❓ A parliamentary question regarding conflicting testimonies in the Mickelberg case, specifically concerning allegations of assault and whether a complaint was made to a detective. The Attorney General acknowledges discrepancies in recollections and calls for further scrutiny of Lewandowski's confession.
AnsweredQoN 1074Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Attorney General to the 1999 joint judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Mickelberg v the Crown, when the court referred to the evidence of Peter Mickelberg at the trial. It states - Peter told Kucera that he had been hit and Kucera said, “It’s got nothing to do with me” and “I can’t help you at all.” (1) Does the Attorney General concede that the now Minister for Health gave evidence at the appeal that no complaint was made to him by Peter Mickelberg about having been stripped or any other assault? (2) Given that Lewandowski now says that Peter Mickelberg was telling the truth about being assaulted, and that he and Hancock were lying, will the Attorney General concede that his minister’s evidence is now, again, called into question? Mr McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The evidence given in 1983 by Mr Peter Mickelberg to the Supreme Court was to the effect that the member has just referred; that is, after the interrogation by Hancock and Lewandowski had been completed, Peter Mickelberg says that he raised with Detective Sergeant Kucera when they were sitting together in another room in the building - it is common ground that they did that - the fact that he had been assaulted. Mr Kucera gave evidence in 1998, the first occasion on which he was called to give evidence by any party to these proceedings, that Peter Mickelberg did not make that sort of complaint to him. I read last night the evidence that was given by Peter Mickelberg on that occasion, and there is a clear difference of recollection now about what transpired 20 years ago, or 16 years previously as it was in 1998. That is something I acknowledged in response to the member’s last question. There is a difference of recollection between those two men; that is not unusual. Mr Lewandowski has said that Peter Mickelberg was assaulted, both by Hancock and Lewandowski. Having read the evidence of Peter Mickelberg in 1983, and now with the benefit of the Lewandowski confession, and presuming it is the truth, I must say that it makes chilling reading, because the assault involved not just three punches to the solar plexus by Don Hancock; it was continual humiliation and beating of Peter Mickelberg by both Hancock and Lewandowski, which is the only way I can describe it on my reading of the confession. There were in the vicinity of 15 belts or whacks to the head by Lewandowski against Peter Mickelberg, if one believes Peter Mickelberg’s evidence on that occasion - and if Lewandowski is telling the truth, there is no reason not to believe that. This happened while Peter Mickelberg was naked and handcuffed. There was no purpose in him being naked, other than to humiliate him, and that makes it all the more chilling now to read the evidence and look at the allegations made against Lewandowski and Hancock. Lewandowski has admitted his role in the whole affair. It is now clear, if we accept Lewandowski’s confession, that Peter Mickelberg was beaten, as he said he was beaten and as he has consistently over the past 20 years said he was beaten. It is not a logical step, however, for that matter to become proof of the fact that Peter Mickelberg complained to Detective Sergeant Kucera at that time. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Two people are now saying different things about their recollections of what occurred 20 years ago. I do not introduce time as any exculpatory factor of what was recollected as having been the case. Peter Mickelberg also gave evidence which would lead one to the conclusion that the first time he met Detective Sergeant Kucera was after the event. There is another conflict in the recollections, which comes from the evidence on that occasion. It is a long step from there to presume that someone was not telling the truth or someone was trying to paint a completely different picture of what transpired. In my view, that difference in the accounts of events needs to be subject to scrutiny, particularly arising out of the Lewandowski matter. Mr Lewandowski’s recollection now needs to be checked in some detail, because he has said that the beatings took place. I would be very interested to know further details of whether he recollects that Mr Kucera came into the room while Don Hancock and Lewandowski were dealing with or interrogating Peter Mickelberg. That would again present another conflict. I am not saying who is factually correct; I do not know that we will ever get quite to that point when dealing with that matter. Nonetheless, this is an issue about which there is a difference of recollection between the two men. I am happy to concede that.
(2) Given that Lewandowski now says that Peter Mickelberg was telling the truth about being assaulted, and that he and Hancock were lying, will the Attorney General concede that his minister’s evidence is now, again, called into question? Mr McGINTY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The evidence given in 1983 by Mr Peter Mickelberg to the Supreme Court was to the effect that the member has just referred; that is, after the interrogation by Hancock and Lewandowski had been completed, Peter Mickelberg says that he raised with Detective Sergeant Kucera when they were sitting together in another room in the building - it is common ground that they did that - the fact that he had been assaulted. Mr Kucera gave evidence in 1998, the first occasion on which he was called to give evidence by any party to these proceedings, that Peter Mickelberg did not make that sort of complaint to him. I read last night the evidence that was given by Peter Mickelberg on that occasion, and there is a clear difference of recollection now about what transpired 20 years ago, or 16 years previously as it was in 1998. That is something I acknowledged in response to the member’s last question. There is a difference of recollection between those two men; that is not unusual. Mr Lewandowski has said that Peter Mickelberg was assaulted, both by Hancock and Lewandowski. Having read the evidence of Peter Mickelberg in 1983, and now with the benefit of the Lewandowski confession, and presuming it is the truth, I must say that it makes chilling reading, because the assault involved not just three punches to the solar plexus by Don Hancock; it was continual humiliation and beating of Peter Mickelberg by both Hancock and Lewandowski, which is the only way I can describe it on my reading of the confession. There were in the vicinity of 15 belts or whacks to the head by Lewandowski against Peter Mickelberg, if one believes Peter Mickelberg’s evidence on that occasion - and if Lewandowski is telling the truth, there is no reason not to believe that. This happened while Peter Mickelberg was naked and handcuffed. There was no purpose in him being naked, other than to humiliate him, and that makes it all the more chilling now to read the evidence and look at the allegations made against Lewandowski and Hancock. Lewandowski has admitted his role in the whole affair. It is now clear, if we accept Lewandowski’s confession, that Peter Mickelberg was beaten, as he said he was beaten and as he has consistently over the past 20 years said he was beaten. It is not a logical step, however, for that matter to become proof of the fact that Peter Mickelberg complained to Detective Sergeant Kucera at that time. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Two people are now saying different things about their recollections of what occurred 20 years ago. I do not introduce time as any exculpatory factor of what was recollected as having been the case. Peter Mickelberg also gave evidence which would lead one to the conclusion that the first time he met Detective Sergeant Kucera was after the event. There is another conflict in the recollections, which comes from the evidence on that occasion. It is a long step from there to presume that someone was not telling the truth or someone was trying to paint a completely different picture of what transpired. In my view, that difference in the accounts of events needs to be subject to scrutiny, particularly arising out of the Lewandowski matter. Mr Lewandowski’s recollection now needs to be checked in some detail, because he has said that the beatings took place. I would be very interested to know further details of whether he recollects that Mr Kucera came into the room while Don Hancock and Lewandowski were dealing with or interrogating Peter Mickelberg. That would again present another conflict. I am not saying who is factually correct; I do not know that we will ever get quite to that point when dealing with that matter. Nonetheless, this is an issue about which there is a difference of recollection between the two men. I am happy to concede that.
Mr McGINTY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The evidence given in 1983 by Mr Peter Mickelberg to the Supreme Court was to the effect that the member has just referred; that is, after the interrogation by Hancock and Lewandowski had been completed, Peter Mickelberg says that he raised with Detective Sergeant Kucera when they were sitting together in another room in the building - it is common ground that they did that - the fact that he had been assaulted. Mr Kucera gave evidence in 1998, the first occasion on which he was called to give evidence by any party to these proceedings, that Peter Mickelberg did not make that sort of complaint to him. I read last night the evidence that was given by Peter Mickelberg on that occasion, and there is a clear difference of recollection now about what transpired 20 years ago, or 16 years previously as it was in 1998. That is something I acknowledged in response to the member’s last question. There is a difference of recollection between those two men; that is not unusual. Mr Lewandowski has said that Peter Mickelberg was assaulted, both by Hancock and Lewandowski. Having read the evidence of Peter Mickelberg in 1983, and now with the benefit of the Lewandowski confession, and presuming it is the truth, I must say that it makes chilling reading, because the assault involved not just three punches to the solar plexus by Don Hancock; it was continual humiliation and beating of Peter Mickelberg by both Hancock and Lewandowski, which is the only way I can describe it on my reading of the confession. There were in the vicinity of 15 belts or whacks to the head by Lewandowski against Peter Mickelberg, if one believes Peter Mickelberg’s evidence on that occasion - and if Lewandowski is telling the truth, there is no reason not to believe that. This happened while Peter Mickelberg was naked and handcuffed. There was no purpose in him being naked, other than to humiliate him, and that makes it all the more chilling now to read the evidence and look at the allegations made against Lewandowski and Hancock. Lewandowski has admitted his role in the whole affair. It is now clear, if we accept Lewandowski’s confession, that Peter Mickelberg was beaten, as he said he was beaten and as he has consistently over the past 20 years said he was beaten. It is not a logical step, however, for that matter to become proof of the fact that Peter Mickelberg complained to Detective Sergeant Kucera at that time. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Two people are now saying different things about their recollections of what occurred 20 years ago. I do not introduce time as any exculpatory factor of what was recollected as having been the case. Peter Mickelberg also gave evidence which would lead one to the conclusion that the first time he met Detective Sergeant Kucera was after the event. There is another conflict in the recollections, which comes from the evidence on that occasion. It is a long step from there to presume that someone was not telling the truth or someone was trying to paint a completely different picture of what transpired. In my view, that difference in the accounts of events needs to be subject to scrutiny, particularly arising out of the Lewandowski matter. Mr Lewandowski’s recollection now needs to be checked in some detail, because he has said that the beatings took place. I would be very interested to know further details of whether he recollects that Mr Kucera came into the room while Don Hancock and Lewandowski were dealing with or interrogating Peter Mickelberg. That would again present another conflict. I am not saying who is factually correct; I do not know that we will ever get quite to that point when dealing with that matter. Nonetheless, this is an issue about which there is a difference of recollection between the two men. I am happy to concede that.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The evidence given in 1983 by Mr Peter Mickelberg to the Supreme Court was to the effect that the member has just referred; that is, after the interrogation by Hancock and Lewandowski had been completed, Peter Mickelberg says that he raised with Detective Sergeant Kucera when they were sitting together in another room in the building - it is common ground that they did that - the fact that he had been assaulted. Mr Kucera gave evidence in 1998, the first occasion on which he was called to give evidence by any party to these proceedings, that Peter Mickelberg did not make that sort of complaint to him. I read last night the evidence that was given by Peter Mickelberg on that occasion, and there is a clear difference of recollection now about what transpired 20 years ago, or 16 years previously as it was in 1998. That is something I acknowledged in response to the member’s last question. There is a difference of recollection between those two men; that is not unusual. Mr Lewandowski has said that Peter Mickelberg was assaulted, both by Hancock and Lewandowski. Having read the evidence of Peter Mickelberg in 1983, and now with the benefit of the Lewandowski confession, and presuming it is the truth, I must say that it makes chilling reading, because the assault involved not just three punches to the solar plexus by Don Hancock; it was continual humiliation and beating of Peter Mickelberg by both Hancock and Lewandowski, which is the only way I can describe it on my reading of the confession. There were in the vicinity of 15 belts or whacks to the head by Lewandowski against Peter Mickelberg, if one believes Peter Mickelberg’s evidence on that occasion - and if Lewandowski is telling the truth, there is no reason not to believe that. This happened while Peter Mickelberg was naked and handcuffed. There was no purpose in him being naked, other than to humiliate him, and that makes it all the more chilling now to read the evidence and look at the allegations made against Lewandowski and Hancock. Lewandowski has admitted his role in the whole affair. It is now clear, if we accept Lewandowski’s confession, that Peter Mickelberg was beaten, as he said he was beaten and as he has consistently over the past 20 years said he was beaten. It is not a logical step, however, for that matter to become proof of the fact that Peter Mickelberg complained to Detective Sergeant Kucera at that time. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Two people are now saying different things about their recollections of what occurred 20 years ago. I do not introduce time as any exculpatory factor of what was recollected as having been the case. Peter Mickelberg also gave evidence which would lead one to the conclusion that the first time he met Detective Sergeant Kucera was after the event. There is another conflict in the recollections, which comes from the evidence on that occasion. It is a long step from there to presume that someone was not telling the truth or someone was trying to paint a completely different picture of what transpired. In my view, that difference in the accounts of events needs to be subject to scrutiny, particularly arising out of the Lewandowski matter. Mr Lewandowski’s recollection now needs to be checked in some detail, because he has said that the beatings took place. I would be very interested to know further details of whether he recollects that Mr Kucera came into the room while Don Hancock and Lewandowski were dealing with or interrogating Peter Mickelberg. That would again present another conflict. I am not saying who is factually correct; I do not know that we will ever get quite to that point when dealing with that matter. Nonetheless, this is an issue about which there is a difference of recollection between the two men. I am happy to concede that.
(1)-(2) The evidence given in 1983 by Mr Peter Mickelberg to the Supreme Court was to the effect that the member has just referred; that is, after the interrogation by Hancock and Lewandowski had been completed, Peter Mickelberg says that he raised with Detective Sergeant Kucera when they were sitting together in another room in the building - it is common ground that they did that - the fact that he had been assaulted. Mr Kucera gave evidence in 1998, the first occasion on which he was called to give evidence by any party to these proceedings, that Peter Mickelberg did not make that sort of complaint to him. I read last night the evidence that was given by Peter Mickelberg on that occasion, and there is a clear difference of recollection now about what transpired 20 years ago, or 16 years previously as it was in 1998. That is something I acknowledged in response to the member’s last question. There is a difference of recollection between those two men; that is not unusual. Mr Lewandowski has said that Peter Mickelberg was assaulted, both by Hancock and Lewandowski. Having read the evidence of Peter Mickelberg in 1983, and now with the benefit of the Lewandowski confession, and presuming it is the truth, I must say that it makes chilling reading, because the assault involved not just three punches to the solar plexus by Don Hancock; it was continual humiliation and beating of Peter Mickelberg by both Hancock and Lewandowski, which is the only way I can describe it on my reading of the confession. There were in the vicinity of 15 belts or whacks to the head by Lewandowski against Peter Mickelberg, if one believes Peter Mickelberg’s evidence on that occasion - and if Lewandowski is telling the truth, there is no reason not to believe that. This happened while Peter Mickelberg was naked and handcuffed. There was no purpose in him being naked, other than to humiliate him, and that makes it all the more chilling now to read the evidence and look at the allegations made against Lewandowski and Hancock. Lewandowski has admitted his role in the whole affair. It is now clear, if we accept Lewandowski’s confession, that Peter Mickelberg was beaten, as he said he was beaten and as he has consistently over the past 20 years said he was beaten. It is not a logical step, however, for that matter to become proof of the fact that Peter Mickelberg complained to Detective Sergeant Kucera at that time. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Two people are now saying different things about their recollections of what occurred 20 years ago. I do not introduce time as any exculpatory factor of what was recollected as having been the case. Peter Mickelberg also gave evidence which would lead one to the conclusion that the first time he met Detective Sergeant Kucera was after the event. There is another conflict in the recollections, which comes from the evidence on that occasion. It is a long step from there to presume that someone was not telling the truth or someone was trying to paint a completely different picture of what transpired. In my view, that difference in the accounts of events needs to be subject to scrutiny, particularly arising out of the Lewandowski matter. Mr Lewandowski’s recollection now needs to be checked in some detail, because he has said that the beatings took place. I would be very interested to know further details of whether he recollects that Mr Kucera came into the room while Don Hancock and Lewandowski were dealing with or interrogating Peter Mickelberg. That would again present another conflict. I am not saying who is factually correct; I do not know that we will ever get quite to that point when dealing with that matter. Nonetheless, this is an issue about which there is a difference of recollection between the two men. I am happy to concede that.
(2) Given that Lewandowski now says that Peter Mickelberg was telling the truth about being assaulted, and that he and Hancock were lying, will the Attorney General concede that his minister’s evidence is now, again, called into question? Mr McGINTY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The evidence given in 1983 by Mr Peter Mickelberg to the Supreme Court was to the effect that the member has just referred; that is, after the interrogation by Hancock and Lewandowski had been completed, Peter Mickelberg says that he raised with Detective Sergeant Kucera when they were sitting together in another room in the building - it is common ground that they did that - the fact that he had been assaulted. Mr Kucera gave evidence in 1998, the first occasion on which he was called to give evidence by any party to these proceedings, that Peter Mickelberg did not make that sort of complaint to him. I read last night the evidence that was given by Peter Mickelberg on that occasion, and there is a clear difference of recollection now about what transpired 20 years ago, or 16 years previously as it was in 1998. That is something I acknowledged in response to the member’s last question. There is a difference of recollection between those two men; that is not unusual. Mr Lewandowski has said that Peter Mickelberg was assaulted, both by Hancock and Lewandowski. Having read the evidence of Peter Mickelberg in 1983, and now with the benefit of the Lewandowski confession, and presuming it is the truth, I must say that it makes chilling reading, because the assault involved not just three punches to the solar plexus by Don Hancock; it was continual humiliation and beating of Peter Mickelberg by both Hancock and Lewandowski, which is the only way I can describe it on my reading of the confession. There were in the vicinity of 15 belts or whacks to the head by Lewandowski against Peter Mickelberg, if one believes Peter Mickelberg’s evidence on that occasion - and if Lewandowski is telling the truth, there is no reason not to believe that. This happened while Peter Mickelberg was naked and handcuffed. There was no purpose in him being naked, other than to humiliate him, and that makes it all the more chilling now to read the evidence and look at the allegations made against Lewandowski and Hancock. Lewandowski has admitted his role in the whole affair. It is now clear, if we accept Lewandowski’s confession, that Peter Mickelberg was beaten, as he said he was beaten and as he has consistently over the past 20 years said he was beaten. It is not a logical step, however, for that matter to become proof of the fact that Peter Mickelberg complained to Detective Sergeant Kucera at that time. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Two people are now saying different things about their recollections of what occurred 20 years ago. I do not introduce time as any exculpatory factor of what was recollected as having been the case. Peter Mickelberg also gave evidence which would lead one to the conclusion that the first time he met Detective Sergeant Kucera was after the event. There is another conflict in the recollections, which comes from the evidence on that occasion. It is a long step from there to presume that someone was not telling the truth or someone was trying to paint a completely different picture of what transpired. In my view, that difference in the accounts of events needs to be subject to scrutiny, particularly arising out of the Lewandowski matter. Mr Lewandowski’s recollection now needs to be checked in some detail, because he has said that the beatings took place. I would be very interested to know further details of whether he recollects that Mr Kucera came into the room while Don Hancock and Lewandowski were dealing with or interrogating Peter Mickelberg. That would again present another conflict. I am not saying who is factually correct; I do not know that we will ever get quite to that point when dealing with that matter. Nonetheless, this is an issue about which there is a difference of recollection between the two men. I am happy to concede that.
Mr McGINTY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The evidence given in 1983 by Mr Peter Mickelberg to the Supreme Court was to the effect that the member has just referred; that is, after the interrogation by Hancock and Lewandowski had been completed, Peter Mickelberg says that he raised with Detective Sergeant Kucera when they were sitting together in another room in the building - it is common ground that they did that - the fact that he had been assaulted. Mr Kucera gave evidence in 1998, the first occasion on which he was called to give evidence by any party to these proceedings, that Peter Mickelberg did not make that sort of complaint to him. I read last night the evidence that was given by Peter Mickelberg on that occasion, and there is a clear difference of recollection now about what transpired 20 years ago, or 16 years previously as it was in 1998. That is something I acknowledged in response to the member’s last question. There is a difference of recollection between those two men; that is not unusual. Mr Lewandowski has said that Peter Mickelberg was assaulted, both by Hancock and Lewandowski. Having read the evidence of Peter Mickelberg in 1983, and now with the benefit of the Lewandowski confession, and presuming it is the truth, I must say that it makes chilling reading, because the assault involved not just three punches to the solar plexus by Don Hancock; it was continual humiliation and beating of Peter Mickelberg by both Hancock and Lewandowski, which is the only way I can describe it on my reading of the confession. There were in the vicinity of 15 belts or whacks to the head by Lewandowski against Peter Mickelberg, if one believes Peter Mickelberg’s evidence on that occasion - and if Lewandowski is telling the truth, there is no reason not to believe that. This happened while Peter Mickelberg was naked and handcuffed. There was no purpose in him being naked, other than to humiliate him, and that makes it all the more chilling now to read the evidence and look at the allegations made against Lewandowski and Hancock. Lewandowski has admitted his role in the whole affair. It is now clear, if we accept Lewandowski’s confession, that Peter Mickelberg was beaten, as he said he was beaten and as he has consistently over the past 20 years said he was beaten. It is not a logical step, however, for that matter to become proof of the fact that Peter Mickelberg complained to Detective Sergeant Kucera at that time. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Two people are now saying different things about their recollections of what occurred 20 years ago. I do not introduce time as any exculpatory factor of what was recollected as having been the case. Peter Mickelberg also gave evidence which would lead one to the conclusion that the first time he met Detective Sergeant Kucera was after the event. There is another conflict in the recollections, which comes from the evidence on that occasion. It is a long step from there to presume that someone was not telling the truth or someone was trying to paint a completely different picture of what transpired. In my view, that difference in the accounts of events needs to be subject to scrutiny, particularly arising out of the Lewandowski matter. Mr Lewandowski’s recollection now needs to be checked in some detail, because he has said that the beatings took place. I would be very interested to know further details of whether he recollects that Mr Kucera came into the room while Don Hancock and Lewandowski were dealing with or interrogating Peter Mickelberg. That would again present another conflict. I am not saying who is factually correct; I do not know that we will ever get quite to that point when dealing with that matter. Nonetheless, this is an issue about which there is a difference of recollection between the two men. I am happy to concede that.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) The evidence given in 1983 by Mr Peter Mickelberg to the Supreme Court was to the effect that the member has just referred; that is, after the interrogation by Hancock and Lewandowski had been completed, Peter Mickelberg says that he raised with Detective Sergeant Kucera when they were sitting together in another room in the building - it is common ground that they did that - the fact that he had been assaulted. Mr Kucera gave evidence in 1998, the first occasion on which he was called to give evidence by any party to these proceedings, that Peter Mickelberg did not make that sort of complaint to him. I read last night the evidence that was given by Peter Mickelberg on that occasion, and there is a clear difference of recollection now about what transpired 20 years ago, or 16 years previously as it was in 1998. That is something I acknowledged in response to the member’s last question. There is a difference of recollection between those two men; that is not unusual. Mr Lewandowski has said that Peter Mickelberg was assaulted, both by Hancock and Lewandowski. Having read the evidence of Peter Mickelberg in 1983, and now with the benefit of the Lewandowski confession, and presuming it is the truth, I must say that it makes chilling reading, because the assault involved not just three punches to the solar plexus by Don Hancock; it was continual humiliation and beating of Peter Mickelberg by both Hancock and Lewandowski, which is the only way I can describe it on my reading of the confession. There were in the vicinity of 15 belts or whacks to the head by Lewandowski against Peter Mickelberg, if one believes Peter Mickelberg’s evidence on that occasion - and if Lewandowski is telling the truth, there is no reason not to believe that. This happened while Peter Mickelberg was naked and handcuffed. There was no purpose in him being naked, other than to humiliate him, and that makes it all the more chilling now to read the evidence and look at the allegations made against Lewandowski and Hancock. Lewandowski has admitted his role in the whole affair. It is now clear, if we accept Lewandowski’s confession, that Peter Mickelberg was beaten, as he said he was beaten and as he has consistently over the past 20 years said he was beaten. It is not a logical step, however, for that matter to become proof of the fact that Peter Mickelberg complained to Detective Sergeant Kucera at that time. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Two people are now saying different things about their recollections of what occurred 20 years ago. I do not introduce time as any exculpatory factor of what was recollected as having been the case. Peter Mickelberg also gave evidence which would lead one to the conclusion that the first time he met Detective Sergeant Kucera was after the event. There is another conflict in the recollections, which comes from the evidence on that occasion. It is a long step from there to presume that someone was not telling the truth or someone was trying to paint a completely different picture of what transpired. In my view, that difference in the accounts of events needs to be subject to scrutiny, particularly arising out of the Lewandowski matter. Mr Lewandowski’s recollection now needs to be checked in some detail, because he has said that the beatings took place. I would be very interested to know further details of whether he recollects that Mr Kucera came into the room while Don Hancock and Lewandowski were dealing with or interrogating Peter Mickelberg. That would again present another conflict. I am not saying who is factually correct; I do not know that we will ever get quite to that point when dealing with that matter. Nonetheless, this is an issue about which there is a difference of recollection between the two men. I am happy to concede that.
(1)-(2) The evidence given in 1983 by Mr Peter Mickelberg to the Supreme Court was to the effect that the member has just referred; that is, after the interrogation by Hancock and Lewandowski had been completed, Peter Mickelberg says that he raised with Detective Sergeant Kucera when they were sitting together in another room in the building - it is common ground that they did that - the fact that he had been assaulted. Mr Kucera gave evidence in 1998, the first occasion on which he was called to give evidence by any party to these proceedings, that Peter Mickelberg did not make that sort of complaint to him. I read last night the evidence that was given by Peter Mickelberg on that occasion, and there is a clear difference of recollection now about what transpired 20 years ago, or 16 years previously as it was in 1998. That is something I acknowledged in response to the member’s last question. There is a difference of recollection between those two men; that is not unusual. Mr Lewandowski has said that Peter Mickelberg was assaulted, both by Hancock and Lewandowski. Having read the evidence of Peter Mickelberg in 1983, and now with the benefit of the Lewandowski confession, and presuming it is the truth, I must say that it makes chilling reading, because the assault involved not just three punches to the solar plexus by Don Hancock; it was continual humiliation and beating of Peter Mickelberg by both Hancock and Lewandowski, which is the only way I can describe it on my reading of the confession. There were in the vicinity of 15 belts or whacks to the head by Lewandowski against Peter Mickelberg, if one believes Peter Mickelberg’s evidence on that occasion - and if Lewandowski is telling the truth, there is no reason not to believe that. This happened while Peter Mickelberg was naked and handcuffed. There was no purpose in him being naked, other than to humiliate him, and that makes it all the more chilling now to read the evidence and look at the allegations made against Lewandowski and Hancock. Lewandowski has admitted his role in the whole affair. It is now clear, if we accept Lewandowski’s confession, that Peter Mickelberg was beaten, as he said he was beaten and as he has consistently over the past 20 years said he was beaten. It is not a logical step, however, for that matter to become proof of the fact that Peter Mickelberg complained to Detective Sergeant Kucera at that time. Maybe he did; maybe he did not. Two people are now saying different things about their recollections of what occurred 20 years ago. I do not introduce time as any exculpatory factor of what was recollected as having been the case. Peter Mickelberg also gave evidence which would lead one to the conclusion that the first time he met Detective Sergeant Kucera was after the event. There is another conflict in the recollections, which comes from the evidence on that occasion. It is a long step from there to presume that someone was not telling the truth or someone was trying to paint a completely different picture of what transpired. In my view, that difference in the accounts of events needs to be subject to scrutiny, particularly arising out of the Lewandowski matter. Mr Lewandowski’s recollection now needs to be checked in some detail, because he has said that the beatings took place. I would be very interested to know further details of whether he recollects that Mr Kucera came into the room while Don Hancock and Lewandowski were dealing with or interrogating Peter Mickelberg. That would again present another conflict. I am not saying who is factually correct; I do not know that we will ever get quite to that point when dealing with that matter. Nonetheless, this is an issue about which there is a difference of recollection between the two men. I am happy to concede that.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.