IN THE NEWS

TRUCKIE DROPS CASE AGAINST ALEX LLOYD

THE truck driver who claimed he co-wrote Alex Lloyd's hit song Amazing has abandoned his case against the singer in a surprise move which is likely to leave Lloyd saddled with a massive legal bill.

Yesterday's decision by Mark O'Keefe to withdraw his case was a pyrrhic victory for Lloyd, who had been vigorously defending claims that he was a liar and had not written his hit song.

The downside is that Mr O'Keefe's agreement to pay Lloyd's legal costs is likely to be meaningless because he is close to penniless. Mr Lloyd may be left with a $175,000 legal bill if Mr O'Keefe cannot pay.

It is understood that Lloyd, who now divides his time between Britain and Sydney, will consider moving to bankrupt Mr O'Keefe to recoup at least some of the money.

Lloyd's lawyers spent 17 months defending the claims that he had lied about the writing of the song and failed to credit O'Keefe for his work.

Under a loophole in the court procedure, Lloyd could not get any guarantee that Mr O'Keefe, 47, would pay Lloyd's legal bills if the claims were dropped or proved unfounded.

Yesterday's settlement deal came on the fourth day of a six-day hearing before Justice Nye Perram in the Federal Court.

Mr O'Keefe had finished presenting his case and Lloyd's case was set to begin.

Mr O'Keefe's case had been under attack from Lloyd's barrister, Andrew Coleman.

Under cross examination Mr O'Keefe denied suggestions that he had made up his claims that he had written the song on several beer coasters at the Bridge Hotel in Rozelle in April or May of 1991 as Lloyd watched on. Mr Coleman said Mr O'Keefe's story was filled with holes and grew ''more unbelievable'' as the case rolled on.

Lloyd yesterday described the case as ''a long and extremely frustrating and ugly affair''. ''I feel an incredible sense of relief.'' he said a statement.

Source: Sydney Morning Herald, Vanda Carson

LEGAL COMMISSIONER APPROVES LAWYERS
$600 BILL FOR A 2 KILOMETRE TAXI RIDE!

THE Legal Services Commissioner has dismissed all but one complaint against a Keddies Lawyers solicitor who charged the family of a brain-injured interpreter nearly $600 for a taxi trip of less than two kilometres to settle their personal injury claims.

But "concerned" about the costs charged to Mohammed Tariq by the high-profile personal injury firm, which uses Paul "Fatty" Vautin as its public advertising face, Steve Mark, the legal regulator, has asked for an external expert report on his bill.

As well, Mr Tariq will apply today for a Supreme Court-appointed costs assessor to analyse his bill and decide whether the more than $50,000 in costs he disputes of the $85,761.47 charged in fees amounts to alleged overcharging so gross that it should be referred back to Mr Mark as capable of a misconduct finding.

Keddies solicitor Philip Scroope, who billed Mr Tariq and his wife, Khalida, and daughter Ambreen for work including $196 each for the taxi trip from Redfern to Goulburn Street in the city and back, claims he was entitled to claim joint travel under the firm's standard costs disclosure.

It specifies that "multiple tasks can be performed simultaneously and billed separately". But whether chargeable multitasking is allowable - particularly in cases that involve several members of the one family - is a point of law soon to be decided by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

Mr Mark is awaiting a determination by the tribunal in a case involving Sydney solicitor Maria Bechara, who charged equally three members of the one family for the costs of a joint hearing in the District Court instead of apportioning the fees between them.

Mr Scroope, an accredited personal injury specialist who charged $490 an hour in six minute units, plus GST, was engaged in February 2007 after Mr Tariq suffered brain, neck and back injuries when hit by a car a month earlier.

Liability was admitted by NRMA insurance before Mr Tariq signed his costs agreement in April 2007.

After his case and related nervous shock claims by his wife and daughter were settled in February last year, Mr Tariq was billed $85,761 (reduced from $101,388.91) in professional fees which was deducted from his $400,000 compensation.

While the fees included time spent on telephone calls and photocopying, more than $1400 in photocopying and additional telephone charges were also included in his $10,000 worth of disbursements.

Mr Tariq was given two refunds totalling more than $11,000 after chaining himself to a fence in protest outside the firm's Redfern office early last year. He has since conducted numerous protests, some with a sandwich board decrying his former lawyers, outside their five NSW offices.

Mrs Tariq paid more than $15,000 in fees and costs (reduced from $17,000) from her $45,000 settlement and Ambreen was charged more than $17,000 for similar costs from her $75,000 damages.

All three were charged the same amount for some items of Mr Scroope's professional costs. These included $294 each for two short telephone calls about a barrister's availability for the settlement conference and sending one email about the conference date.

On the day of the settlement Mr Scroope charged more than $8,000 to the Tariqs including $490 each for a joint pre-settlement discussion at Redfern; the cab ride to and from the settlement conference ($98 each, both ways); $490 each for the hour-long settlement conference, and $245 each for post- conference explanations.

Mr Scroope, in his response to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, denied any overcharging due to the "substantial reduction" in fees.

Charging $49 to read a thank you e.card was "appropriate in the circumstances" as it "was not an isolated email" but part of an exchange canvassing serious issues.

"Travelling in the course of three separate files is a permissible charge to each of those clients' files," Mr Scroope told the OLSC. "The charges are consistent with the cost agreement."

But in his written decision received this month by Mr Tariq and shown to the Herald, Mr Mark said: "Whether or not this is in fact permissible is an issue [in the Bechara case] before the Tribunal, and a determination is unlikely to be reached for some time."

Explaining why he had dismissed nine other complaints that included alleged negligence and unethical conduct by Mr Scroope, Mr Mark said that after studying the submissions of Mr Tariq and Mr Scroope, the original Keddies file, a mountain of email correspondence between the two men and medical reports before and since the case settled, there was insufficient evidence to refer the matters to the tribunal.

Under the Legal Profession Act, Mr Mark must be satisfied that it is reasonably likely that the Tribunal will find a lawyer guilty of either unsatisfactory professional conduct or the more serious professional misconduct before he institutes proceedings.

He explained to Mr Tariq that the standard of proof for prosecutions in the Tribunal was a test of "reasonable satisfaction" - higher than the "balance of probabilities" standard that applies in civil litigation - and that he must have "highly persuasive" admissible evidence before referring allegations for a hearing.

The only complaint not dismissed was one that alleged excessive charging, in particular multiple separate charges for "perusing" and "considering" the same document, breaking down simple administrative tasks into multiple sub-tasks for which a separate cost was charged for each, and charging each of the Tariqs for what appeared to be the same activity in some instances.

Mr Mark said he was "concerned" about the amount of costs charged and had ordered the outside expert report rather than referring the matter for costs assessment himself, as he had the power to do, because to do so could place Mr Tariq at risk of having his bill increased if it was deemed that there had been no overcharging.

Once he had received the expert opinion, Mr Mark said, "I expect to be in a better position to determine whether or not there would be a reasonable prospect of success in the Tribunal in relation to the allegation of overcharging ..."

The OLSC assistant commissioner, Ms Lynda Muston, said she could not comment on individual investigations.

Source: Jennifer Cooke (SMH)
March 30th 2009

MARCUS EINFELD JAILED FOR PERJURY

FORMER Federal Court judge Marcus Einfeld has been jailed for repeatedly lying about a traffic offence.

In a packed hearing room at the New South Wales Supreme Court, Justice Bruce James imposed a maximum three-year sentence on the 70-year-old, with a minimum of two years.

Einfeld had pleaded guilty to perjury and making a false statement with intent to pervert the course of justice, to avoid a $75 speeding ticket in 2006.

After the sentence was imposed, well-wishers went over to the dock where Einfeld embraced and kissed many of them.

At the suggestion of corrective services officers, he handed over his valuables, including his mobile phone.

In reply to a comment from one supporter, Einfeld said, "Oh, the bag is packed," and he was then escorted out of the dock.

His lawyer, Ian Barker QC, said Einfeld's tireless work for the disadvantaged and other mitigating factors justified the imposition of a non-custodial term.

But Wayne Roser, SC, for the Crown argued Einfeld should be jailed, saying the counts were "in the worst case category" of such offences.

During his sentencing remarks Justice James also concluded Einfeld had engaged in "planned criminal activity".

It was "deliberate, premeditated perjury" in order to avoid incurring demerit points on his driver's licence.

Justice James detailed the numerous lies contained in a statement Einfeld made to police when he asserted he was not driving his car when it was clocked going 10km/h over the speed limit in the Sydney suburb of Mosman.

He claimed he had lent his car to a woman, who was visiting from the US, and his police statement referred to his elderly mother remonstrating with him about the loan.

He said his mother told him: "Are you nuts? I have told you not to lend the car, even to the kids."

Justice James said it was highly unlikely Einfeld had lied to avoid a $75 speeding fine, but instead found he was trying to avoid the associated demerit points.

Source: AAP / Herald Sun
March 20th 2009

GORDON WOOD COULD SERVE AS LITTLE AS 13 YEARS...

FORMER celebrity chauffeur Gordon Wood could serve as little as 13 years in jail for hurling his young model girlfriend Caroline Byrne off a cliff in Sydney.

winners are grinners

losers please themselves

In handing down the sentence, Justice Graham Barr jailed Wood for 17 years and set a non-parole period of just 13 years. There were extraordinary scenes in court as about 30 of Wood's family and friends got to their feet as he was brought into court and was taken down. The 46-year-old was found guilty in the NSW Supreme Court last month of murdering Caroline Byrne, 24, at The Gap, a notorious suicide spot in Sydney's east, on June 7, 1995. At the time, Wood was the chauffeur for flamboyant stockbroker Rene Rivkin.

The judge backdated the sentence to include time Wood had spent in custody in the UK, where he was arrested in 2006, and since he was taken into custody after the guilty verdict. The earliest date he will be eligible for release on parole is in October, 2021. The judge said he was not satisfied the murder was premeditated and concluded it had been committed "in a rage''. He said he was satisfied that when Wood and Ms Byrne went to The Gap, their relations were "affable'' and Wood had no thoughts of violence.

Justice Barr said he was satisfied the violence erupted after the couple engaged in a long and bitter argument, which went on during the evening and ended somewhere near the fence at the clifftop from which Ms Byrne was thrown. There were more than 100 people in the public gallery for the sentencing on Thursday, including Wood's family and a large number of supporters. Wood has indicated he will be appealing against his conviction.

wood consults solicitor michael bowe

Family 'satisfied' with outcome: The father of Ms Byrne says her family is satisfied with the 13-year minimum jail term imposed on her boyfriend Gordon Wood for her murder. Speaking after Wood was sentenced in the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday, Tony Byrne said all the family had wanted was the truth to come out about his daughter's death, and Wood's penalty was never a major issue. However, Wood's family said they were devastated by the sentence because an innocent man had been convicted.

Source: Lisa Davies (news.com.au)

SEX AND THE CITY FEATURES AT WOOD TRIAL

IF Caroline Byrne could be compared to a television character she would be Charlotte from Sex And The City, one of her friends, the entertainer Tania Zaetta, told a Supreme Court jury.

Zaetta, a Bollywood starlet, was giving evidence at the murder trial of Gordon Wood, who has been charged with throwing his 24-year-old model girlfriend to her death at The Gap in June 1995. Zaetta, who worked at the same modelling agency as Ms Byrne, told the court that her friend was gorgeous in looks and personality and that the person she resembled the most was "Charlotte from Sex And The City".

She was "an absolute lady" who never swore or did anything wrong, Zaetta said. She said she last saw Ms Byrne at lunch at the Cosmopolitan in Double Bay two days before she died. At that lunch Ms Byrne, a very guarded person when it came to her personal life, told Zaetta that "Gordie and I are having a moment". The jury also heard that Wood called his girlfriend every two hours asking where she was, who she was with and what was happening. Zaetta said at first she found it endearing but as time went on she found the calls "overbearing" and often wondered what the pair spoke about at night, having talked so frequently during the day.

Winston Terracini, SC, representing Wood, suggested to Zaetta that men could never get it right, that they were criticised for ringing too often or for not ringing enough. Zaetta agreed with his suggestion that "some men are addicted to saying lovey dovey stuff on the phone". Evidence went from Bollywood to Super League yesterday as evidence was given about a lunch attended by ALP powerbroker Graham Richardson.

A surprise witness yesterday was Bob Hagan, former chief executive of the Canterbury-Bankstown Rugby League Football Club, who had to resign fromthe club over the Bulldogs' salary cap scandal in 2002. The jury has heard that Wood claimed he drove his boss, the stockbroker Rene Rivkin, and Mr Richardson to lunch on the day of Ms Byrne's death. However, witnesses have told the jury that they saw Wood with Ms Byrne and another man at The Gap at lunchtime on the day of her death. Mr Hagan told the court yesterday that on June 7, 1995, Mr Richardson was lunching with the late Bulldogs chief, Peter "Bullfrog" Moore.

He said the men were on opposite sides of the bitter split over control of rugby league in Australia, and the pair were lunching that day at the Hilton Hotel in Sydney, trying to negotiate a resolution between the warring parties. A Daily Telegraph sports reporter, Phil Rothfield, also testified that a source had spotted Mr Moore and Mr Richardson lunching at the San Francisco Grill at Sydney's Hilton Hotel on the day in question and that he had later rung Mr Moore to confirm the sighting. Rothfield told the jury that Mr Moore had agreed he had lunched with Mr Richardson, saying: "I whacked it on my Diners Club card. I needed the frequent flyer points."

Source: SMH
Photo: Brendan Esposito

THE GAME'S UP

AFTER 105 witnesses and three months of evidence, a drug trial costing $1 million was aborted yesterday when it emerged that jurors had been playing Sudoku since the trial's second week. In the District Court in Sydney, Judge Peter Zahra discharged the jury after hearing evidence from two accused men, one of their solicitors and the jury forewoman, who admitted that she and four other jurors had been diverting themselves in the jury box by playing the popular numbers game.

More than 20 police gave evidence in the case, in which the two accused faced a common charge of conspiracy to manufacture a commercial quantity of amphetamines. One faced further firearms and drug possession indictments. The prosecution and defence were due to deliver final addresses to the jury this week. But last week, as one of the accused was giving evidence, he saw the jury forewoman playing what he thought was Sudoku. His co-accused saw it too, and the defence counsel, Adam Morison and Michael Coroneos, made a joint application for a discharge.

Yesterday Judge Zahra took unsworn evidence from the forewoman in which she confirmed the accused men's suspicions. She said four or five jurors had brought in the Sudoku sheets and photocopied them to play during the trial and then compare their results during meal breaks. She admitted to having spent more than half of her time in court playing the game. The trial, which started on March 4, has cost more than $1 million, including counsels' fees, staff wages and court running costs for 60 days of hearings. Judge Zahra, who had previously commended the jury for its apparent diligence, told the forewoman that the Sudoku players had let down their fellow jurors and all involved in the trial.

There is no offence under the NSW Jury Act for playing games or being inattentive to a degree that causes a trial to be abandoned. Mr Morison said it was "extraordinary that 105 witnesses, including 20 police, had been in the witness box and not seen what was happening". He called on the NSW Sheriff's Office to update its guidelines to inform jurors that it was unacceptable to play games during a trial.

Source: SMH (Malcolm Knox)

From: Judge [name withheld]
Court of New South Wales
To the Editor SMH

"I was absolutely appalled by Paul Sheehan's column [last Monday] on the Bill Henson controversy. Sheehan's reference to "a subculture of pedophilia among gays ... " is outrageous and constitutes malicious and ill-informed vilification of the gay community.

"Where on earth did Sheehan obtain this information?
"Of course, pedophilia is a problem within the whole community but Sheehan's remark suggests it is a particular problem within the gay community. That is, of course, offensive.

"Let me assure you as a judge of the [name withheld] who regularly hears child sexual abuse cases that the vast majority of such cases involve allegations of red-blooded heterosexual males sexually abusing female children.

"Sheehan's reference to a subculture of pedophilia among gays was undoubtedly intended by him to be a slur on the entire gay community. I demand that Sheehan and the Herald apologise and withdraw this remark and its implication otherwise I will be lodging a complaint with the Australian Press Council that Sheehan's article breaches the Council's Statement of Principles.

"Given the position that I hold I do not consent to this email being published by you."

June 2, 2008
From Paul Sheehan,

Dear Judge [name withheld]
Your letter has been responded to and passed on to me. I found it quite compelling. I think it should be published.

You say that "given your position" your correspondence must remain private. Yet you have demanded a public response. Further, you have written that unless you receive a public response to your private demand you will proceed with a complaint to the Australian Press Council. The Press Council is a public forum.

As neither I nor the Herald will be publishing an apology and withdrawal as you demand, and as you have foreshadowed your intention to go public on this matter, I urge you to do so, especially as you have expressly invoked your position as a judge to give weight to your private ultimatum.
The issue you have raised, and the manner in which you have raised it, would be better served by the transparency and astringent sunlight of a public complaint and a public response rather than behind-closed-doors demands.

I am sorry I wrote a column that caused you such consternation. It was accidental. You, and several others who wrote to the Herald Letters page, inferred from the column that I had suggested pedophilia and homosexuality were synonymous. That is not what I wrote. It is not what I believe. It is not reflected in the crime data. Clearly I made an error in
failing to make this explicit.

You said you were absolutely appalled by the column, though your umbrage is directed at a single subordinate phrase - "a subculture of pedophilia among gays ...". You ask, "Where on earth did Sheehan obtain this information?"

I trust you will appreciate the compressed space of a 930-word column makes it routinely impossible to source everything. I had in mind activities detailed in the report of the Wood royal commission of 1997. I also have a file of named sources describing the activities of John Marsden, the late former president of the Law Society, and some in his circle, who brazenly procured young men for sex, sometimes very young men, and comments by Marsden himself. I was mindful, too, of the notorious "boy love" advocacy by convicted Australian pedophiles Geoffrey Leonard, Phillip Bell, Robert "Dolly" Dunn, among others. I could go on. Further, I was aware that debate about moral transgressions by homosexuals is often chilled by the debased cliche of "homophobia".

Because the images at the centre of the Bill Henson controversy are of a naked 13-year-old girl (though I make no suggestion Henson is a pedophile), I included the offending phrase to broaden the context, assuming readers would take it as a given the preponderance of pedophiles are heterosexual, as has been abundantly reported and is common knowledge. Given that I was not specific about my reasons for including the phrase - for reasons of compression - I accept it would have been better to have left it out altogether or been more exact or inclusive in my terms. I take your concern and admonition seriously, and admit error on my part.

This, however, leads me to several troubling elements of your intervention.You baldly state, for example: "Sheehan's reference to a subculture of pedophilia among gays was undoubtedly intended by him to be a slur on the entire gay community." Given that it is not what I wrote, not what I intended and not what I believe, how can you make declarations about my "undoubted" intent? Had I intended to smear the "entire gay community" (itself a non-existent monolith and abused generality), I would have used the term "gay culture" not "gay subculture". There is a world of difference.

Which leads to another troubling aspect of your complaint - your language. You rely on the shrill terms "loaded", "outrageous", "malicious", "ill-informed", "vilification", "offensive", "slur", "demand", "apologise" and "withdraw", all while failing to point out a single error of fact. Or do you actually contend that there is no subculture of pedophilia among homosexuals? If not, your entire argument is based on mere supposition.

Given that you chose to invoke your position as a judge while seeking to privately pressure the Herald, an objective reader of your complaint would be entitled to ponder your capacity for rigorous impartiality when confronted with a perceived affront to gay culture.

Yours sincerely,
Paul Sheehan

Source: SMH

Bullying, overbearing, intimidating cross-examinations by barristers are nothing new. Some members of the bar have made these techniques their stock-in-trade, justified, of course, in the interests of getting the client off.

A few years ago, the Premier's Department's Office for Women did a study on the way victims of sexual assaults were cross-examined by defence counsel. Some of the examples were not pretty.

Defence: "Did you say to police, 'I noticed sperm, cum, whatever you want to term the disgusting stuff, on my upper inner thigh'?"

Complainant: "Yes."

Defence: What is disgusting about sperm?

Prosecution: Oh, your Honour, I object to that, that is offensive.

Judge: Do you want to press the question?

Defence: It is submitted that it is not offensive, your Honour, with respect.

Judge: I allow the question.

Defence: What was disgusting about sperm in itself?

Complainant: Given the context of what I had, [the defendant's] sperm in my body, I did indeed believe that sperm was disgusting on that night.

There was another example cited where the complainant was asked by defence counsel whether she had done any acting or drama classes at any time. The question was pressed twice, much to the disbelief of the witness. The aim was clear: to undermine the witness by suggesting she was a play actor. The prosecution did not object.

There's plenty of other stuff just as unsettling, but on we must press.

The Sydney bar has scheduled a meeting for Monday to thrash out the topic of bullying barristers. It has come to a head because of proposed new rules urged by the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, designed to curb overbearing and harassing courtroom conduct.

Some cross-examiners don't like what is envisaged; they see the new rules as politically correct restrictions on their magnificent forensic flourishes.

They shouldn't be so worried: the rules leave acres of wriggle room.

The proposed new conduct rule provides that counsel must not ask questions or pursue a line of cross-examination "if the barrister is of the opinion" that the questions are misleading, confusing, unduly annoying, harassing, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, humiliating or put to the witness in a manner of tone that is belittling, insulting, etc.

Then there's another bit that says that, for the purposes of this rule, barristers are to take into account a whole raft of factors: the age, education, ethnic and cultural background, gender, language, skills, maturity, understanding and personality of the witness.

BARRISTERS are making a defiant stand against proposals that would make it a disciplinary offence to intimidate and harass rape victims in the witness box. The rules, which would set a new standard for conduct in the courtroom, are among the most controversial to come before their professional body, the Bar Association. Responses from more than 100 barristers have flooded the association, with 39 submissions opposing the changes, including one signed by eight senior counsel and another from 59 barristers from Frederick Jordan Chambers.

There was a very strong feeling against the changes, said barrister David Smallbone, who drafted the submission sent from Frederick Jordan Chambers. The letter called for a formal debate before any decision was made. Mr Smallbone said the proposals attacked the messenger and went too far, covering not just sexual assault trials but all cases. They turned what would be proper questioning into a disciplinary issue, he said. "We are advocates and the judges expect us to properly test the issues," said Mr Smallbone, a commercial barrister.

"Cross-examination can be humiliating or embarrassing without meaning to be, from issues that arise in even the most courteous and proper cross-examination." Pressure on the barristers to clean up their act in the courtroom has come from Attorney-General John Hatzistergos in the wake of the cross-examination of victims in the notorious gang rape trials in Sydney. It included one teenage victim, Miss C, who was accused of "moaning in pleasure" while being raped in a public toilet block.

The submissions, which closed on Monday, will be considered by a committee of three senior barristers before going before the Bar Council. Mr Smallbone said signatories to the letter were not only criminal defence lawyers but also barristers who did commercial and other work. He said the Evidence Act already required judges to disallow questions that went over the top and barristers should not have to "watch over their back" for disciplinary proceedings as well.

In a major cultural change, the rules also oblige barristers to refuse their client's instructions if questions would offend the witness. "A cultural change is required within the bar so that this kind of behaviour is no longer tolerated and the intimidation of sexual assault victims is no longer seen as an acceptable cross-examination tactic," a spokesman for Mr Hatzistergos said.

Source: (Janet Fife-Yeomans)

The New South Wales Opposition has aired concerns about a court complex where a major terrorism-related trial is due to start today.

The trial for nine men who are accused of terrorism-related offences is expected to begin at a court complex in Parramatta, in western Sydney.

Each of the men has pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiring to prepare for a terrorist act between July 2004 and November 2005.

Shadow Attorney-General Greg Smith says the court room is too small to house all of those expected to be involved in the trial.

"I understand that it's just not big enough for counsel to be close enough to get instructions from their lawyers," he said. "There's not enough room in the dock, there's not enough room in the jury box, because they've got to have at least three reserve jurors because it's such a long trial."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/
2008/02/25/2171077.htm?section=australia

SHOPLIFTING charges against a Dee Why nurse were dismissed yesterday after a magistrate accepted her use of controversial sleeping pill Stilnox as an explanation for her behaviour.

Kelly-Anne Eyre walked out of a Balgowlah shop with a photo frame and said she could not remember stealing it because of the effects of the drug, Manly Local Court was told. Her lawyer, Bronwyn Pullinger, argued extenuating circumstances, suggesting the 35-year-old had become another victim of the bizarre side-effects of Stilnox, which has been available in Australia since 1996.

Ms Eyre pleaded guilty to one count of larceny after she left Harvey Norman Computers without paying for a $520 Keiser electronic photo frame on November 27, 2007. "It's absolutely one of the most extraordinary cases," Ms Pullinger said. "My client has no recollection (of the incident).

"She also drove into a wall, reversed her car and parked in her next-door neighbour's parking space and does not know why she did that. She was doing a double shift ... she had taken Stilnox the night before." Yesterday, medicines regulator the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) decided against reclassifying Stilnox, instead ordering boxes to carry warnings to remind people of the potential side-effects. Papers tendered to Manly Court said Harvey Norman store manager Brad Mifsud saw Ms Eyre carrying a box containing the photo frame and walking out of the shop without paying for it. She was also captured on CCTV before driving off in a car.

During a police interview, Ms Eyre admitted she had been at Harvey Norman that day but said she did not purchase or steal anything. A search of Ms Eyre's home did not find anything, but about an hour after police left, she contacted Manly police station in a "distressed state" after finding the photo frame. Yesterday magistrate Andrew George said Ms Eyre had acted "completely out of character". "I am very sympathetic to her situation and I am aware that chronic sleep depravation can bring about extraordinary behaviour," he said.

Source: The Manly Daily (Rebecca Woolley)

ONE of corporate Australia's deepest feuds will be aired in court next year with news that the former HIH chief executive Ray Williams will give evidence against his one-time protege Rodney Adler in a $500 million damages suit. The HIH liquidator Tony McGrath is trying to recover the $295 million HIH spent buying FAI in 1998, plus interest, on behalf of HIH's creditors. Yesterday his barrister, Alan Sullivan, SC, told a directions hearing in the Supreme Court that preparation of witness affidavits was progressing as fast as possible.

"But our access to some of them has been rather restricted because of problems of incarceration and the like," Mr Sullivan said. A spokeswoman for Mr McGrath said outside the court that Mr Sullivan was referring to Mr Williams, who was released from prison in January after serving two years and nine months, and HIH's former chief financial officer, Dominic Fodera, who is less than a year into a three-year term. "I note that Ray continues to assist the liquidators with their inquiries," she said. Last year Mr Adler sued Mr Williams to recover part of the $7 million he was ordered by the court to pay Mr McGrath in 2002 over losses incurred by an HIH subsidiary called Pacific Eagle Equities. He discontinued the suit in July. Mr Adler, who was released from a 2½ sentence for HIH-related offences in October, has long maintained that FAI was in fine shape when HIH bought it. He had been FAI's chief executive and major shareholder for a decade and joined the HIH board after the purchase.

Lawyers for Mr Williams told the HIH royal commission in 2003 that the "disastrous" acquisition of FAI "truly was a poisoned chalice" and contributed to the 2001 collapse, Australia's largest. Mr Adler's barrister retorted that FAI would "almost certainly have survived" if HIH had not bought it and HIH was "rotten to the core in any event". Mr McGrath's suit, which names nine defendants, alleges that FAI's true financial position was concealed when HIH bought it. Yesterday Mr Sullivan said he would argue that FAI was "worthless" at the time. Other defendants include investment bank Goldman Sachs Australia, which advised FAI in 1998, and its then executive chairman and the current federal shadow treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull.

Source: SMH (Elizabeth Sexton)

The publisher of The Daily Telegraph newspaper has escaped legal action over its coverage of the imprisonment of former New South Wales crown prosecutor Patrick Power for possessing child pornography. Once one of the state's most senior crown prosecutors, Power is serving a minimum six-month jail sentence for having 433 images and 31 videos of child pornography on his computer. The NSW Bar Association had argued contempt charges should be brought over articles in The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph newspapers about people who gave character references for Power.

The association said the character referees were victimised and humiliated merely for being witnesses. But the legal action was withdrawn against News Limited subsidiary Nationwide News in the Downing Centre Local Court today, after the newspapers published an apology "for the hurt suffered" by the referees in July. "Providing character evidence is a normal and necessary part of our criminal justice system," the apology said.

"The fact that a person provides a reference in a criminal case does not in any way mean that the person condones the criminal conduct to which the case relates. "The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph accept that Dr Power's referees were simply fulfilling this important function." Power was handed a maximum sentence of 15 months' jail in May but his non-parole period was reduced from eight months to six in July. He is being held in isolation and is receiving ongoing psychiatric treatment.

Source: AAP (Mick Tsikas)