It included a 450 page evidential Addendum, inclusive of hundreds of exhibits of government correspondence, memoranda, and other documentation. Collectively, these detailed a catalogue of abuses perpetrated against Schapelle Corby, in many cases, involving corrupt and criminal conduct.
Both these documents can be viewed directly in PDF form on the following web page: A Formal Crime Report (Domestic).
The response of the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) is detailed below.
The package was addressed to John Adrian Lawler, CEO of the Australian Crime Commission, and was delivered and signed for on 30th May 2012.
However, as no acknowledgement or response was forthcoming, a formal Freedom of Information request was submitted on 6th July 2012, to establish the position.
The Crime Commission returned one letter from a member of the public, and a number of totally censored pages. Two examples are provided below:
Perhaps more surprising, however, were the actual reasons cited for what was effectively, total secrecy and censorship.
These not only suggested that disclosure of the information might cause damage to the agencies involved, but that sanctions may be imposed by other parties, in terms of restricting the future flow of information.
In response to this refusal to offer any degree of transparency, and the stark rationale provided, the following letter was despatched:
The response to this was a rubber stamp of the original decision:
The limited number of documents identified, and nature of the replies to the FOI request, indicate that the Australian Crime Commission had failed to undertake the full and exhaustive investigation that the situation required. They had, to all intents and purposes, brushed the Crime Report under the carpet, abrogating their responsibilities and duties of office.
Alarmingly, the nature of a written response to a Freedom of Information request, raised the possibility of undue external influence or interference in the functioning of the Australian Crime Commission, with respect to this case. The implied threat of potential sanction resulting from the disclosure of related information is clearly stated.
Also stated directly is the potential for damage to "the management function of an agency". Bearing in mind that this Freedom of Information request embraced dialogue between the Australian Crime Commission, the AFP, and ACLEI, this again suggests the possibility of negative and undue influence or interference by an implicated party, or other inappropriate behaviour.