Thanks for the link Lamp I sat in on most of the Royal Commission hearings. Those 135 pages were just 1 days transcript.
Examples of what the Royal Commission was told
EVIDENCE OF L1L1 said that officers from Claremont CIB often executed search warrants primarily for thepurpose of obtaining goods and money for themselves. If detectives became aware thatdrug dealers were in the area, they attempted to execute search warrants before the DrugSquad did, with a view to locating and stealing cash.L1 was not aware of officers forging search warrants. He said that, in his experience,warrants were easily obtainable. An officer was required merely to state that he had areasonable suspicion, not including the grounds upon which that reasonable suspicion wasbased. L1 recalled that officers applied for warrants if they had information that drugs mightbe present at particular premises, sometimes merely on the basis of the criminal record ofthe occupant.
SEARCH OF A STOLEN VEHICLE BY CLAREMONT CIBAt a time when L1 was stationed at Claremont CIB, a stolen vehicle was recovered byuniformed officers during a night shift and parked at the rear of the CIB offices.L1 said that, the following morning, he and other detectives searched the vehicle andlocated a large number of cartons of cigarettes in its boot. They were able to ascertain thatthe uniformed officers were not aware of the boot’s contents and they then decided to steala number of cartons. L1 received between six and ten cartons. He said that the cartonswere shared between detectives at Claremont CIB. Each of the other officers asked aboutthe matter denied having received any cigarettes.
L5 estimated that he was involved in between 20 and 50 assaults, involving a “clip acrossthe ear”, slaps and sometimes punches. On a couple of occasions, he lost control of thesituation and found himself “wrestling on the floor with somebody, punching and kicking”.L5 explained that the nature of an assault depended on the situation, the type of crimeunder investigation and the nature of the person being questioned. A seasoned criminal,with a history of contact with the police, was likely to receive more severe treatment inorder to obtain a confession.
L5 described the use by police of telephone books as “very effective” because it spread theimpact of blows across a wider area of the suspect’s body, reducing the risk of observablebruising. Normally, a few police officers were required to assault an offender using a phonebook. One officer held the book, one the suspect and another administered the blows. L5also saw suspects hit with the flat blade of a cricket bat.L5 said that officers who were prepared to verbal suspects and assault suspects acquiredthat reputation within the CIB. Only those officers would be taken on inquiries where therewas a likelihood that such tactics may be required. His perception was that those officersprogressed more quickly within WAPS.L5 gave evidence in criminal trials on several occasions in which the accused truthfullyalleged that he had been assaulted by police. When questioned under oath in respect ofsuch allegations, L5 and other officers routinely denied any assault.L5 described the worst assault he had witnessed. It occurred during an interview of asuspect in relation to a safe break when L5 was stationed at Scarborough CIB. He could notrecall the suspect’s name. He said that Detectives LS7 and LS6, who were stationed at theBreak and Enter Squad at the time, attended at Scarborough CIB and conducted theinterview. The suspect was knocked to the ground and LS7 and LS6 “stomped” on hisbroken arm, which was in plaster. The suspect was in excruciating pain. The suspect wasM15 and the date he was allegedly assaulted was 26 June 1984. Subsequently, at his trialon 20 February 1985, M15 accused LS6 and others of assault, and was acquitted. LS6 gaveevidence in that trial that no assault occurred. Accordingly, the matter fell within the RoyalCommission’s Terms of Reference.