dissuade her.²⁹⁹ When Mr Cooper was arrested, as expected he asked for Ms Gobbo to attend his police interview as his legal adviser. Ms Gobbo obliged. She advised him that it was in his interests to assist police.³⁰⁰

Mr Cooper went on to cooperate with Victoria Police and make statements against other members of the Mokbel syndicate. He was ultimately sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years.

Mr Tony Mokbel

Mr Mokbel was one of Ms Gobbo’s most high-profile clients. By early 2002, Ms Gobbo was acting for him.³⁰¹ According to Ms Gobbo, her motivation to become a human source was to rid herself of ‘the Mokbel cartel’ as ‘she was frustrated at the Mokbels’ capacity to use lawyers to control others around them’³⁰² and ‘sickened [by] the amount of crime they were getting away with’.³⁰³

As noted above, Mr Mokbel was a primary target for the Purana Taskforce and, consequently, a key individual about whom the SDU wanted intelligence from Ms Gobbo. She delivered in spades, providing a wealth of information about him, his family and his associates.

In December 2005, Mr Mokbel was on trial for narcotics offences in relation to Operation Plutonium. Ms Gobbo was acting as junior counsel. She provided information to the SDU about the strength of the case, including her opinion that he had ‘no defence’ and that his senior counsel wanted him to plead guilty but he was ‘too stubborn’.³⁰⁴ During the trial, Ms Gobbo continued to provide information to the SDU concerning defence tactics, including the names of possible defence witnesses from whom she had taken statements and the likelihood of Mr Mokbel giving evidence in the trial.³⁰⁵ She also provided information as to Mr Mokbel’s views about his jury and the fact that he did not want its composition to change.³⁰⁶

On 17 March 2006, Ms Gobbo told her handlers that she suspected Mr Mokbel was planning some ‘unknown criminality’, as he had asked her twice not to contact him that weekend.³⁰⁷

Soon after, Mr Mokbel absconded and was convicted in his absence.³⁰⁸ After he was later captured in Greece, Ms Gobbo also provided information to Victoria Police on strategies he was employing to challenge extradition and to defend and delay those proceedings.³⁰⁹

On 3 July 2012, Mr Mokbel was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 22 years.³¹⁰ In 2017, Mr Mokbel launched an appeal against his conviction, citing Ms Gobbo’s involvement with police.

Mr Rob Karam

Another notable example of the intelligence provided by Ms Gobbo related to Mr Karam, an associate of Mr Mokbel who was charged with large-scale drug importations. On 5 June 2007, Ms Gobbo sent a message to her SDU handlers, advising them that Mr Karam had asked her to hold documents for safekeeping.³¹¹

At a meeting later that night, she provided the photocopied documents to the SDU and said that they ‘relate to shipping containers being imported’ by an associate of Mr Karam.³¹²

Later, she helped the SDU translate one of the documents, a bill of lading, from Italian into English.³¹³ She noted that it referred to the importation of tinned tomatoes from Italy and listed shipment details such as the ship name, container number, port of origin and departure date.³¹⁴

Inside those cans of tomatoes authorities later uncovered what was then the world’s largest seizure of ecstasy. Mr Karam was convicted after a trial. In 2016, Mr Karam launched an appeal against his conviction, citing Ms Gobbo’s involvement with police.³¹⁵

Mr Thomas (a pseudonym)

Mr Thomas was an associate of the Mokbels’ and Williams’ crime syndicates. Ms Gobbo acted for him on multiple occasions between 2002 and 2008.

On 16 August 2004, he was arrested and charged with the murders of Mr Barbaro and Mr Moran.³¹⁶ Mr McGrath, a co-accused in the murders and a client of Ms Gobbo, made statements implicating Mr Thomas and agreed to give evidence against him.³¹⁷

On several occasions, Ms Gobbo discussed Mr Thomas’ legal position, and her strategies to encourage him to assist police, with her handlers.³¹⁸

Following lengthy negotiations, Mr Thomas entered into a formal agreement with police to cooperate and assist the authorities, in exchange for the prosecution pursuing only one charge of murder against him and submitting that he should receive a discounted sentence.³¹⁹ He was convicted of the murder of Mr Moran and sentenced to 23 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years.³²⁰

Mr Thomas then gave statements to police implicating several people in criminal activities.³²¹

Mr Faruk Orman

Mr Faruk Orman was a close associate of Mr Domenic (Mick) Gatto. In her evidence to the Commission, Ms Gobbo said that she knew Victoria Police had a plan to identify those in Mr Gatto’s circle who they might turn into a human source, settling on Mr Orman.³²²

Ms Gobbo represented Mr Orman after he was charged with the murder of Mr Victor Peirce. Mr Thomas, whom Ms Gobbo had previously represented, was a key witness against Mr Orman, and the case against him substantially depended on Mr Thomas’ testimony.³²³ Unknown to Mr Orman, Ms Gobbo encouraged Mr Thomas to give evidence against Mr Orman.³²⁴

Mr Orman pleaded not guilty but was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years. In 2010 and 2011, he unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria and the High Court of Australia.

In February 2019, after the public revelation the previous year of Ms Gobbo as a human source (described further below), Mr Orman filed a petition of mercy with the Victorian Attorney-General, who referred the matter to the Court of Appeal. In July 2019, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) conceded that the circumstances amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice, and that the conviction should be set aside.

On 26 July 2019, the Court allowed Mr Orman’s appeal and acquitted him.

Victoria Police concerns regarding Ms Gobbo as a human source

Reward application

In January and February 2006, Ms Gobbo incurred three speeding tickets.³²⁵ She asked the SDU to pay them. On 17 March 2006, her handler said that this might cause her role as a human source to be exposed.³²⁶ Ms Gobbo said her main concern was that she had recently accrued a large number of demerit points and was close to having her licence suspended.³²⁷ On 28 March 2006, SDU officers prepared a reward application to have the fines withdrawn.³²⁸

The application outlined the assistance Ms Gobbo provided, referring to her registration number ‘3838’ and her name. It also noted that she was supplying extremely valuable information in relation to the Purana Taskforce and Operation Posse.³²⁹ The application was given to Superintendent Mark Porter as the Local Informer Registrar, the Human Source Management Unit (HSMU) and then the Human Source Rewards Committee, which approved payments for expenses and rewards in relation to human sources.³³⁰

On 26 April 2006, the Victoria Police Payments Committee, consisting of Mr Simon Overland, APM then Commander Dannye Moloney and then Detective Superintendent Blayney, met regarding the application.³³¹ On 27 April 2006, the SDU told Ms Gobbo that the speeding fines had been withdrawn but that this would not occur again.³³² The application was formally approved on 12 May 2006.³³³

Another assessment and an audit of Ms Gobbo

After the arrests of Mr Cooper and others in April 2006, serious concerns emerged within Victoria Police about the potential revelation of Ms Gobbo’s identity and her safety. Court proceedings were underway against several individuals about whom she had provided intelligence and the Office of Police Integrity (OPI) was seeking to examine her.

On or around 19 April 2006, Mr Moloney directed then Superintendent Anthony (Tony) Biggin to conduct an audit of the SDU’s human source records relating to Ms Gobbo.³³⁴ Mr Biggin told the Commission that the audit was a ‘broad overviewing audit’ rather than an in-depth one.³³⁵

On 26 April 2006, the day before the audit was to take place, her handler prepared a second risk assessment, which updated the initial risk assessment of 15 November 2005.³³⁶ This was prepared because further information was identified as escalating the risk of Ms Gobbo being compromised. The new risks included that she had informed against a number of people who could pose a risk to her, that she had assisted a number of ‘high level criminals’ in cooperating with police and that her phone was being intercepted by another agency.³³⁷ Mr White determined that the risk to Ms Gobbo was still high but that she remained ‘strategically and tactically viable’.³³⁸

Mr Biggin undertook the audit on 27 April 2006.³³⁹ He attended the SDU, and spoke to Mr White and some of the handlers.³⁴⁰ In completing his audit, Mr Biggin noted in his diary ‘no issues identified’.³⁴¹ He prepared a report in the form of an Issue Cover Sheet, which examined compliance with human source policy, provided a risk assessment and made general observations before providing a recommendation in relation to Ms Gobbo’s continued use by Victoria Police.³⁴² Mr Biggin reported that Ms Gobbo was a ‘valuable asset’ to Victoria Police, and that the relationship should continue. He also recommended that the SDU continue to manage Ms Gobbo.³⁴³

Meetings about the termination process

On 17 May 2006, Mr Overland and SDU officers met about the need to develop an ‘exit strategy’ for Ms Gobbo.³⁴⁴ Mr White told the Commission that the SDU considered that it had a continuing ‘duty of care’ to Ms Gobbo and her safety and welfare.³⁴⁵

Ms Gobbo’s potential exposure was a growing concern for the SDU.³⁴⁶ They put her into ‘caretaker mode’ or ‘babysitting mode’.³⁴⁷ They told her that they did not want further information, and that if she provided it, they would not act on it.³⁴⁸

Despite having discussions about terminating Ms Gobbo’s use as a human source, the SDU continued to receive a significant amount of information from her.³⁴⁹

The SDU also became aware that the OPI were considering examining her in Operation Khadi. The examination related to alleged corruption of a police officer, Mr John Brown (a pseudonym). Ms Gobbo was linked to this operation as she was representing and associating socially with Mr Ahmed, who Mr John Brown had arrested. Ms Gobbo had told a prosecutor that Mr John Brown had stolen $5,000 from Mr Ahmed’s car on the night of his arrest.³⁵⁰ She later told her handlers about the allegation.³⁵¹

On 24 July 2006, Mr Swindells and then Detective Inspector Lindsay Attrill of the ESD visited Ms Gobbo regarding her allegations.³⁵² Ms Gobbo raised concerns about subpoenas being issued, and about being called to give evidence at the OPI.³⁵³ She contacted her handler after this meeting in a distressed state, telling him that it appeared her role as a human source was more widely known than she had thought.³⁵⁴ The handler told her that the SDU were attempting to ‘head off’ any OPI hearing.³⁵⁵

On 28 July 2006, her handlers said that she was no longer to be involved in the Operation Khadi investigation. They told her that no statement would be taken, and that she would not be brought before the OPI.³⁵⁶

‘Babysitting’ Ms Gobbo

Early in 2007, the SDU held further discussions, internally and with other Victoria Police officers about winding down the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source. For example, officers Mr White and Mr Ryan spoke about ‘easing her out of the picture’.³⁵⁷

In his evidence to the Commission, Officer Fox (a pseudonym), who took over as Ms Gobbo’s handler in June 2007, said that part of his brief was to assist in ending her relationship with Victoria Police.³⁵⁸

Mr Fox gave evidence to the Commission that, at this time, the SDU’s intention was not to task Ms Gobbo to provide information that investigators could use.³⁵⁹ She would continue to pass on information she heard in her ‘social circle’.³⁶⁰ That information was risk assessed by the SDU before it was released. Mr Fox told the Commission that if that information came from Ms Gobbo’s professional relationships, it was not released.³⁶¹

Notwithstanding this evidence, it is apparent that the SDU did task Ms Gobbo on a number of occasions in relation to the Briars Taskforce (discussed further below).³⁶²

By early 2007, Ms Gobbo was expressing frustration to her SDU handlers about not being tasked.³⁶³ She continued to volunteer intelligence to them, including significant intelligence that they felt they could not ignore.³⁶⁴

On 2 May 2007, she attended a dinner with officers Mr O’Brien, Mr White, Mr Green and Officer Anderson (a pseudonym) at the Sebel Heritage Golf Course.³⁶⁵ Mr O’Brien presented her with a silver pen. The dinner and pen were intended as a gesture to thank her for the assistance she had provided to the Purana Taskforce and to be part of the process of ‘winding down’ her role as a human source.³⁶⁶

On 4 May 2007, Mr White met with a psychologist who the SDU had arranged for Ms Gobbo. They discussed Ms Gobbo’s ‘exit strategy’, noting the ‘hole’ that would be left in her life should her contact with police cease.³⁶⁷

In June 2007, Ms Gobbo told her handler that she wanted to end her relationship with the SDU.³⁶⁸ She said that she had spent the previous night vomiting and considered this to be an internal reaction to her stress.³⁶⁹

Threats to Ms Gobbo

Throughout 2006 and 2007, Ms Gobbo told Victoria Police she was receiving threatening text messages. In response, the Purana Taskforce established Operation Gosford.

On 6 February 2008, Ms Gobbo’s human source number was changed to ‘11792958’, commonly shortened to ‘2958’. This change was because many police officers knew she was human source ‘3838’ and there was a risk her identity could be revealed through ‘loose conversation’.³⁷⁰

On 16 April 2008, Ms Gobbo’s car was set on fire in Clarendon Street, South Melbourne. The suspect was a client.³⁷¹ Subsequently, other barristers at her chambers raised concerns about her inappropriate personal and professional relationships with her clients, other barristers’ clients and police officers.³⁷² Later in 2008, Ms Gobbo was asked to leave those chambers.³⁷³

Ms Gobbo continued to receive threats to her life in 2009. For example, on 26 May 2009, she received several death threats via text message.³⁷⁴

Ms Gobbo’s road to becoming a witness

In March 2007, two joint Victoria Police and OPI taskforces were established.

• The Briars Taskforce sought to investigate the unsolved murder of Mr Chartres-Abbott, referred to in media reports as the ‘vampire gigolo’. Mr Overland established this taskforce as a joint investigation between the ESD and OPI. The Board of Management included then Assistant Commissioner Thomas (Luke) Cornelius, APM of the ESD, Mr Overland and Mr Graham Ashton, AM, APM, as then Assistant Director of the OPI.³⁷⁵ Superintendent Rodney (Rod) Wilson led the Briars Taskforce.³⁷⁶
• The Petra Taskforce sought to investigate the unsolved murders of Mr Terry Hodson and his wife Mrs Christine Hodson.³⁷⁷ Mr Overland led the Board of Management, which also included Mr Cornelius and Mr Ashton.³⁷⁸ Mr Ryan headed the Petra Taskforce.³⁷⁹

It became apparent to investigators that Ms Gobbo had highly valuable connections and information relevant to both taskforces.³⁸⁰

Discussions about Ms Gobbo’s future

On 6 August 2007, Mr Overland, Mr Biggin, Mr White, Mr Blayney and Mr Ryan attended a meeting to discuss Ms Gobbo’s role. Mr White recorded in his diary that Mr Overland was told of discussions about three options for Ms Gobbo’s ongoing management:

• deactivate her as a human source
• use her as a witness
• continue to manage her as a human source, but not task her.³⁸¹

Mr White recorded that the meeting attendees discussed the difficulty of deactivating Ms Gobbo as a human source because of the need to communicate with her during the court proceedings for those on whom she had informed.³⁸² He also noted that she could not be a witness, as this would compromise her status as a human source.³⁸³

The meeting attendees determined that they would continue to manage Ms Gobbo as a human source with no tasking and that Mr Biggin would conduct a risk assessment of any intelligence she provided prior to police acting on or disseminating that intelligence.³⁸⁴

In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Overland could not recall this meeting, but said he expected that if the handlers had concerns about the use of Ms Gobbo, they would have raised those concerns.³⁸⁵

Briars Taskforce

Ms Gobbo was on the radar of the Briars Taskforce as she was identified on telephone intercepts of a person of interest in the investigation, former Victoria Police officer Mr David Waters.³⁸⁶

Notwithstanding that Ms Gobbo was in ‘babysitting mode’ and not to be tasked at this time, her connection to Mr Waters was not lost upon investigators.³⁸⁷ She was linked to him through her friendship with Mr Campbell, and had associated with Mr Waters at various places.³⁸⁸ She had also represented Mr Waters in a previous matter.³⁸⁹ Mr White and Briars Taskforce investigator Mr Iddles discussed the viability of tasking her.³⁹⁰

Subsequently, Ms Gobbo was tasked to obtain information from Mr Waters and reported some conversations to her handlers.³⁹¹

By the end of October 2007, Ms Gobbo knew that Mr Waters was considering engaging her as his lawyer.³⁹² On 29 October 2007, she reported to her handler that Mr Waters had discussed aspects of the investigation with her, including that his solicitor had told him that then Detective Senior Sergeant Ronald (Ron) Iddles, OAM, APM wanted to interview him and that if interviewed, he might read out a statement and not answer questions.³⁹³

On 7 November 2007, Mr Waters sent Ms Gobbo an email, with the subject line ‘confidential’, attaching the statement that he proposed to read in his record of interview.³⁹⁴ That day, Ms Gobbo told her handlers that, in her opinion, the statement was not detailed enough and that she had advised Mr Waters of this. She said she understood she was not to assist Mr Waters to write the statement. This information was provided to Mr Iddles.³⁹⁵

On 14 January 2008, Briars Taskforce investigators then Detective Inspector Stephen (Steve) Waddell and Mr Iddles visited Ms Gobbo in her chambers, where they interviewed her about the murder of Mr Chartres-Abbott. She provided details about matters relevant to the investigation.³⁹⁶ They later determined that, given her knowledge, they should get a statement from her.³⁹⁷ That was not done until 2009, and is described in further detail below.

Petra Taskforce

The Petra Taskforce investigation gained momentum when Mr Carl Williams began assisting police in relation to the Hodson murders. This worried Ms Gobbo. In early 2007, she told her handlers she was concerned that Mr Williams might ‘set her up’ or implicate her in criminal activity.³⁹⁸

Mr Williams later made a statement that implicated Mr Dale and referred to Ms Gobbo acting as a conduit between him and Mr Dale, passing messages and setting up meetings.³⁹⁹ Ms Gobbo became a person of interest in the investigation as Petra Taskforce investigators considered that she could corroborate Mr Williams’ allegations, including that Mr Dale had contacted him to secure a hitman to murder Mr Terry Hodson.⁴⁰⁰

On 9 May 2007, Ms Gobbo left a message for her handler to the effect that she had discovered that Mr Williams had made a statement naming her as an associate of Mr Dale. She said that the handlers, who were supposed to be looking out for her, failed to tell her this.⁴⁰¹

Initial interviews with the Petra Taskforce investigators

In 2008, Mr Solomon and Mr Davey from Petra Taskforce interviewed Ms Gobbo about the Hodson murders.⁴⁰² Neither officer knew she was a human source assisting Victoria Police.⁴⁰³

The first formal interview occurred on 26 February 2008.⁴⁰⁴

The interview was not completed that day, and continued on 28 February 2008.⁴⁰⁵ On 5 March 2008, she took part in another interview.⁴⁰⁶

Office of Police Integrity examinations in relation to the Hodson murders

In July and August 2007, Ms Gobbo was called to an OPI hearing relating to the Hodson murders.⁴⁰⁷ The purpose was to question Ms Gobbo about her knowledge of the leaked IR that identified Mr Hodson as a human source (also known as ‘IR44’), and the allegation that she was a conduit between Mr Mokbel, Mr Williams and Mr Dale in relation to the leaking of that IR. Those examinations were undertaken by the Honourable Gerald Edward (Tony) Fitzgerald, AC, QC assisted by barrister, Mr Garry Livermore.⁴⁰⁸

In the lead up to the examinations, on 17 July 2007, SDU officers met with Ms Gobbo and discussed her options in relation to answering questions at the hearing that could reveal she was a human source.⁴⁰⁹ They determined that the best option would be to ‘influence’ the questions she was asked to ensure her role as a human source was not exposed.⁴¹⁰

On 18 July 2007, her handler told Ms Gobbo that protections had been put in place to avoid her identity being revealed during the examination.⁴¹¹ This included that she would not be asked if she had spoken to anyone about receiving the summons to attend the OPI hearing.⁴¹² The OPI had served Ms Gobbo with a confidentiality notice, along with the witness summons. These notices provided that it was an offence to discuss the existence of the summons or the subject matter with anyone except in limited circumstances, such as to obtain legal advice.⁴¹³ Her handler also told Ms Gobbo that if she felt threatened by a question, she could call a ‘time out’ and Mr Ryan, who was leading the Petra Taskforce at the time, would be there to deal with the issue.⁴¹⁴

On 19 July 2007, Ms Gobbo attended the OPI examination.⁴¹⁵ Mr Ryan attended but watched from a separate room.⁴¹⁶ During a break, Ms Gobbo telephoned her handler, and again after the examination. She expressed her unhappiness with the line of questioning, complaining that the questions were open-ended and risked exposing her role as a human source.⁴¹⁷

Ms Gobbo was called to another OPI hearing on 17 August 2007.⁴¹⁸ Mr Ryan was again present in a separate room.⁴¹⁹ At the outset of the hearing, Mr Fitzgerald told her that he believed she had not told the whole truth in her previous examination and had in fact told some ‘untruths’.⁴²⁰ Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Livermore both questioned Ms Gobbo about whether she had spoken to anyone else about her previous attendance at the OPI hearing.⁴²¹ Ms Gobbo told them that she did not think she could answer.⁴²² She then requested and was granted a break.

During that break, she spoke to Mr Ryan, who told her to get a lawyer.⁴²³ When the hearing resumed, Ms Gobbo said that she wanted to seek legal advice. Mr Fitzgerald adjourned her evidence to allow her to do so.⁴²⁴ Ms Gobbo was not subsequently called back to the OPI to continue her examination.

Mr Fitzgerald, in his statement to the Commission, said he had no recollection of Ms Gobbo being a human source and that he would have remembered had he been told.⁴²⁵

Further interviews with Petra Taskforce investigators

On 17 November 2008, Ms Gobbo attended the Petra Taskforce offices. Investigators asked her to attend as they had information that she was in possession of ‘bodgy’ phones linked to Mr Dale around the time of the Hodson murders. After the interview, then Detective Senior Sergeant Shane O’Connell, who was by then heading the Petra Taskforce, told Mr White that Ms Gobbo had told her interviewers that she:

• was aware of a corrupt relationship between Mr Dale and Mr Williams
• had been a conduit between them prior to the Hodson murders
• had used ‘bodgy phones’ to communicate with Mr Dale, who had also used ‘bodgy’ phones.⁴²⁶

Mr O’Connell also told Mr White that Ms Gobbo had cried and volunteered information, referred to having to ‘defend these blokes day in day out, they are morally bankrupt’, said that she was acting in a legally correct manner, that her head was full of information and asked Petra investigator Mr Davey ‘if that was you, what would you do?’.⁴²⁷

After the interview, Ms Gobbo told her handlers that Petra Taskforce investigators had requested a witness statement.⁴²⁸ In a separate conversation she told them that Petra Taskforce investigators wanted her to give evidence to corroborate Mr Williams’ assertions about his relationship with Mr Dale.⁴²⁹ She said that she did not want to be a witness due to concerns about her personal safety and the risk that her use as a human source would be revealed in cross-examination.⁴³⁰ In the ICR recording the conversation, her handler noted the potential for this to jeopardise future prosecutions and lead to claims that convictions were unsafe due to Ms Gobbo’s involvement.⁴³¹

On 30 November 2008, Ms Gobbo received a call from Mr Dale, who asked her to meet. She reported this to her handlers and to Petra Taskforce investigators.⁴³² On 3 December 2008, she met with Mr Davey and Mr O’Connell, who said that they wished to use her as a witness, both to close an evidentiary gap—the relationship between Mr Dale and Mr Williams—and because she was credible compared to Mr Williams.⁴³³

Ms Gobbo met with Mr Dale on 7 December 2008 and covertly recorded that meeting. Petra investigators determined after listening to the recording that Mr Dale had provided information that was important to the investigation.⁴³⁴ They formed the view that Ms Gobbo would be an integral witness in the case against Mr Dale.⁴³⁵

On 11 December 2008, Petra Taskforce investigators met with Ms Gobbo and told her that Mr Dale could not be charged or convicted without her evidence.⁴³⁶

Putting a ‘barrier/break’ in the relationship

In early December 2008, Mr Overland was considering whether Ms Gobbo should transition from a human source to a witness.⁴³⁷

This was a significant decision—it is only in rare circumstances that human sources are used as witnesses. That is because there are grave risks in doing so, particularly to the safety of sources: their identities can be exposed during court processes, including to those against whom they have informed.⁴³⁸

Mr Overland said that it was now apparent to him that Ms Gobbo could no longer be managed as a source. He considered that, if she were transitioned to a witness, she would be better protected as she could be subject to legislative and other protections, apparently a reference to the Witness Protection Act 1991 (Vic).⁴³⁹

The SDU had experienced difficulties in terminating Ms Gobbo’s role as a human source, due to concerns about her safety, their ongoing duty of care to her, and her continued desire to provide intelligence to them.⁴⁴⁰ Ending the relationship was difficult as, despite their efforts, she continued to engage with them.⁴⁴¹

In his evidence to the Commission, Mr White considered that it was not the role of the SDU to manage Petra Taskforce witnesses. If the SDU continued to manage her, there was a risk of SDU officers being called to give evidence (for example, in relation to evidentiary matters) and her work as a source being revealed.⁴⁴²

On 5 December 2008, Mr Overland met with SDU officers to discuss Ms Gobbo assisting the Petra Taskforce, possibly as a witness.⁴⁴³ During this meeting, Mr White raised the SDU’s concerns about Ms Gobbo transitioning from human source to witness.⁴⁴⁴ In his evidence to the Commission, Mr White recalled Mr Overland indicating that while he understood the SDU position, Ms Gobbo was potentially useful in the very serious corruption investigation of Mr Dale.⁴⁴⁵ At this time, Mr Overland believed that she would likely enter witness protection, and would be adequately protected.⁴⁴⁶

Ms Gobbo’s SWOT analysis

The SDU continued to raise concerns about Ms Gobbo becoming a witness in the Dale prosecution.⁴⁴⁷ On 30 December 2008, Mr Moloney advised Mr Biggin that she was to sign a statement the next day.⁴⁴⁸ Mr Biggin directed Mr Black to complete a ‘strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats’ (SWOT) analysis regarding Ms Gobbo becoming a witness.⁴⁴⁹ Mr Biggin said that his aim was to create a record of having raised these issues with his superiors.⁴⁵⁰

The SWOT analysis documented substantial risks to both Ms Gobbo and Victoria Police if she were to become a witness.⁴⁵¹ These included the exposure of her long-term relationship with Victoria Police as a human source, the possibility of an OPI or government review into the legal and ethical implications of having used a serving barrister as a human source, and the potential for prosecutions on foot to be jeopardised.⁴⁵²

Mr Biggin prepared and signed an Issue Cover Sheet (a Victoria Police internal briefing note), attaching the SWOT analysis, and provided it to Mr Porter, with a recommendation that it be given to Mr Moloney, who was a member of the Petra Taskforce.⁴⁵³ Mr Moloney noted on the Issue Cover Sheet that it was to be provided to Mr Overland for the attention of the Petra Taskforce Board of Management.⁴⁵⁴

Meetings with the Petra Taskforce about Ms Gobbo’s witness statement

On 1 and 2 January 2009, Mr Davey and Mr Solomon met with Ms Gobbo and took a statement from her, which she did not sign.⁴⁵⁵

When speaking later with her handler, she said she wanted financial compensation to become a witness, noting ‘this evidence is gold but it comes at a price’.⁴⁵⁶ She signed the statement on 7 January 2009.⁴⁵⁷

Deregistration as a human source

On 12 January 2009, Ms Gobbo met with SDU officers, telling them she had signed the statement because she ‘got all the promises’ she wanted from Mr O’Connell.⁴⁵⁸

On 13 January 2009, Ms Gobbo was deactivated as a human source and formally transitioned to her role as ‘Witness F’ in the prosecution of Mr Dale for the Hodson murders. Mr Dale was charged with the murders in February 2009.⁴⁵⁹

As Ms Gobbo had transitioned to a witness, the Petra Taskforce took over the role of managing her.⁴⁶⁰ Compared to relationships with her SDU handlers, Ms Gobbo’s relationships with Petra Taskforce handlers were more difficult. Efforts were made to convince Ms Gobbo to join the Witness Protection Program.⁴⁶¹

Briars Taskforce: the Bali statement

The Briars Taskforce investigations had come to a standstill in late 2008 due to a lack of leads.⁴⁶² In early 2009, a potential witness came forward and the taskforce was reconvened.⁴⁶³

Investigators from the Briars Taskforce wanted a statement from Ms Gobbo in relation to Mr Waters’ possible involvement in the murder of Mr Chartres-Abbott.⁴⁶⁴ In May 2009, Mr Iddles and Mr Waddell visited her in Bali where she was holidaying after her deregistration as a human source.⁴⁶⁵ They took that statement over several days.⁴⁶⁶

The statement was not signed, as both Mr Iddles and Mr Waddell held concerns that Ms Gobbo could not independently recall her meetings or interactions with Mr Waters without reviewing the more contemporaneous ICRs prepared by the SDU. They noticed she appeared to have changed aspects of what she told them in 2008.⁴⁶⁷ It also appeared to them that her role as a human source was likely to be exposed if the statement was used in criminal proceedings.⁴⁶⁸

2010 to 2018: Civil litigation, reviews and court proceedings

An overview of the civil litigation between Ms Gobbo and Victoria Police, the three confidential external reviews into the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source and the court proceedings that followed is outlined in Figure 6.4 and discussed further below.

Figure 6.4: Timeline of civil litigation, reviews into the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source and court proceedings, 2009 to 2018

Ms Gobbo tries to withdraw as a witness

Throughout the latter half of 2009, Victoria Police continued to negotiate unsuccessfully with Ms Gobbo regarding her entrance into the Witness Protection Program.⁴⁶⁹ On behalf of Victoria Police, then Deputy Commissioner Kieran Walshe wrote to Ms Gobbo several times about her entry into the program.⁴⁷⁰

On 7 September 2009, Ms Gobbo wrote to Mr Overland, who had become Chief Commissioner earlier that year, threatening legal proceedings. She referred to the information and assistance she had been giving to Victoria Police and stated:

I need not remind you of the difficulties that Victoria Police may encounter if some or any of my past assistance comes out in the prosecution of Dale.⁴⁷¹

Mr Walshe responded to that letter on 14 September 2009 on behalf of Victoria Police.⁴⁷²

On 28 September 2009, Ms Gobbo wrote to Mr Overland for the second time expressing her disappointment in the Victoria Police response and the difficulties for the organisation if her past assistance was disclosed:

For the record I note your apology. However, the tone and content of your letter was deeply upsetting and offensive, and particularly disappointing in the context of my very lengthy period of (and continuing) unprecedented assistance given voluntarily and without reward, to your organisation.⁴⁷³

Negotiations between Ms Gobbo and Victoria Police continued. On 21 January 2010, Ms Gobbo wrote to Mr Overland for the third time expressing her frustrations:

As a former Deputy Commissioner for Crime, I am sure that I need not remind you of the difficulties that Victoria Police will encounter if some or any of my past assistance is disclosed in the course of the prosecution of Dale. As matters currently stand, such disclosure would appear to be inevitable. Leaving aside the impact such disclosure will have on me personally (including but not limited to my future safety), the difficulties Victoria Police will encounter will extend well beyond the obvious embarrassment and damage that will be done to the Dale prosecution.

I have for many months now repeatedly stated that the best way to avoid jeopardising the Dale prosecution is to ensure that evidentiary protections afforded under the Witness Protection Act be granted to me. It alarms me greatly that with Dale’s Committal scheduled to commence in less than 7 weeks time, and in circumstances where Dale is anticipated to serve subpoenas on Monday 25 January 2010, Victoria Police is still to determine the issue of my participation in the Witness Protection Program. I can only hope that this Issue is resolved before Dale files and serves his subpoenas, after which time it will simply be too late.

…

In one final attempt to avoid what I suspect will otherwise be an irreparable and intractable situation for all parties, I am imploring you to please read the enclosed correspondence, particularly in light of the incredible sacrifices I have made for Victoria Police in circumstances where I have asked for nothing other than for the organisation to honour the representations and assurances that have been made to me. Further, I beseech you to reconsider the stance that has been adopted by Victoria Police to date and do so appealing to your professionalism, decency, humanity and conscience.

Will you meet with me? ⁴⁷⁴

On 27 January 2010, Mr Dale served a subpoena on the Chief Commissioner, requiring production of documents concerning Ms Gobbo and any agreement for Victoria Police to induce her to give evidence against him.⁴⁷⁵

During this time, Ms Gobbo’s legal representatives made known to Victoria Police that they were contemplating civil action for the compensation she said had been promised.⁴⁷⁶ Ms Gobbo and her legal representatives became aware of the subpoena and that it was directed towards assistance Ms Gobbo provided to Victoria Police ‘in investigations other than that of Mr Dale’.⁴⁷⁷ Her lawyers wrote to the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office (VGSO), the legal representatives for the Chief Commissioner, on 8 February 2010. The correspondence noted that Ms Gobbo was concerned about her safety because, if Victoria Police claimed PII on the grounds of informer privilege in answer to the subpoena, this would effectively label her as a human source.⁴⁷⁸ The correspondence stated that Victoria Police would be held liable for harm, loss and damage suffered arising from the production of documents in answer to the subpoena.⁴⁷⁹

In late February 2010, Ms Gobbo’s lawyers notified the Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) that she was too unwell to give evidence.⁴⁸⁰ Her legal representatives also sent a letter to the VGSO demanding that Victoria Police provide her with the compensation she had been promised.⁴⁸¹

Mr Dale’s legal representatives continued to seek documents relevant to Ms Gobbo during this period.⁴⁸² On 10 March 2010, Mr Hargreaves, Mr Dale’s solicitor, enquired about the existence of a human source file for Ms Gobbo. As Victoria Police had claimed PII in respect of some material, he had surmised from that claim that she must have been a human source.⁴⁸³

On 12 March 2010, Ms Gobbo’s legal representatives sought to have her excused from the witness summons due to her ill health. While refusing to set the summons aside, the magistrate adjourned her evidence until 17 June 2010.⁴⁸⁴

Murder of Mr Carl Williams

On 19 April 2010, Mr Williams was murdered in Barwon prison. Ms Gobbo subsequently offered to assist police with the investigation. She told Detective Sergeant Stuart Bailey of the Homicide Squad on several occasions that she was attempting to meet and obtain information from a third party about the Williams murder.⁴⁸⁵ Mr Bailey and other officers were concerned that this would jeopardise her safety as her identity as a human source was already at risk of exposure.⁴⁸⁶

On 7 June 2010, the charges of murder against Mr Dale and Mr Rodney Collins were formally withdrawn at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

Ms Gobbo starts civil litigation against Victoria Police

On 29 April 2010, Ms Gobbo filed proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Victoria, Mr Overland and former Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon, APM.⁴⁸⁷ Ms Gobbo claimed that the conduct of Victoria Police had detrimentally affected her health and ruined her career, causing economic loss; specifically, loss of earnings and capacity to earn income as a barrister.⁴⁸⁸

Ms Gobbo’s claim related only to the police engagement with her as a prospective witness for the Petra Taskforce in prosecution of Mr Dale. It did not address her engagement with Victoria Police as a human source.

On 11 August 2010, Ms Gobbo signed terms of settlement with Victoria Police.⁴⁸⁹ The financial settlement only referred to Ms Gobbo’s status as a witness in the proceeding against Mr Dale and did not refer to her history as a registered human source. The settlement included a term that Victoria Police would not call Ms Gobbo to give evidence in any proceedings and officers from the Petra Taskforce would not contact her.

Despite agreeing to and signing those terms of settlement, on 12 August 2010 Ms Gobbo contacted then Detective Senior Constable Angela Hantsis:

Hi Ang, until permitted contact with me again, I just wanted to say thank you for your wise words to [Mr Cooper] who passed on your message. I’ve just been re-diagnosed with stress related cancer (reappeared since March surgery) and I intend to do as you suggested, to ‘look after myself’ I made the mistake of trusting people I respected highly stupidly thinking they actually cared. It really hurts to be used and taken advantage of especially when serious illness results. I truly thank you for your kind thoughts conveyed by [Mr Cooper] I understand that you’d be there to offer the support I so badly required if you were allowed contact.⁴⁹⁰

On 12 August 2010, Mr Overland directed that Petra Taskforce investigators were not to contact Ms Gobbo. He also directed that, if Ms Gobbo contacted officers, under no circumstances was any information, intelligence or evidence to be solicited or taken from her.⁴⁹¹ Mr Overland said he gave this direction after he became aware that Ms Gobbo remained in contact with Victoria Police.⁴⁹²

On 29 August 2010, Standard Operating Procedures relating to contact with Ms Gobbo (referred to as ‘Witness F’) were issued and noted:

The following options may apply to information received from Witness F:

• Information may not be acted on for reasons which may jeopardise Witness F safety or security, issues of identification etc will be major considerations ...
• The SDU Detective Inspector to advise Witness F that information received may or may not be acted upon
• Information after sanitisation may be re directed to appropriate investigative units
• Information is not to be sourced to Witness F
• Investigators are to be advised that information has been received from a person who cannot be identified.⁴⁹³

After 30 August 2010, Ms Gobbo spoke to then Detective Inspector John O’Connor, her designated point of contact at Victoria Police, on numerous occasions.⁴⁹⁴ She gave him information regarding individuals including Mr Williams.⁴⁹⁵ Then Superintendent Peter Lardner and Mr Pope, then an Assistant Commissioner, provided advice to Mr O’Connor’s immediate supervisor, then Superintendent Paul Sheridan, that information from her should be received but she was not to be tasked to follow up this information.⁴⁹⁶

Driver Taskforce and second prosecution of Mr Paul Dale

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions charges against Mr Paul Dale

Following the death of Mr Williams, Petra Taskforce was disbanded and the murder charges against Mr Dale and Mr Collins were withdrawn. The Driver Taskforce was established to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Williams.

Mr Solomon had submitted a brief of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) recommending charges against Mr Dale for offences against the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth). After reviewing the brief of evidence, the CDPP indicated that they considered the case against Mr Dale to be strong, and recommended charges be brought against him.⁴⁹⁷

On 15 February 2011, Mr Dale was charged with 12 offences alleging that he gave false evidence before the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) in 2007 and 2008. Then Detective Senior Sergeant Boris Buick was the informant in relation to the charges and liaised with Ms Gobbo.

There were complications in calling Ms Gobbo as a witness in the CDPP prosecution. Agreement still had not been reached between Ms Gobbo and Victoria Police about her entering witness protection. There was also the term in the settlement agreement that Victoria Police no longer proposed to call Ms Gobbo to give evidence in any proceeding.

Problems with calling Ms Gobbo as a witness

Through his dealings with Ms Gobbo in 2011, Mr Buick was aware that the complications of calling Ms Gobbo as a witness extended beyond her involvement with Mr Dale. During their meetings, Ms Gobbo told Mr Buick about aspects of her history as a human source with the SDU, including her involvement in representing and informing on clients such as Mr Mokbel, Mr Cooper, Mr Thomas, Mr Orman and Mr Karam.

For example, on 16 February 2011, Mr Buick met with Ms Gobbo to inform her of the prosecution against Mr Dale. During the conversation she referred to Mr Orman’s case, in which Mr Buick was the informant, claiming credit for his conviction:

MS GOBBO: … The High Court matter you went up to Canberra for last week, you know how that happened.

MR BUICK: Well, I know, you’ve said that the other day. I ---

MS GOBBO: Go and ask ---

MR BUICK: I thought that was my—I thought that was my hard work.

MS GOBBO: No. You go and ask the right people Boris—it was a very well hidden thing, that’s why [Officers Sandy White, Green and Peter Smith] are exceptionally good … detectives. However, one would have thought that after you do all of that, someone shakes your hand and says, ‘Thank you’.

MR BUICK: you got … convicted for me.

MS GOBBO: You know. You don’t need me to say it for the tape.

MR BUICK: No, I was going to shake your hand if you said yes.⁴⁹⁸

The CDPP continued to seek to use Ms Gobbo as a witness in the Dale prosecution.

On 24 August 2011 during a meeting between Ms Gobbo, CDPP representatives and Mr Buick, Ms Gobbo raised matters that would make it difficult for her to give evidence. These included an oblique reference to the Tomato Tins prosecution.⁴⁹⁹ After the meeting, Ms Gobbo had a further conversation with Mr Buick:

MR BUICK: Can you just tell me, though, ’cause ---

MS GOBBO: Yeah.

MR BUICK: --- I’m not as clever as, you know, the rest of you. What’s the current prosecution that is—is the issue?

MS GOBBO: World’s biggest ever importation of ecstasy.

MR BUICK: And who’s up on that?

MS GOBBO: Higgs, Karam, Barbaro. The highest level of organised crime dealers.

MR BUICK: So they’ve all ---

MS GOBBO: Now, you—I can tell you, you—you, but the ACC, and VicPol and the AFP didn’t have a clue about that. I had the shipping documents. I got my hands on them and that’s how you found the world’s biggest ever single seizure of ecstasy in the world. Now you think I’m going to risk those people finding out—no fucking way.⁵⁰⁰

On 26 August 2011, Mr Buick spoke further with Ms Gobbo about the Tomato Tins prosecution. She explained her interaction with, and the information she provided to, the SDU during that period. She stated that Victoria Police had fed the information to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service in order for the AFP to believe it had, of its own accord, located the shipping container containing the drugs. Ms Gobbo referred to her representation of Mr Karam at the time of the importation when she was also informing against him to police. She said she would not put herself in a situation where she might be asked questions about such matters in the witness box.⁵⁰¹

Maguire advice

Mr Buick was concerned that Ms Gobbo’s role as a human source might be exposed as a result of material produced in response to the subpoenas Mr Dale’s lawyers filed.⁵⁰² On around 31 August 2011, Victoria Police obtained urgent legal advice from barrister Gerard Maguire.⁵⁰³ In 2009, Mr Maguire had provided advice to the Briars Taskforce regarding whether Ms Gobbo’s statement would have to be disclosed to Mr Dale during his murder trial.⁵⁰⁴ In preparing that advice, Mr Maguire was told that Ms Gobbo was a registered human source but was not given many details.⁵⁰⁵ This time Mr Maguire reviewed the SML kept by the SDU in respect of Ms Gobbo.⁵⁰⁶ On 4 October 2011 he provided his advice.⁵⁰⁷

Mr Maguire advised that Victoria Police may be required to disclose some material relating to Ms Gobbo’s dealings with the SDU to Mr Dale’s lawyers. If Victoria Police was to make a PII claim to prevent this disclosure, it could be unsuccessful. That was because, when a court determines whether a PII claim should be upheld, it will balance the competing interests of protecting a human source with the public interest in disclosing the material. This material could assist Mr Dale’s defence that he and Ms Gobbo had a lawyer-client relationship when she taped their conversation; it would affect her credit in claiming that they were not in a lawyer-client relationship.⁵⁰⁸

Mr Maguire also noted that, if disclosure was made, it was likely that Mr Dale’s lawyers would seek further material demonstrating Ms Gobbo’s informing on others for whom she was acting, such as Mr Mokbel. If these people became aware of her role as a human source, they might challenge their convictions on the basis that they were unlawfully obtained.⁵⁰⁹

Once it was confirmed that Ms Gobbo’s role would need to be disclosed to the court for the PII argument, Victoria Police took steps to withdraw Ms Gobbo as a witness in the Commonwealth trial due to the significant risk to her safety.⁵¹⁰

Victoria Police tries to withdraw Ms Gobbo as a witness

On 21 October 2011, Mr Buick met with officers of the Driver Taskforce Steering Committee to discuss the Dale prosecution and the consequences of Ms Gobbo being called as a witness and being cross-examined.⁵¹¹

That afternoon, Ms Gobbo met with Mr Buick and Detective Sergeant Jason Lebusque.⁵¹²

During their conversation, Mr Buick said ‘it was possible’ that Victoria Police would ask the CDPP not to proceed with the prosecution, because the examination of Ms Gobbo, or Victoria Police’s production of documents relating to her, might jeopardise other prosecutions.⁵¹³

Ms Gobbo asked why this was only being considered in 2011 when she had been raising these issues for years. She continued:

… I’ve always said the problem’s going to be the police, not in terms of my safety ’cause I’ll be dead but in terms of people jumping up and down about their convictions. I’ve said that for years. But isn’t this all based on the assumption that if somebody asks me a question, it comes out?⁵¹⁴

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions identifies issues with disclosure

In early November 2011, officers of the Driver Taskforce organised for representatives of the CDPP to review documents about Ms Gobbo’s role as a human source.⁵¹⁵ The CDPP considered that Mr Dale was likely to mount a defence that Ms Gobbo was acting as his legal adviser at the time of the recording.⁵¹⁶ The CDPP advised that, given this defence, the prosecution would be required to produce documents including those relating to:

• instances where she encouraged Mr Dale or others to believe that their communications were protected by legal professional privilege
• information indicating she was a perpetrator or party to criminal activity
• information indicating that Ms Gobbo lied to investigators or police handlers.⁵¹⁷

Following that advice, Mr Graham Ashton, then Assistant Commissioner, Crime, requested that the CDPP only proceed with charges that did not rely on the evidence of Ms Gobbo.⁵¹⁸

The CDPP asked for further information, which was prepared by SDU officers on 6 November 2011.⁵¹⁹ The document provided a brief history and scope of Ms Gobbo’s informing between 2005 and 2009 and the number of cases it could have adversely impacted.⁵²⁰ The document included a list of 164 criminals, solicitors or former Victoria Police officers about whom Ms Gobbo had provided information, including Mr Mokbel and his associates, Mr Karam and his associates, and Mr Orman.

Mr Graham Ashton withdraws Ms Gobbo as a witness

On 7 November 2011, Mr Sheridan provided this document outlining Ms Gobbo’s role as a human source to Mr Ashton with a cover note stating:

Exposure of Witness F activities within Victoria Police as contained within this summary will have significant impact upon Victoria Police operations, past and present.⁵²¹

In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Ashton said he was ‘shocked’ when he read the document on 7 November 2011.⁵²² After receiving it, Mr Ashton determined that it was untenable for Ms Gobbo to proceed as a witness in the Commonwealth prosecution of Mr Dale.⁵²³ The next day, Mr Ashton advised the CDPP that Ms Gobbo was to be withdrawn as a witness because there were concerns for her safety.⁵²⁴ The CDPP withdrew her as a witness, and a number of charges against Mr Dale that relied on her testimony were withdrawn.⁵²⁵

Although Ms Gobbo was informed on 9 November 2011 that she was not to be called as a witness, she continued to offer to make statements in relation to the Hodson murders, including writing to then DPP, Mr John Champion, SC.⁵²⁶ The initial letters in 2011 were written by Mr Alex Lewenberg, her then solicitor, and referred only to his ‘client’ without explicitly identifying Ms Gobbo.⁵²⁷

Mr Champion, who did not know that the ‘client’ was Ms Gobbo, exchanged several letters with Mr Lewenberg, who indicated that his client was willing to assist law enforcement authorities in relation to the Hodson murders in exchange for a reward.⁵²⁸ Later, in a letter dated 27 February 2012, Mr Lewenberg referred to Ms Gobbo by name.⁵²⁹

The Comrie Review

On 19 March 2012, Victoria Police engaged former Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, Neil Comrie, AO, APM, to undertake a confidential review of Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source.⁵³⁰

The catalyst for the review had been a meeting on 3 November 2011 between Mr McRae, Mr Ashton and Mr Cartwright to discuss Mr Maguire’s recent advice.⁵³¹

Mr Comrie’s report, the ‘Comrie Review’, was completed in July 2012 and identified a number of issues relating to Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source, including that risk assessment processes used for Ms Gobbo were ‘grossly inadequate’, control measures were not complied with, authorisation processes were not as robust as they ought to have been, and supervision and management were unsatisfactory.⁵³²

Victoria Police started two operations as a result of the Comrie Review: Operation Loricated and Operation Bendigo. These aimed to address issues of concern arising from the Comrie Review and the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source.

After the Comrie Review, between June 2012 and 2014, Mr McRae met with the DPP a number of times to discuss Ms Gobbo and the implications arising from the information she provided to Victoria Police.⁵³³

The Comrie Review is discussed in further detail in Chapter 11.

Closure of Source Development Unit

After an internal review, Victoria Police determined in 2013 to close the SDU. In February 2013, SDU officers were informed of this decision.⁵³⁴

The Commission heard evidence that there were a wide range of factors involved in the decision, only one of which was the SDU’s management of Ms Gobbo.⁵³⁵ Victoria Police and the SDU handlers disagree as to the reasons for the closure. This matter is discussed further in Chapter 8.

‘Lawyer X’ story breaks

On 31 March 2014, the Herald Sun published an article entitled ‘Underworld Lawyer a Secret Police Informer’.⁵³⁶ The article alleged that Victoria Police had recruited a ‘prominent underworld lawyer’ to inform on criminal figures running Melbourne’s drug trade. It further alleged that this human source, referred to only as ‘Lawyer X’, had given Victoria Police ‘unprecedented access to information on some of Australia’s biggest drug barons and hitmen, including alleged corrupt police and others involved in Melbourne’s gangland war’.

While the article did not name Ms Gobbo, Victoria Police sought a suppression order to prevent its publication.⁵³⁷ Ultimately, the application was withdrawn after the Herald Sun agreed not to publish certain paragraphs of the article.⁵³⁸

Victoria Police had concerns for Ms Gobbo’s safety.⁵³⁹ It considered that the media reporting in relation to ‘Lawyer X’ was directly linked to threats subsequently made to Ms Gobbo.⁵⁴⁰ Officers from Victoria Police met with Ms Gobbo in April 2014.⁵⁴¹ She continued to refuse to enter witness protection.⁵⁴²

On 1 April 2014, senior Victoria Police officers attended Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) to discuss the matters raised in the media article.⁵⁴³

The Kellam Report

On 10 April 2014, Victoria Police formally notified IBAC regarding the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source.⁵⁴⁴ Chief Commissioner Kenneth (Ken) Lay, AO wrote to then IBAC Commissioner Stephen O’Bryan, QC stating that he considered that an independent body should investigate the allegations of police misconduct.⁵⁴⁵

As a result, the Honourable Murray Kellam AO, QC, on behalf of IBAC, undertook a confidential inquiry into the conduct of current and former Victoria Police officers identified in the Comrie Review in relation to their management of Ms Gobbo as a human source. He examined Victoria Police’s human source management policies and practices at the time that Ms Gobbo was registered as a human source between 2005 and 2009 and also considered the cases of nine individuals who received, or possibly received, legal assistance from Ms Gobbo while she was informing on them to Victoria Police.⁵⁴⁶ All nine were convicted of serious criminal offences.

On 6 February 2015, Mr Kellam produced his report, the ‘Kellam Report’, and made 16 recommendations. He recommended that the Chief Commissioner provide a copy of the report and any relevant material to the DPP, so that they could consider whether any prosecutions that may have been obtained in breach of legal professional privilege or confidentiality had resulted in a miscarriage of justice due to the use of Ms Gobbo as a human source.⁵⁴⁷

The Kellam Report is discussed in further detail in Chapter 11.

The Champion Report

A copy of the Kellam Report was provided to then DPP, Mr Champion, to consider whether any relevant prosecutions may have been obtained in breach of legal professional privilege or confidentiality and resulted in miscarriages of justice.⁵⁴⁸

On 5 February 2016, the DPP produced his confidential report and concluded that he was obliged to disclose the possibility of miscarriages of justice to six of the nine individuals who were identified in the Kellam Report, all of whom Ms Gobbo had represented and the DPP had prosecuted.⁵⁴⁹

Court proceedings

In March 2016, Mr Champion wrote to then Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton, enclosing a copy of the draft disclosure letter he intended to send to the six individuals named in the Kellam Report and one other individual whom the DPP had later identified as being potentially affected.⁵⁵⁰

Subsequently, Mr Champion corresponded a number of times with then Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton, Specialist Operations.⁵⁵¹ Victoria Police was of the view that the disclosures proposed by the DPP, which would lead to Ms Gobbo being identified, would have ‘potentially catastrophic consequences for her safety and for the safety of her family’.⁵⁵²

In June 2016, the Chief Commissioner initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court to stop the DPP from making these disclosures.⁵⁵³ The hearings were held in closed court, without notice to the seven individuals, and were subject to suppression orders.

Ms Gobbo supported the Chief Commissioner’s attempts to stop her identity and role as a human source from being revealed. In November 2016, she filed her own proceeding to restrain the DPP from making the disclosures.⁵⁵⁴ The applications were heard together before Justice Ginnane between November 2016 and March 2017, over 18 hearing days. In June 2017, Justice Ginnane dismissed the proceedings, and issued a non-publication order over the proceedings.⁵⁵⁵

In July 2017, the Chief Commissioner and Ms Gobbo appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, which also dismissed both appeals, again without notice to the seven individuals and with suppression orders.⁵⁵⁶

On 9 May 2018, the High Court granted special leave to appeal. It heard the appeals on 5 November 2018, without notice to the seven individuals and with suppression orders in place. In a unanimous decision, the seven members of the High Court revoked the grants of special leave. The High Court’s decision upheld the decisions of the Victorian courts permitting the DPP to make the disclosures to the seven individuals.⁵⁵⁷

The decision of the High Court was made available to Commonwealth and Victorian authorities but was not made public until 3 December 2018. Ms Gobbo’s name was suppressed by court order until 1 March 2019 following the resolution of further proceedings to protect her identity, as discussed in Chapter 1 of this final report.

The establishment of the Commission

On 3 December 2018, the day the High Court’s decision was made public, the Victorian Government announced that it would establish a royal commission to independently inquire into Victoria Police’s use of Ms Gobbo as a human source.

This Commission was formally established by Letters Patent issued by the Governor of Victoria on 13 December 2018. The establishment of the Commission and the conduct of its inquiry are discussed in Chapters 1 and 3 of this final report.

Endnotes