❓ A parliamentary question regarding the government's responsibility for providing accurate legal information to citizens, following a High Court case involving incorrect advice from the Department of Fisheries. The Attorney General acknowledges the duty to provide correct information but avoids commenting on a related ongoing civil case.
AnsweredQoN 398Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the High Court’s recent decision to reinstate a conviction against Mr Jeffrey Ryder Palmer, who had been found guilty of a fishing offence as a result of incorrect information given to him by the Department of Fisheries. (1) Does the Government believe it is legally and morally obligated to provide information on its statute-based restrictions and requirements to the citizens of Western Australia? (2) If yes, what responsibility does the State Government accept for the accuracy of this information? (3) If such information cannot be relied upon by the public, how, then, does a citizen obtain information that can be trusted as accurately reflecting the laws created by this Parliament? The SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the call to the Attorney General, I advise him that the part of the question that asks for a legal opinion is out of order. Those parts that did not ask for a legal opinion may be answered. Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
(1) Does the Government believe it is legally and morally obligated to provide information on its statute-based restrictions and requirements to the citizens of Western Australia? (2) If yes, what responsibility does the State Government accept for the accuracy of this information? (3) If such information cannot be relied upon by the public, how, then, does a citizen obtain information that can be trusted as accurately reflecting the laws created by this Parliament? The SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the call to the Attorney General, I advise him that the part of the question that asks for a legal opinion is out of order. Those parts that did not ask for a legal opinion may be answered. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
(2) If yes, what responsibility does the State Government accept for the accuracy of this information? (3) If such information cannot be relied upon by the public, how, then, does a citizen obtain information that can be trusted as accurately reflecting the laws created by this Parliament? The SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the call to the Attorney General, I advise him that the part of the question that asks for a legal opinion is out of order. Those parts that did not ask for a legal opinion may be answered. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
(3) If such information cannot be relied upon by the public, how, then, does a citizen obtain information that can be trusted as accurately reflecting the laws created by this Parliament? The SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the call to the Attorney General, I advise him that the part of the question that asks for a legal opinion is out of order. Those parts that did not ask for a legal opinion may be answered. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
The SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the call to the Attorney General, I advise him that the part of the question that asks for a legal opinion is out of order. Those parts that did not ask for a legal opinion may be answered. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
(2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
(1) Does the Government believe it is legally and morally obligated to provide information on its statute-based restrictions and requirements to the citizens of Western Australia? (2) If yes, what responsibility does the State Government accept for the accuracy of this information? (3) If such information cannot be relied upon by the public, how, then, does a citizen obtain information that can be trusted as accurately reflecting the laws created by this Parliament? The SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the call to the Attorney General, I advise him that the part of the question that asks for a legal opinion is out of order. Those parts that did not ask for a legal opinion may be answered. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
(2) If yes, what responsibility does the State Government accept for the accuracy of this information? (3) If such information cannot be relied upon by the public, how, then, does a citizen obtain information that can be trusted as accurately reflecting the laws created by this Parliament? The SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the call to the Attorney General, I advise him that the part of the question that asks for a legal opinion is out of order. Those parts that did not ask for a legal opinion may be answered. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
(3) If such information cannot be relied upon by the public, how, then, does a citizen obtain information that can be trusted as accurately reflecting the laws created by this Parliament? The SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the call to the Attorney General, I advise him that the part of the question that asks for a legal opinion is out of order. Those parts that did not ask for a legal opinion may be answered. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
The SPEAKER: Order! Before I give the call to the Attorney General, I advise him that the part of the question that asks for a legal opinion is out of order. Those parts that did not ask for a legal opinion may be answered. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
(2)-(3) There was a very important legal principle at stake in the matter involving Jeffrey Palmer, apart from the public policy considerations in the way Mr Palmer was perceived to have been treated by the State Government and its instrumentalities. That legal principle was the very important distinction between an error of law and an error of fact. As members will be aware, making a mistake of law is no defence to a criminal action. A mistake of fact does, however, provide a defence to criminal action. Because the state Supreme Court found that what occurred on this occasion was not an error of law by Mr Palmer, it was fundamentally important that the decision be appealed, otherwise it would have constituted a precedent as a base principle of law that could have had some unintended consequences. The Government determined that, from a public policy perspective, there was no alternative but to appeal. The result was that the Supreme Court decision was overturned by a unanimous High Court decision of five judges; in other words, the misstatement of the law by the state Supreme Court was corrected by the High Court, and that is what the Government sought to achieve through the appeal. Consistent with the issue of principle, the State made an arrangement with Mr Palmer for his legal costs of defending the action in the High Court to be met by the Government and for the Department of Fisheries to bear its own costs, whatever the result of the appeal. A recommendation has also been made to the Governor to remit the penalty imposed on Mr Palmer as a consequence of the High Court’s allowing the appeal. In other words, we said to Mr Palmer that the High Court action should be at no cost to him because it was an important question of legal principle that needed to be determined and that it was not his fault that it happened that way. The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question. The SPEAKER: Order! Before the Attorney General proceeds, I do not know whether I heard him correctly, but I thought he said that there was a Supreme Court case pending. Yet he seems to be about to proceed to tell the House what might occur in that case. I urge the Attorney General to take extreme caution so that the rules of sub judice are not breached. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
The other matter that I would like to inform the House about in response to this question is that Mr Palmer, together with his wife, has brought a Supreme Court civil action for damages in relation to alleged financial loss of almost $1 million, which he and Mrs Palmer have claimed they suffered as a consequence of the seizure by fisheries inspectors of their rock lobster pots found in the commercial fishing prohibition zone at Point Quobba. Central to Mr and Mrs Palmer’s claim, and to the Department of Fisheries’ defence of the action, are the substance of the conversations between Mr Palmer and staff of the Fremantle office of the Department of Fisheries in November 1998 and the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the various persons involved, which goes very much to the heart of the question.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Thank you for that caution, Mr Speaker. In your wisdom, you are a mind reader. I was about to say that, as the action is ongoing, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the conversations that may or may not have transpired at the Fremantle office or on the accuracy of the documentation. The documentation provided was in itself accurate; there is no question about that. The question is whether it was complete documentation, and that is a matter that will be debated before the Supreme Court. I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
I indicate that the Government accepts that it has a duty to provide correct information to citizens when they seek information, particularly on matters that are regulated by statute and regulation in this State. We accept that there is a responsibility to provide correct information, or at least to not provide incorrect information. However, a lot of this matter turns upon the precise discussions and circumstances of the nature of what was sought and the nature of the responses, which will be tested before the Supreme Court. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to discuss further the particular details of this case.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.