Sally Neighbour:

It's the dead of night. Fire crackles and takes hold. The building is destroyed, there's no sign of arson, but the owner is blamed for lighting the fire.

George Nagi:

I was under the impression that I was insured until I lodged a claim. Then, all of a sudden, I'm being accused of being a criminal, which I'm not.

Sally Neighbour:

It's not an isolated case. Time and time again innocent people are accused of arson, so insurance companies can reject their claims.

George Nagi:

We just felt just, astounded, and I just thought, "Well, this is a great injustice."

Sally Neighbour:

The dirty work of finding the evidence is done not by the insurers, but by the investigators they hire.

Grant McKay:

They will commit perjury, they will tamper with evidence, they will exert influence on witnesses, improper influence on witnesses.

Sally Neighbour:

One investigator, arson cop turned private eye, Peter Thomas has earned himself quite a name.

George Nagi:

I think he's a crook.

Sid Bates:

To me he was just a slime.

George Nagi:

He's a liar.

Sid Bates:

Just a real slime bag.

George Nagi:

In my opinion, he's a con man.

Sally Neighbour:

Tonight, on 4 Corners, the insurance industry's policy scam. Who's liable for the people they've burned?

It was the night of July 12th last year in the town of Monto, in Northeast Queensland when George [Nag-i's] New Royal Hotel went up in flames.

George Nagi:

The night of the fire, like every other Sunday, we had our family dinner. We had picked up takeaway from the Chinese restaurant, and then put a couple of tables together, and the entire family sat down for dinner.

Gina Hart:

Woke up at about 2 o'clock in the morning to have a glass of water and the sky was bright orange. I thought it was the end of the world actually, and about 10 minutes later I got a phone call from a friend of mine to let me know that the hotel was ablaze. I got in the car, and took off very quickly, and got to town, and it was horrific.

Sally Neighbour:

By the time firemen arrived the old timber pub was engulfed by flames. Initially, there was no idea of the cause. Forensic experts said, later, it was most likely an electric blanket in one of the rooms. The police and fire brigade said there was nothing suspicious, and no evidence of arson. The pub was burned to the ground.

George Nagi:

The entrance to the public part used to be on the corner here where you can see the concrete has been broken up. There used to be a double swinging door just typical of a country pub.

Sally Neighbour:

George [Na-gi] had just spent close to $100,000 refurbishing the pub, and buying five poker machines, which were delivered a month after the fire.

George Nagi:

In one night, within hours, I had lost my business, I lost my home, I lost all my personal belongings that weren't insured. I lost my family, so to speak, because my marriage broke up, so I lost everything.

Sally Neighbour:

[Na-gi] kept trading in a makeshift bar set up in his bottle shop, which had survived the fire. He lodged a claim for $608,000 with his insurer, Lloyd's of London. The broker who'd sold [Na-gi] his policy then assigned a private investigator by the name of Peter Thomas to the case.

Thomas is a former New South Wales detective who left the police force with a reputation that he's carried over into his new career as a PI.

George Nagi:

At first, he was friendly, and very smooth talking. He was even shouting in the bar to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that happened to walk into the pub he was shouting them drinks, saying, "This is on Lloyd's of London."

Speaker 7:

[inaudible].

Sally Neighbour:

The mood soon changed when a letter arrived from the insurer's lawyers refusing to pay saying the fire had been deliberately caused either by Mr. [Na-gi] or with his connivance.

Speaker 8:

They tell me that's the skull head of an insurance investigator.

Sally Neighbour:

What was your reaction when you got that letter from the insurance company accusing you of lighting the fire?

George Nagi:

I was really angry because there is no indication, I had no motive, I had no intentions.

Sally Neighbour:

What evidence did they have for that?

George Nagi:

I don't believe they've they've got anything else, but whatever Peter Thomas may have fabricated against me.

Sally Neighbour:

[Na-gi] hired his own expert, insurance loss assessor, John [Higgin-son] to look into this case.

John Higginson:

When I first spoke to Thomas he said that he was going to build a circumstantial case against George [Na-gi] that he burned the hotel down.

Sally Neighbour:

Peter Thomas effectively told to he was setting out to nail George [Na-gi]?

John Higginson:

He told me that, yeah.

Gina Hart:

He just seemed to be focused on proving what he believed to be true on that at the time, and he'd made his mind up that George was guilty of arson, and just wanted to simply prove that.

Sally Neighbour:

What was the offer that he made to you at that point?

Gina Hart:

It was an offer for $10,000. He said to me that, "I've come prepared to offer you $10,000 if you can admit to me ... or admit in court," I should say," That George had admitted to you in a moment of passion that he had lit the fire."

Sally Neighbour:

Where did you understand that that $10,000 was to come from?

Gina Hart:

I believed it was from the insurance company.

Sally Neighbour:

After Gina Hart rejected his offer Thomas placed a newspaper ad appealing to a guest who'd stayed in the hotel the night before the fire. Enticed by the reward offered the man came forward and made a statement saying he hadn't used an electric blanket in his room. Remember, an electric blanket was thought to have caused the fire. The man was paid $1000 by Thomas for his statement.

George Nagi:

It's very, very simple.

Sally Neighbour:

George [Na-gi] has never been charged, but apparently on the strengths of the guest's statement Lloyd's is still refusing to pay. As we'll see, [Na-gi's] story is an all too common one. An arson claim based on false or flimsy evidence, or no evidence at all made by a dubious investigator to justify the insurer rejecting a claim.

George Nagi:

Peter Thomas was glad to do a job. The insurers have known his reputation and they still hired him.

Sally Neighbour:

What do you think the job was that he was hired to do?

George Nagi:

Perhaps to kill the claim, that's it. He was hired to kill the claim. Obviously, the insurance company doesn't want to pay me regardless of whether I have paid my premium or not they just don't want to pay.

John Higginson:

Some investigators are totally unscrupulous, and they're the ones who got to be wiped out of the industry. There are a lot of good investigators out there, who go out and do the job properly, and come back with a factual report of what evidence is available for the underwriters. They're the ones who should stay in the industry.

Sally Neighbour:

These unscrupulous operators you refer to, what sort of characters are they? Where do they come from?

John Higginson:

Generally, they're are ex-police officers most likely from down south without any previous training in the insurance industry. They come to Queensland, or get out of the police force, and set themselves up as an investigator because they can get an investigator's licence. Then, they go out to prove what a hero they are by getting claims rejected.

Sally Neighbour:

The investigator in this case, Peter Thomas, is the best in the business of killing fire claims. Thomas is based in Brisbane where our researcher tracked him down. Since leaving the police force, Thomas has found himself a lucrative new career with top insurers paying upwards of $10,000 per claim killed. A chequered police record has apparently been no obstacle and Peter Thomas' record is as chequered as they come.

Thomas left the New South Wales police in 1991 after 21 years. He'd been the subject of dozens of complaints.

Errol Taylor:

This is one more where the ombudsman has said under the circumstances no further action will be taken and, as you see, there's a whole litany of them.

Sally Neighbour:

The list of complaints during Thomas' police career suggests his modus operandi hasn't changed. They date back more than 20 years. One of the first complaints was made by Errol Taylor in 1983 when Thomas was a detective in the New South Wales town of Taree.

Errol Taylor:

I was arrested on my property and taken to the Wingham police station where I was handcuffed to, I believe, a writing desk from 7 in the evening until about 11 o'clock in the evening. I was punched below the eye by Peter Thomas three or four times. I could smell the alcohol on his breath when he leaned forward to punch me. I think he was trying to get me to make an admission, or I don't know what he was up to.

Sally Neighbour:

Taylor was charged with growing and supplying Indian hemp, but later accredited. He lodged a formal complaint, and then began some inquiries of his own into Detective Thomas.

Errol Taylor:

I met a lot of people who had stories about him. I met people who'd been assaulted by him, I was told about accidents he had driving police vehicles under the influence. There was a whole litany of these ... what would you call them? Perversions of the course of justice, assaults, and fabrications.

Sally Neighbour:

By Peter Thomas?

Errol Taylor:

Yes.

Sally Neighbour:

Detective Thomas was a conspicuous figure around Taree. He was an avid punter and regular at the local racetrack. He and another detective had a race horse of their own, and boasted of winnings in the tens of thousands of dollars. Thomas would place a bet of hundreds of dollars at a time. In the words of one former police colleague, "Thomas ran his own race." In this close-knit community word of his reputation got around.

Speaker 11:

Taken over the running and [inaudible].

Errol Taylor:

I was investigating people who'd been assaulted by Thomas, and one of the medical practitioners said go and see Roseanne at Roseanne's Deli, she can tell you stories about Peter Thomas and the police.

Sally Neighbour:

Roseanne Catt was a local businesswoman who'd also fallen foul of Detective Thomas. In 1983, the deli she ran had been damaged by a fire. Thomas, who'd begun to make arson his specialty, charged her. The charge was later withdrawn. She too lodged a formal complaint claiming Thomas had assaulted her and her partner, sexually harassed her, and been biassed in his investigation. Roseanne Catt then joined forces with Errol Taylor to collect complaints against Peter Thomas. It would make them lasting enemy.

Errol Taylor:

Roseanne, having a deli on the main street, knew a lot of people who came in and would talk to her, she gained their trust, and various people they lodged complaints when they realised there was somebody to appeal to.

Sally Neighbour:

How many complaints did you gather?

Errol Taylor:

There would've been 20 or 30 passed onto the ombudsman from memory, this is 17 years ago, but a whole heap of them.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas made enemies within the force too. There were run-ins with his superiors after he was caught more than once driving a police car while drunk. As the complaints mounted he was transferred to New Castle, but it was hardly a promotion. As Detective Sergeant in the Regional Crime Squad his territory extended all the way to the Queensland border, and his reputation spread even further afield.

In 1987, in the tiny New South Wales town of Lawrence the local pub went up in flames. In a story much like George [Na-gi's] ordeal 12 years later, the publican Sid Bates was accused of lighting the fire. He was charged by Detective Thomas.

Sid Bates:

I was 51 or 52 at the time, and it's a big loss, but at that time with the [inaudible] I supposed we'd get the money somewhere to rebuild, but then after we got charged with the fire it was a bigger loss. You just didn't know where you were going then.

Sally Neighbour:

Witnesses said the fire had spread great speed, but there was no physical evidence of arson. Bates had been away at the time. In the style he would make his trademark, Thomas set out to build a circumstantial case. He claimed that Bates had placed an accelerant in the pub, and set it to ignite using either an incendiary device or an accomplice. There was no evidence to support this just the fact that Bates was behind in his mortgage payments, had a dispute over money with his son, and needed to make costly repairs at a time when business had been slow. The fact that his assets of over a million dollars well outweighed liabilities was ignored.

Sid Bates:

He kept asking me about the money, about the financial side of the pub, and that sort of thing, but he also kept bringing up about how much money I had in my pocket. He say he'd give me some money, or anything like that, but he did indicate to me the way how much money have you got in your pocket, if I'd given that I probably mightn't have been charged or he might've helped me, I don't know. It was one of those things.

Sally Neighbour:

Again, just like the [Na-gi] case it's claimed Thomas offered money to the barmaid to say that Bates had lit the fire.

Sid Bates:

He said he'd give [Bev-y] $25,000 if she'd just say I'd burnt the pub down. Bev was living in a caravan park at the time in a van, and her annex was all tattered and torn, and he even promised to pay for a new annex, put a new annex on her van. She objected completely to it and told him to [inaudible].

Sally Neighbour:

The barmaid has confirmed to 4 Corners that Thomas offered her money, but says she can't recall now the exact amount. Thomas didn't say where the money was to come from.

Speaker 12:

It's going to be a hot summer.

Sid Bates:

[inaudible].

Sally Neighbour:

Because he'd been charged Sid Bates' insurance company refused to pay his claim. The insurer then went bankrupt, so he was never paid. With no supporting evidence the charge laid by Detective Thomas was later withdrawn.

Sid Bates:

Looking back on all the things that he's done to other people in the area he's left the devastation of problems wherever he went. Not only that, I think the Crown is very, very guilty for what they've ... had someone employed. If it was a private enterprise they would have him in jail if he was employed by private enterprise, the things that he's done.

Sally Neighbour:

If the Crown needed proof of Thomas' methods it would, in another case in 1989. An explosion of gel ignite had gone off in Byron Bay under the local Commonwealth Employment Service. There was an anonymous call from someone claiming to have done it because they were sick of dull [bludg-ers], but Detective Peter Thomas who was seen to investigate wasn't convinced. He charged the couple who owned the restaurant above the CES claiming it was an insurance job. Once again, he had no evidence, so Thomas resorted to pressure and threats. This interview was secretly taped by the woman he charged and later tendered in court.

Peter Thomas:

Can I just say this to you, you help me and I'll help you. The only way you can get out of it is to give him up, and I tell you what, in the long run, we shake the life out of both of you because I can never guarantee that the court will do to you, but by the Christ, there's a lot we can do to you.

Sally Neighbour:

When the case went to trial the Crown refused to present Detective Thomas' evidence saying it was compromised and unreliable, and his approach was reprehensible. The accused were acquitted. The judge was equally scathing, Thomas' investigation was, "Illogical ... factually inaccurate ... quite improper ... and singularly unprofessional." He had, "Failed to appreciate the  distinction between suspicion and evidence." The judge said there was a strong case that Detective Thomas himself given false evidence.

Errol Taylor:

The ombudsman has said under the circumstances-

Sally Neighbour:

By this time, the police Internal Affairs Department had a file on Thomas that would grow to more than 4000 pages, a file 60 cm thick. The complaints lodged back in Taree by Errol Taylor and his friend Roseanne Catt was still dragging on. Despite the mounting evidence against Thomas, their complaints were being one by one dismissed by the ombudsman and the police.

Errol Taylor:

Here is an illustration of the attitude. "A great deal of scarce departmental resources have already been wasted on Mr. Taylor and his incessant tirade of complaints."

Sally Neighbour:

Roseanne Catt's complaint about how Thomas had handled her old arson charge was also dismissed, but not forgotten.

Roseanne Catt:

He did have a vendetta against me. He hated me greatly.

Speaker 15:

He told you this?

Roseanne Catt:

He told me how much he hated me, yes.

Speaker 16:

Mrs. Catt was arrested at her Cornwall Street home by members of Taree police and the New Castle Regional Crime Squad headed by Detective Sergeant Peter Thomas.

Sally Neighbour:

The arrest and conviction of Roseanne Catt was the crowning achievement of Detective Peter Thomas. Thomas used his trademark energy in amassing evidence to ensure his old adversary got what was coming to her.

Speaker 17:

I was taken into the detective's office and I'd seen mum's belongings there, what they'd got from her place, and he was very confident. He sat down and he explained to me all the charges that he had placed on my mother to put her away for life, and saying that's what he wanted. He was drinking beer, and basically it was a celebration for him.

Sally Neighbour:

What do you think he was celebrating?

Speaker 17:

His victory on having mum locked away of all these charges and, as he said, he had an enough there to put her away for life, and he was quite happy with that. He read them all out to me and told me how long she'd get for each one.

Sally Neighbour:

Roseanne Catt was charged with a series of offences against her husband Barry. In an ugly domestic drama replayed on the nightly tabloid TV shows.

Barry Catt:

She would have to be worse than Satan if Satan was a woman.

Sally Neighbour:

Described in court as an evil, manipulative woman Roseanne Catt was accused of setting out to destroy her husband, so she could take over his panel beating business in Taree. The Crown case was that she tried to poison him, she'd offered people money to kill him, she fabricated allegations that he molested his children, she'd attacked him with a cricket bat and a rock, and stabbed him with a fruit knife during a picnic.

Speaker 19:

I'll stab you too in a minute.

Sally Neighbour:

Barry Catt had known Detective Thomas for years, and Thomas took on his case with a vengeance.

Bruce Miles:

You can go down central court any day of the week and see the domestic violence courts and you get the threats, and the violence, and the hatred, and all the odd things that happen in these domestic situations.

Sally Neighbour:

Veteran criminal lawyer Bruce Miles has recently taken on Roseanne Catt's case.

Bruce Miles:

Oddly enough, some of the matters I understand, in respect of which she went to trial, had occurred long before she was ever charged, and probably would have never been brought to a court anyhow until Peter Thomas in his zeal, entered the court and raked up this, raked up that, raked up that, and charged a girl with a combination of all those matters.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas' zeal became apparent when the case got to trial. Social workers caring for the Catt children complained of continual intimidation, aggression, and threats made by Detective Thomas. A witness quoted Thomas saying, "Roseanne would go behind bars because that's where sluts like her belong."

At one point, Thomas was ordered off the case by his superiors. He protested furiously claiming the order was unlawful and unfair. He was allowed to stay in charge of case.

Barry Catt:

Peter Thomas, I must admire him in this way, that he could've passed the paperwork to someone else, but he stood there as doing his job right for the right reasons, but he did not have to.

Sally Neighbour:

He didn't like her though, did he?

Barry Catt:

I don't know. I don't think ... if Peter Thomas didn't like her I don't think Roseanne would say she liked Peter Thomas either.

Sally Neighbour:

As in so many other cases, concerns were raised repeatedly over Thomas's approach. A bail judge expressed unease about his objectivity suggesting in the interest of justice that the case be conducted by someone whose neutrality could not be cast under suspicion. There was this from the trial judge, "If there was any member of the New South Wales police who should not have been assigned to the case it was Peter Thomas, due to his history of antagonism with Roseann Catt." From an appeal judge, "It was most unfortunate that Thomas was placed in charge as he was far too close to both sides in the case."

Speaker 21:

Today, after one of the states most extraordinary domestic violence cases Roseanne Catt was locked up for 10 years.

Speaker 22:

After two days of deliberations the jury returned to declare Roseanne Catt guilty on eight of nine charges involving assault, stabbing, poisoning-

Sally Neighbour:

The case Thomas built was so overwhelming that the judge sentenced Roseanne Catt to 12 years and 3 months, that's more time than some people get for murder. She's now serving her 10th year in jail.

Bruce Miles:

In different circumstances, different jurisdictions, different police officers are prosecuting I believe that Roseanne Catt in matters that have been established, might've got six months in jail maybe, maybe 12. She had no previous convictions, she was a girl with a very good record. Goodness knows what it would've been. It certainly would be a long, long way short of 10 years in jail.

Speaker 22:

After the verdict, Barry Catt thanked detectives who handled the case.

Sally Neighbour:

Peter Thomas victory over Roseanne Catt marked a less than glorious and to his police career. By the time she was sentenced he'd been effectively pushed out of the force. He was still under investigation over his handling of her case, and yet another allegation had been made against him. It was claimed in a drug trial that Thomas had agreed to destroy evidence in return for a $30,000 bribe.

When we found Peter Thomas in Brisbane he declined our request for a formal interview. When we told him we were filming and attempted to ask questions the meeting came to an end.

Peter Thomas:

Roseanne Catt had an opportunity to air those allegations in court. It's not a matter for me to respond to you.

Sally Neighbour:

There's been 17 years of these allegations against you. During the time when you were a police officer you were investigated dozens of times, you were still under investigation when you left the police force.

Peter Thomas:

I'm sorry, the meeting is over. I don't wish to discuss any more of it with you.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas later sent us a statement denying any wrongdoing and told us all the complaints against him had been found not sustained. The documents we've obtained under Freedom of Information so that when he left the force he was up on two charges of misconduct over his abuse and intimidation of staff from the Department of Family and Community Services. Another three complaints that he'd wrongfully taken Roseanne Catt's property were also upheld, none of these charges proceeded because instead the New South Wales police allowed Thomas to resign.

After quitting the New South Wales police Peter Thomas moved to Queensland. It was then that he set up shop as a private investigator specialising in fire investigations for the insurance industry. He was so good at it he soon became the Queensland president of the Arson Investigators Association.

How well-known is Peter Thomas in the industry?

John Higginson:

He's a bit of a Johnny-come-lately, he hasn't been around for a long time, but while he's been here he made a name for himself for getting claims rejected.

Grant McKay:

From what I've discovered, Peter Thomas places the facts way down on the list in terms of his investigations. He seems to be results-oriented, and his results invariably favour the insurance companies.

Sally Neighbour:

The insurance companies evidently favour Peter Thomas too. 4 Corners has obtained his register book of jobs and clients from 1993 to '97, it reads like a who's who of top insurance companies and law firms. We've also obtained some of his invoices, which show the insurers that use him are prepared to pay well ranging from $5000 to $16,000 per job. The methods Thomas perfected in the police force have earned him a name and a lucrative living as the investigator who gets results.

Grant McKay:

Any insurer that engages his services would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see what methods he uses and employees in relation to his investigations.

Sally Neighbour:

Why are his services in such great demand?

Grant McKay:

The bottom line is the bottom line.

Sally Neighbour:

He gets the results they want?

Grant McKay:

Exactly.

Sally Neighbour:

Grant McKay a former federal policeman and also a private investigator is on Peter Thomas' trail. McKay got involved when he was hired by a businessman who'd been charged with arson. His inquiries have snowballed into a wide ranging investigation of the insurance industry's handling of fire claims.

Grant McKay:

The pattern seems to be emerging that in particular cases a claim against an insurer is made by the claimant, in some cases there is no contest by the police or the fire brigades, in relation to arsons or suspected arsons. Fires take place, insurance companies become involved through their loss assessors and investigators, and suddenly people are being charged with arson. The upshot of that, of course, is that the insurance companies refuse to settle the claims, and these claims involve many, many millions of dollars.

Sally Neighbour:

McKay has found a whole series of similar cases, people accused of arson based on evidence that's at best circumstantial, at worst false. Some of these cases involve Peter Thomas, others don't. There's enough of them to show it's systemic across the insurance industry. The insurers offer handsome rewards to witnesses who help them reject claims, and it seems they're not too fussy who they pay them too.

In one of McKay's cases [inaudible] Mutual agreed to pay $50,000 to a career criminal with 160 prior convictions including armed robbery in return for his evidence in an arson case. The case collapsed when it turned out the evidence was false. In many of these cases, the insurers and their investigators work hand in hand with the police.

Grant McKay:

I'm aware of people who have been charged by the police as a result of, I believe, pressure placed on them by the insurers to do so. They have been put through the criminal justice system, they've been acquitted, and people are still having to fight to receive their payment. It would seem that the insurance companies use the civil process to delay payment to the point where the claimants are either bankrupt, or so very near bankrupt that they will drop the civil proceedings.

Sally Neighbour:

In 1993, a mansion in the affluent Brisbane suburb of Ascot was destroyed by fire. Dr. Bruce Gutteridge and his wife, Elizabeth had spent 15 years restoring their 1860s home. The damage was in the order of $2 million. As Dr. Gutteridge is a war veteran the insurer was the Commonwealth government-owned Defence Service Homes. They engaged Peter Thomas to investigate.

Dr. Gutterberg:

Peter Thomas, at the beginning, was, "Hey fellow, well met, look we're on your side mate. I'm here to help you," and I was quite completely relaxed. I had no problems about the fire, and I was happy to talk to him about anything.

Sally Neighbour:

The Gutteridges soon found themselves prime suspects. Mrs. Gutteridge had been at home alone at the time of the fire and Thomas soon came up with a circumstantial case against her. His main evidence that she'd been using a powerful tranquilliser sometimes prescribed for mental illness though, in her case, used for chronic pain from an old ski injury.

Dr. Gutterberg:

He said that she was mentally unstable, and that she lit the fire, and that she didn't like the house which she loved. We had all these receipts from all the people who'd done work on the house, and he'd gone round to every one of them, and asked them did my wife not like the house? Or did she say that she hated the house?

Cliff Hooper:

He appeared to be trying to put words in my mouth, was my biggest concern. It was-

Sally Neighbour:

Cliff Hooper who'd repaired the Gutteridges swimming pool, was approached by an investigator working with Thomas on the case. Hooper was so concerned he wrote to the Gutteridges to warn them.

Cliff Hooper:

I was saying he's trying to put words in my mouth to say that I knew something that maybe she didn't like the house, or it was too much work for her then, or anything like that.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas sent all his evidence to the police, and persuaded them there was a case against Mrs. Gutteridge.

Mrs Gutteridge:

Everyone was asking after you.

Dr. Gutterberg:

Ah good.

Sally Neighbour:

The statements he'd taken were then transferred onto Queensland police statement paper and became part of the police brief. The same evidence was used by the insurance company to name the Gutteridges as the only serious suspects.

Was there any evidence to this to support the notion that your wife had with the fire?

Dr. Gutterberg:

No, completely none. None at all. That's why it thrown out by the coroner and why they subsequently agreed to settle in the Supreme Court.

Sally Neighbour:

The coroner, who conducts fire inquiries in Queensland, found the accusation against Mrs. Gutteridge was mere conjecture and she had no case to answer.

Mrs Gutteridge:

I'm just very happy it's over. Thank you.

Sally Neighbour:

That still wasn't good enough for the insurance company, Defence Service Homes. Even after they were exonerated, the Gutteridges had to take the insurer to court to get their pay out.

Dr. Gutterberg:

We just felt astounded, and I just thought, "Well, this is a great injustice."

Sally Neighbour:

At least the Gutteridges had the resources to fight, some people don't. In a similar case, also involving Defence Service Homes and Peter Thomas, another war veteran, Jim [Spr-ot] was charged with arson, but acquitted when the judge ruled that there was no case. The insurer is still refusing to pay.

Jim Sprot:

I can't understand what the insurance company doesn't understand when the judge says, "Not guilty." I just, honestly, can't understand what they can't understand.

Sally Neighbour:

In an amazing post script to the Gutteridge case, five years later the tradesman who'd complained about the investigator had his own home severely damaged by fire. Cliff Hooper, too, found himself accused of arson. Peter Thomas was not involved in his case, but Hooper's treatment shows that Thomas' methods are far from unique in the insurance game.

How far will these investigators go?

Cliff Hooper:

They'll stop at nothing. They will absolutely stop nothing. Anything that you could believe that could be possibly done I believe they will do.

Sally Neighbour:

Hooper, his wife, and an employee were charged after pressure from his insurer, AMP. A series of documents came to light in the employee's trial, they reveal a ruthless campaign by AMP to nail Hooper for arson. The memos were written by AMP's own senior investigator at the time. First AMP, bullied the police to investigate.

Speaker 26:

"I advised our investigator to tell the police to get motivated, or threaten to lodge a formal complaint with their superiors."

Sally Neighbour:

Then AMP gloated when the Hoopers were charged.

Speaker 26:

"To all concerned ... Great news ... Mr & Mrs Hooper and the employee have been charged by the police. This is great news, but the race is not won yet ... A job well done to all concerned. I love it when the bad guys get charged and the good guys save money."

Sally Neighbour:

Next, AMP [heav-ied] the Director of Public Prosecutions who'd suggested dropping the charges against Hooper and only proceeding against the employee.

Speaker 26:

"This, of course, did not assist the insurance claim that is pending the outcome of these charges. After lengthy debate between myself and the solicitor of the DPP they agreed to run the case against the Hoopers."

Sally Neighbour:

Finally, AMP threw all its legal and corporate muscle into the case.

Speaker 26:

"We should allocate all possible resources to assisting the police obtain a guilty verdict. If the police are not successful the civil case will be that much harder to defend."

Cliff Hooper:

Very soul destroying, and I don't know how long it's going to go on for, but yeah very soul destroying.

Sally Neighbour:

Despite AMP's best efforts Cliff Hooper was acquitted. AMP finally settled his insurance claim out of court with a clause that forbids him from discussing the particulars of his case.

What do you think about how they treat people?

Cliff Hooper:

They don't care morally what they do to a person whether they destroy them financially, or health wise, or any way they can. It looks like their aim is to get people in the financial into financial trouble, to say they can't fight it properly, or affect their health in such a way that people just give up, and don't want to do anything.

Sally Neighbour:

4 Corners has some questions for the insurance companies on behalf of the people they've burned. Is the laying of arson charges a deliberate strategy to justify rejecting claims? Do the insurance companies know, and do they care what methods their investigators use? Why do they continue to use investigators, like Peter Thomas and others, these methods are well known? Unfortunately, none of the companies in these cases would be interviewed. Incredibly, nor would their peak body The Insurance Council of Australia. They referred us instead to their code of practise which says, "Insurers shall require investigators to operate in a professional manner." Judging from what we've seen that's not worth the paper it's written on, and nor is the insurance industry's old motto, in utmost good faith.

Grant McKay:

I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of people suffering at the hands of these major international companies. I'm calling for a commission of inquiry into the insurance industry. I would like to see their claims examined, and put under scrutiny particularly as to the validity of each contested claim. I would suspect that a can of worms is just about to be opened, and it's something that I think it's about time that this took place.

Sally Neighbour:

It's the dead of night. Fire crackles and takes hold. The building is destroyed, there's no sign of arson, but the owner is blamed for lighting the fire.

George Nagi:

I was under the impression that I was insured until I lodged a claim. Then, all of a sudden, I'm being accused of being a criminal, which I'm not.

Sally Neighbour:

It's not an isolated case. Time and time again innocent people are accused of arson, so insurance companies can reject their claims.

George Nagi:

We just felt just, astounded, and I just thought, "Well, this is a great injustice."

Sally Neighbour:

The dirty work of finding the evidence is done not by the insurers, but by the investigators they hire.

Grant McKay:

They will commit perjury, they will tamper with evidence, they will exert influence on witnesses, improper influence on witnesses.

Sally Neighbour:

One investigator, arson cop turned private eye, Peter Thomas has earned himself quite a name.

George Nagi:

I think he's a crook.

Sid Bates:

To me he was just a slime.

George Nagi:

He's a liar.

Sid Bates:

Just a real slime bag.

George Nagi:

In my opinion, he's a con man.

Sally Neighbour:

Tonight, on 4 Corners, the insurance industry's policy scam. Who's liable for the people they've burned?

It was the night of July 12th last year in the town of Monto, in Northeast Queensland when George [Nag-i's] New Royal Hotel went up in flames.

George Nagi:

The night of the fire, like every other Sunday, we had our family dinner. We had picked up takeaway from the Chinese restaurant, and then put a couple of tables together, and the entire family sat down for dinner.

Gina Hart:

Woke up at about 2 o'clock in the morning to have a glass of water and the sky was bright orange. I thought it was the end of the world actually, and about 10 minutes later I got a phone call from a friend of mine to let me know that the hotel was ablaze. I got in the car, and took off very quickly, and got to town, and it was horrific.

Sally Neighbour:

By the time firemen arrived the old timber pub was engulfed by flames. Initially, there was no idea of the cause. Forensic experts said, later, it was most likely an electric blanket in one of the rooms. The police and fire brigade said there was nothing suspicious, and no evidence of arson. The pub was burned to the ground.

George Nagi:

The entrance to the public part used to be on the corner here where you can see the concrete has been broken up. There used to be a double swinging door just typical of a country pub.

Sally Neighbour:

George [Na-gi] had just spent close to $100,000 refurbishing the pub, and buying five poker machines, which were delivered a month after the fire.

George Nagi:

In one night, within hours, I had lost my business, I lost my home, I lost all my personal belongings that weren't insured. I lost my family, so to speak, because my marriage broke up, so I lost everything.

Sally Neighbour:

[Na-gi] kept trading in a makeshift bar set up in his bottle shop, which had survived the fire. He lodged a claim for $608,000 with his insurer, Lloyd's of London. The broker who'd sold [Na-gi] his policy then assigned a private investigator by the name of Peter Thomas to the case.

Thomas is a former New South Wales detective who left the police force with a reputation that he's carried over into his new career as a PI.

George Nagi:

At first, he was friendly, and very smooth talking. He was even shouting in the bar to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that happened to walk into the pub he was shouting them drinks, saying, "This is on Lloyd's of London."

Speaker 7:

[inaudible].

Sally Neighbour:

The mood soon changed when a letter arrived from the insurer's lawyers refusing to pay saying the fire had been deliberately caused either by Mr. [Na-gi] or with his connivance.

Speaker 8:

They tell me that's the skull head of an insurance investigator.

Sally Neighbour:

What was your reaction when you got that letter from the insurance company accusing you of lighting the fire?

George Nagi:

I was really angry because there is no indication, I had no motive, I had no intentions.

Sally Neighbour:

What evidence did they have for that?

George Nagi:

I don't believe they've they've got anything else, but whatever Peter Thomas may have fabricated against me.

Sally Neighbour:

[Na-gi] hired his own expert, insurance loss assessor, John [Higgin-son] to look into this case.

John Higginson:

When I first spoke to Thomas he said that he was going to build a circumstantial case against George [Na-gi] that he burned the hotel down.

Sally Neighbour:

Peter Thomas effectively told to he was setting out to nail George [Na-gi]?

John Higginson:

He told me that, yeah.

Gina Hart:

He just seemed to be focused on proving what he believed to be true on that at the time, and he'd made his mind up that George was guilty of arson, and just wanted to simply prove that.

Sally Neighbour:

What was the offer that he made to you at that point?

Gina Hart:

It was an offer for $10,000. He said to me that, "I've come prepared to offer you $10,000 if you can admit to me ... or admit in court," I should say," That George had admitted to you in a moment of passion that he had lit the fire."

Sally Neighbour:

Where did you understand that that $10,000 was to come from?

Gina Hart:

I believed it was from the insurance company.

Sally Neighbour:

After Gina Hart rejected his offer Thomas placed a newspaper ad appealing to a guest who'd stayed in the hotel the night before the fire. Enticed by the reward offered the man came forward and made a statement saying he hadn't used an electric blanket in his room. Remember, an electric blanket was thought to have caused the fire. The man was paid $1000 by Thomas for his statement.

George Nagi:

It's very, very simple.

Sally Neighbour:

George [Na-gi] has never been charged, but apparently on the strengths of the guest's statement Lloyd's is still refusing to pay. As we'll see, [Na-gi's] story is an all too common one. An arson claim based on false or flimsy evidence, or no evidence at all made by a dubious investigator to justify the insurer rejecting a claim.

George Nagi:

Peter Thomas was glad to do a job. The insurers have known his reputation and they still hired him.

Sally Neighbour:

What do you think the job was that he was hired to do?

George Nagi:

Perhaps to kill the claim, that's it. He was hired to kill the claim. Obviously, the insurance company doesn't want to pay me regardless of whether I have paid my premium or not they just don't want to pay.

John Higginson:

Some investigators are totally unscrupulous, and they're the ones who got to be wiped out of the industry. There are a lot of good investigators out there, who go out and do the job properly, and come back with a factual report of what evidence is available for the underwriters. They're the ones who should stay in the industry.

Sally Neighbour:

These unscrupulous operators you refer to, what sort of characters are they? Where do they come from?

John Higginson:

Generally, they're are ex-police officers most likely from down south without any previous training in the insurance industry. They come to Queensland, or get out of the police force, and set themselves up as an investigator because they can get an investigator's licence. Then, they go out to prove what a hero they are by getting claims rejected.

Sally Neighbour:

The investigator in this case, Peter Thomas, is the best in the business of killing fire claims. Thomas is based in Brisbane where our researcher tracked him down. Since leaving the police force, Thomas has found himself a lucrative new career with top insurers paying upwards of $10,000 per claim killed. A chequered police record has apparently been no obstacle and Peter Thomas' record is as chequered as they come.

Thomas left the New South Wales police in 1991 after 21 years. He'd been the subject of dozens of complaints.

Errol Taylor:

This is one more where the ombudsman has said under the circumstances no further action will be taken and, as you see, there's a whole litany of them.

Sally Neighbour:

The list of complaints during Thomas' police career suggests his modus operandi hasn't changed. They date back more than 20 years. One of the first complaints was made by Errol Taylor in 1983 when Thomas was a detective in the New South Wales town of Taree.

Errol Taylor:

I was arrested on my property and taken to the Wingham police station where I was handcuffed to, I believe, a writing desk from 7 in the evening until about 11 o'clock in the evening. I was punched below the eye by Peter Thomas three or four times. I could smell the alcohol on his breath when he leaned forward to punch me. I think he was trying to get me to make an admission, or I don't know what he was up to.

Sally Neighbour:

Taylor was charged with growing and supplying Indian hemp, but later accredited. He lodged a formal complaint, and then began some inquiries of his own into Detective Thomas.

Errol Taylor:

I met a lot of people who had stories about him. I met people who'd been assaulted by him, I was told about accidents he had driving police vehicles under the influence. There was a whole litany of these ... what would you call them? Perversions of the course of justice, assaults, and fabrications.

Sally Neighbour:

By Peter Thomas?

Errol Taylor:

Yes.

Sally Neighbour:

Detective Thomas was a conspicuous figure around Taree. He was an avid punter and regular at the local racetrack. He and another detective had a race horse of their own, and boasted of winnings in the tens of thousands of dollars. Thomas would place a bet of hundreds of dollars at a time. In the words of one former police colleague, "Thomas ran his own race." In this close-knit community word of his reputation got around.

Speaker 11:

Taken over the running and [inaudible].

Errol Taylor:

I was investigating people who'd been assaulted by Thomas, and one of the medical practitioners said go and see Roseanne at Roseanne's Deli, she can tell you stories about Peter Thomas and the police.

Sally Neighbour:

Roseanne Catt was a local businesswoman who'd also fallen foul of Detective Thomas. In 1983, the deli she ran had been damaged by a fire. Thomas, who'd begun to make arson his specialty, charged her. The charge was later withdrawn. She too lodged a formal complaint claiming Thomas had assaulted her and her partner, sexually harassed her, and been biassed in his investigation. Roseanne Catt then joined forces with Errol Taylor to collect complaints against Peter Thomas. It would make them lasting enemy.

Errol Taylor:

Roseanne, having a deli on the main street, knew a lot of people who came in and would talk to her, she gained their trust, and various people they lodged complaints when they realised there was somebody to appeal to.

Sally Neighbour:

How many complaints did you gather?

Errol Taylor:

There would've been 20 or 30 passed onto the ombudsman from memory, this is 17 years ago, but a whole heap of them.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas made enemies within the force too. There were run-ins with his superiors after he was caught more than once driving a police car while drunk. As the complaints mounted he was transferred to New Castle, but it was hardly a promotion. As Detective Sergeant in the Regional Crime Squad his territory extended all the way to the Queensland border, and his reputation spread even further afield.

In 1987, in the tiny New South Wales town of Lawrence the local pub went up in flames. In a story much like George [Na-gi's] ordeal 12 years later, the publican Sid Bates was accused of lighting the fire. He was charged by Detective Thomas.

Sid Bates:

I was 51 or 52 at the time, and it's a big loss, but at that time with the [inaudible] I supposed we'd get the money somewhere to rebuild, but then after we got charged with the fire it was a bigger loss. You just didn't know where you were going then.

Sally Neighbour:

Witnesses said the fire had spread great speed, but there was no physical evidence of arson. Bates had been away at the time. In the style he would make his trademark, Thomas set out to build a circumstantial case. He claimed that Bates had placed an accelerant in the pub, and set it to ignite using either an incendiary device or an accomplice. There was no evidence to support this just the fact that Bates was behind in his mortgage payments, had a dispute over money with his son, and needed to make costly repairs at a time when business had been slow. The fact that his assets of over a million dollars well outweighed liabilities was ignored.

Sid Bates:

He kept asking me about the money, about the financial side of the pub, and that sort of thing, but he also kept bringing up about how much money I had in my pocket. He say he'd give me some money, or anything like that, but he did indicate to me the way how much money have you got in your pocket, if I'd given that I probably mightn't have been charged or he might've helped me, I don't know. It was one of those things.

Sally Neighbour:

Again, just like the [Na-gi] case it's claimed Thomas offered money to the barmaid to say that Bates had lit the fire.

Sid Bates:

He said he'd give [Bev-y] $25,000 if she'd just say I'd burnt the pub down. Bev was living in a caravan park at the time in a van, and her annex was all tattered and torn, and he even promised to pay for a new annex, put a new annex on her van. She objected completely to it and told him to [inaudible].

Sally Neighbour:

The barmaid has confirmed to 4 Corners that Thomas offered her money, but says she can't recall now the exact amount. Thomas didn't say where the money was to come from.

Speaker 12:

It's going to be a hot summer.

Sid Bates:

[inaudible].

Sally Neighbour:

Because he'd been charged Sid Bates' insurance company refused to pay his claim. The insurer then went bankrupt, so he was never paid. With no supporting evidence the charge laid by Detective Thomas was later withdrawn.

Sid Bates:

Looking back on all the things that he's done to other people in the area he's left the devastation of problems wherever he went. Not only that, I think the Crown is very, very guilty for what they've ... had someone employed. If it was a private enterprise they would have him in jail if he was employed by private enterprise, the things that he's done.

Sally Neighbour:

If the Crown needed proof of Thomas' methods it would, in another case in 1989. An explosion of gel ignite had gone off in Byron Bay under the local Commonwealth Employment Service. There was an anonymous call from someone claiming to have done it because they were sick of dull [bludg-ers], but Detective Peter Thomas who was seen to investigate wasn't convinced. He charged the couple who owned the restaurant above the CES claiming it was an insurance job. Once again, he had no evidence, so Thomas resorted to pressure and threats. This interview was secretly taped by the woman he charged and later tendered in court.

Peter Thomas:

Can I just say this to you, you help me and I'll help you. The only way you can get out of it is to give him up, and I tell you what, in the long run, we shake the life out of both of you because I can never guarantee that the court will do to you, but by the Christ, there's a lot we can do to you.

Sally Neighbour:

When the case went to trial the Crown refused to present Detective Thomas' evidence saying it was compromised and unreliable, and his approach was reprehensible. The accused were acquitted. The judge was equally scathing, Thomas' investigation was, "Illogical ... factually inaccurate ... quite improper ... and singularly unprofessional." He had, "Failed to appreciate the  distinction between suspicion and evidence." The judge said there was a strong case that Detective Thomas himself given false evidence.

Errol Taylor:

The ombudsman has said under the circumstances-

Sally Neighbour:

By this time, the police Internal Affairs Department had a file on Thomas that would grow to more than 4000 pages, a file 60 cm thick. The complaints lodged back in Taree by Errol Taylor and his friend Roseanne Catt was still dragging on. Despite the mounting evidence against Thomas, their complaints were being one by one dismissed by the ombudsman and the police.

Errol Taylor:

Here is an illustration of the attitude. "A great deal of scarce departmental resources have already been wasted on Mr. Taylor and his incessant tirade of complaints."

Sally Neighbour:

Roseanne Catt's complaint about how Thomas had handled her old arson charge was also dismissed, but not forgotten.

Roseanne Catt:

He did have a vendetta against me. He hated me greatly.

Speaker 15:

He told you this?

Roseanne Catt:

He told me how much he hated me, yes.

Speaker 16:

Mrs. Catt was arrested at her Cornwall Street home by members of Taree police and the New Castle Regional Crime Squad headed by Detective Sergeant Peter Thomas.

Sally Neighbour:

The arrest and conviction of Roseanne Catt was the crowning achievement of Detective Peter Thomas. Thomas used his trademark energy in amassing evidence to ensure his old adversary got what was coming to her.

Speaker 17:

I was taken into the detective's office and I'd seen mum's belongings there, what they'd got from her place, and he was very confident. He sat down and he explained to me all the charges that he had placed on my mother to put her away for life, and saying that's what he wanted. He was drinking beer, and basically it was a celebration for him.

Sally Neighbour:

What do you think he was celebrating?

Speaker 17:

His victory on having mum locked away of all these charges and, as he said, he had an enough there to put her away for life, and he was quite happy with that. He read them all out to me and told me how long she'd get for each one.

Sally Neighbour:

Roseanne Catt was charged with a series of offences against her husband Barry. In an ugly domestic drama replayed on the nightly tabloid TV shows.

Barry Catt:

She would have to be worse than Satan if Satan was a woman.

Sally Neighbour:

Described in court as an evil, manipulative woman Roseanne Catt was accused of setting out to destroy her husband, so she could take over his panel beating business in Taree. The Crown case was that she tried to poison him, she'd offered people money to kill him, she fabricated allegations that he molested his children, she'd attacked him with a cricket bat and a rock, and stabbed him with a fruit knife during a picnic.

Speaker 19:

I'll stab you too in a minute.

Sally Neighbour:

Barry Catt had known Detective Thomas for years, and Thomas took on his case with a vengeance.

Bruce Miles:

You can go down central court any day of the week and see the domestic violence courts and you get the threats, and the violence, and the hatred, and all the odd things that happen in these domestic situations.

Sally Neighbour:

Veteran criminal lawyer Bruce Miles has recently taken on Roseanne Catt's case.

Bruce Miles:

Oddly enough, some of the matters I understand, in respect of which she went to trial, had occurred long before she was ever charged, and probably would have never been brought to a court anyhow until Peter Thomas in his zeal, entered the court and raked up this, raked up that, raked up that, and charged a girl with a combination of all those matters.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas' zeal became apparent when the case got to trial. Social workers caring for the Catt children complained of continual intimidation, aggression, and threats made by Detective Thomas. A witness quoted Thomas saying, "Roseanne would go behind bars because that's where sluts like her belong."

At one point, Thomas was ordered off the case by his superiors. He protested furiously claiming the order was unlawful and unfair. He was allowed to stay in charge of case.

Barry Catt:

Peter Thomas, I must admire him in this way, that he could've passed the paperwork to someone else, but he stood there as doing his job right for the right reasons, but he did not have to.

Sally Neighbour:

He didn't like her though, did he?

Barry Catt:

I don't know. I don't think ... if Peter Thomas didn't like her I don't think Roseanne would say she liked Peter Thomas either.

Sally Neighbour:

As in so many other cases, concerns were raised repeatedly over Thomas's approach. A bail judge expressed unease about his objectivity suggesting in the interest of justice that the case be conducted by someone whose neutrality could not be cast under suspicion. There was this from the trial judge, "If there was any member of the New South Wales police who should not have been assigned to the case it was Peter Thomas, due to his history of antagonism with Roseann Catt." From an appeal judge, "It was most unfortunate that Thomas was placed in charge as he was far too close to both sides in the case."

Speaker 21:

Today, after one of the states most extraordinary domestic violence cases Roseanne Catt was locked up for 10 years.

Speaker 22:

After two days of deliberations the jury returned to declare Roseanne Catt guilty on eight of nine charges involving assault, stabbing, poisoning-

Sally Neighbour:

The case Thomas built was so overwhelming that the judge sentenced Roseanne Catt to 12 years and 3 months, that's more time than some people get for murder. She's now serving her 10th year in jail.

Bruce Miles:

In different circumstances, different jurisdictions, different police officers are prosecuting I believe that Roseanne Catt in matters that have been established, might've got six months in jail maybe, maybe 12. She had no previous convictions, she was a girl with a very good record. Goodness knows what it would've been. It certainly would be a long, long way short of 10 years in jail.

Speaker 22:

After the verdict, Barry Catt thanked detectives who handled the case.

Sally Neighbour:

Peter Thomas victory over Roseanne Catt marked a less than glorious and to his police career. By the time she was sentenced he'd been effectively pushed out of the force. He was still under investigation over his handling of her case, and yet another allegation had been made against him. It was claimed in a drug trial that Thomas had agreed to destroy evidence in return for a $30,000 bribe.

When we found Peter Thomas in Brisbane he declined our request for a formal interview. When we told him we were filming and attempted to ask questions the meeting came to an end.

Peter Thomas:

Roseanne Catt had an opportunity to air those allegations in court. It's not a matter for me to respond to you.

Sally Neighbour:

There's been 17 years of these allegations against you. During the time when you were a police officer you were investigated dozens of times, you were still under investigation when you left the police force.

Peter Thomas:

I'm sorry, the meeting is over. I don't wish to discuss any more of it with you.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas later sent us a statement denying any wrongdoing and told us all the complaints against him had been found not sustained. The documents we've obtained under Freedom of Information so that when he left the force he was up on two charges of misconduct over his abuse and intimidation of staff from the Department of Family and Community Services. Another three complaints that he'd wrongfully taken Roseanne Catt's property were also upheld, none of these charges proceeded because instead the New South Wales police allowed Thomas to resign.

After quitting the New South Wales police Peter Thomas moved to Queensland. It was then that he set up shop as a private investigator specialising in fire investigations for the insurance industry. He was so good at it he soon became the Queensland president of the Arson Investigators Association.

How well-known is Peter Thomas in the industry?

John Higginson:

He's a bit of a Johnny-come-lately, he hasn't been around for a long time, but while he's been here he made a name for himself for getting claims rejected.

Grant McKay:

From what I've discovered, Peter Thomas places the facts way down on the list in terms of his investigations. He seems to be results-oriented, and his results invariably favour the insurance companies.

Sally Neighbour:

The insurance companies evidently favour Peter Thomas too. 4 Corners has obtained his register book of jobs and clients from 1993 to '97, it reads like a who's who of top insurance companies and law firms. We've also obtained some of his invoices, which show the insurers that use him are prepared to pay well ranging from $5000 to $16,000 per job. The methods Thomas perfected in the police force have earned him a name and a lucrative living as the investigator who gets results.

Grant McKay:

Any insurer that engages his services would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see what methods he uses and employees in relation to his investigations.

Sally Neighbour:

Why are his services in such great demand?

Grant McKay:

The bottom line is the bottom line.

Sally Neighbour:

He gets the results they want?

Grant McKay:

Exactly.

Sally Neighbour:

Grant McKay a former federal policeman and also a private investigator is on Peter Thomas' trail. McKay got involved when he was hired by a businessman who'd been charged with arson. His inquiries have snowballed into a wide ranging investigation of the insurance industry's handling of fire claims.

Grant McKay:

The pattern seems to be emerging that in particular cases a claim against an insurer is made by the claimant, in some cases there is no contest by the police or the fire brigades, in relation to arsons or suspected arsons. Fires take place, insurance companies become involved through their loss assessors and investigators, and suddenly people are being charged with arson. The upshot of that, of course, is that the insurance companies refuse to settle the claims, and these claims involve many, many millions of dollars.

Sally Neighbour:

McKay has found a whole series of similar cases, people accused of arson based on evidence that's at best circumstantial, at worst false. Some of these cases involve Peter Thomas, others don't. There's enough of them to show it's systemic across the insurance industry. The insurers offer handsome rewards to witnesses who help them reject claims, and it seems they're not too fussy who they pay them too.

In one of McKay's cases [inaudible] Mutual agreed to pay $50,000 to a career criminal with 160 prior convictions including armed robbery in return for his evidence in an arson case. The case collapsed when it turned out the evidence was false. In many of these cases, the insurers and their investigators work hand in hand with the police.

Grant McKay:

I'm aware of people who have been charged by the police as a result of, I believe, pressure placed on them by the insurers to do so. They have been put through the criminal justice system, they've been acquitted, and people are still having to fight to receive their payment. It would seem that the insurance companies use the civil process to delay payment to the point where the claimants are either bankrupt, or so very near bankrupt that they will drop the civil proceedings.

Sally Neighbour:

In 1993, a mansion in the affluent Brisbane suburb of Ascot was destroyed by fire. Dr. Bruce Gutteridge and his wife, Elizabeth had spent 15 years restoring their 1860s home. The damage was in the order of $2 million. As Dr. Gutteridge is a war veteran the insurer was the Commonwealth government-owned Defence Service Homes. They engaged Peter Thomas to investigate.

Dr. Gutterberg:

Peter Thomas, at the beginning, was, "Hey fellow, well met, look we're on your side mate. I'm here to help you," and I was quite completely relaxed. I had no problems about the fire, and I was happy to talk to him about anything.

Sally Neighbour:

The Gutteridges soon found themselves prime suspects. Mrs. Gutteridge had been at home alone at the time of the fire and Thomas soon came up with a circumstantial case against her. His main evidence that she'd been using a powerful tranquilliser sometimes prescribed for mental illness though, in her case, used for chronic pain from an old ski injury.

Dr. Gutterberg:

He said that she was mentally unstable, and that she lit the fire, and that she didn't like the house which she loved. We had all these receipts from all the people who'd done work on the house, and he'd gone round to every one of them, and asked them did my wife not like the house? Or did she say that she hated the house?

Cliff Hooper:

He appeared to be trying to put words in my mouth, was my biggest concern. It was-

Sally Neighbour:

Cliff Hooper who'd repaired the Gutteridges swimming pool, was approached by an investigator working with Thomas on the case. Hooper was so concerned he wrote to the Gutteridges to warn them.

Cliff Hooper:

I was saying he's trying to put words in my mouth to say that I knew something that maybe she didn't like the house, or it was too much work for her then, or anything like that.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas sent all his evidence to the police, and persuaded them there was a case against Mrs. Gutteridge.

Mrs Gutteridge:

Everyone was asking after you.

Dr. Gutterberg:

Ah good.

Sally Neighbour:

The statements he'd taken were then transferred onto Queensland police statement paper and became part of the police brief. The same evidence was used by the insurance company to name the Gutteridges as the only serious suspects.

Was there any evidence to this to support the notion that your wife had with the fire?

Dr. Gutterberg:

No, completely none. None at all. That's why it thrown out by the coroner and why they subsequently agreed to settle in the Supreme Court.

Sally Neighbour:

The coroner, who conducts fire inquiries in Queensland, found the accusation against Mrs. Gutteridge was mere conjecture and she had no case to answer.

Mrs Gutteridge:

I'm just very happy it's over. Thank you.

Sally Neighbour:

That still wasn't good enough for the insurance company, Defence Service Homes. Even after they were exonerated, the Gutteridges had to take the insurer to court to get their pay out.

Dr. Gutterberg:

We just felt astounded, and I just thought, "Well, this is a great injustice."

Sally Neighbour:

At least the Gutteridges had the resources to fight, some people don't. In a similar case, also involving Defence Service Homes and Peter Thomas, another war veteran, Jim [Spr-ot] was charged with arson, but acquitted when the judge ruled that there was no case. The insurer is still refusing to pay.

Jim Sprot:

I can't understand what the insurance company doesn't understand when the judge says, "Not guilty." I just, honestly, can't understand what they can't understand.

Sally Neighbour:

In an amazing post script to the Gutteridge case, five years later the tradesman who'd complained about the investigator had his own home severely damaged by fire. Cliff Hooper, too, found himself accused of arson. Peter Thomas was not involved in his case, but Hooper's treatment shows that Thomas' methods are far from unique in the insurance game.

How far will these investigators go?

Cliff Hooper:

They'll stop at nothing. They will absolutely stop nothing. Anything that you could believe that could be possibly done I believe they will do.

Sally Neighbour:

Hooper, his wife, and an employee were charged after pressure from his insurer, AMP. A series of documents came to light in the employee's trial, they reveal a ruthless campaign by AMP to nail Hooper for arson. The memos were written by AMP's own senior investigator at the time. First AMP, bullied the police to investigate.

Speaker 26:

"I advised our investigator to tell the police to get motivated, or threaten to lodge a formal complaint with their superiors."

Sally Neighbour:

Then AMP gloated when the Hoopers were charged.

Speaker 26:

"To all concerned ... Great news ... Mr & Mrs Hooper and the employee have been charged by the police. This is great news, but the race is not won yet ... A job well done to all concerned. I love it when the bad guys get charged and the good guys save money."

Sally Neighbour:

Next, AMP [heav-ied] the Director of Public Prosecutions who'd suggested dropping the charges against Hooper and only proceeding against the employee.

Speaker 26:

"This, of course, did not assist the insurance claim that is pending the outcome of these charges. After lengthy debate between myself and the solicitor of the DPP they agreed to run the case against the Hoopers."

Sally Neighbour:

Finally, AMP threw all its legal and corporate muscle into the case.

Speaker 26:

"We should allocate all possible resources to assisting the police obtain a guilty verdict. If the police are not successful the civil case will be that much harder to defend."

Cliff Hooper:

Very soul destroying, and I don't know how long it's going to go on for, but yeah very soul destroying.

Sally Neighbour:

Despite AMP's best efforts Cliff Hooper was acquitted. AMP finally settled his insurance claim out of court with a clause that forbids him from discussing the particulars of his case.

What do you think about how they treat people?

Cliff Hooper:

They don't care morally what they do to a person whether they destroy them financially, or health wise, or any way they can. It looks like their aim is to get people in the financial into financial trouble, to say they can't fight it properly, or affect their health in such a way that people just give up, and don't want to do anything.

Sally Neighbour:

4 Corners has some questions for the insurance companies on behalf of the people they've burned. Is the laying of arson charges a deliberate strategy to justify rejecting claims? Do the insurance companies know, and do they care what methods their investigators use? Why do they continue to use investigators, like Peter Thomas and others, these methods are well known? Unfortunately, none of the companies in these cases would be interviewed. Incredibly, nor would their peak body The Insurance Council of Australia. They referred us instead to their code of practise which says, "Insurers shall require investigators to operate in a professional manner." Judging from what we've seen that's not worth the paper it's written on, and nor is the insurance industry's old motto, in utmost good faith.

Grant McKay:

I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of people suffering at the hands of these major international companies. I'm calling for a commission of inquiry into the insurance industry. I would like to see their claims examined, and put under scrutiny particularly as to the validity of each contested claim. I would suspect that a can of worms is just about to be opened, and it's something that I think it's about time that this took place.

Sally Neighbour:

It's the dead of night. Fire crackles and takes hold. The building is destroyed, there's no sign of arson, but the owner is blamed for lighting the fire.

George Nagi:

I was under the impression that I was insured until I lodged a claim. Then, all of a sudden, I'm being accused of being a criminal, which I'm not.

Sally Neighbour:

It's not an isolated case. Time and time again innocent people are accused of arson, so insurance companies can reject their claims.

George Nagi:

We just felt just, astounded, and I just thought, "Well, this is a great injustice."

Sally Neighbour:

The dirty work of finding the evidence is done not by the insurers, but by the investigators they hire.

Grant McKay:

They will commit perjury, they will tamper with evidence, they will exert influence on witnesses, improper influence on witnesses.

Sally Neighbour:

One investigator, arson cop turned private eye, Peter Thomas has earned himself quite a name.

George Nagi:

I think he's a crook.

Sid Bates:

To me he was just a slime.

George Nagi:

He's a liar.

Sid Bates:

Just a real slime bag.

George Nagi:

In my opinion, he's a con man.

Sally Neighbour:

Tonight, on 4 Corners, the insurance industry's policy scam. Who's liable for the people they've burned?

It was the night of July 12th last year in the town of Monto, in Northeast Queensland when George [Nag-i's] New Royal Hotel went up in flames.

George Nagi:

The night of the fire, like every other Sunday, we had our family dinner. We had picked up takeaway from the Chinese restaurant, and then put a couple of tables together, and the entire family sat down for dinner.

Gina Hart:

Woke up at about 2 o'clock in the morning to have a glass of water and the sky was bright orange. I thought it was the end of the world actually, and about 10 minutes later I got a phone call from a friend of mine to let me know that the hotel was ablaze. I got in the car, and took off very quickly, and got to town, and it was horrific.

Sally Neighbour:

By the time firemen arrived the old timber pub was engulfed by flames. Initially, there was no idea of the cause. Forensic experts said, later, it was most likely an electric blanket in one of the rooms. The police and fire brigade said there was nothing suspicious, and no evidence of arson. The pub was burned to the ground.

George Nagi:

The entrance to the public part used to be on the corner here where you can see the concrete has been broken up. There used to be a double swinging door just typical of a country pub.

Sally Neighbour:

George [Na-gi] had just spent close to $100,000 refurbishing the pub, and buying five poker machines, which were delivered a month after the fire.

George Nagi:

In one night, within hours, I had lost my business, I lost my home, I lost all my personal belongings that weren't insured. I lost my family, so to speak, because my marriage broke up, so I lost everything.

Sally Neighbour:

[Na-gi] kept trading in a makeshift bar set up in his bottle shop, which had survived the fire. He lodged a claim for $608,000 with his insurer, Lloyd's of London. The broker who'd sold [Na-gi] his policy then assigned a private investigator by the name of Peter Thomas to the case.

Thomas is a former New South Wales detective who left the police force with a reputation that he's carried over into his new career as a PI.

George Nagi:

At first, he was friendly, and very smooth talking. He was even shouting in the bar to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that happened to walk into the pub he was shouting them drinks, saying, "This is on Lloyd's of London."

Speaker 7:

[inaudible].

Sally Neighbour:

The mood soon changed when a letter arrived from the insurer's lawyers refusing to pay saying the fire had been deliberately caused either by Mr. [Na-gi] or with his connivance.

Speaker 8:

They tell me that's the skull head of an insurance investigator.

Sally Neighbour:

What was your reaction when you got that letter from the insurance company accusing you of lighting the fire?

George Nagi:

I was really angry because there is no indication, I had no motive, I had no intentions.

Sally Neighbour:

What evidence did they have for that?

George Nagi:

I don't believe they've they've got anything else, but whatever Peter Thomas may have fabricated against me.

Sally Neighbour:

[Na-gi] hired his own expert, insurance loss assessor, John [Higgin-son] to look into this case.

John Higginson:

When I first spoke to Thomas he said that he was going to build a circumstantial case against George [Na-gi] that he burned the hotel down.

Sally Neighbour:

Peter Thomas effectively told to he was setting out to nail George [Na-gi]?

John Higginson:

He told me that, yeah.

Gina Hart:

He just seemed to be focused on proving what he believed to be true on that at the time, and he'd made his mind up that George was guilty of arson, and just wanted to simply prove that.

Sally Neighbour:

What was the offer that he made to you at that point?

Gina Hart:

It was an offer for $10,000. He said to me that, "I've come prepared to offer you $10,000 if you can admit to me ... or admit in court," I should say," That George had admitted to you in a moment of passion that he had lit the fire."

Sally Neighbour:

Where did you understand that that $10,000 was to come from?

Gina Hart:

I believed it was from the insurance company.

Sally Neighbour:

After Gina Hart rejected his offer Thomas placed a newspaper ad appealing to a guest who'd stayed in the hotel the night before the fire. Enticed by the reward offered the man came forward and made a statement saying he hadn't used an electric blanket in his room. Remember, an electric blanket was thought to have caused the fire. The man was paid $1000 by Thomas for his statement.

George Nagi:

It's very, very simple.

Sally Neighbour:

George [Na-gi] has never been charged, but apparently on the strengths of the guest's statement Lloyd's is still refusing to pay. As we'll see, [Na-gi's] story is an all too common one. An arson claim based on false or flimsy evidence, or no evidence at all made by a dubious investigator to justify the insurer rejecting a claim.

George Nagi:

Peter Thomas was glad to do a job. The insurers have known his reputation and they still hired him.

Sally Neighbour:

What do you think the job was that he was hired to do?

George Nagi:

Perhaps to kill the claim, that's it. He was hired to kill the claim. Obviously, the insurance company doesn't want to pay me regardless of whether I have paid my premium or not they just don't want to pay.

John Higginson:

Some investigators are totally unscrupulous, and they're the ones who got to be wiped out of the industry. There are a lot of good investigators out there, who go out and do the job properly, and come back with a factual report of what evidence is available for the underwriters. They're the ones who should stay in the industry.

Sally Neighbour:

These unscrupulous operators you refer to, what sort of characters are they? Where do they come from?

John Higginson:

Generally, they're are ex-police officers most likely from down south without any previous training in the insurance industry. They come to Queensland, or get out of the police force, and set themselves up as an investigator because they can get an investigator's licence. Then, they go out to prove what a hero they are by getting claims rejected.

Sally Neighbour:

The investigator in this case, Peter Thomas, is the best in the business of killing fire claims. Thomas is based in Brisbane where our researcher tracked him down. Since leaving the police force, Thomas has found himself a lucrative new career with top insurers paying upwards of $10,000 per claim killed. A chequered police record has apparently been no obstacle and Peter Thomas' record is as chequered as they come.

Thomas left the New South Wales police in 1991 after 21 years. He'd been the subject of dozens of complaints.

Errol Taylor:

This is one more where the ombudsman has said under the circumstances no further action will be taken and, as you see, there's a whole litany of them.

Sally Neighbour:

The list of complaints during Thomas' police career suggests his modus operandi hasn't changed. They date back more than 20 years. One of the first complaints was made by Errol Taylor in 1983 when Thomas was a detective in the New South Wales town of Taree.

Errol Taylor:

I was arrested on my property and taken to the Wingham police station where I was handcuffed to, I believe, a writing desk from 7 in the evening until about 11 o'clock in the evening. I was punched below the eye by Peter Thomas three or four times. I could smell the alcohol on his breath when he leaned forward to punch me. I think he was trying to get me to make an admission, or I don't know what he was up to.

Sally Neighbour:

Taylor was charged with growing and supplying Indian hemp, but later accredited. He lodged a formal complaint, and then began some inquiries of his own into Detective Thomas.

Errol Taylor:

I met a lot of people who had stories about him. I met people who'd been assaulted by him, I was told about accidents he had driving police vehicles under the influence. There was a whole litany of these ... what would you call them? Perversions of the course of justice, assaults, and fabrications.

Sally Neighbour:

By Peter Thomas?

Errol Taylor:

Yes.

Sally Neighbour:

Detective Thomas was a conspicuous figure around Taree. He was an avid punter and regular at the local racetrack. He and another detective had a race horse of their own, and boasted of winnings in the tens of thousands of dollars. Thomas would place a bet of hundreds of dollars at a time. In the words of one former police colleague, "Thomas ran his own race." In this close-knit community word of his reputation got around.

Speaker 11:

Taken over the running and [inaudible].

Errol Taylor:

I was investigating people who'd been assaulted by Thomas, and one of the medical practitioners said go and see Roseanne at Roseanne's Deli, she can tell you stories about Peter Thomas and the police.

Sally Neighbour:

Roseanne Catt was a local businesswoman who'd also fallen foul of Detective Thomas. In 1983, the deli she ran had been damaged by a fire. Thomas, who'd begun to make arson his specialty, charged her. The charge was later withdrawn. She too lodged a formal complaint claiming Thomas had assaulted her and her partner, sexually harassed her, and been biassed in his investigation. Roseanne Catt then joined forces with Errol Taylor to collect complaints against Peter Thomas. It would make them lasting enemy.

Errol Taylor:

Roseanne, having a deli on the main street, knew a lot of people who came in and would talk to her, she gained their trust, and various people they lodged complaints when they realised there was somebody to appeal to.

Sally Neighbour:

How many complaints did you gather?

Errol Taylor:

There would've been 20 or 30 passed onto the ombudsman from memory, this is 17 years ago, but a whole heap of them.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas made enemies within the force too. There were run-ins with his superiors after he was caught more than once driving a police car while drunk. As the complaints mounted he was transferred to New Castle, but it was hardly a promotion. As Detective Sergeant in the Regional Crime Squad his territory extended all the way to the Queensland border, and his reputation spread even further afield.

In 1987, in the tiny New South Wales town of Lawrence the local pub went up in flames. In a story much like George [Na-gi's] ordeal 12 years later, the publican Sid Bates was accused of lighting the fire. He was charged by Detective Thomas.

Sid Bates:

I was 51 or 52 at the time, and it's a big loss, but at that time with the [inaudible] I supposed we'd get the money somewhere to rebuild, but then after we got charged with the fire it was a bigger loss. You just didn't know where you were going then.

Sally Neighbour:

Witnesses said the fire had spread great speed, but there was no physical evidence of arson. Bates had been away at the time. In the style he would make his trademark, Thomas set out to build a circumstantial case. He claimed that Bates had placed an accelerant in the pub, and set it to ignite using either an incendiary device or an accomplice. There was no evidence to support this just the fact that Bates was behind in his mortgage payments, had a dispute over money with his son, and needed to make costly repairs at a time when business had been slow. The fact that his assets of over a million dollars well outweighed liabilities was ignored.

Sid Bates:

He kept asking me about the money, about the financial side of the pub, and that sort of thing, but he also kept bringing up about how much money I had in my pocket. He say he'd give me some money, or anything like that, but he did indicate to me the way how much money have you got in your pocket, if I'd given that I probably mightn't have been charged or he might've helped me, I don't know. It was one of those things.

Sally Neighbour:

Again, just like the [Na-gi] case it's claimed Thomas offered money to the barmaid to say that Bates had lit the fire.

Sid Bates:

He said he'd give [Bev-y] $25,000 if she'd just say I'd burnt the pub down. Bev was living in a caravan park at the time in a van, and her annex was all tattered and torn, and he even promised to pay for a new annex, put a new annex on her van. She objected completely to it and told him to [inaudible].

Sally Neighbour:

The barmaid has confirmed to 4 Corners that Thomas offered her money, but says she can't recall now the exact amount. Thomas didn't say where the money was to come from.

Speaker 12:

It's going to be a hot summer.

Sid Bates:

[inaudible].

Sally Neighbour:

Because he'd been charged Sid Bates' insurance company refused to pay his claim. The insurer then went bankrupt, so he was never paid. With no supporting evidence the charge laid by Detective Thomas was later withdrawn.

Sid Bates:

Looking back on all the things that he's done to other people in the area he's left the devastation of problems wherever he went. Not only that, I think the Crown is very, very guilty for what they've ... had someone employed. If it was a private enterprise they would have him in jail if he was employed by private enterprise, the things that he's done.

Sally Neighbour:

If the Crown needed proof of Thomas' methods it would, in another case in 1989. An explosion of gel ignite had gone off in Byron Bay under the local Commonwealth Employment Service. There was an anonymous call from someone claiming to have done it because they were sick of dull [bludg-ers], but Detective Peter Thomas who was seen to investigate wasn't convinced. He charged the couple who owned the restaurant above the CES claiming it was an insurance job. Once again, he had no evidence, so Thomas resorted to pressure and threats. This interview was secretly taped by the woman he charged and later tendered in court.

Peter Thomas:

Can I just say this to you, you help me and I'll help you. The only way you can get out of it is to give him up, and I tell you what, in the long run, we shake the life out of both of you because I can never guarantee that the court will do to you, but by the Christ, there's a lot we can do to you.

Sally Neighbour:

When the case went to trial the Crown refused to present Detective Thomas' evidence saying it was compromised and unreliable, and his approach was reprehensible. The accused were acquitted. The judge was equally scathing, Thomas' investigation was, "Illogical ... factually inaccurate ... quite improper ... and singularly unprofessional." He had, "Failed to appreciate the  distinction between suspicion and evidence." The judge said there was a strong case that Detective Thomas himself given false evidence.

Errol Taylor:

The ombudsman has said under the circumstances-

Sally Neighbour:

By this time, the police Internal Affairs Department had a file on Thomas that would grow to more than 4000 pages, a file 60 cm thick. The complaints lodged back in Taree by Errol Taylor and his friend Roseanne Catt was still dragging on. Despite the mounting evidence against Thomas, their complaints were being one by one dismissed by the ombudsman and the police.

Errol Taylor:

Here is an illustration of the attitude. "A great deal of scarce departmental resources have already been wasted on Mr. Taylor and his incessant tirade of complaints."

Sally Neighbour:

Roseanne Catt's complaint about how Thomas had handled her old arson charge was also dismissed, but not forgotten.

Roseanne Catt:

He did have a vendetta against me. He hated me greatly.

Speaker 15:

He told you this?

Roseanne Catt:

He told me how much he hated me, yes.

Speaker 16:

Mrs. Catt was arrested at her Cornwall Street home by members of Taree police and the New Castle Regional Crime Squad headed by Detective Sergeant Peter Thomas.

Sally Neighbour:

The arrest and conviction of Roseanne Catt was the crowning achievement of Detective Peter Thomas. Thomas used his trademark energy in amassing evidence to ensure his old adversary got what was coming to her.

Speaker 17:

I was taken into the detective's office and I'd seen mum's belongings there, what they'd got from her place, and he was very confident. He sat down and he explained to me all the charges that he had placed on my mother to put her away for life, and saying that's what he wanted. He was drinking beer, and basically it was a celebration for him.

Sally Neighbour:

What do you think he was celebrating?

Speaker 17:

His victory on having mum locked away of all these charges and, as he said, he had an enough there to put her away for life, and he was quite happy with that. He read them all out to me and told me how long she'd get for each one.

Sally Neighbour:

Roseanne Catt was charged with a series of offences against her husband Barry. In an ugly domestic drama replayed on the nightly tabloid TV shows.

Barry Catt:

She would have to be worse than Satan if Satan was a woman.

Sally Neighbour:

Described in court as an evil, manipulative woman Roseanne Catt was accused of setting out to destroy her husband, so she could take over his panel beating business in Taree. The Crown case was that she tried to poison him, she'd offered people money to kill him, she fabricated allegations that he molested his children, she'd attacked him with a cricket bat and a rock, and stabbed him with a fruit knife during a picnic.

Speaker 19:

I'll stab you too in a minute.

Sally Neighbour:

Barry Catt had known Detective Thomas for years, and Thomas took on his case with a vengeance.

Bruce Miles:

You can go down central court any day of the week and see the domestic violence courts and you get the threats, and the violence, and the hatred, and all the odd things that happen in these domestic situations.

Sally Neighbour:

Veteran criminal lawyer Bruce Miles has recently taken on Roseanne Catt's case.

Bruce Miles:

Oddly enough, some of the matters I understand, in respect of which she went to trial, had occurred long before she was ever charged, and probably would have never been brought to a court anyhow until Peter Thomas in his zeal, entered the court and raked up this, raked up that, raked up that, and charged a girl with a combination of all those matters.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas' zeal became apparent when the case got to trial. Social workers caring for the Catt children complained of continual intimidation, aggression, and threats made by Detective Thomas. A witness quoted Thomas saying, "Roseanne would go behind bars because that's where sluts like her belong."

At one point, Thomas was ordered off the case by his superiors. He protested furiously claiming the order was unlawful and unfair. He was allowed to stay in charge of case.

Barry Catt:

Peter Thomas, I must admire him in this way, that he could've passed the paperwork to someone else, but he stood there as doing his job right for the right reasons, but he did not have to.

Sally Neighbour:

He didn't like her though, did he?

Barry Catt:

I don't know. I don't think ... if Peter Thomas didn't like her I don't think Roseanne would say she liked Peter Thomas either.

Sally Neighbour:

As in so many other cases, concerns were raised repeatedly over Thomas's approach. A bail judge expressed unease about his objectivity suggesting in the interest of justice that the case be conducted by someone whose neutrality could not be cast under suspicion. There was this from the trial judge, "If there was any member of the New South Wales police who should not have been assigned to the case it was Peter Thomas, due to his history of antagonism with Roseann Catt." From an appeal judge, "It was most unfortunate that Thomas was placed in charge as he was far too close to both sides in the case."

Speaker 21:

Today, after one of the states most extraordinary domestic violence cases Roseanne Catt was locked up for 10 years.

Speaker 22:

After two days of deliberations the jury returned to declare Roseanne Catt guilty on eight of nine charges involving assault, stabbing, poisoning-

Sally Neighbour:

The case Thomas built was so overwhelming that the judge sentenced Roseanne Catt to 12 years and 3 months, that's more time than some people get for murder. She's now serving her 10th year in jail.

Bruce Miles:

In different circumstances, different jurisdictions, different police officers are prosecuting I believe that Roseanne Catt in matters that have been established, might've got six months in jail maybe, maybe 12. She had no previous convictions, she was a girl with a very good record. Goodness knows what it would've been. It certainly would be a long, long way short of 10 years in jail.

Speaker 22:

After the verdict, Barry Catt thanked detectives who handled the case.

Sally Neighbour:

Peter Thomas victory over Roseanne Catt marked a less than glorious and to his police career. By the time she was sentenced he'd been effectively pushed out of the force. He was still under investigation over his handling of her case, and yet another allegation had been made against him. It was claimed in a drug trial that Thomas had agreed to destroy evidence in return for a $30,000 bribe.

When we found Peter Thomas in Brisbane he declined our request for a formal interview. When we told him we were filming and attempted to ask questions the meeting came to an end.

Peter Thomas:

Roseanne Catt had an opportunity to air those allegations in court. It's not a matter for me to respond to you.

Sally Neighbour:

There's been 17 years of these allegations against you. During the time when you were a police officer you were investigated dozens of times, you were still under investigation when you left the police force.

Peter Thomas:

I'm sorry, the meeting is over. I don't wish to discuss any more of it with you.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas later sent us a statement denying any wrongdoing and told us all the complaints against him had been found not sustained. The documents we've obtained under Freedom of Information so that when he left the force he was up on two charges of misconduct over his abuse and intimidation of staff from the Department of Family and Community Services. Another three complaints that he'd wrongfully taken Roseanne Catt's property were also upheld, none of these charges proceeded because instead the New South Wales police allowed Thomas to resign.

After quitting the New South Wales police Peter Thomas moved to Queensland. It was then that he set up shop as a private investigator specialising in fire investigations for the insurance industry. He was so good at it he soon became the Queensland president of the Arson Investigators Association.

How well-known is Peter Thomas in the industry?

John Higginson:

He's a bit of a Johnny-come-lately, he hasn't been around for a long time, but while he's been here he made a name for himself for getting claims rejected.

Grant McKay:

From what I've discovered, Peter Thomas places the facts way down on the list in terms of his investigations. He seems to be results-oriented, and his results invariably favour the insurance companies.

Sally Neighbour:

The insurance companies evidently favour Peter Thomas too. 4 Corners has obtained his register book of jobs and clients from 1993 to '97, it reads like a who's who of top insurance companies and law firms. We've also obtained some of his invoices, which show the insurers that use him are prepared to pay well ranging from $5000 to $16,000 per job. The methods Thomas perfected in the police force have earned him a name and a lucrative living as the investigator who gets results.

Grant McKay:

Any insurer that engages his services would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see what methods he uses and employees in relation to his investigations.

Sally Neighbour:

Why are his services in such great demand?

Grant McKay:

The bottom line is the bottom line.

Sally Neighbour:

He gets the results they want?

Grant McKay:

Exactly.

Sally Neighbour:

Grant McKay a former federal policeman and also a private investigator is on Peter Thomas' trail. McKay got involved when he was hired by a businessman who'd been charged with arson. His inquiries have snowballed into a wide ranging investigation of the insurance industry's handling of fire claims.

Grant McKay:

The pattern seems to be emerging that in particular cases a claim against an insurer is made by the claimant, in some cases there is no contest by the police or the fire brigades, in relation to arsons or suspected arsons. Fires take place, insurance companies become involved through their loss assessors and investigators, and suddenly people are being charged with arson. The upshot of that, of course, is that the insurance companies refuse to settle the claims, and these claims involve many, many millions of dollars.

Sally Neighbour:

McKay has found a whole series of similar cases, people accused of arson based on evidence that's at best circumstantial, at worst false. Some of these cases involve Peter Thomas, others don't. There's enough of them to show it's systemic across the insurance industry. The insurers offer handsome rewards to witnesses who help them reject claims, and it seems they're not too fussy who they pay them too.

In one of McKay's cases [inaudible] Mutual agreed to pay $50,000 to a career criminal with 160 prior convictions including armed robbery in return for his evidence in an arson case. The case collapsed when it turned out the evidence was false. In many of these cases, the insurers and their investigators work hand in hand with the police.

Grant McKay:

I'm aware of people who have been charged by the police as a result of, I believe, pressure placed on them by the insurers to do so. They have been put through the criminal justice system, they've been acquitted, and people are still having to fight to receive their payment. It would seem that the insurance companies use the civil process to delay payment to the point where the claimants are either bankrupt, or so very near bankrupt that they will drop the civil proceedings.

Sally Neighbour:

In 1993, a mansion in the affluent Brisbane suburb of Ascot was destroyed by fire. Dr. Bruce Gutteridge and his wife, Elizabeth had spent 15 years restoring their 1860s home. The damage was in the order of $2 million. As Dr. Gutteridge is a war veteran the insurer was the Commonwealth government-owned Defence Service Homes. They engaged Peter Thomas to investigate.

Dr. Gutterberg:

Peter Thomas, at the beginning, was, "Hey fellow, well met, look we're on your side mate. I'm here to help you," and I was quite completely relaxed. I had no problems about the fire, and I was happy to talk to him about anything.

Sally Neighbour:

The Gutteridges soon found themselves prime suspects. Mrs. Gutteridge had been at home alone at the time of the fire and Thomas soon came up with a circumstantial case against her. His main evidence that she'd been using a powerful tranquilliser sometimes prescribed for mental illness though, in her case, used for chronic pain from an old ski injury.

Dr. Gutterberg:

He said that she was mentally unstable, and that she lit the fire, and that she didn't like the house which she loved. We had all these receipts from all the people who'd done work on the house, and he'd gone round to every one of them, and asked them did my wife not like the house? Or did she say that she hated the house?

Cliff Hooper:

He appeared to be trying to put words in my mouth, was my biggest concern. It was-

Sally Neighbour:

Cliff Hooper who'd repaired the Gutteridges swimming pool, was approached by an investigator working with Thomas on the case. Hooper was so concerned he wrote to the Gutteridges to warn them.

Cliff Hooper:

I was saying he's trying to put words in my mouth to say that I knew something that maybe she didn't like the house, or it was too much work for her then, or anything like that.

Sally Neighbour:

Thomas sent all his evidence to the police, and persuaded them there was a case against Mrs. Gutteridge.

Mrs Gutteridge:

Everyone was asking after you.

Dr. Gutterberg:

Ah good.

Sally Neighbour:

The statements he'd taken were then transferred onto Queensland police statement paper and became part of the police brief. The same evidence was used by the insurance company to name the Gutteridges as the only serious suspects.

Was there any evidence to this to support the notion that your wife had with the fire?

Dr. Gutterberg:

No, completely none. None at all. That's why it thrown out by the coroner and why they subsequently agreed to settle in the Supreme Court.

Sally Neighbour:

The coroner, who conducts fire inquiries in Queensland, found the accusation against Mrs. Gutteridge was mere conjecture and she had no case to answer.

Mrs Gutteridge:

I'm just very happy it's over. Thank you.

Sally Neighbour:

That still wasn't good enough for the insurance company, Defence Service Homes. Even after they were exonerated, the Gutteridges had to take the insurer to court to get their pay out.

Dr. Gutterberg:

We just felt astounded, and I just thought, "Well, this is a great injustice."

Sally Neighbour:

At least the Gutteridges had the resources to fight, some people don't. In a similar case, also involving Defence Service Homes and Peter Thomas, another war veteran, Jim [Spr-ot] was charged with arson, but acquitted when the judge ruled that there was no case. The insurer is still refusing to pay.

Jim Sprot:

I can't understand what the insurance company doesn't understand when the judge says, "Not guilty." I just, honestly, can't understand what they can't understand.

Sally Neighbour:

In an amazing post script to the Gutteridge case, five years later the tradesman who'd complained about the investigator had his own home severely damaged by fire. Cliff Hooper, too, found himself accused of arson. Peter Thomas was not involved in his case, but Hooper's treatment shows that Thomas' methods are far from unique in the insurance game.

How far will these investigators go?

Cliff Hooper:

They'll stop at nothing. They will absolutely stop nothing. Anything that you could believe that could be possibly done I believe they will do.

Sally Neighbour:

Hooper, his wife, and an employee were charged after pressure from his insurer, AMP. A series of documents came to light in the employee's trial, they reveal a ruthless campaign by AMP to nail Hooper for arson. The memos were written by AMP's own senior investigator at the time. First AMP, bullied the police to investigate.

Speaker 26:

"I advised our investigator to tell the police to get motivated, or threaten to lodge a formal complaint with their superiors."

Sally Neighbour:

Then AMP gloated when the Hoopers were charged.

Speaker 26:

"To all concerned ... Great news ... Mr & Mrs Hooper and the employee have been charged by the police. This is great news, but the race is not won yet ... A job well done to all concerned. I love it when the bad guys get charged and the good guys save money."

Sally Neighbour:

Next, AMP [heav-ied] the Director of Public Prosecutions who'd suggested dropping the charges against Hooper and only proceeding against the employee.

Speaker 26:

"This, of course, did not assist the insurance claim that is pending the outcome of these charges. After lengthy debate between myself and the solicitor of the DPP they agreed to run the case against the Hoopers."

Sally Neighbour:

Finally, AMP threw all its legal and corporate muscle into the case.

Speaker 26:

"We should allocate all possible resources to assisting the police obtain a guilty verdict. If the police are not successful the civil case will be that much harder to defend."

Cliff Hooper:

Very soul destroying, and I don't know how long it's going to go on for, but yeah very soul destroying.

Sally Neighbour:

Despite AMP's best efforts Cliff Hooper was acquitted. AMP finally settled his insurance claim out of court with a clause that forbids him from discussing the particulars of his case.

What do you think about how they treat people?

Cliff Hooper:

They don't care morally what they do to a person whether they destroy them financially, or health wise, or any way they can. It looks like their aim is to get people in the financial into financial trouble, to say they can't fight it properly, or affect their health in such a way that people just give up, and don't want to do anything.

Sally Neighbour:

4 Corners has some questions for the insurance companies on behalf of the people they've burned. Is the laying of arson charges a deliberate strategy to justify rejecting claims? Do the insurance companies know, and do they care what methods their investigators use? Why do they continue to use investigators, like Peter Thomas and others, these methods are well known? Unfortunately, none of the companies in these cases would be interviewed. Incredibly, nor would their peak body The Insurance Council of Australia. They referred us instead to their code of practise which says, "Insurers shall require investigators to operate in a professional manner." Judging from what we've seen that's not worth the paper it's written on, and nor is the insurance industry's old motto, in utmost good faith.

Grant McKay:

I believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of people suffering at the hands of these major international companies. I'm calling for a commission of inquiry into the insurance industry. I would like to see their claims examined, and put under scrutiny particularly as to the validity of each contested claim. I would suspect that a can of worms is just about to be opened, and it's something that I think it's about time that this took place.