here's the link
( though may be pulled down as is being harrased apparently XD ) turns out freespeech ... isnt XD
to the police commissioner
what criteria is applied to determine
the involvement of the police fixated
persons unit in any matter
um
i'll play that question first sir and
i'll pass over to mr walton who's
sitting next to me who have a side state
unit
but there is a criteria in a protocol
and a form of assessment through the
intelligence
terrorism intelligence
section of
the counter-terrorism command
prior to an investigation being taken on
that i'll hand over to mr walton to run
through that
um
and there's a
existing
set of standing operating procedures
which should be invited by that
yes there is a
fairly recent history in relation to the
management of fixated persons here in
new south wales and australia
it flows from a program the fixated
person's threat assessment
center that was came out of the uk from
2006 in the australian
programmes of flow from a queensland
trial in 2014.
essentially
referrals are made into our terrorism
intelligence unit who assess
the information that has been provided
there's a panel that assesses that
information
determine the appropriate course
as to
where that
that
that work should be performed
often
with our partnership from new south
wales health and representation from
the chief
mental health officer
police conduct
is limited and health options
are applied in relation to people that
have a mental health history and are
unwell and their fixation is linked to
their mental health condition
at times those cases are referred to
local area commands to
work through and
the more complex cases are referred to
the fixated
persons unit who conduct those
investigations
so is it fair to assume there's a fair
process to be used to be followed before
the fixated person's unit is used in any
particular matter
yes
um can you tell the committee how the
fixated persons unit came to be involved
in the taking of action
against mr christolanka
uh that matter which you're aware is
before the court court so i would
certainly
sorry i need to take care in relation to
the detail of that answer but how did it
come to the fixated uh persons unit
of the process
yes the history is that uh
in december of 2020 uh mr shane brady
associate director of strategic security
at the department of premier and cabinet
made a referral to the city city police
area command so the command that
covers the area the geography that we're
in now
they
initiated
that report going on the system
uh due to the nature of the alleged
harassment
of a high office holder which the deputy
premier fits the definite definition of
it was referred
uh through the process to the terrorism
intelligence unit the information was
assessed uh the panel assessed the
nature of
uh the incidents that had been
referred and the fixated persons unit
commenced an investigation
now i think you said that there were
criteria and a sort of a charter for the
activities of the unit are those
publicly available
uh no they're not
are you able to supply them to this
committee so we could review them
i i'd certainly take that on notice um
to provide those those standard
operation operating procedures sir
okay uh can you inform the committee
whether the deputy premier mr baraloro
or any person in his office
sought the involvement of the fixated
persons unit in relation to mr lanka's
matter i have no information to suggest
that that occurred there has certainly
been
um
i would say contact between the deputy
premier's office and the investigators
which is to be expected in the course of
an investigation
and in the course of a victim and
investigator uh contact
alright well if you could take my
question on notice and give a completer
answer that would be good um
my next question is whether mr baralaro
or any person in his office
made a complaint to police about mr
lanka and his activities or did the
police act of their own accord in this
matter
uh the referral as i've outlined
initially came from
uh mr brady and the investigation
commenced from that uh from that point
right so does that mean the police acted
of their own accord well i think it's
more fairer to say that mr barolaro's
office or someone
um provided
concerns or
allegations that were then referred by
mr brady in the first instance
okay and i think i have asked you to see
if you could take on notice whether you
could supply the committee a copy of the
sort of criteria used by the unit it's
sort of charter of activities
yes thank you
i think my time's exciting
oh thanks chair um
yeah
thank you all for attending this
afternoon and and the work you've been
doing
um
mr walton this might be
appropriately addressed by you
can you tell us what the criteria is for
amount of being investigated by the
fixated persons unit i know you gave
some um answers to mr smell but can you
tell us what the criteria are
um
i've got the uh
the socks in front of me so
i'd have to sort of cloak or
collectively give you my my recollection
of that as i said there is a process
that that vets and determines what what
cases are done by the fixated persons
unit
essentially it does hang on uh that
someone's fixated there's ongoing
harassment and
typically they are high office holders
or there's a criteria that allows us in
circumstances to
determine someone who has been
i suppose overwhelmingly
harassed by someone for the unit to
undertake that investigation
typically they're more complex matters
that require
significant evidence gathering and being
able to present that material
to the courts
so it's not just any concern raised by a
public figure like an mp or the deputy
premier there has to be a very real
continuing pattern of behaviors is that
your understanding
that that's that's typical there's an
assessment that it's a serious
ongoing
uh issue
and
often a threat of violence is a
threshold that
that we moved towards
and indeed i could assume there would be
circumstances where a very serious
threat of violence of itself would be
sufficient
um and you wouldn't need an ongoing
series of events if there was a very
serious threat of violence would that be
right
indeed and in the current environment
particularly online we are seeing a lot
of
uh people venting their frustrations
whether it's anti-government anti-policy
or or
or anti-establishment
and
those matters are again being assessed
and determined where that investigation
is appropriately conducted
given the volume the bulk of them are
being done by local police and in many
instances
when they're engaged by the police they
remove
that that post
there's a level of contrition
and
essentially a warning is taken
so in many cases even when there's quite
serious threats
um it's addressed by police approaching
the person making it known that they are
being observed and a caution is given
and that's often
addressed is that your understanding
yeah i wouldn't say a serious threat
if there was a serious threat formal
action would be would be taken
um is it part of the fixated persons
units role to kind to police the um
political criticisms of
members of parliament even quite robust
political critics criticisms of members
of parliament is that in any way part of
the fixated person's unit's
role or parameters
no
um you see uh miss well i'm having
difficulty understanding how given the
nature of that evidence
that the fixated persons unit was in any
way involved with the investigation of
christolanka it doesn't seem to meet any
of those thresholds
and indeed on one view of it meets one
of the exclusions
well it was assessed as meaning that it
was certainly an ongoing
allegations of harassment and this
matter is before the court um mr
shoebridge so
i'm concerned that if we start to get
into the detail of
those allegations um
maybe some views
i'm i'm really interested in the role of
the fixated persons unit
um
um and and not indeed the um the court
proceedings
have you reviewed the decision by the
fixated persons unit to become involved
in this matter
i haven't reviewed the decision i have
looked at the material
have you satisfied yourself having
reviewed that material
that that it met the criteria for
investigation by the fixated persons
unit under the sops the standard
operating procedures
i'd have to take that on notice to
clearly benchmark it but as i sit here
i'm comfortable with the decision for
the fixated person's unit's involvement
in this matter
sorry ms dadson you may have wanted to
add something i think
um thank you mr schubert i just
um i'd like to clarify something mr
walton was actually on the leave i think
when the gentleman was arrested i i did
question the process
i um forwarded a memorandum to the
acting commander of the
counter-terrorism and special tactics
command
asking him
to review what happened
i don't think appropriate processes were
properly followed
from that assessment having said that
i think if the appropriate processes
were followed we would have the same
result
i was more concerned about the process
that was followed
rather than the outcome i don't think it
would have changed the fact that the
fixed-sized person's unit would become
involved in the matter i don't think it
would have changed the fact that we
would prefer charges against the
gentleman
but because of the sensitivities around
this
um
we are quite strong in the fact that the
process has to be followed and if we
identify
um incidents where that doesn't happen
we will question that and correct it
thanks mr hudson in what regard did you
form a view that incorrect process um
had been applied in this matter
well my recollection is that
the referral that
mr walton
referred to earlier was not in relation
to christo it was in relation to an
associate office
that was under investigation
and is currently still under
investigation
there had been contact and that went
through the appropriate referral
pathways
and
and was the investigation was being
conducted by the fixated persons unit
and that involved
allegations
made by the deputy premier
crystal length of this matter um
uh
came
around at the same time that matter was
being determined and because there was a
conduit of contact between the deputy
premier's office
and the fix over persons unit
it was contact made
and i think a fixated person's unit
treated it as an escalation of the same
incident
rather than a separate incident with a
separate suspect
and i think in my opinion
it should have been treated as a
separate suspect to go through the same
process
that we normally do and assessed
by
the terrorism intelligence unit prior to
a fixated person's unit
taking that on board as an investigation
as i said before
it would not have changed the outcome
um if we had gone down that path it
would have been a matter that would
would have been investigated by the
fixated persons unit
i think it would have been a matter
still that
would end up before the courts as it is
now
but in my mind and i know mr fuller
agrees with this and mr walton roots for
this
we have to ensure that the process for
jobs coming into that unit um
so
um as i said
[Music]
so mr hudson are you saying the fixated
persons unit made the decision to charge
mr lanka
having wrongly assumed it was part of an
escalating pattern of conduct
is that is that your evidence
oh i think
the it's
is linked to a matter they're already
investigating
and
they saw it as a continuance of the same
behaviour rather than isolated
however individually as this matter is
still on the investigation the initial
matter is still under investigation
um
so crystal length is more clear-cut and
passion was taken
more immediately
deputy commissioners
you understand the very real concern in
the community
where people have engaged in robust
satire of
politicians
end up finding themselves charged with
criminal offences by police you would
understand the very real concern in the
community and i'll just be clear it's
concerned that i very very much share
do you understand the level of concern
about this matter
um
totally understand uh the issue mr
shubridge and
there is a line that will ultimately
be determined by the court
as to whether that's when that line has
been across
that will be a determination
but in this case
police made a decision to have the
fixated persons unit involved which is
effectively there for serious political
related crimes
and that seems to have been you accept
now an error on the part of the new
south wales police is that right
i don't see the fixated person
investigating this matter as being a
mistake
i consider the pathway that caused them
to investigate the matter um and the
sops standard operating procedures that
currently exist
um to ensure that
inappropriate manners are not
investigated by them
mr hudson just just on that as i
understand it and maybe the police
commissioner can correct me
the fixated persons unit was established
just before the coroner's report into
the lint cafe siege came out and at the
time it was indicated its activities
would be directed towards
preventing terrorism and tackling people
who were potentially violent
can you tell the committee at least
roughly on what basis did mr lanka's
activities bring up within the scope of
the fixated persons unit i mean
is the suggestion that his activities
were terrorism related
uh fixated persons unit sits under the
counterterrorism and special tactics
command mr searle
that's right however
it's
it has a broad agreement looking at as
mr alluded to earlier or issues
that would come out of a fixated threat
assessment process
so there's a number of people involved
at different stages depending on the
nature of the job
um
including a fixated person's panel which
includes psychologists that can make
referrals
but it has a fairly broad reading to
investigate matters
where it is determined that
some form of fixation
on an individual or a group or um
or an entity
could lead to potential violence
sure but i mean
it obviously would have to be at a very
high level to warrant
the involvement of that body wouldn't it
i think since inception in 2017
um
a fixated
person's unit has investigated over 600
matters
and i think charged over 150 people now
i can get those more specific details to
you i can take those on notice
please do but there is
there's a variety of
um individuals that have been charged by
that unit their commonality is the
fixation whether it be terrorism um
fixated on a politician uh fixated on a
movie star
which we've had um as well
the commonality is the fixation
um not necessarily
whether it's political um
terrorism-related
or whales
all right in which case is its location
in the counterterrorism command
an entirely appropriate one given from
what you said the very broad spectrum of
operational activities it's dealt with i
mean where it is now it looks like it
deals with terrorism counterterrorism
very serious threats of political
violence
and there's been a lot of
concern around its use in this case
there's been a former dpps made comment
lawyers have made comments not about the
activities i mean if there's criminal
activities that's one issue and we're
not talking about
the proceedings at the moment but we're
just talking about the
the use of this unit do you understand
the sort of concerns that have been
expressed about the use of the unit in
this case
um i totally understand and
as i said i caused
the acting commander of counterterrorism
to review the process in this particular
matter
as i've indicated i don't think it would
have changed the outcome i think the
matter
as i understand it that's currently
before the courts is appropriately
investigated by the fixed overpersons
unit
and appropriate actions taken which we
are continuing to prosecute
but i can understand
and
do i understand from your evidence that
the concerns about mr lanka were were in
the nature of fixation rather than in
the nature of threats of violence or
said any kind of political issue
that's correct
in which case again
um
do you think that perhaps there should
be a different unit located outside of
counterterrorism that should deal with
matters that don't involve
terrorism or terrorism related
issues
um as other fixated units around the
world um emanating out of uh
out of fixated threat assessment centers
and fixated threat assessment centre
processes
um
there is a strong link um at times with
terrorism
um
once assessed
by
there's a very strong mechanism of
assessment through
of threat and risk through the
counterterrorism command which is
applied
through the
terrorism intelligence unit
i don't have the details with me but not
all matters assessed by that and
referred to that
not all investigations are conducted by
that unit
as bristol
alluded to earlier many of those matters
are referred to local area commands
i'm sorry police area command or police
districts
for investigation as it is determined
through that panel process
um that investigation better sits within
that environment rather than within the
counterterrorism command
okay and you'll
your evidence is that you're utterly
confident that all of the appropriate
processes and
and filters were used in this particular
matter
um
i think that um
the way that the investigation came
was conducted came to notice
was reviewed
i reminded the unit through the command
of the acting commander of
counterterrorism follow the standing
operating procedures and i think those
standing operating procedures are valid
and need to be adhered
are you aware whether the law
enforcement conduct commission is
looking at
the the investigation of this matter
am i aware if they are no i'm not aware
of that
okay
all right um
all right well
some of the criticism has been that
essentially mr lenka and his employer
were really engaged in
political scrutiny of the government and
that the use of the fixated persons unit
in this matter
has taken on a if you like a political
flavor
can you tell us whether the complaint
made by mr baralaro his office
specifically sought the involvement of
the fixated person's unit or was it just
generally a complaint to police
um the initial complaint um
the first complaint was made to as mrs
walton's uh said to the
city central police area command on to
the counterterrorism
okay
okay
okay um all right well i might move on
from this interesting topic because i
think you've taken some questions on
notice and you're going to supply us
with certain documents that we can have
a look at the the charter given to the
unit
to the police commissioner
what criteria is applied to determine
the involvement of the police fixated
persons unit in any matter
um
i'll play that question first sir and
i'll pass over to mr walton who's
sitting next to me who have a side state
unit
but there is a criteria in a protocol
and a form of assessment through the
intelligence
terrorism intelligence
section of
the counter-terrorism command
prior to an investigation being taken on
that i'll hand over to mr walton to run
through that
um
and there's a
existing
set of standing operating procedures
which should be invited by that
yes there is a
fairly recent history in relation to the
management of fixated persons here in
new south wales and australia
it flows from a program the fixated
person's threat assessment
center that was came out of the uk from
2006 in the australian
programmes of flow from a queensland
trial in 2014.
essentially
referrals are made into our terrorism
intelligence unit who assess
the information that has been provided
there's a panel that assesses that
information
determine the appropriate course
as to
where that
that
that work should be performed
often
with our partnership from new south
wales health and representation from
the chief
mental health officer
police conduct
is limited and health options
are applied in relation to people that
have a mental health history and are
unwell and their fixation is linked to
their mental health condition
at times those cases are referred to
local area commands to
work through and
the more complex cases are referred to
the fixated
persons unit who conduct those
investigations
so is it fair to assume there's a fair
process to be used to be followed before
the fixated person's unit is used in any
particular matter
yes
um can you tell the committee how the
fixated persons unit came to be involved
in the taking of action
against mr christolanka
uh that matter which you're aware is
before the court court so i would
certainly
sorry i need to take care in relation to
the detail of that answer but how did it
come to the fixated uh persons unit
of the process
yes the history is that uh
in december of 2020 uh mr shane brady
associate director of strategic security
at the department of premier and cabinet
made a referral to the city city police
area command so the command that
covers the area the geography that we're
in now
they
initiated
that report going on the system
uh due to the nature of the alleged
harassment
of a high office holder which the deputy
premier fits the definite definition of
it was referred
uh through the process to the terrorism
intelligence unit the information was
assessed uh the panel assessed the
nature of
uh the incidents that had been
referred and the fixated persons unit
commenced an investigation
now i think you said that there were
criteria and a sort of a charter for the
activities of the unit are those
publicly available
uh no they're not
are you able to supply them to this
committee so we could review them
i i'd certainly take that on notice um
to provide those those standard
operation operating procedures sir
okay uh can you inform the committee
whether the deputy premier mr baraloro
or any person in his office
sought the involvement of the fixated
persons unit in relation to mr lanka's
matter i have no information to suggest
that that occurred there has certainly
been
um
i would say contact between the deputy
premier's office and the investigators
which is to be expected in the course of
an investigation
and in the course of a victim and
investigator uh contact
alright well if you could take my
question on notice and give a completer
answer that would be good um
my next question is whether mr baralaro
or any person in his office
made a complaint to police about mr
lanka and his activities or did the
police act of their own accord in this
matter
uh the referral as i've outlined
initially came from
uh mr brady and the investigation
commenced from that uh from that point
right so does that mean the police acted
of their own accord well i think it's
more fairer to say that mr barolaro's
office or someone
um provided
concerns or
allegations that were then referred by
mr brady in the first instance
okay and i think i have asked you to see
if you could take on notice whether you
could supply the committee a copy of the
sort of criteria used by the unit it's
sort of charter of activities
yes thank you
i think my time's exciting
oh thanks chair um
yeah
thank you all for attending this
afternoon and and the work you've been
doing
um
mr walton this might be
appropriately addressed by you
can you tell us what the criteria is for
amount of being investigated by the
fixated persons unit i know you gave
some um answers to mr smell but can you
tell us what the criteria are
um
i've got the uh
the socks in front of me so
i'd have to sort of cloak or
collectively give you my my recollection
of that as i said there is a process
that that vets and determines what what
cases are done by the fixated persons
unit
essentially it does hang on uh that
someone's fixated there's ongoing
harassment and
typically they are high office holders
or there's a criteria that allows us in
circumstances to
determine someone who has been
i suppose overwhelmingly
harassed by someone for the unit to
undertake that investigation
typically they're more complex matters
that require
significant evidence gathering and being
able to present that material
to the courts
so it's not just any concern raised by a
public figure like an mp or the deputy
premier there has to be a very real
continuing pattern of behaviors is that
your understanding
that that's that's typical there's an
assessment that it's a serious
ongoing
uh issue
and
often a threat of violence is a
threshold that
that we moved towards
and indeed i could assume there would be
circumstances where a very serious
threat of violence of itself would be
sufficient
um and you wouldn't need an ongoing
series of events if there was a very
serious threat of violence would that be
right
indeed and in the current environment
particularly online we are seeing a lot
of
uh people venting their frustrations
whether it's anti-government anti-policy
or or
or anti-establishment
and
those matters are again being assessed
and determined where that investigation
is appropriately conducted
given the volume the bulk of them are
being done by local police and in many
instances
when they're engaged by the police they
remove
that that post
there's a level of contrition
and
essentially a warning is taken
so in many cases even when there's quite
serious threats
um it's addressed by police approaching
the person making it known that they are
being observed and a caution is given
and that's often
addressed is that your understanding
yeah i wouldn't say a serious threat
if there was a serious threat formal
action would be would be taken
um is it part of the fixated persons
units role to kind to police the um
political criticisms of
members of parliament even quite robust
political critics criticisms of members
of parliament is that in any way part of
the fixated person's unit's
role or parameters
no
um you see uh miss well i'm having
difficulty understanding how given the
nature of that evidence
that the fixated persons unit was in any
way involved with the investigation of
christolanka it doesn't seem to meet any
of those thresholds
and indeed on one view of it meets one
of the exclusions
well it was assessed as meaning that it
was certainly an ongoing
allegations of harassment and this
matter is before the court um mr
shoebridge so
i'm concerned that if we start to get
into the detail of
those allegations um
maybe some views
i'm i'm really interested in the role of
the fixated persons unit
um
um and and not indeed the um the court
proceedings
have you reviewed the decision by the
fixated persons unit to become involved
in this matter
i haven't reviewed the decision i have
looked at the material
have you satisfied yourself having
reviewed that material
that that it met the criteria for
investigation by the fixated persons
unit under the sops the standard
operating procedures
i'd have to take that on notice to
clearly benchmark it but as i sit here
i'm comfortable with the decision for
the fixated person's unit's involvement
in this matter
sorry ms dadson you may have wanted to
add something i think
um thank you mr schubert i just
um i'd like to clarify something mr
walton was actually on the leave i think
when the gentleman was arrested i i did
question the process
i um forwarded a memorandum to the
acting commander of the
counter-terrorism and special tactics
command
asking him
to review what happened
i don't think appropriate processes were
properly followed
from that assessment having said that
i think if the appropriate processes
were followed we would have the same
result
i was more concerned about the process
that was followed
rather than the outcome i don't think it
would have changed the fact that the
fixed-sized person's unit would become
involved in the matter i don't think it
would have changed the fact that we
would prefer charges against the
gentleman
but because of the sensitivities around
this
um
we are quite strong in the fact that the
process has to be followed and if we
identify
um incidents where that doesn't happen
we will question that and correct it
thanks mr hudson in what regard did you
form a view that incorrect process um
had been applied in this matter
well my recollection is that
the referral that
mr walton
referred to earlier was not in relation
to christo it was in relation to an
associate office
that was under investigation
and is currently still under
investigation
there had been contact and that went
through the appropriate referral
pathways
and
and was the investigation was being
conducted by the fixated persons unit
and that involved
allegations
made by the deputy premier
crystal length of this matter um
uh
came
around at the same time that matter was
being determined and because there was a
conduit of contact between the deputy
premier's office
and the fix over persons unit
it was contact made
and i think a fixated person's unit
treated it as an escalation of the same
incident
rather than a separate incident with a
separate suspect
and i think in my opinion
it should have been treated as a
separate suspect to go through the same
process
that we normally do and assessed
by
the terrorism intelligence unit prior to
a fixated person's unit
taking that on board as an investigation
as i said before
it would not have changed the outcome
um if we had gone down that path it
would have been a matter that would
would have been investigated by the
fixated persons unit
i think it would have been a matter
still that
would end up before the courts as it is
now
but in my mind and i know mr fuller
agrees with this and mr walton roots for
this
we have to ensure that the process for
jobs coming into that unit um
so
um as i said
[Music]
so mr hudson are you saying the fixated
persons unit made the decision to charge
mr lanka
having wrongly assumed it was part of an
escalating pattern of conduct
is that is that your evidence
oh i think
the it's
is linked to a matter they're already
investigating
and
they saw it as a continuance of the same
behaviour rather than isolated
however individually as this matter is
still on the investigation the initial
matter is still under investigation
um
so crystal length is more clear-cut and
passion was taken
more immediately
deputy commissioners
you understand the very real concern in
the community
where people have engaged in robust
satire of
politicians
end up finding themselves charged with
criminal offences by police you would
understand the very real concern in the
community and i'll just be clear it's
concerned that i very very much share
do you understand the level of concern
about this matter
um
totally understand uh the issue mr
shubridge and
there is a line that will ultimately
be determined by the court
as to whether that's when that line has
been across
that will be a determination
but in this case
police made a decision to have the
fixated persons unit involved which is
effectively there for serious political
related crimes
and that seems to have been you accept
now an error on the part of the new
south wales police is that right
i don't see the fixated person
investigating this matter as being a
mistake
i consider the pathway that caused them
to investigate the matter um and the
sops standard operating procedures that
currently exist
um to ensure that
inappropriate manners are not
investigated by them
mr hudson just just on that as i
understand it and maybe the police
commissioner can correct me
the fixated persons unit was established
just before the coroner's report into
the lint cafe siege came out and at the
time it was indicated its activities
would be directed towards
preventing terrorism and tackling people
who were potentially violent
can you tell the committee at least
roughly on what basis did mr lanka's
activities bring up within the scope of
the fixated persons unit i mean
is the suggestion that his activities
were terrorism related
uh fixated persons unit sits under the
counterterrorism and special tactics
command mr searle
that's right however
it's
it has a broad agreement looking at as
mr alluded to earlier or issues
that would come out of a fixated threat
assessment process
so there's a number of people involved
at different stages depending on the
nature of the job
um
including a fixated person's panel which
includes psychologists that can make
referrals
but it has a fairly broad reading to
investigate matters
where it is determined that
some form of fixation
on an individual or a group or um
or an entity
could lead to potential violence
sure but i mean
it obviously would have to be at a very
high level to warrant
the involvement of that body wouldn't it
i think since inception in 2017
um
a fixated
person's unit has investigated over 600
matters
and i think charged over 150 people now
i can get those more specific details to
you i can take those on notice
please do but there is
there's a variety of
um individuals that have been charged by
that unit their commonality is the
fixation whether it be terrorism um
fixated on a politician uh fixated on a
movie star
which we've had um as well
the commonality is the fixation
um not necessarily
whether it's political um
terrorism-related
or whales
all right in which case is its location
in the counterterrorism command
an entirely appropriate one given from
what you said the very broad spectrum of
operational activities it's dealt with i
mean where it is now it looks like it
deals with terrorism counterterrorism
very serious threats of political
violence
and there's been a lot of
concern around its use in this case
there's been a former dpps made comment
lawyers have made comments not about the
activities i mean if there's criminal
activities that's one issue and we're
not talking about
the proceedings at the moment but we're
just talking about the
the use of this unit do you understand
the sort of concerns that have been
expressed about the use of the unit in
this case
um i totally understand and
as i said i caused
the acting commander of counterterrorism
to review the process in this particular
matter
as i've indicated i don't think it would
have changed the outcome i think the
matter
as i understand it that's currently
before the courts is appropriately
investigated by the fixed overpersons
unit
and appropriate actions taken which we
are continuing to prosecute
but i can understand
and
do i understand from your evidence that
the concerns about mr lanka were were in
the nature of fixation rather than in
the nature of threats of violence or
said any kind of political issue
that's correct
in which case again
um
do you think that perhaps there should
be a different unit located outside of
counterterrorism that should deal with
matters that don't involve
terrorism or terrorism related
issues
um as other fixated units around the
world um emanating out of uh
out of fixated threat assessment centers
and fixated threat assessment centre
processes
um
there is a strong link um at times with
terrorism
um
once assessed
by
there's a very strong mechanism of
assessment through
of threat and risk through the
counterterrorism command which is
applied
through the
terrorism intelligence unit
i don't have the details with me but not
all matters assessed by that and
referred to that
not all investigations are conducted by
that unit
as bristol
alluded to earlier many of those matters
are referred to local area commands
i'm sorry police area command or police
districts
for investigation as it is determined
through that panel process
um that investigation better sits within
that environment rather than within the
counterterrorism command
okay and you'll
your evidence is that you're utterly
confident that all of the appropriate
processes and
and filters were used in this particular
matter
um
i think that um
the way that the investigation came
was conducted came to notice
was reviewed
i reminded the unit through the command
of the acting commander of
counterterrorism follow the standing
operating procedures and i think those
standing operating procedures are valid
and need to be adhered
are you aware whether the law
enforcement conduct commission is
looking at
the the investigation of this matter
am i aware if they are no i'm not aware
of that
okay
all right um
all right well
some of the criticism has been that
essentially mr lenka and his employer
were really engaged in
political scrutiny of the government and
that the use of the fixated persons unit
in this matter
has taken on a if you like a political
flavor
can you tell us whether the complaint
made by mr baralaro his office
specifically sought the involvement of
the fixated person's unit or was it just
generally a complaint to police
um the initial complaint um
the first complaint was made to as mrs
walton's uh said to the
city central police area command on to
the counterterrorism
okay
okay
okay um all right well i might move on
from this interesting topic because i
think you've taken some questions on
notice and you're going to supply us
with certain documents that we can have
a look at the the charter given to the
unit