Welcome to 3AW. Skip directly to: Search Box, Section Navigation, Content.

3AW - Fairfax Radio Network

Saturday September 11, 2010

What we're talking about

Sly on 'explosive' Overland allegations

Posted by: 3AW Radio | 9 June, 2010 - 8:08 AM
Simon Overland

PLAYING NOW: Sly Of The Underworld has his say on the allegations made against Simon Overland.

REPORT: There are calls for a full, open and independent investigation of explosive allegations the Chief Commissioner divulged secret evidence from a phone tap that inadvertently led to the collapse of a murder case.

The Australian newspaper's reporting Simon Overland passed on intelligence to then police media manager Stephen Linnell in a bid to defuse a rumour of an overseas management course.

That rumour was aired on 3AW's Rumour file segment.

Civil liberties council president Terry O'Gorman says the allegations should be investigated independently.

Mr Overland's alleged action initiated a series of related leaks that tipped off the target of an undercover Operation Briars, which was investigating claims a serving police officer was implicated in the murder of a male prostitute.

NOTES:

- The police say legal advice they have received says Overland has 'not committed an offence'.

- The OPI says Overland has not committed an offence

- The Australian is stating Overland's action in talking to Linnell effectively blew the whistle there were phone taps and this went to the target of the operation, Peter Lawler.

Blog comments Your Say

  • SACK MR WONDERLAND IMMEDIATELY & PUT THE FISH IN HIS JOB WHO WOULD BRING IN ZERO TOLORENCE THUS CLEANING UP MELB STREETS.

    TWODOGS Tuesday 22 June, 2010 - 6:24 PM

  • Another attack by the low life who want their thugs in power instead of decent clean police.The OPI and ESD are in need of a full investigation as they are protecting corrupt police.

    JOHN Thursday 10 June, 2010 - 2:49 PM

  • One thing in Overland's favour is he understands that taxpayers may be peeved if thousands of dollars are spent on a junket. Although his particular course may have been justified.

    Which raises another issue. There are many unqualified Brumby-appointed managers undertaking management course costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars for each manager. These are long term course which only personally benefit the individual managers career advancement and do not benefit their current organisations. These managers spend much of their working day studying rather than performing in their current roles.

    Nicholas Wednesday 9 June, 2010 - 8:36 PM

  • Overland, unlike the rest of us, is above the law.

    No consequenses for breaching a federal Act by carrying bullets on a plane. No consequences for breaching the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.

    Yeah, yeah Brumby and Associates say he hasn't breached anything; the OPI apparently doesn't think he breached the Act. Does anyone actually believe anything that comes out of these people's mouths anymore?

    Nicholas Wednesday 9 June, 2010 - 8:21 PM

  • TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) ACT 1979 - SECT 182
    Secondary disclosure/use offence
    (1) A person commits an offence if:

    (a) information or a document is disclosed to the person as permitted by Division 4; and

    (b) the person discloses or uses the information or document.

    Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

    Exempt disclosures

    (2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to a disclosure of information or a document if the disclosure is reasonably necessary:

    (a) for the performance by the Organisation of its functions; or

    (b) for the enforcement of the criminal law; or

    (c) for the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or

    (d) for the protection of the public revenue.

    Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).

    Exempt uses

    (3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to a use of information or a document if the use is reasonably necessary:

    (a) for the enforcement of the criminal law; or

    (b) for the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or

    (c) for the protection of the public revenue.

    Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).

    Bill Wednesday 9 June, 2010 - 4:09 PM

Post a comment * Mandatory fields