High Court of Australia

Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen lies to hide friendship with killer Roger Rogerson etc.

Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen is a compulsive liar who has been caught out badly contradicting herself in separate interviews with News Corp and Fairfax Media. In this article we will also have a closer look at Cunneen’s dodgy background which includes 1. Connections to major criminals such as Roger Rogerson 2. Helping alleged paedophiles such as Scott Volkers walk free and 3. The phone taps that will likely bring her undone.

Margaret Cunneen and her supporters are in crisis mode at the moment and trying to lie their way out of the problem but are only digging a bigger hole for themselves. They thought they had a win in the High Court against ICAC on Wednesday and that would be the end of it. (Click here to read more) That came unstuck Thursday (16/4/15) morning when it was revealed by the SMH that the ICAC investigation into Cunneen was sparked by “Intercepted phone calls by a multi-agency taskforce investigating organised crime”. They were investigating Cunneen’s friend Stephen Fletcher and some of the calls must have mentioned Cunneen. (Click here to read more)

Interviews with Fairfax Media and The Australian and the big contradictions in answers

In 2011 Margaret Cunneen gave an interview with journalist Kate McClymont at the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) and gave certain answers in relation to her personal association with major criminal Roger Rogerson. In February this year Cunneen gave an interview with 2 journalists from The Australian and gave a different answer. (Click here to read)

This was not a one-off lie. Cunneen has also been caught lying about her relationship with Stephen Fletcher who has had criminal charges recommended against him and was paying off over 10 NSW Police Officers to use their betting accounts. (Click here to read the Police Integrity Commission report – Operation MontecristoOne has to wonder, given Fletcher was paying the Police Officers to use their betting accounts, was he also paying them for anything else more sinister?

Stephen Fletcher and Margaret Cunneen

Stephen Fletcher and Margaret Cunneen

Margaret Cunneen lied about her relationship with Fletcher in 2011 and implied she would have nothing to do with him again. But last year Fletcher went on holidays with Cunneen’s son Stephen Wyllie and his girlfriend Sophia Tilly after the infamous car crash. So why is Cunneen lying? The ABC last year reported Stephen Fletcher was Margaret Cunneen’s long-term boyfriend.

Roger Rogerson and Margaret Cunneen 2

Roger Rogerson is a former corrupt police officer in jail awaiting trial for murder. He is a major league crook and always has been. When he was a police officer he took bribes to protect every type of criminal from murderers to drug dealers. He was kicked out of the force in 1986. Rogerson was charged in the late 1980’s for drug dealing and attempted murder amongst other crimes and he has killed at least one person and probably more, not counting his current charge. (Click her to read more)

So the question is: Why was Margaret Cunneen at Roger Rogerson’s book signing helping him profit from his crimes in 2009?

When asked about it in 2011 Cunneen said: ”But I know Roger independently. I’ve known him since he was a detective … He was never convicted of anything while he was a police officer.” (Click here to read more)

Is Cunneen for real? Roger Rogerson is and was a major criminal and she should have never been anywhere near him and she knows it. In February this year Cunneen had changed her story to that she decided not to:

“continue to snub people who have gone to prison and paid their debt to society. I, and other prosecutors who attended, thought it important that prosecutors don’t subscribe to lifelong punishment.” (Click here to read more)

What dribble! She is trying to hide her scandalous friendship with Rogerson. But her answer raises some very serious questions such as: Who were the other prosecutors who attended the book signing? and: Is the prosecutor who is currently trying to convict Roger Rogerson of his murder charge one of prosecutors who attended his book signing as a fan? Has Cunneen ever used her position to leak information to Rogerson or helped him in any way?

Based on what Margaret Cunneen told the journalists about the other prosecutors being at the book signing then all the staff at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions needs investigating by ICAC just to be safe.

Scott Volkers

In 2004 Margaret Cunneen gave extremely dodgy legal advice that helped the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions justify not re-charging swimming coach Scott Volkers on paedophile charges. The Queensland DPP could not justify why the charges were dropped against Scott Volkers in the first place and needed dodgy legal advice to make sure he was not re-charged otherwise the Queensland DPP would be looking very stupid if not corrupt.

Scott Volkers was accused of abusing 3 girls between the ages of 12 and 14 but charges were dropped in 2002. He was re-investigated by police but the QLD DPP decided not to charge him again.

Margaret Cunneen’s gave some scandalous advice that attacked the evidence of the girls and said “a conviction would be difficult to achieve because the girls were unlikely to have had developed breasts and thus the groping allegations would be difficult to substantiate.” (Click here to read more) 

and: “She also questioned whether a female abuse victim could have experienced an orgasm while being abused.”

“It is difficult to accept that Gilbert could have been sufficiently relaxed for orgasm to occur,” Ms Cunneen wrote in legal advice to the Queensland DPP.” (Click here to read more or watch the 7.30 Report interview)

Margaret Cunneen’s advice was disgraceful and there was obviously no legal or medical evidence to support it. It was a clear and pathetic attack by Margaret Cunneen to discredit a witness and justify not re-charging Scott Volkers.

I think the Volkers matter is important because it really pulls back the curtain and we can see what Cunneen is like behind closed doors. She clearly does favours for friends and gives them the dodgy advice they want to justify their decisions if need be. Cunneen would have never dreamt her dodgy advice would be before a Royal Commission.

The Cunneen/Volkers scandal was uncovered at the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse last year and Cunneen should have been sacked then. Cunneen tries to make out she is some sought of hero for victims of sexual abuse. What a lie that is, which the Volkers matter shows. How many other criminals has Cunneen helped walk free?

Interviews with Ray Hadley on 2GB and Channel 7

Over the last couple of days Cunneen has done soft interviews with Ray “Jelly Back” Hadley and Channel 7 News. She did not get asked any tough questions nor did “Jelly Back” raise Stephen Fletcher, Roger Rogerson or her disgraceful conduct in the Scott Volkers matter.

Margaret Cunneen complained that “murderers and terrorists” would not be treated the way she was. Well she should know, look at the above photo of her and Roger Rogerson and how well she treated him. She looks like a love struck groupie with her big smile not a Senior Crown Prosecutor who should have nothing to do with criminals.

Multi-agency taskforce phone tap referral to ICAC

Who leaked the story about the phone taps is unknown although the journalist who broke the story, Kate McClymont, now says it was a law enforcement officer. Leaking the phone tap referral to the media was the right thing to do because Cunneen was busy lying and deceiving the public and telling us it was some frivolous and vexatious complaint from her sister. This was deliberately designed by Cunneen to give her an excuse and to make ICAC look stupid and it was not true.

Cunneen said she took on the legal challenge for her family. What a lie. They have not been cleared and they also have a huge shadow over their integrity. If she really cared about her family she would not hang around criminals.


The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has been criticised by some for wasting time in the Cunneen matter because it was not a serious matter and ICAC are meant to focus on serious and systemic corruption. Margaret Cunneen’s relationship with Roger Rogerson alone raises suspicions of serious and systemic corruption that needs investigating and that would justify ICAC investigating Margaret Cunneen.

If the laws are not strengthened to sideline the High Court and made retrospective so Cunneen can be investigated by ICAC then there will have to be a government inquiry. Otherwise it is the government who will be seen to be corrupt and that is what will worry them and hopefully make them do the right thing. The Greens are already pushing for the relevant law changes to shore up ICAC’S powers in May.

This story has a long way to go and goes to the heart of government and judicial corruption so I will be keeping a close eye on it.

Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and help promote this post.

This website is independent and reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation. Click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options (Click here to go to the Donations page)

If you would like to follow this website via email you can at the top right of this page.

Thank you for your support.

22 replies »

  1. Our entire Justice System, is like everything else within our Society built of TRUST, everything and everyone within that system MUST be beyond reproach, for the system to be trusted to work as it should..!!

    If a Senior Crown Prosecutor (Margaret Cunneen) is caught on tape doing what she is alleged to have done, why isn’t she at the very least … been placed immediately under suspension, until the matter has been fully investigated and she is either charged or cleared… !!

    What trust can the average Aussie Tax Payer have in a system that allows anyone to have these serious allegations over their heads, stay in positions within the Public Service that demand nothing less than the Highest Standards of Ethical and Professional Behavior… it really is as simple as that … !!

  2. Yes, the Ray Hadley interview was uncomfortably soft. Concentrated on womens and family issues rather than ask relevent questions. Too obvious.

  3. The thing with the ICAC enquiry is that it was into her supposed advice to feign chest pains to avoid a breathalyser. The problem with the phone taps are they are done on a warrant and the warrant was not in connection with the alleged advice to her daughter, hence that information could not be used by ICAC. I’m not saying she isn’t a piece of work, just that ICAC need to do their homework better. They would have been wiser to sit on that part of the wire tap and wait for the bigger fish. Perhaps someone in ICAC purposely went that route to give her a heads up on where the rest of the enquiry was heading?

      • Search warrants have to be specific about the object otherwise unrelated things turned up by them can be thrown out in court. I know from a friends personal battle suing Queensland Police for confiscating objects not covered by the search warrant they secured from a dodgy judge. It took him a very long time, and he was subjected to a lot of ongoing intimidation to back off but he eventually won and was paid compensation. I would imagine a top flight barrister would have won the case a lot quicker than he as self represented did since no solicitor would stand up to the cops for him.

      • ICAC is not a normal court and can listen to the phone taps. It is unrelated phone taps that brought down the former High Court judge Justice Lionel Murphy remember. Whether the phone taps can be used in a court of law to prosecute a conviction against Margaret Cunneen is totally irrelevant to the argument at this stage. A lot of the evidence that ICAC has used against others to make findings of acting corruptly will also not be able to be used in court. ICAC is not there for convictions, it is there to get to the truth.

  4. Margaret Cunneen is a massive grub. How can she associate herself with criminals in that way when she is the crown prosecutor?. Cunneen has no integrity whatsoever. Those phone taps I think will take her down, well it will make her fall on her own sword. Cunneen has obviously no loyalty to justice and even to her own family. What I mean about her family is that she blames her own sister for her troubles to make her look good. For Ms Cunneen to blame her own sister while it has been well known she has been involved with criminals like Roger Rogerson and her boyfriend shows that Ms Cunneen is a sick & perverted woman. She is a massive liar from start to finish.

  5. Living in Victoria, I can only go by what Shane has written, but it definately looks as though Ms Cunneen is a liar.

    It seems to be the norm with these people nowadays, that they do not stand down from their position when there is a slur on their name, we only have to look at our previous prime minister, who was determined to stay in power.
    It has now become clear that she did lie in Parliament, as Mr Thomson was found to be guilty, however he kept her in government.

    This Ms Cunneen is the same, she feels she is untouchable, but it looks as though she may have come to the end of the line.
    Of course those phone-taps must be examined.

    It is terrible for us that we have to put up with this shocking behaviour and we pay these people obscene salaries and then pensions, they are treated like royalty and look what they are, ordinary criminals.

    • We seem to have arrived at a new low point in Australian Public life where those who act corruptly, with deviance, or whatever think its OK to stay in the position they hold and tough it out, usually with the support of other corrupt, deviant or whatever colleagues around them (political and/or public service type positions). This was once not the case as propriety was a valued commodity in a different time. It simply isn’t now, which tells you how much they respect us.

  6. Thanks Shane but once again your story has left me with my mouth hanging open. This seems to be an almost normal physical reaction to anything to do with our “justice” system these days.

  7. Below is a press release by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)

    Public statement regarding ICAC v Cunneen
    Monday 20 April 2015

    The decision in this matter about the scope of section 8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 by the majority of the High Court of Australia adopted a construction of the section that had never previously been argued or accepted since the ICAC’s inception.

    The narrow construction given to section 8(2) by the Court will substantially damage the Commission’s ability to carry out its corruption investigation and corruption prevention functions.

    The decision means that the Commission will be unable to investigate or report on several current operations, and will severely restrict its ability to report on Operations Spicer and Credo.

    It has the potential to involve the State of NSW and the Commission in costly and protracted litigation involving persons who have been the subject of corrupt conduct findings based on investigations conducted under section 8(2), and will affect current litigation involving such findings.

    It also has the potential to call into question the prosecutions and convictions of persons where evidence against them was obtained during Commission investigations based on section 8(2).

    In the Commission’s view, the narrow construction adopted by the majority in the High Court is contrary to the legislative intention evidenced by the second reading speech when the ICAC Act was first introduced, the analysis of the section in the report of the McClintock review of the ICAC Act and the ordinary meaning of the words used in the section.

    In the circumstances, the Commission has made a submission to the NSW Government to consider, as a matter of priority, amending section 8(2) to ensure that the section can operate in accordance with its intended scope and making any such amendment retrospective.

    The Commission will be making no further comment on this matter at this time.


Leave a Reply