Here's some analyis of the IT system issues and some practical considerations that seem to stem from a bit of first-hand knowledge of the Australian Federal Court's systems, processes and facilities.

Dear Michael,

I've followed your website on the AWU-WRA matter for over 6 months now. This is because of your highly commendable trait of publishing actual data/documents, rather than cherry-picked bits as is the wont of most of the media.

That you have published this hard information has attracted a large group of people to your site. You've obviously noted the large increase in page hits. A significant proportion of these people, like me, are NOT "natural" fits to populist websites or indeed, AM radio talkbacks etc. In fact, I haven't listened to AM radio at all in over 50 years

I am professionally trained (several higher tertiary degrees) and have been involved world-wide with projects at all levels for over 40 years now. These experiences obviously include use of computer systems, databases, modelling and so on ... in five different languages, actually!

Which brings me to the point of this email. Forgive this, but I suspect you are perhaps not greatly computer-literate yourself. One needs to read VERY carefully indeed the letter that Thomsett (Federal Court, Sydney) wrote to Detective Yeo (Fraud Squad, Melbourne) on February 8, 2013 and which you commendably published in its' entirety.

Thomsett's letter is notable for two things: a) the obscuring bureaucratic gobbledook he uses, which is quite characteristic of bureaucrats world-wide; and b) that which he does NOT say, again characteristic

1st:

Look carefully at paragraph 5 page 1 (starting "IRCA matters were transferred ..."). When existing IRCA matters were transferred to the Federal Court in May, 1997, a database "migration" from Tracker (IRCA) to FEDCAMS (Fed Court) was carried out. Note that such "migrations" are actually copy/paste transactions from one format to another (partially incompatible) format - it's much cheaper and quicker to live with the partial incompatibility than pay contract IT for full transfer. What was the result of this el-cheapo transfer ? Information on CURRENT listings, activities and documents in the IRCA was left out ... Thomsett says so, but is too embarrassed to admit WHY this gap occurred. So from September 1996 to May 1997 (8 months), activities in current IRCA cases were not recorded. No big deal yet, just minor chaos, but definitely a gap in information on any activity in IRCA-transferrable matters (not just 2082/96)

2nd:

paragraph 6 page 1 (starting "In 2004 the Federal Court implemented ..."). Here we have yet another "migration" (cut and paste) from one database format (FEDCAMS) to another format (Casetrack). Again, partial incompatibility turns up, this time with a new file numbering system needed to fit into the new database format. The new computerised database system (Casetrack) appears from Thomsett's letter to have recorded the new vs old file numbers, as he notes the new number as NSD2082W/1996. But who says that all the file boxes in storage were physically renumbered with any accuracy ? (Hot, stuffy, dusty, crowded with boxes and the clerk with the bullet point marker bored out of his head). There is least a good chance that the box is either mis-labelled or still has only the earlier number on it. Thomsett fails to note the difference between the computerised record and the physical box numbering here - because he knows the likelihood of clerical stuff-up and cannot admit it in writing

3rd:

paragraph 7 page 1 (starting "According to Casetrack the matter ...") the matter was finalised by Madgwick J on May 17,2002 as "Discontinued/Withdrawn". This is remarkable for two reasons: a) the case was finalised BEFORE Casetrack was in operation (2004) - how did the Casetrack recording know this 2 years later ?; and b) Discontinued/Withdrawn is the reason that Madgwick J never published a judgment. He didn't need to, it was all over Red Rover

4th:

paragraph 1, page 2 (starting "The database used in ...") "Recfind" (part of Casetrack) records that the file was returned to the Registry file room on May 17, 2002 (the date the case was Discontinued/Withdrawn). One wonders what actual file number the box had marked on it in 2002, because the new Casetrack number was not to be for another 2 years

5th:

paragraph 2 and 3, page 2 (starting "Prior to the NSW District ...") Then we have actual physical storage around 1997 moving from Level 16 to Level 17 (in itself a messy business and a possible situation for stuff-ups) with active files staying put in Level 16 until completed (including 2082/96). Case 2082/96 stayed put in Level 16 until 2002, but the new Level 17 National Archives were by then NOT accepting transferred boxes until some arcane bureaucratic negotiation had been completed. Thomsett does NOT state whether 2082/96 was one of these caught-in-limbo files, he just implies it as a further excuse for the loss.

Overall, I contend that there remains a good chance that the file can be found with a real, determined physical search, looking for either the Casetrack number or the earlier FEDCAMS or Tracker numbers physically on the box. Levels 16 and 17 are likely candidate areas for this.

The 2082/96 box is not necessarily lost/stolen, but at least has a reasonable probability of being the subject of bureaucratic incompetence - 2 database "migrations" and one messy physical storage movement. Certainly from Thomsett's letter, I can see no evidence of computer database malfeasance, just plenty of el-cheapo stuff-ups.

I apologise for the length of this email, but the Thomsett letter needed more critical analysis than has happened to date.