Rockhampton solicitor goes down … Drunken offering of a “lazy quid” to the constables … Corruption … Adornment to the legal caper … Offer of cash not seen as a joke … A real charmer … Foul mouthed bikie lawyer sentenced to the clink … Alan Zheng reports
Winning, who said he would retire back in 2013, has yet to make good his promise. But, his retirement has now come for him.
His foul-mouthed courtroom antics have been known for some time.
In October 2020, a jury in the Rockhampton District Court took three hours to find Winning guilty of drink driving and official corruption. Winning had pleaded guilty to the drink driving, but not the corruption charges.
District Court Judge Craig Chowdhury sentenced the lawbreaker to nine months’ prison. The offence of official corruption carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
Winning’s ticket was cancelled by the Queensland Law Society in November 2020. In 2008, Winning admitted to the Queensland Legal Practice Tribunal that he was an “alcoholic“.
A police patrol pulled him over, and he explained to the coppers that he had only a “bottom of rum” to drink. Winning blew 0.191.
In a moment of crystal clarity, he mustered a new explanation. His daughter was being threatened; that was the “only” reason he was driving. He was “gonna fuckin kill this cunt”.
Not to be rebuffed by the constables’ initial rejection, Winning repeatedly stated “you’re not going to pinch me” and went on to have this exchange:
Winning: You wa-, you wanna lazy quid?
Senior Constable Parkin: No, no, no.
Winning: Give you a lazy quid –
Winning, ex-criminal lawyer-cum-pick-up-artist, made more than monetary propositions to Constable Davies:
“You look beautiful [INDISTINCT] darlin’.”
“You’re a nice, you’re beautiful”
“She’s fucking very tidy, isn’t she?”
“You won’t have any trouble getting married, love, because you’re really tidy.”
At the watchhouse, Winning threw $50 over the counter and suggested the sergeant in charge “have a drink on me”.
On appeal, Winning contended there was a miscarriage of justice at trial because District Court Judge Chowdhury had failed to give relevant directions.
Moreover, he said the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by evidence.
The miscarriage of justice grounds centered around the prosecution’s use of a Channel 9 interview in evidence at trial.
Winning had been interviewed by Channel 9 after his first court appearance. In the interview, he claimed that he held out the fistful of cash as a “joke” and it was simply an “act of insanity” for him to have believed he could obtain “special treatment”. Rather, this was only a “drunken, facetious, mischievous joke”.
At trial, the Crown prosecutor referred to Winning’s plea of innocence to Channel 9 as well as the evidence recorded by police bodycam footage. There was a contrast in the version as to where the money came from – the car console or Winning’s pockets. According to Winning, it followed from this that the judge should have made an Edwards v The Queen direction.
The QCA (Morrison and Mullins JJA, Bodice J) made short work of this argument. There was no “lie” that warranted an Edwards direction. The bodycam footage and interview were not inconsistent.
Moreover, the Crown had not used the Channel 9 interview to suggest Winning had lied. Rather, it was simply to prove that Winning had, in fact, offered the money.
When District Court Judge Chowdhury asked whether the Crown was relying on the Channel 9 interview to establish a lie, the Crown explicitly ruled out that course.
In any case, it would have been irrelevant for the Crown to rely on this as a “lie” to substantiate a consciousness of guilt. It did not matter for the offence of official corruption whether the cash had been taken out of the console or Winning’s pockets.
The variously conflicting reasons why Winning was driving that night were also used by Winning to argue for an alternative Edwards direction.
The QCA dispatched this further argument using similar reasoning. Winning’s destination on that fateful night was not relevant to the offence and, even if it was a lie (which was not raised by the Crown), it could not be used to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt.
Accordingly, it would not have strengthened the Crown’s case on proving the intent necessary for official corruption.
Winning also contended that the trial judge should have given a Liberato v The Queen direction to account for the fact that Winning had claimed the offer of cash was a joke.
However, the QCA found that Liberato directions were relevant to circumstances, unlike that before it, where a jury has a choice between conflicting sworn evidence between the prosecution and defence. In any case, the High Court previously explained that Liberato directions are not required in every case.
The trial judge had also referred to Winning’s Channel 9 interview and suggested the jury could have regard to Winning’s exculpatory statements on the question of intention.
As for Winning’s alternative ground that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by evidence, the QCA viewed the bodycam footage adduced at trial in the absence of a transcript of the footage.
It was open for the jury to view the “lazy quid” comments as a continuation of Winning’s earlier offer of $300. Although Winning was intoxicated, he was not so intoxicated that he was unaware of his behaviour.
All three grounds failed and the appeal was dismissed.
Winning started his career as a public servant in the Supreme and District Court registries before going on to work at Legal Aid and the Aboriginal Legal Office.
It looks like he will end his career with a bowl of porridge.
In 2007, our Queensland correspondent Sir Terence O’Rort reported that Dougie was before the stipes accused of being rude and tipping-off his bikie clients before the coppers swooped.
According to the particulars of the complaint he’d rung the Rebels motorcycle club:
“Mate this is fuckin’ urgent … I’ve got some good drum that the coppers are gonna raid all the Rebels in Rockhampton at five o’clock in the morning …
Get rid of bongs particularly, fuckin’ cash, because they steal the c*** … It would be lovely if they came up with fuckin’ nothing … get rid of fuckin’ bongs, cash … Anything … Everything, ya know”.
There was also a complaint about him saying that the police prosecutor, Acting Snr Constable Gormley, was:
“Unethical … Totally unethical.”
A few days later he was laying into Crown prosecutor Paul Bannister:
“Nothing but a c***, a fuckin’ c***.”
He also referred to “fuckin’ filthy scumbag coppers who were corrupt”.
In October 2013, Winning hit the local press.
Helpfully, he compared banning bikie gangs from operating tattoo parlours with trying to trying to prove boy scouts were involved in unlawful activities.