Evidence File 2
Government Corruption. Corruption in the public service, where misleading and deceptive conduct has, over more than two decades, perverted the course of justice.
Discover the alarming reality of evidence tampering in public ...Evidence File 2 ACCC |
One of the most striking examples of a cold case solved through stored evidence is the murder of Louisa Dunne in Leicester, UK, which remained unsolved for nearly 60 years until preserved forensic files finally brought justice.
Justice After Half a Century: The Louisa Dunne Case
Cold cases often linger as painful reminders of unanswered questions, but the story of Louisa Dunne demonstrates how carefully preserved evidence can eventually thaw decades of silence. Louisa was just 20 years old when she was murdered in Leicester in 1966. Despite an extensive investigation at the time, police were unable to identify her killer. The case went cold, leaving her family without closure and the community haunted by the crime.
🔍 Preserved Evidence as the Turning Point
The breakthrough came not from new witnesses or confessions, but from stored forensic evidence. Among the items retained by police was Louisa’s skirt, carefully preserved despite the case being dormant for decades. At the time of her death, forensic science lacked the sophistication to extract meaningful results from such material. However, as DNA technology advanced, investigators revisited the evidence. Modern testing revealed genetic material that could be matched to a suspect, something unimaginable in the 1960s.
• Evidence preservation is vital. Without the skirt being retained, the case would have remained unsolved.• Forensic science evolves. Techniques unavailable in the 1960s became decisive decades later.• Cold cases are never truly closed. Properly stored evidence keeps the door open for future breakthroughs.
OPEN LETTER dated 25/09/2025
The Officials Who Misrepresented Justice
It is essential to inform the reader that if they read this Open Letter along with Chapter 1 - The Collusion Continues, and then read Chapter 2 - Inaccurate and Incomplete, Chapter 3 - The Sixth Damning Letter, Chapter 4 - The Seventh Damning Letter, and Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter, they will be left with no doubt whatsoever that the three named arbitration officials—Dr. Gordon Hughes, the arbitrator; John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager; and John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator to my arbitration, failed to accurately represent the facts during my arbitration and throughout the critical period leading up to 1996.
Fabricated Allegations to Discredit and Silence
In a calculated attempt to derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal, a false allegation was circulated claiming I verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case. This defamatory claim originated from John Pinnock, then Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was sent to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.
A Sinister and Calculated Smear
In what can only be described as a calculated and treacherous manoeuvre, a false and deeply defamatory allegation was circulated in an attempt to derail scrutiny of my arbitration appeal. The claim — that I had verbally harassed the wife of Dr Gordon Hughes AO, the arbitrator appointed to oversee my case — did not arise organically. It was manufactured. It originated from none other than John Pinnock, then the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and was delivered directly to Laurie James, President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia.
This was not a misunderstanding. It was not an error. It was a deliberate act.
I categorically deny the allegation contained in Pinnock’s letter of 27 February 1996 — a letter crafted to mislead, to smear, and to poison the well just as my appeal threatened to expose the truth. Pinnock falsely informed Mr James that I had telephoned the arbitrator’s wife at 2 am, implying harassment, instability, and misconduct. Yet my telephone account — the cold, indisputable record — shows only one call ever made to the arbitrator’s residence between the day I signed the arbitration agreement on 21 April 1994 and the date of Pinnock’s letter.
That call occurred at 8:02 pm on 28 November 1995, not at 2 am, not in the dead of night, and certainly not in the manner described by Pinnock.
The truth is far more straightforward — and far more inconvenient for those who sought to bury it.
On that evening, I phoned Dr Hughes because explosive new evidence had arrived. Evidence proving that Telstra had fraudulently fabricated its TF200 arbitration report. Evidence sourced from Telstra’s own laboratory shows that the test results provided to the arbitrator were false. I called to alert him that I had couriered this material to his office via Golden Couriers Messenger Services of North Melbourne. My intention was simple: to ensure he was aware of the evidence and to arrange a meeting after my five‑hour train journey from Melbourne.
When Mrs Hughes answered and informed me that Dr Hughes was overseas, she asked who was calling. In that moment, fearing that my real name might alarm her — particularly after Senator Ron Boswell had publicly condemned Dr Hughes on 20 September 1995 for allowing himself to be forced into using Telstra’s arbitration rules rather than the government‑endorsed agreement — I gave the name of someone she would recognise: John Rundell, the Arbitration Project Manager.
I later wrote to Pinnock explaining exactly why I had used Rundell’s name and why the call had been made. The evidence I was trying to deliver was dynamite — and they knew it.
Yet Pinnock’s statement to Laurie James was not merely misleading. It was a fabrication designed to discredit me and to shield the arbitration process from the truth.
His claim reads:
“Mr Smith has admitted to me in writing that last year he rang Dr Hughes’ home phone number (apparently in the middle of the night, at approximately 2.00am) and spoke to Dr Hughes’ wife, impersonating a member of the Resource Unit.” (File 209 - AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
PLEASE NOTE:
If I actually wrote to the TIO, as he claims in his letter to Laurie James, why hasn’t he produced my letter?
It is clear this letter was designed to smear my reputation and distract from the serious flaws in the arbitration process. Dr Hughes, fully aware of the falsehood, chose silence over integrity—allowing the lie to fester and undermine the legitimacy of the proceedings.
The emotional toll of being wrongfully accused—and then betrayed by those sworn to uphold justice—is a burden few can comprehend. Yet through it all, my voice remains unwavering: clear, unyielding, and fiercely committed to uncovering the truth.
Amid the complex web of my pending appeal, my attorneys at Law Partners in Melbourne urged me to contact John Pinnock, the second appointed administrator for my arbitration, to request all documents related to the arbitration that underpinned my agreement. They uncovered unsettling ambiguities within it that could serve as grounds to challenge the unjust award given by Dr Hughes. I complied, unaware of the treachery that lay ahead.
As Chapter 5 - The Eighth Damning Letter, the other three claimants—Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer—were provided with an additional 13 months to prepare their claims and respond to Telstra's defence. In my case, however, I was not granted the same 13-month extension.
In simpler terms, by discriminating against me in this manner, Dr Hughes effectively denied me the opportunity to prove my case. He should have postponed his decision until Telstra could definitively verify that there were no further systemic phone issues impacting my business operations. This oversight not only affected my claims but also left my business vulnerable to ongoing problems that remained unaddressed.
Dr Gordon Hughes
I want to make this crystal clear: had Dr Gordon Hughes granted his own arbitration consultants the additional weeks they explicitly demanded in their evaluation report dated April 30, 1995, the outcome of my arbitration would have been entirely different. The consultants — DMR & Lanes — saw the complexities of the case and understood that the evidence required diligent, in-depth examination. They were fully aware that the material was not only intricate but also critical to uncovering the truth.
But Dr. Hughes callously refused their request. He slammed the door shut, ensuring that they never laid eyes on the very documents that later enabled Darren Kearney to expose the shocking reality. This was no mere administrative blunder; this was a calculated act of treachery — an intentional manoeuvre to keep the truth buried and protect Telstra from the consequences of their malfeasance.
The evidence Darren Kearney of AUSTEL (now called ACMA) ultimately unearthed came from the very documents Dr Hughes had disallowed his own experts the extra weeks they stated were needed to complete their findings, and regardless of this written statemernt on 30 Aporil 1995 This isn’t merely a coincidence; it’s an insidious violation of justice — a blatant act of discrimination that denied me my rightful chance to prove my case.
By denying the consultants the time and resources they needed, Dr Hughes effectively orchestrated my downfall. He should have postponed his decision until Telstra could provide clear evidence that no further systemic faults were undermining my business. Instead, he recklessly barreled ahead, fully aware that the network issues were ongoing and unresolved, inflicting devastating damage on my operations.
This was not just a procedural lapse; it was a profound betrayal of the very arbitration process that was supposed to deliver justice. His refusal left my business vulnerable to the relentless problems that the arbitration was meant to resolve. It permitted Telstra’s deep-rooted faults to fester unchecked for years, ensuring that the harrowing truth — the truth those consultants were poised to uncover — remained shrouded in darkness.
In the end, the message couldn’t be clearer: the system was never designed to protect me — it was a sinister construct, intended solely to shield Telstra and their nefarious actions.
In his chilling letter dated January 10, 1996, Pinnock coldly dismissed my request for these arbitration records, writing:
"I refer to your letter dated December 31, 1996, in which you seek access to various correspondence held by the TIO concerning the Fast Track Arbitration Procedure. … I do not propose to provide you with copies of any documents held by this office". (Open Letter File No 57-C)
This marked the beginning of a long, dark chapter filled with deceit. Lies intertwined with the matter concerning Dr. Gordon Hughes's wife, and over the ensuing thirty years, a cascade of falsehoods emerged. This corruption thrived, exploiting the confidentiality clauses in an agreement that had been insidiously altered even before it was signed, revealing the treachery lurking at the heart of the arbitration process.
Dr Hughes lurked at the heart of a Machiavellian scheme. He stonewalled every request for my pre-arbitration files—handwritten notes, boardroom minutes, commercial assessments—refusing to release the very evidence that would expose how he secretly sat as the “assessor” in the four COT cases, rather than the impartial arbitrator he claimed to be. Even more damning, he green-lit Telstra’s self-serving, backdated draft to usurp any genuine arbitration agreement, allowing it to masquerade as the binding contract. His actions weren’t mere oversights—they were conspiratorial, calculated moves to bury the truth.
By October 1995, five months after my arbitration wrapped on May 11, 1995, I had no choice but to drag this shadow play into the light of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Under the questionable counsel of Law Partners of Melbourne, I reached out to Mr John Wynack, the Ombudsman’s Director of Investigations. Together we peeled back layers of Telstra’s smoke and mirrors, confronting claims that the file had been “destroyed”—a bald-faced lie designed to shield the rot beneath.
The contents of the five letters attached to Home Page File No/82 indicate that Mr Wynack did not accept Telstra's assertion regarding the destruction of the file.
That alone wasn’t enough. In 2008, driven by righteous outrage, I launched a two-stage appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Nine gruelling months of hearings, No V2008/1836, followed by another ten in 2011, No 2010/4634, only revealed the depth of institutional collusion: the government itself, acting as respondent, perpetuated the cover-up.
Even now, in 2025, I stand on the precipice of history with empty hands, blocked from the one document that could unmask the entire corrupt apparatus. The betrayal runs deeper than individual actors—it’s woven into the very fabric of a system that rewards secrecy and punishes whistleblowers.
Having spent thirty years navigating the treacherous seas as a seafarer and several more on the gritty waterfronts of Australia, I've crossed paths with many hardened souls. These hardened characters, despite their fierce convictions, never resorted to hiding behind their partner's skirts for protection. Yet here stands Dr Gordon Hughes, still cowering in 2025, three decades after the incident.
The Disclosure That Never Came
On 23 January 1996, Dr Gordon Hughes—my appointed arbitrator—wrote to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, regarding Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. In that letter, Dr Hughes stated:
“I enclose copy letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I would like to discuss a number of matters which arise from these letters, including:
– the cost of responding to the allegations;
– the implications to the arbitration procedure if I make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to Mr James.”
(File 205 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
That sentence stopped me cold.
What implications could there possibly be in making a full and frank disclosure—unless the facts themselves were damning? What costs was Dr Hughes weighing, if not the reputational and legal fallout of revealing that the arbitration process had been compromised?
On 15 February 1996, Dr Hughes writes to Mr Pinnock regarding a draft of a letter he proposes to send to the Institute of Arbitrators in response to one of Alan’s complaints. He states:-
“I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations.”
“You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion.” AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See AS-CAV 206
This Wasn’t a Technical Concern. It Was a Moral Crossroads.
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes—a supposedly competent, trustworthy, government-endorsed arbitrator, fully graded by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—require a letter of support if he had truly conducted my arbitration according to the agreed terms?
If the process had been fair, transparent, and within the ambit promised to the four COT Cases, no such letter would be necessary. Its very existence suggests doubt, defensiveness, and a need to shield against scrutiny. It raises a chilling question: was the letter a preemptive defence against the truth?
This wasn’t about procedure. It was about principle. And the moment Hughes sought validation through back channels, the arbitration ceased to be a legal process—it became a performance, staged to protect reputations and bury accountability.
I had meticulously outlined the procedural flaws and ethical breaches to Laurie James, believing that the Institute of Arbitrators would uphold its standards. But Dr Hughes chose silence. He chose containment. He decided to ignore the ethical obligations that came with his role—obligations to me, to the other claimants, and to the integrity of the arbitration itself.
What sinister and treacherous undercurrents were twisting the process so tightly that even the arbitrator feared disclosure?
Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity
In February 1996, John Rundell, then a partner at KPMG and involved in the 1994/1995 arbitrations, created a false letter claiming that Victoria Police intended to interview me about property damage. This fabricated letter was used to prevent Laurie James from addressing my legitimate concerns.
Even more damning, Rundell admitted in that same letter that my accountant, Derek Ryan, was correct: Rundell’s financial report was incomplete. This breach of integrity should have rendered the arbitration findings invalid. Instead, Dr Hughes weaponised Rundell’s false letter in his own communication to Laurie James, further entrenching the deception.
Victoria Police later confirmed I was never a suspect. Barrister Neil Jepson clarified that Brighton CIB’s involvement had been grossly misrepresented. Yet Pinnock failed to hold Rundell accountable and allowed Hughes to use the misleading letter to influence the outcome of the pending arbitration appeal, which the Institute of Arbitrators was considering.
Public Interest and Ongoing Influence
It is deeply troubling that both Dr Hughes and Mr Rundell continue to turn a blind eye to the truth surrounding their decisions. Their deliberate disregard for these serious allegations not only casts a shadow over their credibility but also raises alarming questions about their commitment to transparency and integrity. As they carry on in their influential roles—Dr. Hughes as Principal Legal Representative at Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers and Mr Rundell managing arbitration centres in two major cities—they seem unconcerned by the potential repercussions of their silence. This negligence is concerning and paints a treacherous picture of the ethical landscape in which they operate, leaving the public to wonder what else they might be hiding.
