Date 10/09/24
To the Prime Minister of Australia,
And,
The cabinet of the Prime Minister,
I have sent correspondence to the Prime Minister’s cabinet office on 23rd August 2024 without receipt acknowledgement or reply asking for an inquiry into the death and investigation of my daughter Elly Warren. I have also now attached to this email my report to the Commonwealth Ombudsman explaining the solid factual evidence that the AFP have camouflaged evidence with receipt acknowledgement on Friday the 30/08/2024.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman has now taken it to the next level asking for all relevant information with the matter that I am able to supply. It is also imperative the Government holds an inquiry into this immoral behaviour by the AFP to prevent this from happening to other Australians families in the future.
I have sent my first report to the AFP on the 27th May 2024 with receipt acknowledgement from the AFP commissioner office on 28th May. I have asked the AFP with further correspondence sent by me on 15th August, asking for an update on my daughter’s investigation in Mozambique and when can I expect a reply from my first report dated the 27th May to the AFP. This was around four months ago with no response or reply by the AFP on this initial report.
This first report sent to the AFP on the 27th May was referred to the AFP by the cabinet of the Prime Minister for a response to the family on the 11th june 2024. (Government acknowledgement attached below).
The AFP responded to my email sent on 15th August with a letter on 23th August informing the family there has been no updated information from the Mozambique authorities since the inquest. This letter has also misinformed the family with information pertaining to the mutual assistance request. I have requested from the AFP a time frame of when the family will expect a reply to my first report as this was not addressed in the correspondence from the AFP on the 23rd August. (My email to the AFP on the 15th August attached) (AFP letter attached in response)
My reply to the AFP commissioner on the same day they sent their letter on the 23rd of August explaining that they are incorrect with their information about the Mutual Assistance Request (Email file attached)
The AFP have only sent a personal letter asking for a joint operation not the official MAR however the Mozambique Deputy Attorney General is making a very clear statement that they will only accept the official MAR if the Australian authorities wish to obtain their case file (only) indicating how much they had always respect this process of the MAR between our two countries. The AFP has not sent the official MAR to the Mozambique authorities to date offering our assistance with the homicide investigation of our daughter Elly.
Due to this misinformation from the AFP with their letter on the 23rd August I have now sent a letter to Foreign ministry’s office address to Senator Hon Penny Wong with no receipt acknowledgement from the Minister or Minister’s office. This letter is asking for clarification on the Mutual assistance request by asking the Mozambique authorities directly. (Letter Attached)
As I have had no response from the Foreign Minister this leaves me with no choice now to go back over to Mozambique (Maputo) with the assistance from the family NoK advocate who is currently supporting the family in Mozambique. The NoK advocate was directly responsible for the Mozambique authorities in reopening our daughter’s homicide investigation. This is to seek counsel with an Mozambique Attorney general or government official to acquire a proper current investigation update and clarification on the Mutual Assistance Request with my daughter’s homicide investigation.
These proven facts of the immoral behavior by the AFP is supported by facts in my reports sent to the Australian Government and Commonwealth Ombudsman. These solid facts warrant an inquiry into this matter to ensure that other Australian families are not subjected to this immoral behaviour by the Australian authorities in the future.
Sincerely Yours,
Paul Warren
Note the commonwealth ombudsman report is below followed by the letter to the Foreign Minster and my reply to the AFP Commission explaining why the AFP have misinformed the family again with their letter recently sent and dated the 23/08/2024. Unfortunately I can’t put the AFP letter on here but I do explain in my reply to the AFP commissioner below. There are however some supporting documents attached.
Date; 25/08/2024, third report sent to the commonwealth ombudsman below.
Just to clarify from my perspective with the facts pertaining to the camouflaging of vital evidence by the AFP and their motive behind this.
As you are aware it’s all about what we can Prove with the facts we have.
Australian Federal Police
With the AFP it was all about the classification of a crime/homicide of an Australian citizen in a foreign country to offer our assistance through a mutual assistance request, especially when the country in question does not have the resources for running an effective homicide investigation. On Page 40 of my Statement dated 24th of September to the coroner Mr Bracken the “Mozambique director of operations admitted “that the initial investigation was bungled from the start”. Also with evidence given by witnesses at the inquest they have stated that the Mozambique police did not have the resources or were not capable of conducting a proper Homicide investigation. The AFP were fully aware of these circumstances in 2016.
The critical evidence of the clear crime scene photo showed detailed evidence clearly showing that Elly’s top was ripped apart from her half naked body. This critical clear crime scene photograph depicts vital details within this evidence and warranted respect with a full report on this vital evidence to the coroner by the AFP in 2016. If the AFP had given the coroner a detailed report on this vital evidence this would have placed the coroner in a better knowledgeable position to ask for a full investigation to improve the transparency with information to and from the Mozambique authorities by sending the Mutual Assistance Request for their consideration. Therefore if the MAR was accepted offering our assistance only, this would have assisted the coroner by creating a window of opportunity for the possibility of obtaining further vital relevant information and evidence for establishing the cause and manner of our daughter’s death in 2016/17.
The AFP/SLO stationed at the South African embassy in Pretoria has not entered this new form of evidence of the clear version of the crime scene photograph in his statement to the coroner’s court. He had acquired this vital evidence from DFAT on the 24/25 of November. The AFP/SLO handed over this new clear version of the crime scene photograph by email to the Mozambique inspector in charge of the case around 14 days later on the 8th December 2016 as stated in his action sheet on page 11. The coroner and family were not notified that the AFP had this new clear version of the crime scene photo or that it was passed on to the Mozambican inspector in 2016.
Therefore, it is clear the AFP did not want anyone to know that they even acquired this new evidence of the clear version of the crime scene photo in 2016, and that the AFP handed this vital evidence over to the Mozambique authorities at this time.
It was not until October 2018 from my trip to Mozambique that the family and coroner were aware of this clear photograph two years after my daughter's homicide!! The family was informed by DFAT that the AFP had this vital new clear version of the crime scene photograph all along in 2016 by a letter from DFAT’s assistant secretary Claire Mc Cormish in March 2019 EXPOSING the AFP. This letter had fully explained the details of the new clear form of evidence of the clear crime scene photo and its Trace Evidence Timeline Link!!
There was other vital evidence obtained by the AFP/SLO which was not passed on to the coroner or family in 2016. Cause of death by sand blocking the airways as the Mozambique autopsy had concurred with the South African autopsy with the same vital key element which was sand blocking the airways as the cause of death. This was stated by the Mozambique Prosecutor to the AFP/SLO in November 2016. (Pg 8 AFP action sheet) This was critical information due to the underlying fact the Melbourne doctor had know idea about the sand and said the death was undetermined in his report to the coroner in 2016!! The Mozambique inspector had also informed the AFP/SLO he suspected the body was moved after death on the same day the prosecutor informed the AFP/SLO of the sand causing death. (Pg 9 AFP action sheet).
The coroner, if notified of all this relevant evidence, would have asked for a sand sample to have been taken from the body for comparison with the sample taken by the AFP/SLO at the crime scene. This sand sample taken by the AFP/SLO was never officially placed into evidence by the AFP/SLO as it's not in his statement. Why not?!! This evidence is crime scene evidence and should have been officially entered into evidence by the AFP/SLO in his statement?!! The coroner may not have even been informed about this sand sample being taken and the reasons why it was so important because of the Mozambique inspector and prosecutor's admissions that they suspected the body was moved after death and that sand was established as the likely cause of death on the 18th November 2016 stated by both autopsies completed at this time in Mozambique and South Africa.
There can be no question that the facts prove the AFP has withheld vital evidence from the coroner in 2016 in an attempt to camouflage evidence. All of this collective vital evidence would have given the coroner a better understanding without question with the forensic analysis of the photographic evidence and sand sample comparisons supporting these highly suspicious circumstances with our daughter’s death adding further weight to our daughter’s death being a crime in 2016/17. This is the requirement for sending the Mutual Assistance Request to the Mozambique Attorney General for their consideration in 2016/17.
Why not send the MAR when our policing authorities were aware of these highly suspicious circumstances as it may have just been accepted by the Mozambique government, possibly opening the door for our authorities to obtain more solid factual evidence for the coroner’s coronial investigation. The AFP were aware of all this critical factual evidence yet we never sent the MAR to give the Mozambique government the chance to accept the MAR Why not?!!
In the AFP submissions at the hearing in December 2020 to the then coroner Mr Bracken it is stated by a Mozambique government official ‘that it is possible for a joint operation’. Therefore if we had sent the official MAR this would have been considered in 2016 but we never sent the MAR in 2016. We are now well aware how much the Mozambique government respects this process of the MAR between our two countries as the Mozambique Deputy Attorney General has asked our authorities in May 2023 to send them the official mutual assistance request for the release of their case file evidence between the two countries seven years after our daughter’s death!! They are asking us to send them the official MAR when the coroner was given statements and affidavits from the AFP with excuses of why we can’t send the MAR!! Obviously the Mozambique government respects this process between the two countries. Why didn't our Australian Authorities or Government respect the process of the official MAR?!!
The AFP having obtained all this critical evidence in 2016 and with the responsibility in supporting the coroner is obligated to report on and inform the coroner in detail of this critical factual new crime scene evidence showing such a highly suspicious death of an Australian citizen. There can be no question that this collective evidence would have added further weight that this was in fact a crime of homicide in 2016. However the coroner was not either given this critical evidence or informed about this vital evidence from the AFP which the AFP was fully aware of and had obtained. The AFP is officially responsible for this evidence as the governing Australian police authority for crime overseas supporting the coroner. DFAT obtained the Clear crime scene photo from the fisherman and has the responsibility to give this critical evidence to the governing policing authority the AFP. It is then the AFP’s responsibility to evaluate the importance of this new critical clear version of the crime scene photographic evidence as our governing policing authority for overseas crime matters. You only need to analyze this clear photo to see that this photo tells the truth of highly suspicious details. There can be no question that the body found in this state by any other policing authority with the top ripped apart would be treating this as a highly suspicious crime unless proven otherwise!
DFAT had also given the Forensic Lab at the VIFM this clear version of the crime scene photograph. DFAT jurisdiction stops after giving the authorized authorities any crime evidence it has obtained during the course of its involvement. It is then these official authorized authoritie’s responsibility to thoroughly examine or analyze this vital crime scene evidence giving the coroner a full report with a better understanding of the circumstances with our daughter’s death. This evidence is as serious as it can be in its new clear form with the suspicious death of a young Australian lady found in this state with her top ripped apart! Why was there no report sent to the coroner by the AFP or the VIFM Forensic Laboratory in 2016?!!
The coroner would have also been greatly assisted by direct evidence taken from interviewing the South African pathologist in 2016. Why was there no statement taken by the AFP from the South African Pathologist and submitted to the coroner as there were notes taken by the AFP/SLO from the initial doctor at the crime scene on page 7-8 of the action sheet?! The South African pathologist statement or views would have been vital evidence in 2016 with her factual compelling evidence given by her at the inquest seven years after our daughter's death. However the evidence in the AFP action sheet was never presented to the Coroner in 2016/17. In fact the first time the coroner was made aware of all this VITAL evidence contained in the AFP/SLO action sheet was at a hearing in December 2020 when the then coroner Mr Bracken was made aware of the AFP action sheet existence and had asked for the action sheet which was then handed over to all parties before the next hearing in February 2021 to discuss it contents and other matters. This evidence in the action sheet proves the AFP had all this evidence and the coroner was not aware of all this vital evidence in the action sheet in 2016/17. Why not?!!
The interesting and very disappointing aspect here is that the AFP/SLO had only submitted the notes from the initial Mozambique doctor in his statement, and not the vital notes pertaining to the SEA SAND blocking the airways as the probable cause of death with bruising of the mouth in his action sheet on page 4 and 5 form the South African pathologist. Why was the coroner not informed of these critical notes from the South African pathologist in 2016?!! The AFP/SLO did not obtain these notes directly but it was still vital evidence mentioned and entered in his action sheet that he was aware of. If the coroner was informed of this important evidence of the probable cause of death as Sea Sand blocking the airways this would have also placed the coroner in a better position to ask for a more detailed explanation of this evidence from the South African pathologist in 2016.
It must be noted the South African Pathologist had placed her phone number at the bottom of her autopsy report asking to contact her for further information about her report. Therefore a statement or phone interview was always possible with the South African Pathologist as she was happy to offer her assistance further in 2016.
We need to also take into account Mel/pathologist and possibly the coroner not having been aware of South African autopsy photos clearly showing the marks and abrasions on my daughters face especially around her swollen bottom lip and mouth. This evidence and the clear version of the crime scene photo clearly showing the ripped apart t-shirt of my daughter in 2016-18 was also not given to the Melb/Pathologist. Why Not?!!
The South African Pathologist would have been in the best position to further elaborate on vital details of evidence in her autopsy photographs and notes in the AFP action sheet to the coroner in 2016 as she was willing to offer more information as stated at the bottom of her autopsy report. This is really all basic policing which should have been carried out by the AFP in supporting the coroner and family.
Nearly all of this important police work could have been completed in Australia for the coroner as the AFP had and were fully aware of all this vital evidence which they are responsible for as the governing police authority in Australia for overseas crime matters. Why not inform and report on all the critical evidence to the coroner in 2016/17?!! This is a very serious matter of suspicious death of a young Australian girl which should be treated with more respect and care by our authorities with the facts and evidence they were aware of in 2016!! However, it's easy for the AFP to say it's not our problem, it's the other countries problem!! Even though the AFP were fully aware that it happened in a third world country which would benefit from our experience and advanced resources with such a serious matter as a suspicious death of an Australian citizen. The commitment by our authorities was nowhere near good enough and it’s very disappointing not just for Elly’s family but for all Australian families.
With the proven facts in my reports it's becomes very obvious this vital evidence is what the AFP did not want the coroner to see or be aware of as this evidence held more weight in establishing it as a crime of homicide because the AFP did not want to become directly involved with Elly’s investigation overseas by sending the MAR. This is why they withheld this evidence by not directly reporting on all this vital evidence to the coroner and entering it into their statements to the coroner in 2016.
I reiterate the AFP is responsible for any serious crime scene evidence they acquire regarding overseas matters as they are our controlling policing authority for overseas crime matters and it was their sworn duty to assist and support the family and coroner with her coronial investigation into the Elly Warren matter in 2016/24!!
Other very disturbing facts are the AFP along with the AFP Lawyer have gone to lengths to even attempt to deceive the court with submissions and at my oral submissions to Mr Cain which I must say I was very much taken back by and totally surprised as I was fully aware of what the AFP Lawyer was trying to do in an attempt to confuse Mr Cain. This is why I tried to Inform Mr Cain of what the AFP Lawyer was doing at my oral submissions on transcript Page 291.
This is referring to the Mozambique revised SERNIC police report given to the AFP/SLO by the Senior Liaison Officer stationed at the South African Australian embassy in Pretoria which is referred to in the action sheet on Pg 13. I can’t believe that the AFP have really gone to these lengths to hide the fact this is not an official revised SERNIC police report.
They are attempting to say it refers to an autopsy report when in actual fact at the end of this police report it clearly states :-
That it is being treated as a homicide.
You can’t get it any clearer than that from this official revised SERNIC police report by their Deputy Police Superintendent on the 10th April 2017.
This police report is worded differently to the autopsy report conclusion at the end of the revised police report and it is directly from the deputy police superintendent from SERNIC Mozambique's top criminal investigation agency as it actually states;-
‘That it’s being treated as HOMICIDE’
‘The processo ( process) is in the instruction phase’
This confirms from this official SERNIC police report on the 10th April 2017 the Mozambique police are investigating this as a homicide as it has also officially confirmed that it is in their instruction/investigation phase clearly mentioned in this official revised police report from SERNIC.
However the AFP lawyer clearly states in his submissions that no police authority has ever said this was a homicide before May 2023 to the coroner Mr Cain!! And has confirmed and stated this again for a second time at my oral submissions on the 11th December 2023.
This is totally wrong and morally incorrect by the AFP lawyer and therefore the AFP are misinforming the court of these vital facts for the second time in court. The reason the AFP has misinformed the court is because this official revised SERNIC police report adds further weight/clarification for the fact this was a crime in 2016. Therefore a review should have been carried out by the AFP to establish a crime of homicide which is the requirement for sending the mutual assistance request to offer our assistance only to the Mozambique Attorney General for their consideration for approval of our request to offer our assistance in 2016/17-24.
When carefully looking at and analyzing the proof of evidence systematically it becomes very clear when charting the facts that the AFP knew what they were doing when camouflaging vital evidence which supported a crime of homicide in 2016/17.
1) The blurred and unblurred photos were never distinguished apart as blurred or unblurred in any documents or evidence by the AFP. Why not? The new evidence of the clear crime scene photo in its clear form clearly shows vital detailed evidence of highly suspicious circumstances!! Why not report on this new critical evidence to the coroner in 2016?!
2) The unblurred photo was sent to AFP and the AFP/SLO stationed at the South African Embassy at Pretoria on the 24/25th November by DFAT. This critical new evidence in its clear form was never placed into evidence by the AFP/SLO or AFP as it has not been entered into his statement or any Statements by the AFP as the clear new version clearly showing vital evidence of the ripped apart top in this critical evidence from DFAT. Why Not? The AFP were given this critical evidence by DFAT and therefore responsible for this new clear form of evidence of the clear version of the crime scene photograph as the policing authority for crime overseas.
3) The unblurred version of the photo was never mentioned in the AFP/SLO’s statement as being handed over to the Mozambique Inspector on the 8th December 2016. Why Not? But it is mentioned in his action sheet on page 11 again on the 8th December as the photo from the fisherman having this vital evidence for 14 days before handing it over again to the Mozambique inspector without mentioning it was vital new evidence of the clear crime scene photo clearly showing the ripped apart top. (see number 20 which explains why). As I have stated Assistant secretary Claire McCormish official letter in March 2019 sent to the family confirms these facts with the timeline of the trace evidence of this new evidence, the clear crime scene photograph.
4) On page 2-3 of the colonial brief in the AFP summary of circumstances to the coroner the AFP have clearly stated:- The only available photograph was a blurred photo. Why ?! The AFP have also clearly stated that they had not obtained any photographic or forensic evidence with the matter at all which would normally be collected with such an investigation. No mention of the new evidence, the clear photograph and ripped apart top. Why not?!! No mention of the South African autopsy photos and sand sample taken. Why not?!!
This is critical evidence and it’s been left out of the AFP summary of circumstances in the coronial brief to the coroner. Why camouflage this vital evidence by not disclosing this critical evidence in their summary of circumstances to the coroner?!! All this evidence was critical, especially The new evidence of the clear crime scene photograph clearly showing the ripped apart top and the AFP had this all along in November 2016?!!
However the AFP did not want anyone to know they had this new evidence in the clear photo so they did not have to report on this new evidence to the coroner. The AFP has also kept this vital evidence from the coroner by not entering it in their summary of circumstances. This adds further weight to the fact that the AFP did not want to be involved by camouflaging evidence to reduce the fact this was in fact a crime the requirement to send the MAR !!
If it was not for the family having to do their own investigation in going over to Mozambique and obtaining the clear version of the crime photo it would have remained camouflaged as this then forced DFAT’s hand in March 2019. Having to omit by letter to have had this new evidence in 2016 and then exposing the AFP by recording the timeline link of this vital new trace evidence the clear version of the crime scene photograph which exposes the ripped apart top in the letter given to the family by DFAT’s Claire Mc Cornish!!
With regards to the South African autopsy photographs and its trace evidence timeline link the AFP/SLO in South African in his AFP action sheet on page 11. It states he had supplied these South African autopsy photographs showing the marks and abrasions to our daughter’s head/face to the AFP/SLO in Melbourne on the 22nd of November the same day as the Melbourne autopsy. However they are not mentioned in the AFP summary of the brief, the Mel/pathologist was not given these photographs as this was confirmed at a meeting with the doctor on the 7th September 2017 and the Melbourne AFP/SLO was present at this meeting. Why was the Mel/pathologist not given this critical evidence?!!
They were entered into the brief and in the South African AFP/SLO statement in October 2017.
I reiterate, why were they not given to the Mel/Pathologist in 2016 at the early vital stage of our daughter’s investigation in November 2016?!!
The other very important aspect mentioned in the AFP summary brief is that there was a report by the Mozambique prosecutor mentioned. This report from the Mozambique prosecutor is not in the brief therefore the coroner or family has never been given or informed about this vital report. Why not?!! However it clearly states in the AFP summary of circumstances entered in the coronial brief on summary page 3 that the AFP acquired this report along with the post Mortem report. This is a critical report that has not been disclosed by the AFP. However there are notes taken from a meeting with the prosecutor by the AFP/SLO in his action sheet on page 8.
5) The sand sample taken by AFP/SLO was not even placed into evidence officially as it is not even in his statement or the AFP/SLO’s statement in Melbourne. It was talked about by both AFP/SLO’s on page 11 of the AFP action sheet on the 22nd November. Why was this critical sand sample from the crime scene not placed into evidence when the AFP/SLO was fully aware of how important it was after meeting with the Mozambique inspector and prosecutor only four days beforehand on the 18th November?! Why was a second forensic sand sample not asked for from my daughter’s body as the AFP/SLO was also informed at a meeting with the Mozambique inspector they suspected the body had been moved after death in the action sheet on page 9?! Why was the coroner not informed of this vital evidence as the coroner would have asked for a sample to be taken from the body if made aware of these vital circumstances.
6) The AFP also attended my home in December 2016 and I was informed by the AFP that they can’t investigate Elly’s death as it's the Jurisdiction of the Mozambique police. However, the family and I were never informed of the AFP review process of a crime connected with the Mutual Assistance Request to offer our assistance!! No mention of a clear photo and ripped apart top. Why not?!!
7) The AFP did not inform the coroner of the unblurred crime scene photo. Why Not? This evidence is as critical as it gets showing the body of a young half naked Australian girl clearly showing highly suspicious circumstances!! As I have stated this clear new version was not even placed into evidence by the AFP but the blurred photo was and entered in the AFP/SLO statement only!! The clear version was only placed into evidence by the coroner’s assistant in October 2018 because I sent the clear version to the court by email at this time from Mozambique. This was the first time the court was made aware of this clear version!! However the VIFM forensic lab had this same clear version of the crime scene photo in 2016 as it was given to them by DFAT! Why still no report on this critical evidence to the coroner in 2016?!!
8) The AFP have not mentioned that my daughter’s Top is ripped apart in any statement or report to the coroner to this day. Why Not? They had this new clear version in 2016 and the AFP have admitted to Analyzing this same clear version again in October 2018. The AFP/SLO admitted to analyzing the new evidence unblurred photo on page 21 of his action sheet. This clear version clearly shows the top ripped apart and it is the clear version only that 60 minutes had acquired. Still No mention of the ripped apart top to the coroner in 2018!! Why Not?
9) The AFP refers to the official police report as a Mozambique Document from DFAT’s Senior Liaison Officer (SLO) on PG 13 of the AFP action sheet who was stationed at the Australian embassy in Pretoria. The AFP have not stated that this is a police report on the 10th April 2017 from DFAT’s SLO in the action sheet on page 13. Why not? This official Mozambique police from SERNIC clearly states they are Treating this as a Homicide and has now progressed to the Instruction Phase which is their investigation phase.
10) The AFP lawyer states in his submissions that no police authority has ever stated this is a homicide before May 2023. Why? and clearly Incorrect which has also misinformed the court!
11) The AFP lawyer states “for Clarity in my oral submissions Mr Warren is referring to a Mozambique autopsy report on page 13 of the action sheet rather than to an official police document” confusing Mr Cain at the time. Why? And very much Incorrect and misleading.
12) The AFP Commander Smith clearly states in evidence (transcript page 94) a review for the MAR was not made as we were only dealing with a Mozambique autopsy report from a doctor not a police report. Why? Incorrect and again misleading as there is also the official revised police report stating this is being treated as a homicide only 6 months after my daughters’ death.
13) DFAT’s Honorary Consul has not stated he handed the new evidence of the unblurred photo over to DFAT in 2016 in his statement and in evidence given at the inquest. In fact he states he knew nothing of a clear photo in evidence given at the inquest. Why not? This statement was taken by the AFP. This evidence given prompted the AFP Lawyer to question the timeline link of this vital evidence at my oral submissions. The AFP Lawyer states;- “It’s not sure how this evidence was provided to DFAT.”
14) DFAT’s SLO has not stated in her statement she had given these two police reports to the AFP/SLO or the AFP on the 6th April and the 10th April. Why not? This statement was taken by the AFP again! It must be noted that the AFP were given the official Mozambique autopsy report a couple of months before the 10th April 2017 in February 2017. Which I also tried to explain to Mr Cain on the inquest transcript page 291.
15) At a very important meeting on the 18th November the AFP/SLO was informed by the Mozambique inspector the body of Miss Warren may have been moved after death to the toilet block location. The coroner was not informed of this and this is not in the AFP/SLO’s statement. Why Not? The AFP Lawyer tries to play this down as just a possibility on (Transcript page 284) in my oral submissions but the real factual point here is it is mentioned by the Mozambique Inspector to the AFP/SLO as it is in his AFP action sheet that he suspected the body was moved after death and it is a possibility which is obviously a critical vital point raised by the Mozambique inspector at the time as it is mentioned in the AFP Action sheet on page 9. This factually means the AFP were at least aware of this possibility at the time on the 18th November 2016!! Four days before the Melbourne autopsy on the 22nd November 2016.
16) The AFP/SLO was informed that the cause of death was sand related by the Mozambique prosecutor and that South African autopsy concurred with their autopsy that sand is the cause of death. The coroner and Mel/pathologist were not informed of this vital evidence in 2016. This critical detail to the cause of death is not mentioned in AFP/SLO’s Statement. Why Not? This was vital information from the Mozambique prosecutor in 2016. The coroner and Melb/Pathologist should have been made aware of this vital evidence as it refers to the vital reason for the cause of death in 2016.
17) The AFP acquired the South African autopsy photos in 2016 and the Mel/Pathologist was not given these photos or the Clear crime scene photo by the AFP which they had acquired all of this vital evidence in 2016. Why not? Surly the AFP had meetings and exchanged direct evidence with the Mel/pathologist in 2016/17 following up on this vital evidence as they are responsible for this evidence supporting the coroner with the coronial investigation with the matter. They attended the Autopsy in Melbourne.
18) At a meeting with the Mel/Pathologist, family, coroner’s assistant and three AFP officers on the 7th September 2017 there was no mention of the any new evidence the clear version of the clear crime photo or South Africans autopsy photos by the AFP even though the doctor clearly states at this meeting he had not seen any photos of the body and that he only had a grainy photo which was the Blurred photo at this meeting. Why not?!! Why did the AFP not inform the Mel/pathologist or family of this vital new evidence in its clear form at this very important meeting 11 months after our daughter's suspicious death? The AFP officers were fully aware of this vital evidence but there was not a word said about this evidence by these AFP officers about this vital evidence. Why not?!! All recorded with consent given in front of several witnesses.
19) I reiterate The Melbourne pathologist was not given the clear photo and the South African Autopsy photographs in 2016-18 the family did not know and I am not sure if the coroner was even given the South African autopsy photos but I do know for a fact the coroner was not given the new evidence of clear photo by the AFP as the coroner’s assistant had informed me of these circumstances.
20) Claire Mc Cormish letter exposes the AFP and Honorary consul as this informed the family in March 2019 that both the AFP and Honorary consul had the clear version of the crime scene photo and handed it over to DFAT and in turn the AFP handed it over to the Mozambique inspector on the 8th December all in 2016. The AFP in all its correspondence did not disclose this information referring to the blurred and unblurred photos only as the fisherman’s photo in all correspondence and has not explained the new evidence as the clear photo showing vital details of the ripped apart top in any correspondence at all to this day. If not for DFAT’s letter from Claire McCormish in 2019 I am sure we would not know of these very important facts about the AFP having this new evidence of the clear version of the crime scene photo in 2016 today. As I have also mentioned, the AFP did not disclose this new vital evidence in the summary of circumstances in the brief along with other vital evidence. Why not?! The family was made aware from Claire’s letter that the AFP had this clear crime scene photograph all along in 2016 this then enabled me to ask the question of the AFP in the letter from the Australian lawyer Evan Evagorou about when the AFP were given this clear photo which the AFP had no choice but to admit to for the very first time after seven years to officially having been given the new evidence of the clear version of the crime scene photo all along in November 2016. This crime scene evidence as we all can see is as critical as it gets. Why not a report to the coroner on this evidence by the AFP?!! This is also a failure of their sworn duty not just to Elly’s family but all Australian families who depend on the integrity of the AFP to do their moral duty.
Overview Summary
There are just too many serious discrepancies for this not to be camouflaging evidence by the AFP in an attempt for this not to be classified as a crime/homicide. This is the requirement to warrant a review by the AFP to send the mutual assistance request to offer our assistance with the investigation with another foreign country. These solid facts are supported by the official letters by Claire McComish, The Australian government lawyer Evan Evagorou, the brief in AFP summary of cirumstances, AFP/SLO’s action sheet and his statement. Some of this is incompetency but there are solid facts here which proves the AFP knew what they were doing in camouflaging some of the vital evidence.
In the letter from the Australia lawyer (Evan Evagorou) it states the blurred photo was handed over to the Mozambique inspector by AFP/SLO but not the new evidence of the Unblurred version. Why Not? The AFP have chosen not to mention that this critical unblurred version was also handed over on the 8th December 2016 by the AFP/SLO to the Mozambique inspector and there was only one AFP/SLO stationed at the South African embassy. I think the reason for not mentioning this in the letter is because it’s not mentioned in AFP/SLO’s Statement that he handed over this critical evidence of the clear version of the crime scene photograph to the inspector on the 8th December 2016. But it's clearly mentioned in Claire McComish's letter and also on page 11 of his action sheet as the photo from the Fisherman sent again to the Mozambique Inspector by email. There will be email trace evidence between the AFP/SLO and the Mozambique inspector. The AFP would have to keep these email records on their file as the AFP/SLO States in his action sheet he had transferred photos to the AFP file/systems on page 10 of the AFP action sheet. There are also no prom/notes from the AFP for the month of November and half of December 2016 where are these notes and emails?!
In the AFP summary of circumstances in the brief it clearly states the AFP obtained two reports the Post Morten report and a Mozambique prosecutor’s report. There is no official report in the colonial brief from Mr Morals Baubo Nhanala the Mozambique prosecutor. Where is this VITAL report from the AFP and why was the coroner and family not given this vital report?!!!
The AFP have not carried out their sworn duty for an Australian family who was in need and crisis from the death of a loved one overseas. If only the AFP had directed as much commitment and effort as they have in attempting to camouflage evidence with my daughter’s case the outcome for Justice may have been far more achievable with a greater commitment and effort by the AFP. I am very confident that a greater positive commitment by the AFP with my daughter’s case in Australia and possibly overseas by sending the MAR would have made a difference and gone a long way to achieving justice for our lovely Elly Rose.
The Victorian coroner’s court.
I have already said what I needed to say in my last report referring to the Victorian coroner’s court with inconsistencies and discrepancies.
However What I don’t understand is what is the point of having an inquest if you are not going to call all the important relevant witnesses with the matter?!!
I understand that it's the coroner’s inquest and the coroner is in control of the witnesses that they wish to call. What I don't understand is why not call all the relevant important witnesses which are vital to the matter outcome. I also understand the coroner decides whether the information they will provide is helpful and relevant to the matter.
However In the case of the radiologist, explaining his report in court and the high density levels affecting the cause of death was of paramount importance but the court did not initially want the radiologist.
The South African pathologist was only a last minute inclusion as a witness which left the Mel/Pathologist who had no idea about the sand causing death. To me it makes no sense whatsoever for the court not to initially include the radiologist. The radiologist and Mel/pathologist views on the sand we're miles apart!
The coroner also states:- His finding was without information from the Mozambique authorities.
However, a highly credible detective who had supplied a report to the court in 2019 which is in the brief as evidence was heavily invested in the case involved with working alongside the lawyer responsible for reopening the case and directly helping with further proof of evidence from the Mozambique police in determining a homicide. However he was not called as a witness. He was however expecting to be called as a witness as he was currently working on and off with the new Mozambique inspector on the case. This same detective was mentioned by the AFP commander in the letter sent to Mr Cain on the 19th June 2023 before the inquest as he had an update on his old report to the coroner and was willing to provide this vital updated information to the court confirmed by the AFP in this letter.
The family was informed by the detective that he had information which was relevant by way of an update on the evidence which was fully explained to the court as the court asked for our witness list and to give them a short paragraph on the reasons why we require our witnesses. I really don’t understand why this vital relevant witness was not called as he is a credible witness with a report previously given and accepted by the court. Especially when he was able to give evidence of detailed accounts with solid updates on the investigation being classified as a homicide being directly involved with the case to Mr Cain!
Concluding statement
These are very serious complaints by Elly’s family with the facts of proof concerning the Australian authorities with the homicide death of a young Australian lady which has devastated an Australian family. The government authorities concerned with this matter who the Australian people depend upon to carry out their sworn duty, in supporting Australians in a proper manner not by deceiving Australian families with these unethical moral standards. This will continue to affect Australian families in the future if changes are not implemented.
Most people reading this report will have a family. After reading this detailed report would you be happy with these circumstances if this was your child.
Paul Warren
26/08/24
To the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Dear Penny Wong,
I am Paul Warren Elly Warren’s father who was murdered in Mozambique 2016.
I have sent correspondence to your office regularly and recently two updated reports with some very serious concerning aspects with our daughter’s matter.
One of these current issues for Elly’s family that we would like to address is with the Mutual Assistance Request.
In the AFP submissions it states in 2021 that a Mozambique government official has informed the AFP that a joint investigation is possible between the two countries with Miss Warren’s investigation.
The AFP in going over to Mozambique in may last year was informed for the second official time that the Mozambique Authorities are investigating my daughter’s death as a homicide and they have suspects.
The AFP have recently sent me a letter which I have sent to your office along with my reply to the AFP commissioner dated 23/08/24 with the reasons why the AFP is incorrect that the Mozambique instruction phase needs to be completed first before we can send the MAR to offer our assistance. The 2021 AFP submissions confirm it was already possible to send the MAR.
Elly’s Family would very much appreciate it if the Foreign Minister would be able to assist Elly’s family by arranging a meeting between the high commissioner at the Australian Embassy in Pretoria and the Mozambique Attorney General who has spoken with Mozambique officials before concerning the Elly Warren matter. Elly’s family would like you to ask the Attorney General if it is possible for the Australian Authorities to send the mutual assistance request now to offer our assistance for their consideration.
By sending the MAR now will also allow us to retrieve evidence at a later date once the instruction phase has been completed and confirmed by the instructing Judge that all securities have been lifted for the release of their case file only to our authorities. This however does not hinder the Australian authorities sending the MAR to offer our assistance to the Mozambique authorities with the investigation presently, therefore it will already be in place to retrieve their case file once the Mozambique judge releases the case file from its restrictions.
In an classified letter to Mr Cain by the AFP on the 19th June 2023 it clearly states by the Mozambique Deputy Attorney General that once their Instruction phase has been completed and securities lifted if the Australian authorities wish to retrieve their case file on the matter they will need to send the MAR for its release. This is only about sending the MAR for the release of evidence not to send the MAR now to offer our assistance which has always been possible as the Mozambique Attorney General respects this official MAR process between the two countries.
I do understand that it may be difficult to arrange a meeting, however I feel it is the best way to achieve information or what you are asking for by speaking face to face. If this is not possible could you please send correspondence explaining that we would like to send the MAR now to offer our assistance and that this will then already be in place for the Mozambique Attorney general to release the evidence of their case file at a later date regarding the Elly Warren matter to DFAT, Australian Government or Australian Authorities.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter for Elly’s family.
Sincerely your,
Paul warren
My Reply to the AFP commissioner from their letter sent on the 23/08/2024 below.
From pwww@bigpond.com to
commissioner@afp.gov.au, Kylie.Hemiak@afp.gov.au, DLO@pm.gov.au, mark.dreyfus.mp@aph.gov.au, shane.patton@police.vic.gov.au, foreign.minister@dfat.gov.au
Fri, Aug 23, 2024 5:27 PM
Dear Commissioner AFP,
Just as a matter of clarity with the below correspondence just sent to me. The Mozambique deputy Attorney General clearly states that was only for their case file to be released as their instruction phase needed to be completed first so they can release their case file to the Australian authorities. This was explained in my email as it does not hinder the AFP from sending the Mutual Assistance Request to become involved to help with the investigation and with suspects. In 2021 it states it is possible for a joint investigation by a Mozambique government official. The AFP knows it's a crime established by the Mozambique authorities so what is the hold up in sending the Mutual Assistance Request now to the Mozambique Authorities to offer our assistance.
sincerely yours,
Paul Warren
Summary of background circumstances with the MAR
The information in the AFP letter on the 23rd of August is based around the letter sent to Mr Cain by the AFP on the 19th June 2023. This letter clearly states by the Mozambique deputy Attorney General that the Australian authorities will need to send the MAR for the release of their case file only after their instruction phase has been completed. This only refers to their case file as it makes complete sense that they need to complete their investigation/Instruction phase first before they are able to hand over the Case file to our Authorities. I fully explained this to Mr Cain with the AFP lawyer present at my oral submissions on the 11th December 2023 therefore the AFP were fully aware of these cirumstances. There can be no doubt the AFP have misinformed the family with this letter sent on the 23th August 2024. below is the actual statement by the Mozambique deputy Attorney general in the letter from the AFP to Mr Cain:--
The Deputy Attorney-general advised;- “The only way the coronial inquiry in Australia could officially acquire the case file would be through a Mutual assistance request once the instruction phase is complete and the secrecy provisions are relaxed”.
The deputy Attorney General is clearly only talking about the release of their case file. It has always been possible for our authorities to send the MAR at any time to offer our assistance. Proven also by the AFP submissions in 2020/21 where a Mozambique government official has stated that it is possible for a joint operation between the two countries. We have just never sent the MAR!
The AFP have only sent a personal letter asking for a joint operation not the official MAR however the Mozambique deputy Attorney general is making a clear statement that they will only accept the official MAR indicating how much they respect this process of the MAR between our two countries. The AFP has not sent the official MAR to the Mozambique authorities to date offering our assistance with the homicide investigation of Elly Warren.
The AFP will try any excuse to not send the MAR as they just don’t want to get involved. However we are now aware that it is and was always possible between the two countries all along as they are asking us to send them the MAR!! The AFP sent statements and affidavits with excuse after excuse to the coroner flooding him with information about the MAR and why it was not possible and now we get their deputy Attorney General asking us to send the MAR for exchange of evidence in their case file only.
This is why the MAR was implemented in the first instance for better transparency between two countries to be able to work together on critical issues affecting the two countries such as a homicide death. This is for exchange of evidence and also for evidence to be forensically examined. However the power of the MAR does not stop there as it also allows for each country to operate together on the issue jointly between the two countries. The Mozambique government representative has already stated this is possible back in the AFP submissions in 2020/21. Therefore this was always an option for our authorities. The AFP have just never sent the MAR to fully and directly help and support Elly’s family!!
Some of the factual supporting evidence below;-
Summary:-
1) I can’t put all the factual supporting evidence up however below is some of the supporting documentation which supports this report to the Ombudsman. The below letter dated the 22/03/2019 from DFAT’s Claire Mc Comish , (under photos and other items) this letter exposed the AFP as it informed the family in March 2019 that the AFP had the clear version ALL ALONG in November 2016 and handed this new evidence over to the Mozambique inspector on the 8th December 2016. The coroner or family did not know about this new evidence until October 2018 when I went over to Mozambique and obtained this evidence for myself!! Two years after our daughter’s death!!!!
It also exposes the Honorary Consul as in evidence given at the inquest the Honorary Consul clearly states he knew nothing about any new evidence of the clear version of the crime scene photo. It must be noted the AFP took both the SLO in Pretoria and the Honorary consul statements where they had both left out vital evidence from both there statements!!
2) The Mozambique police report on the 10th April 2017 speaks for its self as its self explanatory. Why go to so much to hide this police report. ( it’s all about the MAR)
3) Emails from DFAT when the AFPSLO at the South African embassy was given the new evidence of the clear version of the crime scene photo clearly showing the ripped apart top on the 24th/25th of November 2016. Why no report on the new evidence to the coroner as the governing police authority supporting the Coroner?!!!
4) The original letter sent to Mr Cain from my lawyer fully explaining why Dr. O Donnell was extremely vital as a witness at the inquest as the court initially did not want the Radiogoloist as a witness. We should not have to do this for such an important relevant witness. His Radiogeology report clearly showed the abundance of white areas indicated as masses and volume of sand at the back of the nose 1290HU and the trachea 947HU with both lung trees totally all solid white areas in the imagery indicating the sand was to the lower levels of both lungs and the vital effect this had on the cause of death!!! This was very disappointing from Mr Cain and the court and you need to ask the question, WHY not have such an important witness initially?!!!
Just to give you some idea of the density HU values in the radiology report, Bone is around 1000HU and pottery/cement is around 1300/1400HU and at the back of Elly’s nose was 1290HU and this was after the cleaning of sand from the South African pathologist!!! However this sand at the back of the nose is in a very difficult place to clean as Dr. O’Donnell mentioned in his evidence given at the inquest and is therefore the density reading at the TIME OF DEATH in the upper airways!!
5) There is other VERY important supporting facts and letters which I really can’t put on line but the Commonwealth Ombudsman has all this relevant correspondence. However this report and these supporting facts gives you a pretty good idea of how deceitful our Australian authorities have been to the family!!!!!
The bottom line is the AFP did not want to become involved with a country with such poor standards. Who then investigates the family. Its not good enough at all. the Australian authorities should be ashamed of themselves!!!
Below is the Mozambique Document as referenced to at the top of page 13 of the AFP action sheet which is a police report.
As the facts show this is an official SERNIC police report endorsing homicide as it’s being treated as a homicide by the Mozambique police in April 2017. This is not an Autopsy report. Note the official translated police report with the SERNIC letterhead is in the colonial brief.
Below is the official revised Mozambique police report from the Deputy Police Superintendent which the AFP states is referring to a Mozambique Autopsy report!!:-
Unofficial translation by Stacey Walker of the revised official police report into the death of Elly Rose Warren, received 10 April 2017
Letterhead of the National Service of Criminal Investigation (SERNIC), Department of Investigation and Criminal Instruction
Subject: DEATH OF AUSTRALIAN ELLY ROSE WARREN
It is incumbent upon us to inform you that the Inhambane Provincial Directorate of SERNIC undertaking its legal formalities in Criminal Process no 775/2016, for the crime of murder, in which the above mentioned citizen was the victim, single and 20 years of age, daughter of Paul Warren and Nicolle Caffakella.
The facts state that the body of the victim was found without life on the morning of 9 November 2016, in front of the public bathrooms at Tofo-Mar beach in Inhambane Province.
On the day before the occurrence, the victim spent time partying and drinking alcoholic beverages with a group of friends, namely Jessie Gloria Whitel, Jade Vitória Oshea, Jacb (sic) Elliote Dovei and Cina Khreiker, all foreigners, at the establishment of Mr Victor, located in the Tofo-mar market.
While together, the group thought it better to leave Mr Victor’s establishment and continue to party at Mr Faduco’s place, located in the area of Tofinho beach.
At around 23h00, the victim farewelled the group, alleging that she would return on foot to the establishment of Mr Victor where they had been previously. Her friends followed her and again joined her and continued to consume drinks.
Each time one of the participants felt tired or drunk, they abandoned the place to the remaining group.
It is suspected that the victim acted in this manner and snuck out, leaving the group.
The next morning, her colleagues from the party were caught by surprise when they found out that the body of Elly Rose Warren was found without life in front of the door of the public bathroom.
The Police were called and immediately took the following measures:
Placed a police presence to isolate and protect the site where the body was found Inspected the site The mortal remains of the victim were moved to the morgue of the Inhambane Provincial Hospital (HPI)
On 11 November, the body of the victim, accompanied by the police agent responsible for the case, was moved from the Inhambane Provincial Hospital to the morgue of the Legal Medicine Department at the Maputo Central Hospital (HCM),
On 30 November, a team of investigators from the Provincial Directorate of SERNIC, travelled to Tofo-mar beach, to monitor the investigation that was being undertaken All stakeholders were duly notified and heard
The conclusions of the autopsy undertaken by the Legal Medicine Department of the HCM, indicate as the probable cause of death of ELLY ROSE WARREN:
Mechanical asphyxiation
The introduction of sandy contents
The obstruction of the superior and inferior respiratory airways by sand,
Direct suffocation
That it’s being treated as HOMICIDE
The processo is in the instruction phase
This is all we are able to offer by way of information.
Maputo, 10 April 2017
Head of the Instruction Department
Januário Bernardo Cumbane (not signed)
Deputy Police Superintendent
Emails below from DFAT also confirming the AFP had the new evidence in November 2016. However no report on the new evidence in fact the AFP did not inform the coroner that they had been given this new clear version of the crime scene photo evidence of a naked body with the top ripped appart of an Australian citizen and had given it to the Mozambique inspector in charge of the case in 2016!!
First email below:-
Consular Operations & Emergency Centre <Centre.Conops@dfat.gov.au>
CONSULAR: WARREN, Elly Rose - Unblurred photo [SEC=OFFICIAL:Sensitive]
13/01/2021 1:31 PM
To:pwww@bigpond.com <pwww@bigpond.com>
OFFICIAL:Sensitive
Dear Mr Warren,
As requested, please find attached a copy of the unblurred photo referred to in Claire McComish's letter of March 2019.
For your information, we’ve recently had some staff movements and I will be the consular case manager going forward.
Kind regards
Lauren
Consular Officer
24hr Consular Emergency Centre (CEC) | Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
T 1300 555 135 | +61 2 6261 330
Personal information provided to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) is protected by law, including the Privacy Act 1988. We may collect, use and disclose your personal information, including to overseas recipients where we reasonably believe it is necessary, to provide you with consular assistance. Important information about the privacy of your personal information is contained in our Consular Privacy Collection Statement, which you should read and understand. Copies of the Statement are available at http://www.dfat.gov.au/consular/privacy or by requesting a copy from the Department.
140.1 KB
second email below:-
Centre Conops <Centre.Conops@dfat.gov.au>
Consular: WARREN, Elly Rose: Chronology [SEC=OFFICIAL] CRM:031560175
23/04/2021 3:45 PM
To:WARREN, Paul <pwww@bigpond.com>
Good afternoon Mr Warren,
DFAT sent the unblurred photo to the AFP via email on 24 November 2016.
Kind regards,
Laurence
_______________________________
Consular Officer
Consular Operations Branch | Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
T 1300 555 135 | +61 2 6261 3305
The Below letter sent on the 9th August 2023 to Mr Cain explaining the vital importance of Dr. O'Donnell as a witness by my lawyer.
2 Proposed witness list
2.1 We have had an opportunity to consider the proposed witness list provided to our office on 3 August 2023. We are instructed to request that the Court reconsider its decision not to call Dr Christopher O’Donnell as a witness at the inquest in this matter.
2.2 Mr Warren is concerned that the absence of Dr O’Donnell as a witness in this matter may lead to the questions of whether sand was present in Ms Warren’s lungs, trachea and larynx, the volume of sand present and the likely impact of that sand on Ms Warren’s cause of death, being underdeveloped at the inquest. The radiology report prepared by Dr O’Donnell is complex and we consider the Court would be assisted by Dr O’Donnell being able to fully explain and clarify the matters contained within his report.
2.3 Mr Warren considers the presence of hypertense foreign material in areas of Ms Warren’s lungs, larynx and trachea as identified in the radiology report as critical evidence relating to Ms Warren’s cause of death. We understand that the bright white areas in the images produced in Dr O’Donnell’s report are of very high density. On this basis it appears that the sand identified in Ms Warren’s lungs, trachea and larynx is denser than some of Ms Warren’s bones in the surrounding areas. In our view, this suggests that there may have been a significant blockage to Ms Warren’s airways. This is relevant to determining Ms Warren’s cause of death.
2.4 Further, we understand that the density of the material identified on the scans, may be quantified using the Hounsfield system of measurement. For example, in his report, Dr O’Donnell has allocated a density of 1290 HU to the material located in Ms Warren’s larynx. The ability to quantify the density of the material identified in Ms Warren’s airways may have significant bearing on determining Ms Warren’s cause of death. The Hounsfield system of measurement is not explained in Dr O’Donnell’s report and accordingly there is no material presently before the Court which explains what conclusions can be drawn from the density values Dr O’Donnell has ascribed in his report.
2.5 Finally, Mr Warren feels that Dr O’Donnell is the most appropriate person to speak to the contents of his report and opine on the likely density of the material identified in the images contained within that report. This belief is supported by the fact Dr Lynch in his report dated 5 July 2017 was only able to identify some residual sand in Ms Warren’s trachea and bronchi. Further, Dr Lynch’s supplementary report dated 19 September 2019 states that ‘it is not possible to quantify the amount of sand identifiable on the CT images.’ Accordingly, any clarification regarding the likely quantity of sand found in Ms Warren’s airways will require Dr O’Donnell’s evidence as to the Hounsfield system of measuring density and the meaning of the density values attributed to the material found in his report.
2.6 In these circumstances, we are instructed to request Dr O’Donnell’s inclusion as a witness for the inquest. We are grateful to His Honour Judge Cain for his consideration of Mr Warren’s request.