Here you go Ali.
You can find the whole transcript at the Industrial Relations website.
You can find the whole transcript at the Industrial Relations website.
102 I do not consider the third respondent to be a witness of credit. In the absence of corroboration or objective evidence, I am disinclined to accept the third respondent's evidence where it conflicts with other evidence, particularly in relation to his account of the Meeting unless substantiated by some other means. In this respect, I adopt the same approach to his evidence as that of the applicant where conflicts of evidence arise. His position was plainly partisan and his evidence was given with the aim of advocating a particular case. This aim was pursued with such determination that plain inconsistencies were never rectified, and concessions were not made even when the most obtuse observer could see that they were required. I will refer to some such instances during this judgment in the context of particular further findings, but I have extracted a passage of cross-examination concerning the solicitor's letter referred to above as an illustration of this conclusion:
Q. Would you look at paragraph 91. You record a conversation you had there with Ms Mott, do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you include that conversation in this affidavit?
A. Because I thought it was most important when I find out that there had been a letter from the Licencing Board with regards to the C E not being able to obtain the licence.
Q. Did you read that letter yourself?
A. I had not read it, I didn't know up until then when I saw the letter.
Q. Did you see the letter after this conversation?
A. I would have seen the letter after the conversation, yes.
Q. When you read the letter --?
A. But I had not seen it. If I may say, before I went it was well after, like, it was not the next day, that is what I am answering.
Q. It was some time later?
A. Yes.
Q. That letter is annexed to your affidavit as BP 14?
A. Yes. That is the one from Sergeant Devenish, is this the one?
Q. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. It is actually marked BP 14.4?
A. Yes.
Q. When you read that letter some time after this conversation with Ms Mott, you realised that what she told you was not true?
A. I don't agree with that.
Q. Look at what you say she said: "Peter has been knocked back by the LAB to have the licence". You know that is not true?
A. Sorry, could you repeat that?
Q. Paragraph 91 you say she said: "Peter has been knocked back by the LAB to hold the licence".
A. Am I aware - I was advised of that, yes.
Q. This is what she is telling you?
A. Yes.
Q. You know he was not knocked back by the LAB, was he?
A. I was not aware what had happened with the LAC at that stage.
Q. After you received this letter from Sergeant Devenish; would you have look at that again. That is not a knock back by the LAB, is it?
A. That "You are not a fit and proper person to hold a licence"? I read it that way.
Q. Have another look at it, Mr Pierce. You are not an unintelligent man; it says: "Take notice I object to your application for approval"; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So it is an objection by Sergeant Devenish not the Liquor Administration Board or the Licencing Court?
A. Right.
Q. He advised that the application, that is, the application for approval to act as secretary, is listed for hearing at the Licencing Court on a day to be fixed?
A. Right.
Q. So at this point in time he had not been knocked back by the LAB to hold a licence, had he?
A. By the wording of that it had to go to a hearing.
Q. You agree with me now, do you, that what you say Ms Mott told you in paragraph 91 was not true?
A. Well, obviously Sergeant Devenish's report would have a bearing on that but at the time I had not had the letter.
Q. You accept now what she told you in paragraph 91 was not true?
A. I'm not accepting that because I was not aware of it at the time.
Q. You are aware now it is not true?
A. I have this here in front of me now.
Q. When you read that notice of objection from Sergeant Devenish that was well before you prepared this affidavit, wasn't it?
A. It would have been, yes.
Q. You prepared this affidavit with some care?
A. I did.
Q. And with assistance from lawyers?
A. That's correct.
Q. At the time you prepared the affidavit you knew he had not been knocked back by the LAB, all that had happened is that a Sergeant had filed an objection?
A. No, that is not correct because I in the meantime had asked Mr Gow had he heard from them and he said No, he had not so obviously I was concerned.
Q. Stay with the question; you knew he had not been knocked back?
A. No, I didn't at the time.
Q. At the time you prepared this affidavit you knew he had not been knocked back?
A. By that correspondence?
Q. Yes?
A. That is correct.
Q. You are not aware of any other correspondence, are you?
A. No, I'm not aware of any other correspondence.
103 My observations of him in the witness box lead me to conclude that his demeanour in Court matched his demeanour in the Meeting: a man determined to obstruct anything which may benefit the applicant, as if in pursuit of a cause, irrespective of how the statements he may make or actions he may have taken may strain credibility. To anticipate future sections of the judgment, it is notable that the third respondent's evidence in relation to some aspects of the Meeting was unique and more extreme even than that of Mr Clarkson: the third respondent was the only director who denied that the applicant read the Terms Sheet to the Meeting and the only director who stated that he did not read it himself.
And some other bits
101 The third respondent's censorship of the solicitor's letter, together with his circulation of the memorandum concerning Miranda Police, clearly evinces an intention to mislead the Board. It also provides a useful introduction to my assessment of the third respondent's evidence in general.
94 Broadly speaking, the Meeting took the following course: preliminaries and housekeeping; listening to witness accounts and reviewing other material; the applicant's address to the Board; discussions about the incident and appropriate action; discussions about the applicant's proposed consultancy; drafting press releases; and finally, statements to the media. I shall discuss each stage of the Meeting below. It should be noted that Mr Gorry left the Meeting in the later stages while the Board discussed details of the applicant's consultancy. I will deal with the timing and length of this absence later.
95 The Board comprised nine directors, and the Court had the benefit of evidence from all but one, Mr McLean. Mr Gorry also gave evidence. In addition to affidavit and oral testimony, the following documents were admitted into evidence:
The formal minutes which are incomplete if not spartan;
152 The third respondent did, however, concede that the full Board agreed that the applicant was to have a consultancy in exchange for resigning and that the Clubs' solicitors would draw up the legal document. The third respondent was unbelievable when he insisted that he had no view as to term, remuneration, or termination: he thought that the solicitors would "do the negotiations to come up with a new consultancy agreement".
172 The third respondent's evidence in relation to Mr Gow's correspondence after the Meeting was clear, emphatic, and as unbelievable as it was replete with non-sequiturs. The third respondent agreed that he received all of the applicant's letters, and stated that he read them and passed them directly to Mr Gorry, who had a general authority from the Board to "negotiate the consultancy agreement". Mr Gorry's evidence was equally emphatic and directly contradicted the evidence of the third respondent in the following manner: according to Mr Gorry, he did not receive any instructions, and was not sent any correspondence until 18 June 1999.
