Cut the Mullett!

Following on from his success in stalling a probe into alleged bullying in his union (Vic Police union stalls bully probe, The Age, January 25, 2008), Police Association Victorian secretary Paul Mullett finds himself accused of being embroiled in a snakepit of skulduggery and as a result:

Victoria Police face transvestite hooker scandal!

*shock*

“ninemsn can reveal exclusively the OPI is investigating allegations that senior officers in a Melbourne suburban station are in corrupt relationships with transvestite prostitutes, who illegally work the streets.”

*horror*

Further, the Office of Police Integrity (boom boom) has recommended that The Bloke They Call Mullett be charged with a number of criminal offences, including being a pervert when it comes to the racecourse of justice, lying, and being very very tricksy (or words to that effect).

Well, kinda. Actually, the OPI Report merely recommends such charges be considered by the DPP.

The case now moves to the next phase, when the Office of Public Prosecutions will have to decide what charges — if any — will be laid against Mullett, Ashby and Linnell. The OPI’s public reports work on the same level as a royal commission. The findings are based on inadmissable evidence, logic and deduction. Its standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The Office of Public Prosecutions now has to decide whether to follow the OPI’s recommendation on charges and, if it does, structure a case to prove the claims. The long-held standard for the Office of Public Prosecutions is higher than that of a report to Parliament. The director must be satisfied that “it is more likely than not that there will be a successful prosecution”. In other words, he has to believe there is not only a case but a winning one. Director Jeremy Rapke, QC, is an expert on police corruption evidence and has run most of the serious police cases in the past five years. He understands which charges are likely to stick and which to fall flat. In its report, the OPI outlines a circumstantial case that Mullett tipped off a detective that the phones were being bugged because he was suspected of serious corruption. But the report offers no proof of the core allegation — that Mullett helped warn detective Peter Lalor that he was the suspect of a murder taskforce.

Normally, I’d suggest that the possibility of charges being brought against such a senior figure — let alone that person being found guilty of a serious crime — are nil. On the other hand, given the recent conviction of Darren (Kenneth) Ray for fraud, anything is possible.