Part 2
24. The Complainant alleges that Mr Edwards made a false allegation that he “assaulted” him.
25. He describes it in this way in an email complaint of 21 August 2023 to Mr Jonathan Hampton, the Industry Complaints Commissioner:
Dear Mr Hanton,
I am writing to follow up on the complaint that I made to the Office of the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) regarding the completely false allegation made by Mr David Edwards a CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) based in the Melbourne Office that I had assaulted him in the foyer of the CASA Building on 6 February 2020.
As you are aware, the witness statements by the other CASA Officer in attendance, indicate that in fact Mr David Edwards was not assaulted by me, and that clearly supports my version of events, being the truthful one, and Mr Edwards claims, being malicious, false and misleading, a pattern that I have come to expect in my dealings with CASA.
I have requested that CASA confirm that they are aware that I did not assault any CASA Employees ever, and I have made the very reasonable request that the false statement be corrected by CASA on multiple occasions.
26. In simple terms the statement that he claims is false is that he (Mr Buckley) “approached me [Edwards], and shoved me [Edwards] in the chest”.1
27. He submits the following matters in support of his complaint2:
“FOI3 One's observations are different from FOI4 Two's observations, with FOI 2 claiming that I advanced toward him and shoved him, although FOI 1s statement contradicts that. • No statement was ever made regarding stalking or assault to Police that attended in response to a complaint of possible “trespassing” by me being in the foyer of the CASA building. That was the complaint made to the police, no allegations of stalking or assault were ever made.
· The alleged incident happened directly under a security camera, and my understanding is that CASA accessed that footage, and no evidence of physical assault was on that recording.
· CASA FOI Two was encouraged to document the assault with police by his Employer, and he did not follow that guidance. I believe he may have chosen not to pursue that path as he was aware that he had made a false and misleading statement and was not prepared to proceed for his own reasons.”
28. The following discussion examines these allegations in more detail, prefaced by a discussion of the central disputed question of fact ie whether there is a material discrepancy between the meeting accounts of the two officers.
The Two Records of the Meeting
29. Messrs Edwards and Richards separately completed and submitted a record of the meeting with the Complainant. The Complainant has not provided his own record of the meeting. It is not clear whether he contests other aspects of the meeting records of either of the two CASA officers. For the purposes of this investigation, the only aspects of the two written records that are under scrutiny are those that relate to the alleged physical contact by the Complainant on Mr Edwards.
Mr Richards’ Meeting Record
30. Mr Richards’ record is a brief but concise 639 words. Its brevity appears to reflect the brevity of the meeting itself, which was about 15-20 minutes.
31. The record took the form of an email which was submitted at 4.42pm on the same day of the meeting, that is, approx. 4 ½ hours after the events recorded (refer Attachment B). The timing of its submission indicates it is a contemporaneous record of the events it describes.
32. From the outset it must be noted that the Complaint proceeds on the footing that the written accounts of the two CASA officers are inconsistent and contradictory in terms of whether alleged physical contact with Mr Edwards occurred. In particular, the Complainant alleges that the account by Mr Richards states that he did not make any physical contact with Mr Edwards.
33. The record itself does not support this. It is simply not an accurate reflection of the plain wording of the entirety of the record. A plain reading of Mr Richards’ record shows the Complainant has not accurately represented the official record.
34. The relevant part of the record are paragraphs 2-3. Mr Richard states:
In listening to Mr Buckley’s outrage, he became physically angry, demanding action and slammed his fists down on the ramp balstrad (sic) and screaming. I asked him if he wanted to go for a walk, as he was causing concern to the general public in the concourse, - he aggressively then verbally attacked CTM Edwards and went to push CTM Edwards with a open hand – I immediately warned Mr Buckley that he could not physically touch a government official in such a away. He backed off but was still verbally aggressive (emphasis added)
35. In the next paragraph of his record, he states: As Mr Buckley was screaming and ranting, I stepped back and advised that I would be speaking with building security. I approached building security and advised them that Mr Buckley was making threats to CASA staff and had pushed a CASA staff member, I advised he was not welcome on these premises. (emphasis added)
36. When these two sequential paragraphs of Mr Richards’ record are read conjunctively, as forming a single continuing narrative, it is readily apparent that he is stating that the Complainant made physical contact with Mr Edwards. He describes the physical contact as a “push”. There is no other way to comprehend the text as it is written. There is no internal inconsistency in the record itself. Nor is there any apparent ambiguity.
37. As part of this investigation, Mr Richards was specifically asked to review his meeting record and asked a series of questions about his account of the physical contact he states the Complainant made with Mr Edwards. The questions asked and his corresponding responses are recorded at Attachment C. His responses are consistent with his contemporaneous record made on 6 February 2020.
38. In terms of the issue about the physical contact on Mr Edwards, this is what he said in his response:
As described in my record I intervened as Mr Buckley pushed CTM Edwards. My recollection from the record is I intervened as I saw him push CTM Edwards with a open hand – refer record ‘I immediately warned Mr Buckley that he could not physically touch a government official in such a way. (emphasis added)
39. This response indicates that Mr Richards affirms what he said in his record of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020. He states that he witnessed the Complainant make physical contact (a push) with Mr Edwards.
40. Mr Richards’ current testimony is consistent with his contemporaneous meeting record. He has not withdrawn or qualified the original record. He has, in fact, affirmed that he witnessed the Complainant push Mr Edwards. There is no reason on the evidence as presented, to doubt or challenge the veracity of his testimony.
Mr Edwards’ Meeting Record
41. Mr Edwards’ record is a brief but concise 831 words. Its brevity also reflects the apparent brevity of the meeting itself, in the order of 15-20 minutes.
42. The record took the form of an email which was submitted at 5.14pm on the same day of the meeting, that is, approx. 5 ½ hours after the events recorded, and about 30 minutes after Mr Richards submitted his. The timing of its submission indicates that it is a contemporaneous record of the events it describes.
43. The record speaks for itself and is reproduced at Attachment D. The relevant aspect is at paragraphs 10-11 which state:
During this outburst he slammed his hand onto the concourse railing multiple times. At this time he stated ‘If get my hands on Jason McHeyzer or Brad Lacy I’ll ……’ (tapering off and not completing the sentence).
His anger then shifted towards me, and he directed me to leave, and he would talk to Owen alone. I advised I would not be leaving Owen. He then approached me and shoved me in the chest. I then elected to step back and let Owen lead the conversation. (emphasis added)
44. As part of this investigation, Mr Edwards was asked to review his meeting record and asked a series of questions about his account of the physical contact he states the Complainant made on him. The questions asked and his corresponding responses are recorded at Attachment E. His responses are consistent with his contemporaneous record made on 6 February 2020.
45. As to the issue about the physical contact, when asked to describe it in more detail he stated in reply:
Shove with an open hand. Sufficient to require half a step back to check5 (emphasis added)
46. From this response, Mr Edwards has affirmed his record of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020 where he states the Complainant pushed him. He says that the push was of sufficient force that it caused him to move “half a step back”6. He has not withdrawn or qualified the original record. There is no reason on the evidence as presented, to doubt or challenge the veracity of his testimony.
47. The Complainant has made a number of gratuitous, ad hominem remarks about Mr Edwards in the Complaint. These include that he is mendacious, and his accounts of events are dishonest and actuated by malice. These are very serious allegations to make against a public official. The Complainant doesn’t provide any evidence in support of these allegations. Because they are bare assertions only, they have not been given any weight for the purposes of this investigation.
Are the Two Records of the Meeting Contradictory?
48. No. Messrs Edwards’ and Richards’ accounts both state that the Complainant made physical contact with Mr Edwards. Mr Richards states his colleague was “pushed” whilst Mr Edwards states he was “shoved”.
49. The words “push” is a synonym for “shove”. These two words have the same meaning. Neither of the two CASA officers use the word “assault” in describing the alleged physical contact. Both state that the contact was with an open hand. Mr Edwards has added that the contact was of sufficient force that it caused him to take (or be pushed) half a step backwards. Both clearly and unambiguously state that physical contact was made and do so in the same terms.
50. In summary, the meeting records do not contradict each other. Nor do the officers’ current recollections and testimony. In fact, they are entirely consistent with each other. Their present-day recollections do not vary from their contemporaneous meeting records. There is no evidence or allegations of fabrication of evidence or collusion between the two officers.
51. It is the recommendation of this investigation that there is no reason on the evidence as presented, to doubt or challenge the veracity of their testimony.
The Matters Advanced by the Complainant in Support of His Complaint
52. For completeness, there are four matters submitted by the Complainant in support of the Complaint (refer para 27 above). These are considered each in turn below.
(i) FOI One's observations are different from FOI Two's observations, with FOI 2 claiming that I advanced toward him and shoved him, although FOI 1s statement contradicts that.
53. As discussed above in some detail, this statement is not considered to be an accurate reflection of the two meeting records.
(ii) No statement was ever made regarding stalking or assault to Police that attended in response to a complaint of possible “trespassing” by me being in the foyer of the CASA building. That was the complaint made to the police, no allegations of stalking or assault were ever made.
54. The purport of this allegation is unclear. According to the meeting records, the CASA officers reported the conduct of the Complainant to the Police as it presented on the day. There was no allegation of assault or stalking by the CASA officers, which is conceivably why they made no such complaint to the police.
(iii) The alleged incident happened directly under a security camera, and my understanding is that CASA accessed that footage, and no evidence of physical assault was on that recording.
55. The two CASA officers have advised that they did not view any CCTV record of their meeting and do not know whether any recording existed. Mr Richards advised the investigator that he asked for a copy of the CCTV footage at the time of the incident but says that none was provided7. CASA has advised that there is no video record presently in existence.8 On this basis there is no available video record to assist in determining what occurred on the day in question. The Complainant states that it was his “understanding” that there was CCTV footage that had been viewed by CASA and that it did not show that any “assault” took place. There is no evidence of this. He has not provided the basis of this understanding/belief, nor has he provided any evidence to support it.
(iv) CASA FOI Two was encouraged to document the assault with police by his Employer, and he did not follow that guidance. I believe he may have chosen not to pursue that path as he was aware that he had made a false and misleading statement and was not prepared to proceed for his own reasons.
7 Response to Question 7, refer Attachment E
8 Email from Executive Manager Corporate Services Division Ms Crome to the Investigator Mr Sheil, 12 September 2023 which states “just wanted to share with you the advice I have received regarding potential video footage in relation to the matter you are looking into – unfortunately there is none available.”
56. The Complainant does not identify the basis of, or source for, this assertion/belief. Mr Edwards states that he was not encouraged or requested to make a formal complaint to the police. He was asked to complete a WHS form (presumably an incident report)9.
57. The Complainant’s assertion that Mr Edwards “was encouraged to document the assault with police by his Employer” is rejected by Mr Edwards.10The Complainant’s speculation in the second part of this allegation is not supported by any evidence.
4. CONCLUSION
58. Based on the material considered in this investigation, and after considering additional statements provided by the officers involved, I recommend that you could conclude that the evidence supports a finding that, on the balance of probabilities:
• the written accounts of Messrs Edwards and Richards are consistent with each other and are not contradictory; and
• Mr Edwards’ meeting record was not false or misleading.
59. Submitted for your consideration.
Dom Sheil
Senior Reviewer
CPM Reviews
6 November 2023
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS TO THIS REPORT
Attachment A
Reproduction of the written complaints by the Complainant relevant to this investigation, consolidated into a single document and referred to in this report as “the Complaint”
Attachment B
Mr Richards’ record of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020
Attachment C
Email Questions and Answers with Mr Richards, 9 October 2023
Attachment D
Mr Edwards’ record of the meeting with the Complainant on 6 February 2020
Attachment E
Email Questions and Answers with Mr Edwards, 6 October 2023