Journalist Steve (Bar Rat) Barrett
Playing alongside the Plutus conspiracy to defraud the tax office was a not-so-brilliant scheme to blackmail the fraudsters.
A few with inside knowledge of the Plutus payroll scam decided they could plunder the plunderers.
This required some decent leverage and to that end what better arrangement could there be to let the conspirators know that an investigative journalist would expose them to a searing media report, unless they coughed up some of their ill-gotten spoils.
Step forward Steve Barrett, a famed commercial TV reporter, known to many of his peers as “Bar Rat”.
These days he runs a PR agency called Box One Media, with clients like Charif Kazal. In reality he’s more of an informant and provides tidbits of information to news organisations.
Five of the Plutus conspirators wound up in the clink, including Adam Cranston and his sister Lauren, spawn of former deputy tax commissioner Michael Cranston.
In July 2018, Barrett was charged with one count of blackmail. Even though it is an offence under NSW law he was prosecuted by the Commonwealth.
Daniel Hausman and Daniel Rostankovski had inside knowledge of the Plutus wheeze. Hausman is a former business partner of Cranston and knew about Plutus by late 2015.
The threats of exposure were made by the two Daniels in conjunction with demands in various stages for $25 million – to be paid in return for Barrett not publishing the story.
The meeting at which the initial demands were made was held at the law firm Clamenz Lawyers in Martin Place, Sydney, where one of the primary conspirators Dev Menon was a partner. This meeting was bugged by the AFP.
The blackmail money was arranged to be paid into a trust account at a firm called Lands Legal, managed by lawyer Sevag Chalabian.
Ex-lawyer Chalabian: trust account facilities
The issue at Barrett’s blackmail trial was whether he was a dupe or part of a criminal scheme – a “useful idiot” or a knowing participant.
That was an issue properly for a jury to determine.
Either way it does show that journalism has creative possibilities beyond retailing news and commentary to the public.
Barrett relied on the fact that he left the room before the initial demand for money was made and that he was an investigative journalist who was pursuing a story in the public interest.
The Crown contended that Barrett did not investigate or publish a story about the fraud, nor did he report it to the police. He was also paid thousands of dollars by Hausman.
There were intercepted incriminating conversations that did not assist his case and Hausman gave evidence against him at his trial.
The jury at Barrett’s trial in May 2021 before Justice Peter Johnson could not agree on a verdict. A new trial was arranged but the defendant’s applications for legal aid were refused.
Covid was raging and Bar Rat had “health issues”, leading to various adjournments.
By this stage the case had moved to Justice Natalie Adams, who observed that Barrett didn’t want to represent himself and “would not be able to”.
“He found it very difficult to answer my questions and it was apparent that a trial could not proceed with him self-represented.”
In July last year, the DPP indicated the proceedings against Barrett would be discontinued. It was not clear whether that was because the accused would be unrepresented for the duration of a lengthy trial, or there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction.
Dev Menon: described as a “scumbag”
A costs application under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1967 (NSW) was heard earlier this year by Adams J.
The issue swung on whether it was reasonable for the Crown to commence the prosecution based on the available evidence.
HH’s answer to that was “yes” and a costs certificate for about $500,000 was declined.
Adams’ judgment provides extracts from the telephone and text intercepts from which she drew support for her finding against the grant of a certificate. For instance, in a call to Hausman, Barrett said:
“You know what I think should happen, (indistinct) just play, play the game as you will …”
He also mentions what will “frighten” the Plutus fraudsters.
In February 2017, Hausman tells Barrett he needs to give the Plutus fraudsters “a final poke”. Barrett replies: “Mate, it’s not a drama, I’m happy to do it … but it has to be done properly.”
In May 2017 there was a conversation with Hausman about a document filed with the Supreme Court. Bar Rat said:
“I can still do what I gotta do because – I’ve seen it, right … The mere fact that I’m going’ to the Supreme Court will put the fuckin’ fear of God in ’em.”
In 2010, in an earlier mission, Barrett was paid $1,000 to travel to Melbourne to interview two businessmen who owed Hausman money.
Barrett was advised to tell them he was doing a story for 60 Minutes. He was promised a further $20,000 if the money was paid. It wasn’t and no story was published.
Hausman’s evidence at Barrett’s hung trial was that in January 2017 he explained to the reporter about the plan to meet with the Plutus conspirators and that he knew that his role was to attend the meeting and “show his journalistic credentials” by throwing down his business card.
Hausman told the court that Barrett appreciated the significance of what was planned. The journalist remarked: “Son, you’ve got a tiger by the tail.”
Late in January 2017, Barrett told the executive producer at Channel Nine’s A Current Affair about an upcoming tax rort. ACA said it was interested, but Barrett was not commissioned to pursue the story.
He submitted that he would not have hinted about a story if he was involved in blackmail.
Rostankovski: a ten year sentence
At that point he was not fully informed about details of the blackmail and his role in it. The story had been fed to him as a “Robin Hood” venture.
In a text message Hausman sent Rostankovski in February 2017 he said: “We need to keep [Steve Barrett] onside and he was a bit funny.”
The initial blackmail payment was $4.82 million, paid into the Lands Legal Trust Account. The Crown did not allege Barrett was involved in the second demand for $20 million.
On February 16, 2017, Hausman texted Chalabian from Lands Legal:
“Trust me I’ve had Journo [Barrett] up my areas/plus we have enough LVR [leverage] – they call D [Rostankovski] every day to see if he’s ok. If they can do 5m in 10 days – they can do another 15-20 in 8 weeks and we then do lunch. Keep the pressure on that scumbag Dev [Menon] as he knows with what we have, if released to Journo [Barrett], as well as the other 2 Cunts Jay Onley and Adam Cranston, Who’s daddy is michael Cranston, deputy comm of T.. who sent the Fukin assessment letters out…they’re all going to long bay. They will pay. But it’s in their nature to fight. Go get em you animal xx.”
There was a hiatus in contacts between Barrett and Hausman from February 16 to May 10 and there is no evidence that Barrett was investigating the Plutus story.
After $19.4 million was paid to the blackmailers it became clear that Plutus’ principal conspirators refused to make further payments. Again, Hausman reached out for Barrett.
He told the journalist he would be meeting with “some relevant blokes, ah, and we’re gunna put a strategy together”.
According to Adams J’s judgment, on May 16, 2017, Hausman paid Barrett $2,000 for “continuing to particulate in putting pressure on the Plutus conspirators”.
Hausman: “a final poke”
Hausman told Chalabian and Rostankovski that the journo “will push the right buttons … I’ve juiced him up 2 today and promised him 8 on success”.
On May 16, Hausmann sent his partner Jessica Van Schreven a message via WhatsApp with a photo of a wad of cash with the caption: “how you deal with a journo.”
Barrett accepts that he was paid $2,000 by Hausman but maintains that the money was for his freelance work as a journalist.
On May 18, 2017, Barrett met with the executive producer at A Current Affair and told him that a search warrant had been executed on his property:
“These blokes claimed that I’ve tried to blackmail one of the players caught up in the investigation.”
Brady Halls, another ACA producer, gave evidence at the trial that Barrett’s information about Plutus was very “wishy washy” and was already well documented by other media outlets.
Bar Rat provided the court with 16 stellar examples of his work between 1984 and 2009 as a reporter – including:
1981. He secured a Daily Mirror exclusive about the arrest of Larry Danielson, the extortionist and Woolworths store bomber.
1984. He interviewed for Fairfax the wife of the head of the Mr Asia drug syndicate. The story was proofed by the AFP to ensure accuracy.
1986. An interview with Detective Roger Rogerson for A Current Affair. This lead to disciplinary proceedings against Roberson for revealing the names of police informants.
1988. He interviewed the killer in the Andrew Kalajzich murder case.
1991. He broke a story about the former NSW Chief Magistrate’s plot to smuggle 550 tonnes of gold bars from the Central Bank of Manilla.
1992. He co-authored a book: Garden of Evil, The Granny Killer’s Reign of Terror.
1996. He had an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes with the only victim to have escaped from Southern Highlands killer Ivan Milat.
And so on …
Ray Martin, a tabloid TV star and former presenter of A Current Affair and host of Carols by Candlelight, gave evidence about Bar Rat’s experience as a journalist.
Martin: celebrity support for Barrett
Barrett submitted that it was reasonable for him to have waited until he obtained credible proof of the Plutus tax fraud before taking further steps.
However, Hausman told the court that he instructed Barrett not to run the story until after the blackmail demand was met.
“I said to him, after that, after the money has been paid and he gets his balance, after that, I said words to the effect ‘After it’s finished’, I said words to the effect of ‘I don’t give a fuck what you do’. I’m pretty sure that’s in my statement’.”
Barrett submitted that Hausman’s evidence was crucial to the Crown’s case, but it was not credible.
The Crown contended that while waiting for documentary evidence to support the story, Barrett did no investigative work and this was inconsistent with the suggestion he was seriously pursuing a story.
In any event, there was no inconsistency between threatening the conspirators and wanting one day to publish a story.
HH found that at the meeting on February 1, 2017 that Barrett told untruths, claiming he had dealt with directors of the sub-companies in the Plutus scheme. It was open to the jury to find that Barrett had lied.
She also found that Hausman’s evidence was not crucial to the success of the Crown case and in any event, paradoxically, Barrett “embraces a considerable part of Hausman’s evidence”.
Justice Adams said “it was difficult to see what he was being paid for”. Hausman was providing the material to the journalist, not the other way around.
“Mr Barrett made no inquiries. All he did was attend the blackmail meeting, lie about knowing the shadow director Anthony Palumberi (on instructions from Mr Hausman about what to say) and leave. On any view, it is difficult see what journalistic service he had performed for Mr Hausman. The circumstances of the payment to Mr Barrett were a quintessential jury matter.”
Even so, the Crown case against Barrett was not strong – but that was not the relevant test for the costs application. HH concluded:
“I am not satisfied that had the Crown been in possession of the relevant facts outlined above before the proceedings were instituted, it would have been unreasonable to institute the proceedings.”
≈ ≈ ≈
The Kennedy Foundation, which hands out prizes to journalists, and is known as the “Walkley Awards for Bogans”, has launched a “Help Steve” fundraiser.
Bar Rat has also been uplifted with supportive articles in the Daily Telegraph.