Nigel Burch

Shortly after this, he received a telephone call that I believe was from Linda Hornsey. He took this call in his private office and upon hanging up on this call he immediately shredded the Cabinet Minute appointing Mr Cooper. The shredding of the document that appointed a magistrate consequent upon a telephone call from Ms Hornsey concerned me greatly. I was particularly concerned that a crime may have been committed. I was also concerned that I needed to protect the Attorney-General, particularly in the light of his expressed concern that the Premier was instructing him to do things that he did not agree with. I therefore believed that I should take action to preserve potential evidence. I did so in the belief that neither I nor Mr Kons had committed any offence and that this evidence might protect the Attorney-General from any later allegation of wrong-doing where he had only been following instructions.
From: Nigel Burch [mailto: ] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 6:11 PM To: Kim Booth Subject: My statement
Hi Kim,
I would like you to look at this statement, have a solicitor also look at it and call me about any suggested changes, then give it to the media.
My statement is as follows:

“I am making this statement in order to avoid a potential waste of police time.

I was the Workplace Standards adviser to Attorney-General Steve Kons after the election of 2006. I took over from Guy Nicholson, who was the adviser to Bryan Green.

I was the one who found the TCC Service Level Agreement, and brought it to the Attorney-General’s attention. The Attorney and I were quietly trying to fix the TCC problem when events overtook us by the Australian exposing the deal and then the subsequent criminal proceedings against Bryan Green.

I was interviewed by the police as a witness in the Bryan Green affair, and was expected to appear in the trial. In the event I was not required. I believe that this was because my written evidence was not disputed.

In August 2007 a Cabinet Minute confirming the appointment of Simon Cooper as a magistrate was received at the Burnie Office of the Attorney-General, and a staff member gave it to Mr Kons for signature. Mr Kons then showed the document to me and asked my advice.

I was aware from the Attorney-General that Simon Cooper was not in fact his choice. Mr Kons had on a number of occasions previously, complained to me about the Premier interfering in the Justice portfolio. He had also previously told me that he had been directed by the Premier to appoint Mr Cooper in order to remove him from the RPDC.

Because of this, I advised the Attorney-General to amend the Cabinet Minute so that it did not suggest that Mr Cooper was his own choice. My advice to him was always that he should never put his name to a document that was not accurate and true. Mr Kons took that advice and amended the document accordingly.

Shortly after this, he received a telephone call that I believe was from Linda Hornsey. He took this call in his private office and upon hanging up on this call he immediately shredded the Cabinet Minute appointing Mr Cooper.

The shredding of the document that appointed a magistrate consequent upon a telephone call from Ms Hornsey concerned me greatly. I was particularly concerned that a crime may have been committed. I was also concerned that I needed to protect the Attorney-General, particularly in the light of his expressed concern that the Premier was instructing him to do things that he did not agree with. I therefore believed that I should take action to preserve potential evidence. I did so in the belief that neither I nor Mr Kons had committed any offence and that this evidence might protect the Attorney-General from any later allegation of wrong-doing where he had only been following instructions.

It should be noted that this was 7 months before I was unfairly dismissed by Premier Lennon, and thus was completely independent of that later occurrence.

Prior to the first Bryan Green trial, a lady from the DPP’s office came to Burnie to discuss the trial with me. At that time I asked if she could pass on certain matters of concern that had a bearing on the Green case. I asked that this be on a confidential basis and for the DPP’s information only. The DPP’s representative accepted these conditions and took the information that I provided and conveyed that information to the DPP.

However upon learning of the information provided by me, the DPP asked in the strongest terms that I make a formal statement to the police. I agreed and the DPP arranged for a statement to be taken by senior officers at the Glenorchy CIB.

That statement included the facts of the Simon Cooper appointment.

Shortly after, a senior officer of the Glenorchy CIB rang me and to the best of my recollection said that my statement to the CIB had been passed on to the DPP, who had discussed the information with the then Commissioner. He said that the DPP and the Commissioner had decided to defer consideration of what action to take, if any, until after the Bryan Green trial was over.

During this conversation I told the senior CIB officer that I had a shredded document that evidenced the facts of the Simon Cooper matter. I told the senior CIB officer that I wanted the existence of this document kept out of my formal statement, but unofficially known to the CIB.

On Saturday 5th April, the Mercury broke the story of the apparent interference in the appointment of Mr Cooper as a magistrate. I was not the source of the Mercury story. The story was immediately denounced as a fabrication by the government.

In the face of the government’s claim that the Mercury story was a “fantasy” I decided that the document should be tabled in parliament so that the peak law-making body in the state could properly assess the facts. As I had been dismissed shortly before by Mr Lennon, I believed that I was no longer bound by any possible confidentiality requirement, and I continued to be concerned that a crime may have been committed. On Sunday 6th April I gave the shredded document to Mr Booth. This was for the sole purpose that he should table the document in parliament, which is what he in fact did.

At the time that I gave the document to Mr Booth, I believed that it was no longer a Cabinet document. It had been shredded and discarded by Mr Kons, and a completely different document was actually presented to Cabinet. I had retrieved the document for the principle reason that it might be needed by the police as evidence of a crime. I believed that neither Mr Kons nor I had committed any wrong, and that the document could protect the Attorney-General from any allegation of wrong-doing by evidencing that he had acted under direction.

Nigel Burch