Dear Hon Mischin, Further to my letter dated 5 March 2016 I refer you to the “exceptional circumstances” of my case to which you seem unaware. I will list the obvious Police Negligence in my case. Failure of police to require persons to identify themselves in CCTV footage prior to arrest, or at any stage. Failure of arresting the officers to watch the entire CCTV at any stage. Failure of police to check the accuracy of the Statement of Material Facts with the CCTV. Failure of police to investigate security guards for assaulting me, despite acknowledgement of my assault on the night. Failure of police to investigate security guards for assaulting Astrid, despite police notes acknowledging she was assaulted. Failure of Constable Ball, the case officer to take notes. Failure of Constable Ball to acquire and read Constables Kirstine and Crafford's notes. Failure of police to check security guards statements against CCTV footage. Failure of police to get a statement from Security guard Peter Ross. Failure of police to subpoena Peter Ross. Failure of police to adequately investigate Peter Ross. Prosecutor Lawlor contacted Ross, who told him 'get f@cked' promting Lawlor and Ball to agree not to call him as a witness. Police label their own witness as “Hostile” Failure of police to interview any of the 7 available witness. Failure of police to supply suitability qualified Officers on the night. Constable Kirstein was still on probation from the booze bus. Constable Ball was recently exchanged from England and admitted he was not fully aware of WAPOL procedures. Failure of sufficient police to remain at the scene due to overtime not being approved. Failure of police to have adequate knowledge of the laws they were applying. Failure of police to adequately gauge reasonable force. Failure of police to realise my description did not match the person of interest. (POI) Police accepted CCTV footage despite 30 minutes being edited out by the Casino. This 30 minutes would have shown another guest previously arguing with security and being asked to leave. These points, with the associated proof, can be seen at www.youtube.com/watch?v=atKqR-jWuP8 Magistrate Lawrence acknowledged the substandard investigation and commented “Had police interviewed all available witnesses and subpoenaed Ross, Police would have been able to make a better informed assessment as to the viability of the charge.” The Parliamentary Inspector to the Corruption and Crime Commission, Hon Murray QC commented on “a timely correction of an injustice first created by the Police in charging you after the original incident. This injustice was then perpetuated by the Commission's continuing mismanagement of your complaint, and by the Police by continuously refusing to explain in writing to you, or to the Commission, the reasons why neither Mr Ross nor Mr Gungor were charged with assaulting you.” Further more, the “extensive history of investigation” referred to by the Premier Mr Barnett, in particular the investigations of Senior Sergeant Warner and Detective Constable Lilley, have been found to be incorrect in law by the police's own senior solicitor, who noted “a confused and apparent lack of understanding by both the police and the BEC security officers of the legislative parameters surrounding the Casino Control Act, the Criminal Investigation Act and the Liquor Control act which appears to have contributed to quality of the investigation” I question that you therefore use these reports as they have been found incorrect in law. Not to mention they do not match CCTV footage. The inaccuracy of Lilley's report can clearly be seen at www.youtube.com/watch?v=96452RLtC9s A glaring example of Senior Sergeant Warner's report being deliberately misleading is in the first paragraph where he states “Security Manager on duty (Umit Gungor) at BEC reported that 5 intoxicated males where fighting outside the convention centre” This is blatantly untrue, and has been used to conjure images of a drunken football team fighting with security guards, and that I deserved what I got. Had Warner reported the truth that 5 security guards, including the Security Manager on duty (Umit Gungor) were beating me for defending a woman who was being assaulted by Gungor, as can be seen on CCTV, then the reader would have an entirely different view of the circumstances. Both Warner and Lilleys reports are riddled with these lies. The fact remains it is immaterial whether security guards did or did not ask me to leave. I was walking out of the premises, without stopping, to the closest main exit. Even if I had been asked to leave, Peter Ross had no cause to assault me. Had Peter Ross done nothing I would have simply walked out. Peter Ross must therefore suitably explain why he assaulted me, which he has not done. Therefore, the claim by police that there is insufficient evidence is incorrect. It is quite clear that my case is indeed exceptional. I ask that you take the time to view my videos, read the reports of Warner and Lilley and review your decision into my case. I look forward to your timely reply. Yours Sincerely, Greg Haig.