Craig Thomson claims that his identity was stolen, he knows that he was named adversely in a Fair Work Australia report, he is invited to attended voluntarily by the police whom he knows are investigating the matter, he refuses their invitation, negotiations breakdown and he claims to be surprised when it leads to his arrest. What did he think police were inviting him for if he did not believe it may result in his arrest and charges?
I know that the informant in this matter, Sgt Tyquin, had as a matter of law to swear on oath the whole of the circumstances of his negotiations with Mr Thomson and his legal representative. Where the whole of those matters include a statement that "attempts to negotiate with him to present himself for interview have failed", Mr McArdle is stretching credulity to now suggest that at the end of the "you are not obliged to say anything" interview Mr Thomson did not face the prospect of being told "you will now be charged with the offences of....".
When police invite a suspect for interview to hear their side and the suspect refuses - what do you make of a later claim that a subsequent arrest came as some sort of unexpected shock?