A man described as South Australia's "most infamous prisoner" spat on a police officer who had come to interview him in jail, the Adelaide Magistrate's Court has heard.
Domenic Perre, who is awaiting judgement in his murder trial for the bombing of Adelaide's National Crime Authority office in 1994, is accused of spitting on Detective Simon Cassell in his cell in the Adelaide Remand Centre in November 2018.
Perre was charged in March of that year – for the second time – with murdering police officer Geoffrey Bowen and attempting to murder lawyer Peter Wallis by sending a parcel bomb to the NCA office.
A verdict in that case is still pending.
Prosecutors previously dropped charges against Perre due to the lack of a reasonable prospect of conviction, but he is presently serving a sentence for an unrelated conviction at Yatala prison.
Detective Brevet Sergeant Cassell told the court he and his colleague had gone to the remand centre in November 2018 to investigate an alleged assault on Perre by another prisoner.
The detectives had been told Perre did not want to speak to police, but went to his cell to ask him about the assault.
Brevet Sergeant Cassell told the court he had said Perre's first name then identified himself as a police officer when Perre turned his head and spat towards him, with the spit landing on his jacket lapel.
He told the court he withdrew from the cell and wiped the spit off his jacket with a handkerchief.
Three weeks later, police charged Perre with aggravated assault for the spitting.
The trial was delayed because Perre was in the Yatala prison infirmary and had to be brought to an area with video link.
He pleaded not guilty and appeared to have some breathing difficulties throughout the hearing.
Perre's lawyer Gilbert Aitken suggested police had invented the spitting.
"Is the reason you didn't charge him (immediately) because he didn't spit on you?" he asked Brevet Sergeant Cassel.
"No, he definitely spat on me," Brevet Sergeant Cassell answered.
In cross-examination, Mr Aitken said police did not ask for CCTV in the cell, did not photograph the spittle on the jacket, did not get the handkerchief tested and did not immediately arrest Perre for spitting.
"Effectively by that inaction you have put Mr Perre at a significant forensic disadvantage, haven't you?" he said.
"Why did you really want to speak to Perre about this assault when you knew he wasn't interested?
"Mr Perre, regardless of his notoriety, is a victim and I will treat all victims the same way regardless of who they are," Brevet Sergeant Cassell answered.
Mr Aitken suggested police were trying to pressure Perre to make him cooperate with a major crime investigation into the NCA bombing.
"Did you want to make it appear Perre was working with the police?" he said
"Did you want to make Mr Perre look like a dog (informant)?
"Did you want to unruffle him for major crime, soften him up?
"Did you see any potential angle there for the bombing matter?
"Are they the true reasons for your visit there?"
Brevet Sergeant Cassell said he found the suggestions offensive.
"That's categorically wrong," he said.
Brevet Sergeant Cassell's colleague Detective Sergeant Andrew Bull told the court he had seen Perre spit on his colleague.
"Simon walked over into the doorway of the cell, just inside the doorway," he said.
"I remember Mr Perre was laying on the bed inside the door … I remember him half rolling over and looking up and saying, 'who are you?'
"Simon said, 'We're the police'.
"He just spat at him and rolled back over.
"I could clearly see the saliva and the spit on his chest and arm."
Both detectives said they heard Perre make a noise like he was clearing his throat before he spat.
"I don't know how to describe other than he was hocking up a spit, then he spat at him," Sergeant Bull said.
He described it as a large amount of spit.
Neither detective claimed to have spoken with Perre after the spitting, nor make any attempt to contact the prison officer or find out about CCTV afterwards.
"You did nothing to investigate this matter save sign a statement?" Mr Aitken asked.
"That's correct," Sergeant Bull said.
"In hindsight, there are other things that could have been done."
Mr Aitken told the court that failure had meant it was difficult to show his client was innocent.
"Mr Perre has been robbed of potentially exculpatory evidence by the actions of two police officers," he said.
"'We said it happened, we're police officers, believe it'. That's not good enough.
"That's just plain shoddy."
But police prosecutor Kimberley White said there were a number of reasons why police had not been able to secure extra evidence, including restrictions on forensic testing, and the absence of phone cameras inside the prison.
She suggested the defence had invented reasons for the police to accuse Perre.
"It's fiction," she said.
The magistrate has reserved his decision on the case until March.
