Trial aborted after
TOWNSVILLE man Alex Anastasi was bleeding when he turned himself in to police on November 22, 2019.
Just moments earlier, the court was told, he smashed a window at a solicitor’s Walker St office in an outburst during which he armed himself with a hammer.
Anderson Telford, the principal lawyer of the firm by the same name, had previously acted for Anastasi in a civil matter.
Glass from the shattered window, which Anastasi broke with his palm, hit one of Mr Telford’s staff members and caused a minor injury, Townsville District Court was told.
After turning himself in to police, Anastasi was charged with two offences and released from custody with a notice to appear in court at a later date.
But, just days later police rearrested him, opposed bail, and the 46-year-old spent four months in jail on remand.
It was subsequently alleged by the lawyer representing Anastasi in the case before Judge Coker that the arrest followed an after-hours call from Mr Telford to a major crimes detective who had no involvement in the case.
The original wilful damage and public nuisance charge were discontinued and then recharged alongside two additional charges including assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and threatening violence.
Lawyers representing Anastasi claimed in court that Mr Telford used his connections with police to upgrade charges as Anastasi faced trial in April on a string of charges linked to the emails sent to prosecutors.
THE EVIDENCE:
The fact that Mr Telford made a call to Major Organised Crime Squad Detective Sergeant Adam Golding is recorded in the QPS’S internal log.
The entry from November 22 records that Mr Telford
called the police station to speak with the officer who charged Anastasi.
Anastasi’s barrister Isaac Munsie tendered the entry from the log as evidence in the trial and read its contents to the court.
The log says Mr Telford was argumentative, pushed to have the charges upgraded, and was told repeatedly the call would be terminated because of his attitude.
“(The officer) advised Telford that based on the information at the time it was determined the charges laid were the most appropriate,” Mr Munsie read to the court.
“Telford continued to be argumentative and demanded (the officer) change the charges to what he wanted.”
The log notes that Mr Telford requested the charges be changed, but that the officer spoke with a more senior colleague and the pair agreed the charges of wilful damage and public nuisance were appropriate.
About 10 minutes later the log records that the junior officer received a call from Detective Sergeant Golding.
Mr Munsie read an affidavit from Sergeant Golding to the court which confirmed Mr Telford called him at home, about 6.30pm, just after the junior officer refused to change the charges.
In his affidavit, which was read in part to the court, Sgt Golding said he could not recall the exact conversation and that he set up a meeting between Mr Telford and senior police officers, including Superintendent Brad Inskip, just days later on November 25 as Mr Telford had “further evidence”.
On November 27, police attended Anastasi’s home, arrested him and laid new charges.
Anastasi was locked up, police filed an affidavit opposing his release on bail and he remained behind bars for more than 100 days until his eventual release in March 2021.
Mr Munsie told the court that Telford’s conduct in calling Detective Golding, “arguably” amounted to “gross” misconduct.
“We have the local solicitor ringing someone who is not the supervisor of the (arresting officer). At home, not at work, at home,” Mr Munsie said.
“That person involves himself. And low and behold, after he involves himself, my client’s facing an objection to bail and spends four months in custody. A day or two later a wellknown solicitor gets in contact with someone from Major Crimes …, and somehow those charges get upgraded.”
A Queensland Courts spokesman confirmed Anastasi was convicted in June last year and given 18 months’ probation for two charges of wilful damage, one of committing public nuisance, and one of threatening violence.
No evidence was offered on the charges of assault and assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, and both were dropped.
Anastasi was ordered to pay $1252 restitution.
THE FALLOUT:
Anastasi says he spent more than 100 days wrongfully imprisoned.
After his release, the court was told, he raised his concerns with prosecutors that the Townsville Police Prosecutions office had a serious conflict of interest as a number of staff, including some who acted in his case, used to work for Mr Telford.
Mr Munsie said this was “possibly one of the clearest conflicts of interest”.
Further claims aired before Judge Coker allege that Mr Telford “bullied” and “badgered” a prosecutor, one of his former employees, who acted on the case.
Mr Anastasi approached prosecutors on multiple occasions and asked to have the matter moved to another jurisdiction because of this conflict, but this request was refused.
The court was told his emails began to go unans
wered by prosecutors. As his frustration grew the emails continued.
He is charged with seven Commonwealth offences which allege he sent a barrage of abusive emails to prosecutors.
Police prosecutor Sergeant Rachel Todd was the recipient of some of the emails and was called to give evidence before Judge Coker.
Halfway through her testimony the trial had to be paused to allow her to pursue her legal right to seek legal advice over concerns her testimony may incriminate herself in a criminal offence.
Sergeant Todd was given this warning twice during her evidence.
Mr Munsie said it was “extraordinary” that a trial was put on hold to allow a serving
police officer to get legal advice over potential criminal conduct.
THE TESTIMONY:
A series of emails between Sergeant Todd and her husband, who is also a senior police officer, were tendered as evidence and became central to the trial.
Mr Munsie questioned Sergeant Todd about this and about emails she sent to her husband, Northern District Tactician and current officer in charge of the Townsville Police Station Senior Sergeant John Todd.
In the emails, Sergeant Todd disclosed Mr Anastasi’s personal information.
While she was in the witness box, Mr Munsie asked Sergeant Todd about QPS policy, he raised serious questions
about potential conflicts of interest and probed Sergeant Todd about her husband’s involvement in the case – in which she was a victim.
Sergeant Todd initially told the court she could not recall the lawful basis under which she sent her husband a series of emails containing Mr Anastasi’s information.
After being cautioned about possibly incriminating herself, Sergeant Todd requested an adjournment to speak with a lawyer.
When court returned Sergeant Todd told the court she shared case information with her husband to get his “advice” on the case as he was more senior and worked in the counter terrorism and fixated persons area.
“Just to be very clear. Before the witness got legal advice I thought she accepted what she did was actually unlawful,” Mr Munsie said to the court.
“Then she goes and gets legal advice, with the greatest respect, and suddenly her position changes as to the basis upon which she disseminated the information.”
Mr Munsie tendered an email Sergeant Todd sent to her husband in October, after Anastasi was charged, which read “John, FYI’’, and included confidential documents including Anastasi’s criminal history, case documents, and arrest warrant.
“It does not appear like she is getting advice here. It appears like she’s unlawfully disseminating information,” Mr Munsie said.
THE INVESTIGATION:
The court was told questions surround the actions of police and Senior Sergeant John Todd’s involvement in the investigation, amid allegations in the trial that police did not comply with court orders to hand over critical documents.
Before the trial started, Judge John Coker ordered police to disclose documents which showed Senior Sergeant Todd’s involvement in the investigation, or any historical investigations, against Anastasi.
Police were also told to hand over files about disciplinary investigations or action against Senior Sergeant Todd or any other police witnesses.
The court was told Senior Sergeant Todd did not disclose any documents and claimed to have no involvement in the case aside from commencing “inquiries” into the emails sent to his wife as “as part of normal business as a police officer”.
Two witnesses, including Senior Sergeant Todd’s wife, Sergeant Rachel Todd, gave evidence which referenced a “profile” that the senior officer created of Anastasi.
Mr Munsie was critical about Senior Sergeant Todd’s “ambiguous” answer to the disclosure request and said Todd briefed the arresting officer, Detective Senior Constable Desmond Hilton, about the case.
“To say that his preliminary steps were just ‘inquiries’ is perhaps a much too generous appraisal,” Mr Munsie said.
“Johnathan Todd isn’t just periphery, he is not just working on his day to day job … he actively involves himself in (the investigation) and has to be told to remove himself from it.
“There is a number of times where Jonathan Todd’s name just pops up.”
Mr Munsie said it was “fanciful” to say Senior Sergeant Todd had no records on the Anastasi case and that at a “bare minimum” he received the emails from his wife.
“Apparently (Senior Sergeant Todd) is able to do a threat assessment, personality assessment, brief people, conduct meetings, receive emails and not make one record of that conduct relating to his wife,” Mr Munsie said.
“He has not declared a conflict, he has not made a note.”
Detective Hilton defended the propriety of his investigation.
He told the court he did not hand over documents related to disciplinary investigations or proceedings against Senior Sergeant Todd, himself, or other police witnesses because to the best of his knowledge none existed.
Officer Hilton said he did not contact senior police, or ethical standards investigators to ask if any complaints were made and investigated.
The detective claimed he only became aware of a finalised complaint against him when Mr Munsie showed him a document from Townsville’s top cop which said the internal investigation was finished.
“What was ordered by your honour … has simply not been obtained, and was not sought to be obtained either,” Mr Munsie told the court.
“One wonders what else has not been disclosed.”
THE TRIAL:
Judge Coker declared a mistrial and ordered the Commonwealth to pay $36,484.08 to cover the legal costs incurred by Anastasi.
Judge Coker stopped the trial, citing repeated failures for police and prosecutors to disclose key documents to Anastasi’s defence lawyers as a key reason.
Over the four days the trial, which was heard before a jury, came to a halt to allow prosecutors to track down documents which Anastasi’s defence team did not know existed until witnesses referred to them.
As the trial progressed, Judge Coker expressed his “real concerns” about the “course and conduct” of Anastasi’s prosecution and said the development of the trial “troubling”.
Detective Hilton was ordered to come to court to give evidence about the disclosure of files and his investigation.
The officer was also questioned about a conversation he had with others while sitting outside the courtroom waiting to give evidence.
Mr Munsie told the court Detective Hilton “grinned” and told another police witness who was under cross examination, ex the court proceedings ce were “all just a game”.
When ambushed with a question about his out of court comment while in the witness box, the officer said he “possibly did say that”.
Detective Hilton, denied making the comment to the other officer and claimed he said it to the man’s wife, who was sitting beside the other witness.
Addressing Judge Coker, Mr Munsie said the trial was not a game to the court, or his client.
“It has not been a game for my client since he sat in a jail cell for four months. It has not been a game that he has had to become liable for significant legal fees,” he said.
“It might be a game to the arresting officer, but is not to my client.”
Judge Coker described the case as unlike any other he had seen in more than two decades. The judge said the senior sergeant’s response to the disclosure request dripped with ambiguity.
“What is clear is that Senior Sergeant Todd has had some involvement,” he said.
“It would seem, unfortunately, that Senior Sergeant Todd drew a distinction be
tween the term ‘investigation’ and ‘inquiry’.
“To be frank, it seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.”
Mr Munsie described the proceedings as “deeply embarrassing” for the prosecution and said the limited disclosure and the other trial issues were unfair to his client.
“It is to the Crown’s benefit that they’re pushing on with this trial because the … potential criminal conduct of a number of police officers and potentially unethical conduct certainly should not stand in the way if my client has committed the offences,” he said.
The case will be re-heard in September.