The treatment of informers in witness protection programs is back in the spotlight, with revelations that one NSW star witness is driving a $200,000 Ferrari and living lavishly at taxpayer expense. But how much should we pay to break the criminal code of silence?

The latest revelations in The Australian come not long after after it was revealed that a key crown witness in the trial of Melbourne underworld figure Mario Condello had been provided with a package worth a reported $1 million.

That informer, known only as 166, gave evidence at Condello's committal but didn't have to take the stand in a trial. Condello was gunned down outside him home in February in a still unsolved underworld hit. 166 was eventually destined to be relocated overseas after he and his partner received new identities.

The issue of financial compensation for criminals willing to turn informer and enter witness protection programs is complex. And it is not about to go away as police forces around Australia increasingly resort to protected witnesses to crack the underworld's code of silence.

The media also has its own issue to confront on the issue. If it strongly criticises police forces for not doing enough to fight crime (just look at the pasting Victoria Police took over Melbourne's gangland war), should it then criticise those same forces for negotiating financial deals with potential witnesses?

In the case of 166, the witness claimed he had been made a series of promises by the Australian Crime Commission, including immunity from prosecution on a number of criminal charges, that were never kept.

At one point he walked out of witness protection and warned Victoria Police's Purana gangland taskforce that he was considering not giving evidence unless he got what he considered was the adequate financial compensation he needed to start a new life overseas. He rejected initial offers and brought in outside lawyers to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding with Victoria Police.

The $1 million package was the result. He also got the immunity from prosecution he was after.

166's case was examined by Victoria's Office of Police Integrity as part of a broader inquiry into witness protection. The OPI's report described 166's battle with Victoria Police as "a contest in brinkmanship".

"At the same time, his actions were driven by despair over the situation he was in," the report said.

The OPI, which was directly involved in negotiations with 166, said that many of the difficulties surrounding the case could have been resolved with an effective National Witness Protection Program. This would allow witnesses from one state to be managed by police in another jurisdiction, thus providing a "circuit-breaker" if negotiations ran into difficulties.

The OPI's report said that the issue of how much a protected witness was paid and when the payment was made "has the potential to be one of the most disputed and troublesome aspects of participation of the program".

"Payments should be based on the principle of attempting to restore, or bring up to, a satisfactory non-criminal lifestyle for the witness and his or her family. Witness payments should not be, or perceived to be, a reward for giving evidence."

The Victorian OPI report was presented to the Victorian Government in July 2005. So far none of its many recommendations have been acted on.

**************************************************************************************