A bombshell review into the 2013 car crash involving Daniel and Catherine Andrews with a teenage cyclist has concluded that police engaged in a cover up “to avoid implicating a political figure”.
An explosive 36-page report by a former police assistant commissioner, obtained by the Herald Sun, found Victoria Police were involved in “an overt cover-up to avoid implicating a political figure in a life-threatening” incident.
The review, by the state’s former Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and Operations Dr Raymond Shuey, found the Andrews’ family SUV was “travelling at speed” and on the wrong side of the road when it hit teenage cyclist Ryan Meuleman on a Blairgowrie street on January 7, 2013.
The former premier and his wife have always maintained that they came to a “complete stop” and “turned right from a stationary position” just “moments” before being t-boned by the bike.
But the expert review has found the police investigation which backed the Andrews’ version of events was “deeply flawed”, “unfounded” and “contrary to the available evidence”, reports the Herald Sun.
“The version as provided by Catherine and Daniel Andrews is considered improbable and implausible,” Dr Shuey asserts.
“The truth is still outstanding. It is most probable that the vehicle undertook a sweep turn at speed, cutting the corner and still on the incorrect side of the roadway in Ridley Street, 27 metres from Melbourne Road when the collision occurred.”
“The propagation of a lie” and “a striking deception”, the report finds, began when the driver’s name was recorded as “Catherine Louise Kesik” – Mrs Andrews’ maiden name – in a Traffic Incident System report submitted by police in the hours after the crash.
Dr Shuey’s review, commissioned by Mr Meuleman’s lawyers as part of ongoing Supreme Court damages proceedings, concludes that “the investigation … does not demonstrate competent professional practice for Victoria Police.”
Why did the police ignore protocols to:
- Breath test the Andrews
- Allow Daniel Andrews to leave the scene in the collision vehicle
- Impound the vehicle
- Close the road in preparation for a crash scene investigation unit
After IBAC’s critical Operation Daintree was handed down at the end of April 2013, Premier Daniel Andrews labelled the report “educational” and said the ministers and advisers named no longer worked in the government.
The Victorian Ombudsman Deborah Glass hit out at the way the Premier responded to the report, saying his response was at odds with the contents.
“Describing it merely as an educational report that made no findings does not in any way describe that report,” Glass said. “It’s a damning report. I think that simply speaks volumes for his views on integrity and corruption.”
Unfortunately Raymond Shuey, the author of the review, died last month. It would be helpful if his review was available publicly. It seems he was commissioned to write a report on behalf of Ryan Meuleman, who was the cyclist involved in the 2013 road accident.
Meuleman has launched proceedings – not against either of the Andrews – but against their legal counsel Slater and Gordon for their role in negotiating $80,000 compensation for Meuleman which I think he accepted in 2016.
From what I can understand, he is now is seeking greater damages on the grounds that Slater and Gordon did not (at the time?) properly investigate the circumstances of the accident. [see: https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/dan-and-catherine-andrews-agree-to-hand-over-phone-records-from-day-of-crash-with-cyclist-ryan-meuleman/news-story/c87dd9c6b5e22b011c8dc1f0526124a6%5D
I’m able to find bits and pieces on the web … before the paywalls beat me.
What I would like to access is Shuey’s actual report. It’s one thing to read what someone else says is in it … but I would prefer to read it for myself.
Disclaimer: I’m positively disposed towards Dan Andrews … I don’t know if that means I’m biased … I try usually to avoid dismissing facts/information that people disclose even when it goes against my own ‘prejudices’. The trouble is that often people don’t give any source for their info … and so their views can be seen as assertions … without a verifiable foundation.
Here’s some more reading … https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2024/09/dan-andrews-bike-boy-scandal-expert-report.html