A very unusual directions hearing

Chat

Court Transcript: Directions Hearing for Mr. Dunstan

This court transcript from May 1999 documents a directions hearing involving a defendant named Mr Dunstan, who appeared without legal representation while in custody. During the proceedings, the accused challenged several evidentiary discrepancies regarding postal charges and potential arson, arguing that certain parcels were misidentified or wrongly attributed to specific locations. The judge tentatively scheduled the trial for 19 July and confirmed it would be held before a jury, despite a lack of formal indictment at the time. Significant discussion was devoted to the defendant's application for bail, which the court delayed until June to allow for the filing of supporting affidavits. Additionally, the court addressed the status of the defendant's Legal Aid application, requesting that the commission clarify its position to ensure a fair trial process.

Listen to the podcast "How a dent in a ceiling tile completely unravelled police evidence"

Explain the discrepancies found in the parcel bomb evidence.

During the directions hearing, Mr. Dunstan highlights several significant discrepancies in the parcel bomb evidence and the resulting charges. These discrepancies primarily concern the identification of recipients, the timing and location of supposed explosions, and the interpretation of physical damage at the mail centre.

The key discrepancies identified in the sources are as follows:

• Incorrect Addressee for Charges: Mr. Dunstan argues that a charge related to Robyn Mary Orr is incorrect . He notes that a photograph in the evidence book shows an unused envelope addressed to "R. Orr," and asserts that the charge should instead be replaced with one relating to Anthony Crewes , the intended recipient of what he describes as the "missing parcel" .
• Stamp and Parcel Count Inconsistencies: He points to a discrepancy in the number of stamps used, stating that while there were originally 24 $2 stamps and 21 30-cent stamps used for parcels in Canberra, one specific parcel (the one addressed to Anthony Crewes) was unique because it had only a single stamp instead of two .
• Contradictory Evidence Regarding Explosions: Mr. Dunstan claims that at the time the police photographed 22 packages at the Fyshwick Mail Centre, none of them had exploded . He argues this has a direct bearing on the charges relating to an incident of arson .
• Discrepant Delivery Suburbs: A significant discrepancy exists regarding the destination of the parcel that supposedly exploded. A postal worker’s statement claimed the package was addressed to the suburb of Dickson , yet none of the 22 parcels photographed by police were addressed to that suburb . He expresses confusion over how a package could be variously identified as destined for Melba, Queanbeyan, or Dickson .
• Alternative Explanation for Physical Damage: To counter claims of an explosion, Mr. Dunstan provides an alternative explanation for a hole in the ceiling at the Dickson mailing bin. He cites information from a fellow detainee who previously worked at the mail centre, suggesting the damage was actually caused by workers using a mop to lift ceiling tiles to relocate copper water pipes, rather than a blast .
• Timing of Police Advance Warning: He highlights an anomaly regarding a parcel delivered in Sydney on 1 December. Based on witness statements, he argues that the Australian Federal Police may have had approximately 10 hours of advance warning to look for identical parcels at the Fyshwick Mail Centre before they were processed .

What was the mop explanation for the Dickson damage?

The mop explanation was an alternative theory provided by Mr. Dunstan to account for physical damage at the mail centre that the prosecution attributed to an explosion.

According to the source, the details of this explanation are as follows:

• Source of Information: Mr. Dunstan received this information from a fellow detainee who had previously worked at the mail centre.
• The Action: The detainee claimed that a mop handle had been used to lift a ceiling tile. This action resulted in a circular hole in the ceiling tile that looked very similar to the damage shown in police photographs.
• Reason for Lifting the Tile: The tile was reportedly lifted because a copper water pipe needed to be relocated in the roof to make room for an air conditioning duct.
• Existing Damage: Mr. Dunstan further explained that there was a dent next to the new location of the copper pipe, which had been caused when the pipe was originally installed.
• Location: This damaged ceiling tile was located immediately above the Dickson white mailing bin, which was the specific site where the explosion was alleged to have occurred.

Mr. Dunstan used this explanation to challenge the Crown's assertion that an explosion had taken place at that location, suggesting instead that the visible damage was pre-existing maintenance-related wear.

Why was the Dickson white mailing bin significant?

The Dickson white mailing bin was significant because it was the specific location where the Crown alleged a parcel bomb explosion had taken place.

Its significance in the directions hearing is tied to several key points of contention raised by Mr. Dunstan:

• Location of Alleged Explosion: According to a statement from a postal worker, the parcel that exploded was addressed to the suburb of Dickson, and the event supposedly occurred at this specific bin.
• Physical Evidence of Damage: The bin was situated immediately beneath a damaged section of the roof and ceiling. While the prosecution used this damage as evidence of a blast, Mr. Dunstan used the bin's location to support his "mop explanation," arguing the hole in the ceiling was actually pre-existing damage from maintenance work rather than an explosion.
• Evidence Discrepancy: Mr. Dunstan highlighted a major inconsistency regarding this location: although the Crown claimed an explosion occurred involving a parcel addressed to Dickson, none of the 22 parcels photographed by the Australian Federal Police at the mail centre were addressed to that suburb.

Ultimately, Mr. Dunstan argued that the focus on the Dickson mailing bin was an error, suggesting the "only explanation" for the selection of Dickson in the Crown's case was the coincidental ceiling damage located directly above that specific bin.

What was the 'missing parcel' addressed to Anthony Crewes?

The "missing parcel" was a package that Mr. Dunstan identified as the correct subject for one of his charges, arguing it had been wrongly attributed to Robyn Mary Orr.

According to the source, the following details define this parcel:

• Addressee and Destination: It was addressed to Anthony Crewes at an address on Fergus Road, Queanbeyan, New South Wales.
• Unique Identification: The parcel was uniquely identified by having only a single stamp. This distinguished it from the other 21 parcels photographed at the Fyshwick Mail Centre, each of which bore two stamps: a $2 stamp and a 30-cent stamp.
• Physical Evidence: Mr. Dunstan pointed out that this parcel appears in the police evidence book (Book 1, photos 56, 57, 43, and 44).
• Condition at Mail Centre: He emphasized that when the police photographed this 22nd package at the Fyshwick Mail Centre, it had not exploded.

Mr. Dunstan argued that the charge relating to Robyn Mary Orr should be replaced with one relating to Anthony Crewes because the evidence showed an unused envelope for Orr, whereas the parcel for Crewes was the one actually processed.

A sequel to the direction hearing on 10 May 1999 is recorded in the transcript of the trial in November-December 1999. Firstly the police officer who wrote the charge alleging a parcel was addressed to Robyn Orr in Melba conceded fragments of a label swept up from the Mail Centre floor may have included text from the word "Queanbeyan". Secondly, Dunstan asked the prosecutor to inspect the exhibit with fragments of the label - insisting it would show "Queanbeyan". The Prosecutor interrupted and refused to look at the evidence. Thirdly, the prosecutor repeated "slipped" into referring to the "phantom packet" as the packet that "was exploded" (meaning it was destroyed by police officers detonating an charge placed on it) instead of calling it the packet "that exploded". Most significantly, the slip included telling the jury the evidence would persuade them the packet "was exploded".

The trial transcripts from November and December 1999 provide a sequel to the issues raised during the 10 May 1999 directions hearing, specifically regarding the identification of the alleged "Queanbeyan" parcel and the nature of the explosion.

The following details are recorded in the trial evidence:

• Police Concession on Label Fragments: During cross-examination, Detective M.R. Johnsen was asked if a portion of the retrieved fragments indicated the addressee was living in Queanbeyan , to which he replied, " That could be correct ". He further admitted that the identification of Robyn Orr as the intended recipient was not categorical, but rather a " process of elimination " based on a list of names found at the accused's house.
• Prosecutor’s Refusal to Inspect Evidence: On 30 November 1999, while being cross-examined by the Prosecutor (Mr Refshauge), Mr Dunstan suggested that looking at the fragments returned from the post office would confirm the address. Mr Dunstan asserted that the phrase " Queanbeyan " was clearly visible on one of the address fragments. However, the Prosecutor explicitly refused to do so, stating, " No, I don’t want to do that ".
• The "Was Exploded" Verbal Slip: The transcripts show that the Prosecutor used the phrase " was exploded " on multiple occasions when referring to the device at the mail exchange. On 30 November, he asked Mr Dunstan about a device that " was exploded ". Later, on 2 December, while addressing the jury regarding the evidence at the Canberra Mail Exchange, the Prosecutor stated that the evidence would result in them accepting that the device that " was exploded at the mail exchange " was one caused to be sent by Mr Dunstan.