Nicola Gobbo, the barrister turned police informer, had intercourse with a detective accused of trafficking marijuana and in addition represented the gangland killer who agreed to present proof towards him earlier than backtracking.
A royal fee was informed on Thursday that Ms Gobbo had a sexual relationship with Stephen Campbell, one in all 4 detectives accused of ripping off $100,000 of marijuana on the St Kilda marina in 1999.
The fee is investigating the conduct of Victoria Police and one in all their most prized informers, gangland barrister turned supergrass Nicola Gobbo, also referred to as Lawyer X and Informer 3838.
In 2003, earlier than she turned a police informant for the third time, Ms Gobbo represented a person charged over his alleged involvement within the sham raid to grab 13 kilograms of marijuana that he was to promote.
The person, who can’t be named and was later convicted of manslaughter over an underworld killing, agreed to present proof towards the cops however then later refused.
He pled responsible and acquired a reduction on his sentence as a part of the settlement, the inquiry heard. Nevertheless, he later needed to be resentenced when he reneged on the deal.
A jury acquitted the officers – Glenn Saunders, Peter Alexander, Dave Waters and Campbell – after a County Courtroom trial in 2005.
George Tapai, a retired Victoria Police moral requirements division detective who investigated the case, mentioned he was not conscious of the sexual relationship but when he knew about it he would have had considerations.
“I suppose beneath these circumstances it will cross my thoughts that something might occur, it was actually one thing I might report,” he informed the fee.
Megan Tittensor, counsel helping the inquiry, cited proof that Ms Gobbo was concerned in a sexual relationship with Mr Campbell within the late 1990s and maintained a friendship with him within the early 2000s.
“Might you make certain, in a case the place an individual had a friendship or sexual relationship with a co-accused, that the lawyer was appearing in one of the best curiosity of the consumer?,” Ms Tittensor requested.
“I assume not, no,” responded Mr Tapai.
Mr Tapai mentioned he knew the explanation why the witness selected to not give proof however mentioned he was not conscious if Ms Gobbo had performed a job in him deciding to not.
The hearings proceed.