MAGISTRATES
COURT of TASMANIA CORONIAL DIVISION
Record of Investigation into Death
(With Inquest)
Coroners Act 1995 (Sections 28-29)
Coroners Rules 2006 (Rule 11)
I, Simon Cooper, Coroner, having investigated the suspected death of Tony
Zachary Harras also known as Judah Zachariah Reuben Wolfe Mattathyahu With
an inquest in Hobart Coroners Court on 15, 16 December 2014 and 24 February
2015 find as follows.
Background:
1. Tony Zachary Harras, known as Judah Zachariah Reuben Wolfe Mattathyahu
(amongst many other names) was last certainly spoken to by anyone at about
8.30pm on Saturday 12 November 1983. I will refer to him as “Mattathyahu”
throughout this finding, as this seems to have been his preferred name.
2. He was reported as a missing person to Police on 4 March 1984. He
remains missing to this day.
3. When he went missing in November 1983 Mattathyahu was living in a
small convict built barnlike structure on a farming property at Slopen Main
on the Tasman Peninsula. The property was owned then, and is still owned
now, by John Edward and Anne Roslyn Hull.
4. Since 12 November 1983 no credible sighting of Mattathyahu has ever
been made. He has made no contact with family, friends or acquaintances. No
record of him being alive, certainly in Australia, has ever been found.
Jurisdiction:
Introduction
5. The Coronial Division of the Magistrates Court is established by
section 5 of the Coroners Act 1995 (the ‘Act’). The Act deals with the
jurisdiction of coroners to investigate deaths.
6. Section 21 of the Act provides: “21.Jurisdiction of coroners to
investigate a death
(1) A coroner has jurisdiction to investigate a death if it appears to
the coroner that the death is or may be a reportable death.” Section 3
defines death as including a “suspected death”. The term “reportable death”
is also defined in section 3 as follows: reportable death means –
(a) a death where –
(i) the body of a deceased person is in Tasmania; or
(ii) the death occurred in Tasmania; or
(iii) the cause of the death occurred in Tasmania; or
(iiia) the death occurred while the person was travelling from or to
Tasmania – being a death –
(iv) that appears to have been unexpected, unnatural or violent or to
have resulted directly or indirectly from an accident or injury; or
(v) that occurs during a medical procedure, or after a medical procedure
where the death may be causally related to that procedure, and a medical
practitioner would not, immediately before the procedure was undertaken,
have reasonably expected the death; or
(vi) . . . . . . . .
(vii) the cause of which is unknown; or
(viii) of a child under the age of one year which was sudden and
unexpected; or
(ix) of a person who immediately before death was a person held in care
or a person held in custody; or
(x) of a person whose identity is unknown; or
(xi) that occurs at, or as a result of an accident or injury that occurs
at, the deceased person's place of work, and does not appear to be due to
natural causes; or
(b) the death of a person who ordinarily resided in Tasmania at the time
of death that occurred at a place outside Tasmania where the cause of death
is not certified by a person who, under a law in force in the place, is a
medical practitioner; or
(c) the death of a person that occurred whilst that person was escaping
or attempting to escape from prison, a detention centre, a secure mental
health unit, police custody or the custody of a person who had custody under
an order of a court for the purposes of taking that person to or from a
court; or (d) the death of a person that occurred whilst a police officer,
correctional officer, mental health officer or a prescribed person within
the meaning of section 31 of the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act
1999 was attempting to detain that person;”
7. In this case I am well satisfied that I have jurisdiction to
investigate the matter under the Coroners Act 1995. The reasons why I am
satisfied will emerge further in this finding but it is sufficient to say I
am satisfied Mattathyahu is dead, that he died in Tasmania and that his
death was unexpected. It follows that in terms of section 21(1) of the Act
jurisdiction is established
8. Section 24 of the Act deals with the circumstances in which an inquest
(defined in section 3 as meaning ‘a public inquiry that is held by a coroner
in respect of a death’) must be held.
9. Relevantly section 24 provides: “24. Jurisdiction of coroner to hold
inquest into a death
(1) Subject to section 25, a coroner who has jurisdiction to investigate
a death must hold an inquest if the body is in Tasmania or it appears to the
coroner that the death, or the cause of death, occurred in Tasmania or that
the deceased ordinarily resided in Tasmania at the time of death and –
(a) the coroner suspects homicide; or
(2) A coroner may hold an inquest into a death which the coroner has
jurisdiction to investigate if the coroner considers it desirable to do so.”
10. In this matter I determined an inquest was to be held. I did so
because I considered I am obliged so to do because, for reasons which will
also emerge further in this finding, I suspect Mr Mattathyahu was the victim
of homicide.
11. It follows that the holding of an inquest is in such circumstances
mandatory. Even if I did not suspect homicide in this case (and I have
already said that I do) I would have determined to have held an inquest
pursuant to section
(2). The reason for this is, given the circumstances surrounding Mr
Mattathayu’s disappearance and the length of time he has been missing, I
consider it desirable that the matter be examined, transparently and
publicly.
The Role of Coroner
12. The obligation of the coroner is to make the findings required by
section 28 of the Act. That section provides: “28. Findings of coroner
investigating a death
(1) A coroner investigating a death must find, if possible –
(a) the identity of the deceased; and
(b) how death occurred; and
(c) the cause of death; and
(d) when and where death occurred; and
(e) the particulars needed to register the death under the Births, Deaths
and Marriages Registration Act 1999.
(f) . . . . . . . .
(2) A coroner must, whenever appropriate, make recommendations with
respect to ways of preventing further deaths and on any other matter that
the coroner considers appropriate.
(3) A coroner may comment on any matter connected with the death
including public health or safety or the administration of justice.
(4) A coroner must not include in a finding or comment any statement that
a person is or may be guilty of an offence.
(5) If a coroner holds an inquest into the death of a person who died
whilst that person was a person held in custody or a person held in care or
whilst that person was escaping or attempting to escape from prison, a
secure mental health unit, a detention centre or police custody, the coroner
must report on the care, supervision or treatment of that person while that
person was a person held in custody or a person held in care.”
13. The inquiry conducted pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred by the
Act is not one that is undertaken at large. It is necessary that the inquiry
relate to the circumstances of the death under investigation. The standard
of proof applicable in coronial inquests is the civil standard of proof. In
other words, where findings of fact are made it is necessary for a coroner
to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities as to the existence of those
facts. However, if the inquiry reaches a stage where findings being made may
reflect adversely upon an individual or individuals it is well settled that
the standard applicable is that articulated in Briginshaw v Briginshaw
(1938) 60 CLR 336 (see in particular Dixon J at page 362).
14. Guidance as to how a Coroner is to approach the task of identifying
how a death occurred and the cause of death (see section 28 (1) (b) and (c)
of the Act) is to be found in Keown v Khan [1999] 1 VR 64. That case, a
decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal, was concerned with the review of
the findings of a coroner made in inquest into a police shooting. At page 75
Calloway JA said that the role of the coroner “is to find the facts from
which others may, if necessary, draw legal conclusions.”
15. The Act makes it quite clear that the Coroner must not include in any
finding or comment any statement or expression of opinion that a person is,
or may even may be, guilty of an offence (see section 28 (4)).
16. My role then is to make findings to the extent possible in accordance
with section 28 (1) of the Act, keeping carefully in mind the prohibition in
section 28 (4). Necessarily that will involve the making of findings of
fact, especially if some facts are in dispute. In making such findings of
fact, if they are likely to reflect adversely upon any person, I must reach
a state of satisfaction on the civil standard but consistent with the
observations of Dixon J in Briginshaw [supra].
A preliminary issue
17. This inquest was heard over several days in December 2014 and
February 2015. The inquest was then adjourned to enable the preparation,
exchange and delivery of written submissions. On 21 April 2015, after the
inquest had adjourned and after submissions were filed and delivered by
counsel assisting the Coroner, but before submissions were filed and
delivered by counsel for Mr and Mrs Hull, the Coroners Amendment Act 2015
received royal assent.
18. That Act, inter alia, repealed section 28 (1) (f) of the Coroners Act
1995. Until it was repealed section 28 (1) (f) required a coroner to find,
if possible, ‘the identity of any person who contributed to the cause of
death’ the subject of her or his investigation.
19. Thus a preliminary issue needs to be considered: is the amending Act
(insofar as it relates to section 28 (1) (f)) prospective or retrospective
in operation? Put another way, is it still necessary, because the evidence
at inquest was heard before the repeal of the provision requiring a finding
about contribution, to make a finding about contribution (if possible)?
20. The issue is one of ordinary statutory interpretation. The common law
principle is that in the absence of a clear statement to the contrary an Act
is assumed not to have retrospective operation (see Maxwell v Murphy (1957)
96 CLR 261 per Dixon CJ at 267). Relevant too is section 16 of the Acts
Interpretation Act 1931 which provides that where an Act repeals any other
enactment then, unless the contrary is expressly provided, such repeal shall
not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued,
or incurred under any enactment so repealed.
21. It seems to me that the repealed section 28 (1) (f) is procedural in
nature. Moreover it does not ‘affect any right, privilege, obligation or
liability’ in terms of section 16 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (see
State of Tasmania v Thorpe [2011] TASSC 18 in which Evans J applied Rodway v
R (1990) 169 CLR 515). The amending Act is silent about whether it is
retrospective in operation. In my view, consistent with principle, the
circumstances of this matter do not require me to make any finding in terms
of the repealed section 28 (1) (f). In reaching this conclusion I
respectfully adopt the reasoning of Coroner McTaggart in Jasmine Rose Pearce
[2015] TASCD 75.
Identity and History:
22. Evidence tendered at the inquest, and not in dispute, allows me to
conclude that Mattathyahu was born Tony Harris in Leamington, County
Warwick, United Kingdom on 22 July 1934. He was the son of Albert Joseph
Harris and Elsie Unity Florence Harris. He was educated at the Kenilworth
Secondary Modern School and after leaving school seems to have been employed
in some capacity in primary industry. It seems that Mattathyahu spent a
period of time in the British Armed Forces, possibly as a Royal Marine
commando. The duration of his service, the circumstances of that service,
whether it was regular or reserve and the circumstances surrounding his
discharge are not clear.
23. What is clear is that in about 1958 Mattathyahu arrived in Australia
having received an assisted passage. His half-brother, Christopher John
Harris, gave evidence that he recalled his brother visiting him and his
family at 1 Schinkel Street, Mt Gambier in 1958 and a subsequent visit at a
different address (28 Shepherdson Road, Mt Gambier) ‘about a year later’.
24. Mattathyahu left Australia in February 1960, probably after visiting
Christopher and his family who were then living at Hamilton in Victoria.
Christopher reports no contact with his halfbrother after that date.
25. Mattathyahu seems to have spent some time in New Zealand and then
returned to the United Kingdom in September 1961.
26. On 21 July 1962 he changed his name from Tony Zackary Harris to Tony
Zackary Harras. The deed giving effect to that change of name records his
address as 104 Arthur Street Kenilworth in the County of Warwick. In 1964 he
returned to Australia once again as an assisted migrant. However by 1967 his
was again back in the United Kingdom. On 11 March of that year he married
Patricia McPherson. Their son Adam Harras was born on 19 August 1968 in
Banbury, Oxford, United Kingdom. Mattathyahu is described as Zackary Anthony
Harras, a vermin controller, in the certified copy of Adam’s entry of Birth
in the sub-district of Banbury, County of Oxford. There is no evidence that
during the year 1967 he was in Israel. In fact I am satisfied that he was
not.
27. In 1971 or perhaps 1972, the precise date is unclear, it seems that
Mattathyahu returned to Australia again having separated from Patricia (they
divorced on 3 March 1976). It is reasonably certain that by 1972 he was
working at Exmouth in Western Australia.
28. After a stint in Darwin in the Northern Territory in 1974 and 1975,
in 1976 Mattathyahu came for the first time to Tasmania where he worked
until 1978 in the timber industry.
29. Between 1978 and 1980 Mattathyahu was employed as a gardener at the
Botanical Gardens in Adelaide, South Australia. There is, however, evidence
to suggest that during at least some of this time he also worked as a
bushman near Maydena, Tasmania. Robert Watson says that he worked with
Reuben in the Russell River Valley logging in 1978. In the context of this
investigation details in relation to his precise movements and whereabouts
are relatively unimportant and difficult to determine with any certainty.
30. At about this time, although it is far from clear when, Mattathyahu
began to call himself Judah Zachariah Reuben Wolfe Mattathyahu or versions
and/or variations of that name. In fact there are many variations of his
name. It is unclear whether the variations arise as a result of grammatical
or spelling errors in various records or alternatively they were deliberate
variations adopted by Mattathyahu or a combination of both. Certainly by
March 1979 he seems to have been calling himself, and therefore was known
as, Judah Mattathayu. However to illustrate the difficulty of even being
accurate about his name, a friend John Oldmeadow whom he met in about 1976
or 1977, knew him as Karl Wolfe but was aware that he used other names
including Reuben Mattathyahu and Zac Mattathyahu. Mr and Mrs Hull and their
family knew him as Reuben Mattathyahu. Others knew him as Reuben or Carl (or
Karl) Wolfe. Danny Swan, another friend from the time knew him as Carl
Mattahyha.
31. Given that the preponderance of evidence suggests most people seem to
have known him as Reuben Mattathyahu during the time leading up to his
disappearance, I find that his identity was Tony Zachary Harras also known
as Reuben Mattathyahu. As I have already said, I will refer to him by the
latter name in this finding.
32. A good deal of mystery seems to have surrounded Mattathyahu. It is
difficult to escape the conclusion that Mattathyahu deliberately fostered
that air of mystery. At some stage he seems to have either converted to, or
become interested in, Judaism. He appears to have told various persons that
he fought in the Six Day War as part of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF).
However there is no evidence at all that he did fight in that conflict or
was ever a member of the IDF. I have already said that there is no evidence
whatsoever he was even in Israel in 1967 when the Six Day War was fought, or
at all.
33. Mattathayu told Robert Watson that he had been an Israeli commando
and that he had done some mercenary “work” for unidentified and unspecified
“people”. He gave Watson to understand he had been in East Timor and that he
was a “hit man”. He claimed to Watson he was Jewish and also told him that
his wife and two children were killed during a war (Watson could not recall
which war).
34. Aside from the fact that he seems to have had an interest in Judaism
there is absolutely no evidence to support any of these claims. There is no
evidence whatsoever that he had a wife and two children killed in any war.
Apart from some articles suggestive of some type of link with Israel found
amongst his possessions when his disappearance was investigated by police,
there is no evidence whatsoever that supports the proposition that he ever
visited that country let alone was a member of its defence force.
35. Mattathyahu told John Olsson, Mr and Mrs Hull’s son-in-law, that “he
had gone to Africa to destabilise a government, he had gone in there with
seven other men, when it was time to pick up, the helicopter came in and he
was told to kill the other seven men and then flew out on his own. The other
one [story] was that men would come up and touch him and consider him good
luck because he hadn’t been killed, these men were in his circle of
mercenaries”. Whilst I accept that Mattathyahu told these stories (or
similar stories) to Mr Olsson I do not accept that there is a scintilla of
truth to any of them.
36. Alan Hull, son of Mr and Mrs Hull, also gave evidence about
Mattathyahu telling him equally unlikely and fanciful stories. In his
evidence at the inquest he said that Mattathyahu told him “about chasing –
Nazi hunting after, like that was his first main thing when he became a Jew
he reckon [sic] he had a job with a chap, I can’t think of his name, where
they used to go into the country and they just kill them, like the SS men,
the war criminal fellows.” Once again I accept that Mattathyahu told Mr Alan
Hull this story (or something similar) but I observe that apart from
Mattathyahu’s self-reporting there is no evidence whatsoever that supports
this story, or indeed any of his stories.
37. There is however evidence that Mattathyahu was employed for a time by
Mr Ike Kelly in the logging industry. In fact it was whilst working for Mr
Kelly that he met Mr and Mrs Hull. In an affidavit sworn by Mr Kelly on 12
April 2012, Mr Kelly said that Mattathyahu ‘told [him] that he was mixed up
in the Entebbe air raid and the only one shot was his cousin”. This can only
be a reference to the famous IDF raid on the airport at Entebbe, Uganda on 4
July 1976. It is well known that an Israeli soldier with a name similar to
the name Mattathyahu had by then adopted was indeed killed in that raid.
However Mattathyahu could not have known when he made that claim that that
soldier - the only IDF soldier killed in the raid - was in fact the brother
of Benjamin Netanyahu, who subsequently became the Prime Minister of Israel.
There is no evidence at all that suggests the Prime Minister of Israel and
Mattathyahu are cousins and a good deal that suggests they are not. The only
conclusion open, or so it seems to me, is that this story he told to Mr
Kelly (and I have absolutely no reason to doubt Mr Kelly when he says
Mattathyahu told him the story) is fantasy. The demonstrable untruth of this
story, along with the demonstrable untruth of Mattathyahu’s story of his
wife and two children being killed in an unidentified war leads easily to a
conclusion that he was little more than a fantasist. At the risk of
repetition I observe that much of Mattathyahu’s background and history
appears to be shrouded in mystery. That air of mystery seems to have been
deliberately cultivated by him. None of his accounts of his background are
anything other than self-reported. No evidence was uncovered that supports a
conclusion that there is any basis for any of the claims - in particular the
more outlandish ones of working as a mercenary and as an assassin.
38. In any event, by 1980 he appears to have returned to Tasmania.
Sometime around April to June 1982, whilst employed on logging operations by
Mr Ike Kelly, he met and become friendly with Mr and Mrs Hull. The logging
work was being carried out on property owned by them on the Tasman
Peninsula.
39. At around this time he moved into a small convict built structure on
Mr and Mrs Hull’s property. He lived there on and off until he disappeared
in November 1983.
Circumstances Surrounding the Death: Anne Hull’s
relationship with Mattathyahu
40. The nature of Mattathyahu’s relationship with Mrs Anne Hull was a
matter of real significance in the context of the inquest. It is necessary
therefore to consider that relationship in detail. There is no doubt
whatsoever that the relationship was sexual. Mrs Anne Hull said so during
her evidence at the inquest.
41. However I conclude that Mrs Anne Hull attempted to downplay the
duration and significance of the sexual relationship. She said in her
evidence that she couldn’t remember how long the sexual relationship lasted
but that ‘[i]t wasn’t that often – it just wasn’t that many times’.
42. She also said that that they could not have had sexual contact ‘any
more than monthly or whatever [sic] because [she was] a mother…a working
woman’ by which I find she was attempting to suggest that she simply did not
have the time to engage in sexual activity with Mattathyahu anymore
regularly than that.
43. Mrs Anne Hull was asked at the inquest by counsel assisting whether
the relationship involved her posing for some pictures for Mattathyahu. Mrs
Anne Hull initially denied an awareness of that, and then changed her
position such that she admitted knowledge of only one photograph being
taken.
44. Mrs Anne Hull’s evidence about this issue was, like much of her
evidence, unimpressive - even allowing for her age, the passing of time
since the events she was asked about, and her health generally. In reaching
that conclusion I expressly accept her own evidence about the medication she
was, at the time of the inquest, taking and also her diagnosis of, and
treatment for, depression and anxiety.
45. It is very clear, and I find accordingly, that the relationship was
one of some considerable duration and intensity. Several friends of
Mattathyahu were well aware of the relationship. Those friends included Mr
Robert Watson and Mr Danny Swan. Mr Robert Watson gave evidence at the
inquest and was recalled to answer further questions. However he was not
challenged, at all, about the account he gave police on 4 March 1984, about
the nature of the relationship between Mrs Anne Hull and Mattathyahu. Mr
Watson said in his affidavit that Mattathyahu told him that “Anne would come
to do her washing at the vacant house next to his hut… [and that] while she
was there they would have sex. Reuben said Anne would know what to wear that
would please him, his fantasy of women in black boots and black coat”. Mr
Watson said the Mattathyahu had told him that Anne had driven him to Hobart
on occasions – something verified by other friends of Mattathyahu at
Tradewear Hobart, an outdoor clothing and equipment store.
46. The fact of the affair, and in particular indications as to its
duration, was also confirmed during subsequent police investigations when
photographs of Mrs Anne Hull in explicit sexual poses and performing sexual
acts upon Mattathyahu were discovered. Some of those photographs were tended
in evidence at the inquest and were of Mrs Anne Hull either naked or clad
only in black boots and a black coat.
47. Mr Danny Swan in a statement to police dated 18 March 1984 said as
follows: “Over the past 19 months I know that Carl had been living on a
property at Saltwater River on a property owned by John Hull. After Carl was
living at Saltwater River, he continued to visit us at the shop [Tradewear]
about every two to three weeks, and on occasions would stay in the flat
overnight. On one occasion I was talking to Carl and he showed me a
photograph of a woman dressed in a black nightdress or frock. It was taken
in his room at Saltwater River. He told me a roundabout way that he was
having an affair with this woman, but he didn’t tell me what her name was.
He was mad on black clothing for women and told me he had bought the
clothing the woman was wearing in the photograph. I realised it was Mrs Anne
Hull because of previous photographs Carl had shown me and had said on that
occasion who the people were. When I saw this I knew it was Mrs Anne Hull he
was having an affair with. I didn’t say anything to Carl, although I told
John [Oldmeadow] and Paul [Minehan].” [As noted earlier in this finding, Mr
Swan knew Mattathyahu as ‘Carl’].
48. Mr Swan also said in his statement that sometime during 1983 he saw
Mattathyahu leave the flat at Tradewear with Mrs Anne Hull in the morning.
He said it was the only time he saw Mrs Anne Hull there. This evidence was
not challenged or contradicted.
49. I accept that is an accurate account given at a time when the facts
would have been fresh in Mr Swan’s mind. I have no reason to doubt it. I am
satisfied that several people knew about the affair, which is unlikely if it
was as fleeting as Mrs Anne Hull attempted to suggest. I am satisfied she
visited the flat used by Mattathyahu in Hobart on at least one occasion.
50. Mr Graham Hickey, a retired police officer involved in the
investigation of Mattathyahu’s disappearance in 1984, gave evidence. In an
affidavit sworn by him in September 2014 Mr Hickey said: “I recalled that
Mattathyahu was having an affair with Anne Hull. Anne Hull was the wife of
the property owner John Hull, which was where Mattathyahu was living at the
time of his disappearance”. [Mr Hickey’s affidavit then went on to deal with
the finding of some property of Mattathyahu’s, including photographs which
were located in a room he rented at Tradewear in Liverpool Street.] He went
on to say: “The photographs were of Anne Hull dressed in a red see-through
negligee, open at the front showing a full frontal view of her body, with a
long dark hair flowing down to her crutch area. There are at least four
photographs in various poses wearing this clothing apparel and they were
taken in the Liverpool Street flat… The photographs were shown to Anne Hull
who was very embarrassed, and seemed not to be telling the truth about
Mattathyahu. Anne Hull had told Constable Colleen Banks she was having
sexual intercourse with Mattathyahu three times a day and would get a phone
call from him saying he needed his shirt washed. This would be the indicator
for her to go to his hut”.
51. Mr Hickey’s evidence about this was not challenged. I accept it.
52. I reject Mrs Anne Hull’s evidence about the nature and frequency of
the sexual relationship between her and Mattathyahu. I find that even
allowing for the factors I have already mentioned – her age, the passage of
time since the incidents described, and her ill health (and I specifically
have regard to the content of the letter from her general practitioner), as
well as making proper allowance for her understandable sense of
embarrassment and shame, the evidence that she gave to the inquest was
deliberately designed to mislead it and to downplay the significance of that
relationship.
53. I find that the sexual relationship was of considerable intensity and
that in the course of the relationship a number of photographs of Mrs Anne
Hull in various states of undress, and in some cases performing sexual acts
upon Mattathyahu, where taken. I am satisfied a number of people were aware
of the affair. I am satisfied that Mrs Anne Hull was deliberately untruthful
in her answers to questions at the inquest relating to the nature, extent
and duration of her relationship with Mattathyahu.
When Did John Hull become aware of the affair?
54. Another issue of real significance at the inquest was when John Hull
became aware of the fact that his wife was involved in a sexual relationship
with Mattathyahu.
55. His evidence was that he only became aware of that relationship in
about 2012 when his wife, when police were present at the property
investigating the matter, confessed the fact of her involvement in that
sexual relationship for the very first time.
56. This evidence I find also to be untrue.
57. Graham Hickey, in addition to the evidence referred to above, said in
another affidavit made on 26 September 2014: “I recall and am confident to
say that I approached John Hull at the time of the investigation. During
that approach I showed him naked photographs of his wife and Mattathyahu and
put to him that he knew Anne was having an affair with Judah Mattathyahu.
John Hull denied knowing that Anne was having an affair and stated that he
was fishing at the Lakes on the weekend of Mattathyahu’s disappearance.”
58. Mr Hickey’s evidence about this was not challenged or contradicted. I
accept his evidence about this issue. The consequence of this is that I find
that at least as early as March 1984 Mr John Hull was well aware of his
wife’s infidelity with Mattathyahu.
59. Mr John Hull in his evidence at the inquest was asked questions about
his knowledge of his wife’s affair with Mattathyahu. I set out below the
relevant exchange:
“Now Mr John Hull I need to ask you about Reuben’s
relationship with your wife Mrs Anne Hull. Are you aware today that there
was a sexual relationship –
…..Yes. –
…..going on between Mrs Anne Hull and
Reuben?.....
[no audible reply]
When did you first become aware of
that?
..... About two or three years ago.
Can you tell the court how you
first became aware of that?
..... The Cold Case people were looking into it
again. And one was sitting right next to me –
….. Whereabouts was this?.....
Pardon?
Whereabouts was this?
.... Out there in front of the house out at
Black Jack.
Okay. One was sitting next to you. And what happened?.....
And
the other one was talking to Roslyn. And Roslyn then came around and said to
me that she’d had an affair with Reuben – Do you want me to leave? In fact I
heard her say it here in court which reminded me of it. And I said – No. Sex
doesn’t mean a terrible lot to me I’m afraid.
Now do you remember who it was
from what you’ve described as the “Cold Case Unit” who was present when that
conversation occurred?
..... It would have been Detective Howard I reckon.
[indistinct word(s)] sure.
Well you said you reckon. Do you actually
remember her specifically being there?.....
Yes.
You do?.....
[no audible
reply]
And who else? You said there were two –
…..There was another detective
that was sitting next to me when we were out in the garden.
And do you
remember the name of that detective at all?
..... No.
Do you remember if it
was a male or a female?.....
A female.
Okay. So you said that was when you
first heard. Can you remember exactly what was said?
..... Exactly what I
just said. Roslyn came out and she said – I had an affair with Reuben. Okay
–…..Do you want me to leave?”.
60. Mr John Hull also said in his evidence at the inquest that after his
wife’s revelation of her affair with Mattathyahu it was never discussed
again by them. I do not accept Mr John Hull’s evidence in this regard. I do
not accept his evidence about the issue generally. I am quite satisfied he
was told about the fact of the affair by then Detective Hickey in 1984. It
is in my view incredible in the literal sense of that word that Mr John Hull
might have forgotten completely about being confronted by a detective with
naked photographs of his wife. This is especially so when regard is had to
the fact that, on his own account, he must have known that the police were
investigating by then the apparent disappearance of Mattathyahu. Making full
allowance for his age, the passage of time between the events he was asked
when he gave evidence about, having specific regard to the contents of the
letter from Dr Paul Luckman, his general practitioner, and being mindful of
the Briginshaw standard, I am affirmatively satisfied that Mr John Hull knew
about his wife’s affair with Mattathyahu at least as early as March 1984
when he was told about it by Detectives investigating Mattathyahu’s
disappearance. I am satisfied the evidence he gave the inquest about his
knowledge of his wife’s infidelity was deliberately untruthful. However,
whilst I suspect he had knowledge of his wife’s affair with Mattathyahu
before March 1984, there is insufficient material to affirmatively satisfy
me that this is so, or even if there was, when he had that knowledge.
The last week or so of Mattathyahu’s life
61. Mr John Olsson in his affidavit said that in the weeks before
Mattathyahu went missing “he didn’t want anyone near him”. He described a
degree of tension between him and Mattathyahu over the taking of some rocks.
He described him as being “fearful” and “agitated” and avoiding company in
the period of weeks leading up to his disappearance. The inference that
might be drawn from this evidence is of course that Mattathyahu was
preparing to leave because his past was catching up with him. However it
needs to be recognised that the source of Mr Olsson’s evidence about
Mattathyahu’s demeanour in the lead up to his disappearance was clearly Mr
and Mrs Hull, as Olsson said he did not speak to Mattathyahu during the 10
days leading up to his disappearance.
62. Mr Alan Hull, with whom Mattathyahu had a good deal of contact, said
he did not recall seeing him all that much in the last couple of weeks
before his disappearance explaining that he was away shearing and mostly at
home only on weekends. He then gave an account in answer to questions from
Ms Avery, counsel assisting, which it is necessary to set out in full:
“Can you recall seeing him at all in the couple of weeks leading up to
his disappearance?.....
Well, I got a – I got a little story that I ain’t never told no one, but
I don’t know when that was. I told Fiona about this on one interview but we
never got to finish it in our interview –…..
HIS HONOUR: By Fiona you mean Detective Howard?
WITNESS: That’s her. I seen an altercation there. And I got a sneaky
suspicion that was – that was on that – it could have been real close
because I don’t – there was only one other time I seen him after that. And
there was – what had happened leading up to this particular thing, oh, Dad
rings me up, tells me not to come home – Reuben is behaving really badly,
he’s about to go, and you – it’s not a good place to be. Well, one thing
I’ve never been real good at is doing as I’m told. So I toddles home. Anyway
I – I got a feeling, but I don’t know that I could really swear by this
though, that I – that was on the Friday night that I seen that altercation
you know –…..
MS AVERY: [resuming] Now when you say Friday night are we talking about
potentially Friday the 11th November 1983?
..... I’ve got an awful – I
wouldn’t like to pin but that –…..
Okay. But you think it was close –…..
–
I’ve got an awful feeling – around that time.
Close to the time –
…..Yeah.
–
…..of the disappearance? Now – okay. So what happened when you got to the
property?
..... Well, because of the information that I was given I didn’t
drive in like I normally do. I parked me vehicle up the bush out of the way,
where the old gate used to be up – and I walked in. But I just walked down
along the fence line, over the fence line, where I could come in without
being seen and just see what was going on before I showed meself. Well, I
was still in the bush just above the – there is a bit of a hill that runs up
like that and you look down – you’d be looking west I suspect. And you look
down out at the shed there – well I could hear this – there was a car parked
down on the flat piece there –…..
Did you recognise the car?.....
No. It was a flash looking car. And it’s not quite dark at the time.
A flash looking car? What type of car was it?.....
I don’t know. It was just – compared to what we had it was a new looking
car. Anyway – yeah – well, like I said there was a fair bit of hollering and
hooting going on in there, and a bit of noise and clonking and banging you
could hear, and a bit of squealing happening, and –…..
Going on in where?.....
Hey?
Going on in where? The hut?.....
In the shed. Well, they managed to – whoever they were they actually had
hold of him – one had him like this behind –…..
By him you mean Reuben?.....
Yes. And the other one had him by the feet as they come out the door.
So there were two of them?.....
Yes.
Males or females?.....
Males.
Did you recognise them?.....
No.
Can you describe them?.....
The same style as –…..
Well, what do you mean the same style?.....
Oh, well, they were definitely well sort of –…..
Built?.....
Well built, but one of them ended up being very badly hurt.
Okay. Well, just tell us what happened. What did you see?.....
Well, as he come out of the door – as he come out of the door the
blooming – well, he give a big shove somehow or other, broke one of them
free, and the other one sort of partially fell in the process. Well, he got
back on his feet and got mobile. And one of those blokes got a helluva
punishing. And I would have said even Reuben himself was probably a little
bit hurt out of that deal because it’s the most horrific thing that I have
ever watched or seen in my life.
When you say – what do you mean? Can you just describe it for us a bit,
bearing in mind – …..
Well I’ve described it all I’m going to.
HIS HONOUR: No. You’ve been asked a question Mr John Hull and you will
answer the question please.
WITNESS: Well, you’d better repeat the question.
MS AVERY: [resuming] You said that there was a hell of a beating. What
exactly did you see?.....
Oh, well, you know like it’s just fists and kicking and – I don’t know.
That sort of thing.
And is this by the other men to Reuben or is he giving it back to them
–…..
He was giving it back to them once he broke away. They didn’t have a hope
in hell.
Okay. So whereabouts was he connecting with and how?.....
Uh?
How was he making that connect with them?.....
Physically.
Was it punching? Kicking?.....
It was punching you know like – and there was a little bit of kicking but
not a lot. It was mainly pretty – pretty savage blows.
Pretty savage blows. What happened to the other two males?.....
Well, one of them was put in the car by Reuben, and the other one – they
just drove out.
Who drove out?.....
One of those two fellows.
Where did Reuben go?.....
He [indistinct word(s)] around like a mad bull beating his chest going on
about Nazi hunter and killer and all that sort of stuff and, um – and um
then –…..
Well, did you ask him what this was all about?.....
I never spoke to him. I never spoke to him. I never went near.
So you didn’t make yourself known?.....
No I did not. No I did not.
Why didn’t you make yourself known?.....
Well, would you?
So you were scared?.....
Very.
Okay –…..
I am to this day. I have never seen anything like it.
Well, if it was that terrifying why did you not immediately ring the
police?.....
Well, I’ve never been – never really give it that much thing – well, I
didn’t know those two individuals and me main man had survived so there was
no need that I could see to call the police.
There was a phone, a landline in the main residence wasn’t there –…..
Well I wasn’t going – making myself present and going down there.
Okay. So these two males can you describe them in anyway further for
us?.....
Not really – …..
Can you describe what –…..
– because by the time this was over it was getting pretty – it was
getting towards evening time.
Can you remember what they were wearing at all?.....
Well, I don’t know, just dark sort of clothes.
Now you said when you first arrived you could hear a lot of shouting
coming from inside the building. Can you recall anything in particular that
was being said?.....
No.
Okay.
And you would agree that not only did you not report it to the police
that incident, but you in fact never told police –…..
I’ve never told anybody ever.
Even though you now believe that this may in fact have happened the very
night prior to the disappearance?.....
Well, around that timeframe I would have thought just thinking about it
now, like when I mentioned it it’s around – it’s in that timeframe.
Why haven’t you told the police to this day?.....
Well I did tell Fiona once when – Constable Fiona once when she was
interviewing me about it.
But you’d agree that you never actually got to tell her this part did
you?.....
Nah – yeah – …..”.
63. Mr Alan Hull claimed he had previously told Detective Fiona Howard
about this story. Detective Howard was recalled to give evidence and asked
about this specific issue. She denied he had said anything of the sort. I
find she was entirely truthful about this issue (as with all of her
evidence). I am satisfied that Mr Alan Hull’s evidence about this incident
was quite untruthful.
64. This story, like most surrounding Mattathyahu, is both fanciful and
once again, literally incredible. I found that Mr Alan Hull was exaggerating
and that at the very least his evidence was significantly embellished. I
approach his evidence with a high degree of caution and have no confidence
in its reliability or his reliability as a witness. Despite what he said I
am well satisfied Mr Alan Hull told no one the story before giving it as
part of his evidence. Mr Alan Hull’s complete lack of credibility in respect
of this evidence was not in any way altered by his production of a statement
which was tendered to the Court and written by his wife on his behalf and
dated 20 February 2012. In fact in that statement actually casts doubt on
his own reliability. In it he says ‘I do remember an altercation – I think –
between Reuben and two men who I had seen before’ [emphasis added]. However
in his evidence at the inquest he was at pains to leave the impression that
there was no doubt about the altercation. He also said at the inquest he did
not recognise the two men and did not say he had seen them before. All this
is inconsistent with the account, such as it is, in his statement of 20
February 2012. I reached the view that Mr Alan Hull was deliberately
attempting to mislead the inquest. I watched Mr Alan Hull and listened
carefully to him giving his evidence. He was evasive, garrulous and wholly
unimpressive. I am satisfied that Mr Alan Hull was deliberately attempting
to mislead the inquest, a finding I make reluctantly, slowly and with a good
deal of caution, but the only finding I consider open in the circumstances.
65. However what is clear from the evidence about Mattathyahu’s demeanour
and behaviour in the weeks leading up to his death is that he was apparently
agitated and making plans to depart Slopen Main. Those members of the Hull
family who gave evidence were in my view at pains to present as a reason for
Mattathyahu’s agitation and his intention to leave the idea in some way that
his colourful past as a mercenary and Nazi hunter was catching up with him.
The much more likely explanation in my view for any agitation and his making
arrangements to leave, in something of a hurry, is that his affair with Anne
Hull had been discovered by someone and he was anxious to get away from the
locality.
The events of 11 and 12 November 1983
66. Mr Howard Grant Watson was an important witness about the events of
11 and 12 November 1983. He was an acquaintance of Mattathyahu’s rather than
a friend. Howard Watson’s cousin, Robert Stanley Watson, was a friend of
Mattathyahu. Howard Watson gave evidence at the inquest. He confirmed that a
statement he made to police in March 1984 was true and correct. That
statement which was tendered into evidence dealt with his involvement in the
events leading up to Mattathyahu’s disappearance. He said that on a Friday
towards the end of November 1983 (I find he must have been mistaken about
the precise Friday, other evidence satisfies me that the date of
Mattathyahu’s disappearance was Saturday 12 November 1983) he spoke by
telephone to Mattathyahu, whom he knew as Reuben Wolfe. Mattathyahu asked
him to take a message to his cousin Robert and ask if Robert could travel to
Slopen Main and bring him back to Glen Huon where the Watson cousins lived.
Howard Watson told police in his statement in March 1984 that he recognised
Mattathyahu’s voice. The request by Mattathyahu to be picked up and driven
somewhere was not unusual it would seem. The evidence is that he had no car
and did not drive. Mr John Hull gave evidence he had driven him as far as
Maydena for work.
67. In his statement to police made on 18 March 1984 Paul Minehan, a
friend of Mattathyahu, said that he spoke on the telephone to Mattathyahu
between 9.00am and 12.00pm on Saturday 12 November 1983. Paul Minehan was
the manager of Tradewear, an outdoor clothing and equipment shop in
Liverpool Street, Hobart. Mattathyahu was friendly with Mr Minehan and Mr
John Oldmeadow, the owner of the store. Mattathyahu had the use of an
upstairs room at the shop and stayed there from time to time. He left
suitcases and trunks in the room. He had also had Mrs Anne Hull visit that
room on at least one occasion (see paragraphs 48-49 of this finding).
68. Paul Minehan said that Mattathyahu (whom he knew as Karl Wolfe) told
him he was coming the next day to get some of his gear out of the trunks in
the room. He also told Mr Minehan that he had had ‘enough down there [at
Slopen Main] and had to get out’. Mr Minehan said he did not see or hear
from Mattathyahu after that telephone call.
69. At about 4.00pm the same day Howard Watson passed the message he had
received the night before from Mattathyahu on to his cousin Robert Watson.
Howard Watson said Robert Watson left Glen Huon about 7.00pm the same day
(Saturday, 12 November 1983) intending to travel to Slopen Main. Robert
Watson said the same thing.
70. Howard Watson gave evidence that at approximately 8.30pm the same day
he was again telephoned by Mattathyahu. Mattathyahu asked him if Robert
Watson was going to pick him up. Howard Watson told Mattathyahu that Robert
Watson had left earlier and would be there to pick him up in about
half-an-hour. This is the last reliable evidence of contact any person has
ever had with Mattathyahu.
71. I accept Howard Watson’s evidence about these telephone calls. He
impressed me as an inherently reliable and honest witness. He had no
interest in the outcome of the inquest and absolutely no reason to lie. He
said the same thing to police as early as 4 March 1984 when the events that
he was describing would have been fresh in his memory. Accepting his
evidence as I do, I am satisfied that at 8.30pm or thereabouts on Saturday,
12 November 1983 Mattathyahu was still alive.
72. Mr Robert Watson, who described himself as a friend of Mattathyahu’s,
was, in my view an equally impressive and reliable witness. He was the
person who ultimately reported Mattathyahu as missing to police in March
1984. Like his cousin Howard he made a statement to police on 4 March 1984.
That statement was tendered at the inquest and confirmed by Mr Robert Watson
as being accurate. It was made at a time when the events described in it
were fresh in his mind. Like the evidence of his cousin, Mr Robert Watson’s
evidence was delivered in a frank manner and did not bear any of the
hallmarks of exaggeration.
73. Mr Robert Watson said he had known Mattathyahu since 1978 when they
had worked together logging in the Russell River Valley. He said that he had
visited Mattathyahu at the Slopen Main property on about four occasions
during the time that he lived there. Mr Robert Watson described being told
by his cousin Howard Watson that Mattathyahu had phoned and wanted him to
pick him up from Slopen Main and take him to Glen Huon. The arrangement was
that he would stay overnight with Mr Robert Watson at his home at Glen Huon
and that then the next day Mr Robert Watson would take him to Hobart. I note
that this account of the proposed arrangements is entirely consistent with
Mr Paul Minehan’s evidence referred to above. Robert Watson described
leaving Glen Huon at about 7.00pm and arriving at Mattathyahu’s Slopen Main
dwelling at about 9.30pm. He said that when he got there the lights were on,
the doors open, and the two dogs belonging to Mattathyahu were in the yard.
Robert Watson said he went into the building and Mattathyahu was not there.
He described waiting about 15 minutes and then going to John and Anne Hull’s
house at Saltwater River, a few kilometres away. There he spoke to Mrs Anne
Hull. He said he asked her if she had seen Mattathyahu and she said she had
not.
74. Mr Robert Watson returned to Mattathyahu’s dwelling at Slopen Main
and searched for his gear. He found it in the back room of the dwelling. He
said that it appeared to him that all his property was there, describing
Mattathyahu’s sleeping bag, two or three trunks, a toolbox, a barking spade,
an axe and a wooden club.
75. He also said that he found packed bags near the front door.
76. Mr Robert Watson described then going back out to the main road to
the post office and shop at Premaydena and telephoning his cousin Howard
from the public telephone booth (which is still there). After this telephone
call he returned to Mattathyahu’s dwelling for a third time. There was still
no sign of Mattathyahu. Mr Robert Watson said he left there about midnight.
77. Most importantly, he firmly rejected the suggestion put squarely to
him that he had collected Mattathyahu on that evening. I accept his evidence
about this issue, as I do the balance of his evidence, for the reasons I
have already described. His evidence struck me as inherently plausible. The
version that he gave was consistent between 1984 and 2014. He made
appropriate concessions in relation to his memory. I formed the view he was
reliable and honest and I accept his evidence. Like his cousin Howard he had
no interest in the outcome of the inquest and no reason to lie.
78. I find that Mattathyahu was not at his accommodation at 9.30pm when
Mr Robert Watson called to collect him as had been arranged.
79. Apart from the Watson cousins, three members of the Hull family –
Anne, John and Alan - gave evidence about the events of 12 November 1983.
80. Mrs Anne Hull made a statement to police investigating Mattathyahu’s
disappearance in March 1984. When first asked about that statement she
claimed to have no memory of the statement, no memory of where she was
living at the time it was made, and no memory where her daughter Kate was
then living. She took issue with the content of a substantial part of that
statement. She said that the signature on the statement looked like her
signature but said that she didn’t ‘know how they [police officers] came to
get me to sign it unless it was just for me to shut them up from doing what
they were doing to me’. Mrs Anne Hull claimed she was the subject of an
interrogation of a type she said she ‘hope[d] and pray[ed] no one ever has
to go through.’
81. Mrs Anne Hull said three car loads of police arrived and questioned
her. Although it was clear that Mrs Anne Hull was unhappy with what she
described as an interrogation, I found it very difficult to understand what
her complaint was. For example, she did not seem to be complaining about the
duration or manner of the interrogation, other than in a very nonspecific
way. She acknowledged she had never complained, or even told anyone, about
the incident, notwithstanding she claimed to have had nightmares about it
for years and years. The lack of detail about her complaint extended to Mrs
Anne Hull being unable to identify a single police officer involved in the
incident. She said that when this interrogation occurred her husband was
away deer shooting. I observe that their March 1984 statements were
apparently taken one day apart – Mrs Anne Hull’s on 22nd March and Mr John
Hull’s the next day.
82. Two former police officers involved in the initial enquiry – Mr
Graham Hickey and Ms Colleen Banks – gave evidence at the inquest. Mr Hickey
said he spoke to Mrs Anne Hull in March 1984 about Mattathyahu’s
disappearance and Ms Banks took Mrs Anne Hull’s initial statement. Neither
had any questions directed to them, at all, suggesting that anything in the
nature of what Mrs Anne Hull described as an interrogation, so harsh she had
nightmares for years later, occurred. I am satisfied it did not. Again,
making all proper allowances for Mrs Anne Hull’s age and infirmities as well
as the distance in time between her giving evidence at the inquest and the
events she was describing, I am well satisfied this account lacked any
foundation in fact. I found her account of the questioning by police of her
in March 1984 to be extremely exaggerated and inherently implausible. I am
satisfied nothing of the type she described occurred. I am also satisfied
that the statement (which she seemed to deny knowledge of) was made by her,
voluntarily and in not in the circumstances she described. I am satisfied
that that statement is what she told police when spoken to in March 1984.
83. The statement deals briefly with the history of her knowledge of Mr
Mattathyahu. There is no mention in the statement about their affair. The
statement then goes on: “During the period of time April 1982 to Nov [sic]
1983 Ruben [sic] had left the property on several occasions mainly for
employment purposes. At times up to 3 to 4 months. During these times he was
away I would have a forwarding address to which I wrote to but Ruben never
replied. The last time I saw Ruben was with John at Black Jack Hill
gathering sheep. Ruben did not say where he was going when he left in
November and I have no idea of his whereabouts. John, Ruben and myself
parted of a good terms. Last Monday, 17 March 1984 my husband and I received
a phone call from a Trevor McCulloch stating he had received phone call from
Ruben around Xmas time enquiring about employment.”
84. However, her evidence at the inquest as to the last time she saw
Mattathyahu was materially different to this account. Mrs Anne Hull was
questioned in detail by Ms Avery about the night of Mattathyahu’s
disappearance. I set out, in full, the relevant portion of the transcript
below:
“Okay. Now I want to take you to this night around mid-November. Do you
recall at all a Robert Watson coming to your residence in Saltwater
River?.....
I do.
Okay. So if I said to you that that was possibly around the 12th November
1983 can you agree that was an approximate date or do you have no
recollection of the date?.....
I couldn’t say what date it was.
Okay –…..
But he came to the door scared stiff and asked –
Okay. I’ll just ask you to go through this with me. What time
approximately did he arrive at the property?.....
It was darkish.
Who else was at the property?.....
I can’t remember exactly who was there but there would have been family.
And I know that I said I had no idea where he was –…..
Okay –…..
And when –
–…..so – sorry, we’ll just take you back –
….. And when I went – when he went I went through the passageway and looked through the girls’
window and I could see someone who looked like Reuben down in his car.
Okay. I just want to take you through this a bit more thoroughly. What
did Mr Watson say when he came to your residence?.....
I’m really not sure of his exact words.
Okay. Had you met Mr Robert Watson before?.....
Not to my knowledge.
Okay. Had you ever heard of him before?.....
Yes.
And how had you heard of him?.....
Because he – Reuben used to say that he’d come and pick him up whenever
he wanted him to come and pick him up.
So you can’t remember at all what he said?.....
He just seemed to think Reuben wasn’t there. But by the look of him and
the fright he was exhibiting I say he’d seen Reuben.
Why do you say that? Why did he look scared? What do you mean?.....
I’m just saying what I’m saying and that’s all I can say.
So you remember him asking about Reuben –…..
Mhm. –
…..something to the effect of – Where is he? But you say he looked scared?.....
M’mm.
And by that you presumed that was because he had seen Reuben?.....
Mhm.
Any reason you thought he might be scared about seeing Reuben?.....
Well I just had that feeling he had seen him.
Okay. So what did you say to Mr Watson? Do you remember?.....
Not exactly no.
Did Mr Watson come into the house or just remain at the front door?.....
At the front door. I would not have invited him in. I didn’t know him. Okay.
And was it a fairly brief conversation?..... Yes.
Okay. And just so I’m clear, you had never seen Mr Watson before?.....
Not that I’m aware of.
But you still decided in your opinion you believed he looked scared but
you hadn’t seen him before –…..
Yes.
And what happened after that conversation with Mr Watson?.....
He went and I –
Did you see how he left? Was he on foot or in a car?.....
He went but his car was down the drive – the road –…..
Did you actually see the car?.....
But don’t ask me what sort it was because I’m –…..
No, but could you see a car from the front –…..
Yes. I could see the car from the girls’ window.
Okay. Did you see him – did you remain at the front door while he walked
back to the car?.....
No. I – he was – when you go to that place you go to what we call the
back door, not the front door. So I walked through the house to the front
window of the girls’ and I could see the car. And I could see a silhouette
in it which looked like Reuben.
Okay. Where was Mr Watson? Could you see Mr Watson at that point?.....
No I couldn’t because I – I had a look. I saw a biggish man. And I went
back because I think I – I think even my mum and aunty were there as well
–…..
Your mother and aunty were there?.....
M’mm. And you can forget asking them anything they’re both dead.
Okay. Do you remember what this person in the car was wearing?.....
No.
No? Was there anything particular about the features of this person that
made you believe it was Reuben?.....
Big shoulders. Big – Big shoulders?
And was that – he had a big head?.....
Well, if you saw me walking along in the street knowing me now you’d say
that that’s humpy [indistinct word(s)] that was in the court room a while
ago wouldn’t you?
Do you remember the – you don’t remember the type of car at all?.....
No. I’m not with cars.
Whereabouts was this person you believe was Reuben? Whereabouts was he in
the car?.....
In the front passenger seat.
And how far away were you?.....
Far enough to see
Far enough to see or maybe far enough not to see properly?.....
I didn’t measure it.
Okay. Could you estimate at all?.....
No.
No? Anything between you and the car?.....
[no audible reply]
I mean you’re looking out a window. Any trees or anything in the
garden?.....
At that stage they hadn’t grown.
Did you have a phone number for Mr Watson at that time?.....
No I never spoke to Mr Watson on the phone.
Do you have a phone number for – or did you know his cousin Howard
Watson?.....
No.
Did you speak to anyone in the house about the conversation you had with
Mr Watson or seeing the person you believed to be Reuben in the car?.....
I can’t remember.
Now you said that your mother and aunty were definitely in the residence.
Do you remember anyone else specifically being in the residence that
night?.....
Well, our place always seemed to be full of people and I can’t remember
who they were. All I know is I’d look sometimes and there they’d be sitting
around like little birds waiting to be fed.
Did you think it was strange that Mr Watson was asking after Reuben when
you say you saw him in the car?.....
Knowing Reuben I wouldn’t have thought anyone strange.
Okay. Now even after you’ve been made aware that the police were
investigating a missing person case involving Reuben, why didn’t you say to
them I saw him in the car with Mr Watson and you know Mr Watson was asking
where he was but I saw him in the car with him that night?.....
[no audible reply]
Why didn’t you tell the police?.....
Well, he came and gone – he came and went as he so chose.
Why?
HIS HONOUR: Put the question again please Ms Avery. MS AVERY: [resuming]
That night you had Mr Watson asking after Reuben – where he is. You saw
Reuben in Mr Watson’s car –…..
MR MELICK: Well, she said she saw someone – she saw a silhouette that she
thought was Reuben –…..
MS AVERY: [resuming] That you believed to be Reuben –…..
HIS HONOUR: She believed it was Reuben.
MS AVERY: –…..in Mr Watson’s car. Why didn’t you tell the police that
when they were speaking to you about Reuben’s disappearance?.....
I’m sure I told those police that he was – he’d be back when he was good
and ready.
But you never told police you thought you’d seen Reuben in Mr Watson’s
car that night did you?.....
I don’t remember what I told the police when they interrogated me. They
–…..
Well I’m going to suggest you didn’t actually tell the police that at all
–…..
You’re going to suggest that.
Is it possible you didn’t tell the police that because in fact you didn’t
see anyone in the car that night and you’re just making it up now?.....
And you’re putting words in my mouth.
Are you making it up now?.....
No I’m not making it up now. I was always sure he went out with Mr
Watson.
Okay. Did you tell – we’ve established that you can’t remember what you
told the police, but did you tell anyone in your family about your belief
that you had seen Reuben that night in Mr Watson’s car?.....
I don’t remember.”
85. Her evidence at the inquest about the events of the night of 12
November 1983 was notable for her giving a version significantly at odds
with that which she gave to police in March 1984 (less than six months after
the night in question). Mrs Anne Hull said in the statement she made to
police on 22 March 1984 that the last time she saw Mattathyahu was ‘with
John [Hull] at Black Jack Hill gathering sheep’. She said nothing in that
statement to police about seeing ‘a man who looked like Reuben’ in the car
with Mr Robert Watson on the night of 12 November 1983 - which was the
version of events she included in a statement tendered at the inquest and
was essentially the version she advanced at the inquest when she was
questioned about the evening.
86. Mrs Anne Hull was unable to give any reason at all as to why she did
not tell police in March 1984 that she had seen someone who she thought
looked like Mattathyahu in Robert Watson’s car that night. This is
significant in my view because she knew in March 1984 that it was a police
missing person inquiry, and must had understood any information about
Mattathyahu, particularly that she had seen him leave, would have been
important to police.
87. It was put to Mr Robert Watson by counsel for Mr and Mrs Hull that it
was possible he had someone in his car with him when he called at the Hull’s
residence at Saltwater River. It was specifically put it was not Mattathyahu.
He denied having anyone in the car. I accept his denial. It was, like all of
his evidence, plausible and delivered in a straightforward manner which had
the ring of truth. It should be added that the suggestion that Robert Watson
was accompanied by someone on his trip to the Tasman Peninsula to collect
Mattathyahu was only put to him when he was recalled after Alan Hull had
given his evidence. I have already commented earlier on what I perceive to
be Alan Hull’s shortcoming as a witness, especially in the context of his
account, which he agreed he had never told anyone at all about, of
witnessing Mattathyahu’s violent encounter with some ‘soldier boy types’,
which he suggested may have happened on the night prior to Mattathyahu going
missing.
88. In relation to the evening of 12 November 1983 Alan Hull said that he
was home at the Saltwater River residence (although his mother could not
recall whether he was home) and heard his mother having a discussion with
someone he believed to be Robert Watson. He said he followed Mr Watson and
that when he saw Watson’s car he saw “there was definitely another person in
the car… And remembered thinking to [himself] I thought I wonder when I’ll
see him again”. He was asked specifically by counsel assisting “so can I
take it from that that you are making the inference the other person in the
car was Reuben?” And he replied “yes”.
89. Mr Alan Hull claimed that he saw Mattathyahu in the vehicle. When
asked whether he had told police about his observations he said that he had
told Detective Constable Howard relatively recently.
90. Once again I have reluctantly, but firmly, reached the view that Mr
Alan Hull’s evidence about this issue was given to the inquest with the
intention of deliberately misleading it. The version that he advanced was in
my view utterly fanciful and untrue. His explanation as to why he told no
one about it for 20 years lacked any credibility at all. Mr Alan Hull’s
complete lack of credibility in respect of his accounts of the events on the
night of 13 November 1983, as well as the violent altercation he claimed to
have witnessed possibly the evening before, was not, as I have already
pointed out, in any way affected by his production of a statement which was
tendered to the Court and written by his wife on his behalf and dated 20
February 2012.
91. I am quite satisfied that Robert Watson was alone, just as he said he
was, when he went to collect Mattathyahu. I am quite satisfied that he did
not collect Mattathyahu and drive him away as both Mrs Anne Hull and Mr Alan
Hull suggested. I have already explained, in detail, why I do not accept the
versions given by Mrs Anne Hull and Mr Alan Hull about seeing someone, they
said either looked like or was Mattathyahu in Robert Watson’s car. I have
already explained my view that Mr Robert Watson gave his evidence in a
frank, forthright and impressive manner. I also find that his evidence was
entirely consistent with his original version, consistent with his having
reported Mattathyahu to police as missing, consistent with Howard Watson’s
evidence as to phone call and arrangements and consistent with the
unchallenged evidence of Mr Paul Minehan as to a phone call he received and
arrangements he had made with Mattathyahu.
92. In fact to accept Anne and Alan Hull’s account of Mr Robert Watson’s
call at the Saltwater River residence requires the Court to find that Robert
Watson was mistaken about being accompanied by someone (inherently
improbable), had forgotten he was accompanied by someone (also inherently
improbable) or was lying about being accompanied by someone. None of these
explanations are in my view even remotely plausible and specifically no
reason whatsoever was advanced as to why Mr Robert Watson had lied.
93. Mr John Hull was the last witness called at the inquest. A statement
made by him to police on 23 March 1984 was tendered at the inquest. The
statement describes how Mattathyahu began to live on the property at Slopen
Main and that Mr John Hull got to know him “reasonably well” and became
friendly with him. In the statement he describes seeing him twice a week.
94. The statement goes on: “As far as I can recall the last time I saw
Rueben [sic] was about Tuesday the 8-11-83, that was at his place about 5
PM. Rueben appeared to be his normal self on that day and never said
anything about leaving, although I was aware he was looking for a job, he
did speak of leaving the area but I didn’t take much notice of him. When I
found out he had gone I didn’t take much notice of it, but now I am aware of
the arrangements he made, I find it strange that he didn’t keep them, as he
was a meticulous person. On Sunday the 13th I went out to Rueben’s [sic]
camp and took possession of any dogs that the animals close the place up. I
didn’t go inside. I had been back to the camp several times since to get
tools of mine and I took two old rifles that Rueben [sic] had of mine and a
shot gun as well. The other firearms still in the camp are mine. I have no
idea where he is now and have had no letters from him. Last Monday night 19
March 84, I received a telephone call from Trevor McCallum who said he saw
the notice in the paper about Rueben and was talking to him around Christmas
on the phone and Rueben was enquiring about a job. He said he asked Rueben
if he was out of money and Rueben said he wasn’t.”
95. At the inquest he confirmed the accuracy of the statement in general
terms although he could not recall the telephone conversation referred to in
the last paragraph with Trevor McCallum. In fact he said he did not know or
recall knowing anyone by that name. In light of the finding I have already
made that Mattathyahu was almost certainly dead by then I am satisfied that
there was no such telphone call from anyone in March 1984 about Mattathyahu
and that Mattathyahu did not contact anyone ‘around Christmas … enquirng
about a job’. A statement from Trevor McCallum taken by police in March 1984
was tendered at the inquest. Mr McCallum knew Mattathyahu from a time they
had worked in the bush together. In his statement Mr McCallum said ‘I am not
sure when I spoke to [Mattathyahu] but it was towards the end of last year
or maybe sometime in January’. He said they spoke about the possibility of
jobs in the bush and in the conversation Mattathyahu told him he was living
on the Peninsula with two friends. Mr McCallum must have been wrong about
the date. Clearly, the conservation with Mr McCallum must have occurred
before 12 November 1983, when Mattathyahu was still living at Slopen Main on
the Hull property. Mattathyahu’s enquiries of McCallum about alterative
employment are entirely consistent with him having decided to leave Slopen
Main. I am satisfied that there is no evidence Mattathyahu was alive or
spoke to anyone after 12 November 1983, Mr McCallum included.
96. I have already dealt with Mr John Hull’s evidence as to when he
became aware of his wife’s sexual relationship with Mattathyahu and
explained why I reject his evidence about that. I turn to deal with his
evidence that he gave at the inquest as to his whereabouts on the evening of
Saturday 12 November 1983.
97. He said that when Robert Watson called at the Hull residence at
Saltwater River he was not present in the house but was 200 or 300 yards
away in what he described as a killing shed killing some sheep. He said that
he was uncertain of the time but it was after dark. He said no one was with
him. He did not recall what time he left the killing shed but that when he
did he returned to the residence where his wife told him of Robert Watson’s
visit. Although he had never seen Watson before he had heard of him and knew
him to be an associate of Mattathyahu. He said that they (his wife and son)
“both thought that they saw there was a passenger with Watson”.
98. This version is completely different to the version contained in his
statement to police in March 1984. In that statement, the material parts of
which have already been set out early in this finding, he made no mention
whatsoever of having been in the killing shed and critically made no mention
of the visit reported to him of Watson with the passenger in his car as
reported to him by his wife and son. The version Mr John Hull gave in
evidence at the inquest is also completely different to the evidence of Mr
Graham Hickey about his whereabouts. Mr Hickey said in his affidavit: “John
Hull told me [in March 1984] that he wasn’t home when Robert Watson came to
collect, he said he was at the Lakes fishing, I believe he went on his own.”
99. Mr Hickey’s evidence on this point was not challenged. There is no
reason at all not to accept it. No reason was suggested. I observe also that
Mrs Anne Hull made no mention of her husband being present at the Saltwater
River residence, or fishing at the lakes. She said nothing at all about his
whereabouts. Mr Alan Hull was asked about whether his father was present at
Saltwater River on the evening of 12 November 1983 but was unable to say.
100. Finally, on this point Mr John Hull said in answer to questions at
the inquest that he had only been fishing at the Lakes in the past twice
(although he often went to the Lakes deer shooting).
101. I reject Mr John Hull’s evidence at the inquest as to his
whereabouts on the night of Saturday 12 November 2013. I am satisfied he was
not in the killing shed at the Saltwater River residence as he claimed. I
also consider he was being deliberately untruthful when he told Mr Hickey in
March 1984 that he had been at the Lakes fishing. However, the evidence does
not allow me to make an affirmative finding as to his whereabouts on the
night of 12 November 1983.
102. Although Mattathyahu had a history of leaving where he was living at
relatively short notice, it seems to have been his invariable practice to
have left a forwarding address. Mrs Anne Hull said this is what he had done
in the past – which he did not do on this occasion. It is ridiculous to
suggest Mattathyahu would have left without taking the bags he had packed in
anticpation of his being collected by Mr Robert Watson – and found near the
door of the hut by Mr Robert Watson and retained by Mr and Mrs Hull.
103. Equally unsatisfactory is the evidence relating to Mr and Mrs Hull’s
behaviour after 12 November 1983. Mrs Anne Hull said in her evidence that
she went to the Slopen Main hut a few days after she thought Mattathyahu had
gone to ‘check on the house and everything around there, the animals, and so
on’. Mrs Anne Hull went into the hut where Mattathyahu had been living and
let herself in to ‘check on things’. Mrs Anne Hull did not think anyone was
with her. After entering the hut she found a note written by Mattathyahu
which in its terms was a goodbye letter from him to her and Mr John Hull.
The note was tendered. Aside from being a farewell letter the note says that
he was intending to leave that weekend and that Rob was coming down to get
him and a few of his things. Contextually “Rob” can only refer to Mr Robert
Watson. The note goes on to say “I’ll leave the rest [of his possessions]
here till I return”. The note finishes, “Look after all the things I love,
until I return”. Neither Mr Hull nor Mrs Hull told police about finding the
note when they were spoken to in March 1984. That the note even existed did
not come to light for many, many years. As best as I could understand Mrs
Anne Hull’s evidence about this issue, she retained the note for many years
and at some stage (when was not clear) it was given to her then solicitor,
Mr Tyson. It is not clear to me why the existence of the letters was not
volunteered to investigation police in 1984 or anytime thereafter. Why this
would be so is very difficult to understand.
104. I return to events immediately after Saturday 12 November 1983. Mr
John Hull said in his statement made in March 1984 that he went the next day
(i.e. Sunday 13 November 1983) to the hut at Slopen Main where he ‘took
possession of any [sic] dogs and fed the animals and closed the place up.”
He said that he did not go inside. He told police he went back to the hut at
Slopen Main several times after that date to get tools belonging to him. Mr
John Hull said that he also took back two old rifles and a shot gun of his
that Mattathyahu had apparently had in his possession.
105. He was asked by counsel assisting about Mattathyahu’s possessions in
the hut at Slopen Main. Mr John Hull agreed that there was a large amount of
Mattathyahu’s possessions in the hut and in fact there did not appear to be
anything missing at all. He said at no stage, ever, did he go through
Mattathyahu’s property left behind in the hut but that all of the property
was simply kept in the hut where, as I understood it, it had been left. Mr
John Hull said he did this because he’d been asked so to do by Mattathyahu,
although he could not point to any particular discussion in which this
request had been made by Mattathyahu. Finally he said nothing about finding
the note left by Mattathyahu.
106. Mr John Hull said he last saw Mattathyahu on or about 8 November
1983 near the hut at Slopen Main. He said that Mattathyahu told him and Mrs
Anne Hull that ‘he was going to leave and didn’t want to see anybody’,
although Mr John Hull was far from certain that he was accompanied by his
wife. Mr John Hull also said that what Mattathyahu “actually said was that
[he] shouldn’t let the police have [his possessions) if they came looking”.
I formed the view that this testimony was simply made up by Mr John Hull.
Other than this, Mr John Hull said there was nothing out of the ordinary
about Mattathyahu’s demeanour or behaviour on the last occasion that he saw
him (or indeed in the time leading up to his disappearance).
Conclusion
107. As I have already said I am satisfied that Mattathyahu was alive at
about 8.30 pm on Saturday 12 November 1983. He was anxious to leave the
property where he had been living at Slopen Main not because, as the various
members of the Hull family attempted to suggest, his colourful and nefarious
past was catching up with him, but because more prosaically his then present
(in the sense of his affair with Mrs Anne Hull) was catching up with him. He
had made arrangements to leave which involved, inter alia, organising a lift
to Glen Huon, arranging to visit someone in Hobart the next day, packing his
bags to leave and writing a ‘goodbye’ letter to Mr and Mrs Hull. It makes no
sense at all to suggest he left Slopen Main without taking his bags with him
– bags clearly packed in anticipation of his being picked up by Mr Robert
Watson.
108. I am satisfied Mattathyahu did not leave Slopen Main with Mr Robert
Watson. He did not drive or own a car and thus had no practical alternative
means of leaving the area. It might be said that he may have left on foot or
perhaps with another person but these possibilities are so remote as to be
fanciful, particularly given the arrangements he had made with the Watsons
and the fact that his bags were found near the door by Mr Robert Watson.
109. I am satisfied that when Robert Watson arrived at approximately 9.30
pm Mattathyahu was probably dead or if not then dead, was dead shortly
thereafter. Looking at the evidence as a whole I am satisfied he was most
likely the victim of homicide. No other conclusion is open on the evidence.
There is nothing to suggest that his death was as a result of misadventure,
accident or suicide. However, cognizant of the test in Briginshaw (supra) I
cannot be satisfied as to who killed Mattathyahu although the evidence
suggests strongly Mr John Hull, Mrs Anne Roslyn Hull and Mr Alan Hull know
considerably more about Mattathyahu’s death than they told the inquest.
110. The evidence does not allow me to make any finding as to the precise
cause and mechanism of his death. There is insufficient evidence to enable
me to make any finding as to what became of Mattathyahu’s body.
111. I recommend that the file remain open pending the coming to light of
additional information. Formal Findings: 112. In conclusion the evidence
allows me to make the following formal findings pursuant to section 28 of
the Coroners Act 1995.
(a) The identity of the deceased is Tony Zachary Harras also know as:
Judah Zachariah Reuben Wolfe Mattathyahu; Karl Wolfe; Carl Wolf; Reuben
Wolfe; Zac Mattathyahu; Reuben Mattathyahu; Carl Mattathyahu; and Karl
Mattathyahu.
(b) Mr Mattathyahu died in the circumstances described in this finding;
(c) The cause of Mr Mattathyahu’s death was homicide, the precise
mechanism of which I am unable to determine;
(d) Mr Mattathyahu died on or about the 12 November 1983 at or near
Slopen Main, Tasmania; and
(e) Mr Mattathyahu was born in Leamington, Warwickshire, United Kingdom
on 22 July 1934 and was aged 49 years at the time of his death; he was
divorced and his occupation was bushman.
Comments and Recommendations:
The circumstances surrounding this matter do not require me to make any
comments or recommendations pursuant to section 28 of the Act. I wish to
express my thanks to counsel for their assistance in this matter. I also
acknowledge the professional, competent and detailed investigation conducted
by the members of the Tasmania Police Cold Case unit and in particular
Detective Constable Howard after that unit was disbanded.
In concluding, I convey my sincere condolences to the family of Mr
Mattathyahu.
Dated: 2 October 2015
at Hobart Coroners Court in the State of Tasmania.
Simon Cooper
CORONER
Tuesday, 29 November 2011 - 12:33 pm.