❓ Question regarding the Attorney General's awareness of allegations of police misconduct in the Mickelberg case, specifically involving the Minister for Health. The Attorney General acknowledges awareness and urges officers to come forward with information.
AnsweredQoN 1057Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Attorney General to the sworn affidavit of former detective Anthony Lewandowski alleging that he and the late Don Hancock stripped and beat Perth Mint swindle suspect Peter Mickelberg at the Belmont CIB office on 26 July 1982. (1) Is the Attorney General aware that the Minister for Health, Hon Bob Kucera, was the officer in charge of the Belmont CIB office at that time? (2) Is the Attorney General also aware that then Detective Sergeant Kucera offered his office to Lewandowski and Hancock to interview Peter Mickelberg and was present several times during that interview? (3) If so, when did the Attorney General become aware of those facts? Mr McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that the Minister for Health, Hon Bob Kucera, was the officer in charge of the Belmont CIB office at that time? (2) Is the Attorney General also aware that then Detective Sergeant Kucera offered his office to Lewandowski and Hancock to interview Peter Mickelberg and was present several times during that interview? (3) If so, when did the Attorney General become aware of those facts? Mr McGINTY replied: I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(2) Is the Attorney General also aware that then Detective Sergeant Kucera offered his office to Lewandowski and Hancock to interview Peter Mickelberg and was present several times during that interview? (3) If so, when did the Attorney General become aware of those facts? Mr McGINTY replied: I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(3) If so, when did the Attorney General become aware of those facts? Mr McGINTY replied: I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
Mr McGINTY replied: I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that the Minister for Health, Hon Bob Kucera, was the officer in charge of the Belmont CIB office at that time? (2) Is the Attorney General also aware that then Detective Sergeant Kucera offered his office to Lewandowski and Hancock to interview Peter Mickelberg and was present several times during that interview? (3) If so, when did the Attorney General become aware of those facts? Mr McGINTY replied: I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(2) Is the Attorney General also aware that then Detective Sergeant Kucera offered his office to Lewandowski and Hancock to interview Peter Mickelberg and was present several times during that interview? (3) If so, when did the Attorney General become aware of those facts? Mr McGINTY replied: I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(3) If so, when did the Attorney General become aware of those facts? Mr McGINTY replied: I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
Mr McGINTY replied: I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
I have just finished discussing with the Press the very important issues relating to the Mickelberg matter that were raised at the noon press conference. I said that either the Director of Public Prosecutions or I has the power to grant an indemnity to any officer who comes forward with knowledge of impropriety or other matters relating to the mint swindle or the fabrication of evidence that took place if we accept that the affidavit is truthful. I urge any former or serving police officer who has knowledge of these matters to come forward and to seek that indemnity. (1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(1) Yes, I was aware that the then Detective Sergeant Kucera was the officer in charge of the Belmont Police Station in July 1982, when the interview with Peter Mickelberg took place at that office. (2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(2) Yes, I am aware that it was his office in which the interview took place at the Belmont CIB office. It would be very interesting to look at the floor plan of the building, because it might throw an interesting light on the issue. (3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
(3) I was generally aware of the Mickelberg matter. I did not have any detailed personal knowledge; I had simply read about the issue in the Press and I was broadly aware of what had transpired. Obviously, since the affidavit was made available to the DPP and then to me on Thursday last week, I have had occasion to read many documents on the matter, including the Court of Criminal Appeal decision handed down in 1999. As a result, I am more aware of some of the details. Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
Ms Sue Walker: The date was 1998. Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
Mr McGINTY: The Court of Criminal Appeal decision was handed down in 1999. That is the decision to which I am referring. The hearing took place in 1998. Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
Ms Sue Walker: You would be fully aware - Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
Mr McGINTY: The answer to the member’s question is that I was generally aware of a range of the circumstances. I have become aware of other factors since Thursday last week. I have done extensive background reading to fully acquaint myself with the details in view of the enormous public interest in this issue.
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.