❓ A parliamentary question regarding the release of a convicted rapist and the subsequent relocation of the victim. The response addresses the cost, denies prioritizing the offender, and refuses to table briefing notes.
AnsweredQoN 486Legislative Council
Asked
18 August 2005
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney
General
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to recent admissions by the Attorney General that a victim of crime was forced to change her identity and leave the state so that the convicted rapist, Douglas Ross Thomas, sentenced to the Governor’s pleasure, could be released from prison. (1) What will be the full cost of relocating and protecting the victim? (2) Why is the government placing the interests of a convicted rapist ahead of the rights of his victim? (3) Will the government table the briefing notes provided to the Attorney General upon which he based his decision to free this notorious sex offender; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(1) What will be the full cost of relocating and protecting the victim? (2) Why is the government placing the interests of a convicted rapist ahead of the rights of his victim? (3) Will the government table the briefing notes provided to the Attorney General upon which he based his decision to free this notorious sex offender; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(2) Why is the government placing the interests of a convicted rapist ahead of the rights of his victim? (3) Will the government table the briefing notes provided to the Attorney General upon which he based his decision to free this notorious sex offender; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(3) Will the government table the briefing notes provided to the Attorney General upon which he based his decision to free this notorious sex offender; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(1) What will be the full cost of relocating and protecting the victim? (2) Why is the government placing the interests of a convicted rapist ahead of the rights of his victim? (3) Will the government table the briefing notes provided to the Attorney General upon which he based his decision to free this notorious sex offender; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(2) Why is the government placing the interests of a convicted rapist ahead of the rights of his victim? (3) Will the government table the briefing notes provided to the Attorney General upon which he based his decision to free this notorious sex offender; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(3) Will the government table the briefing notes provided to the Attorney General upon which he based his decision to free this notorious sex offender; and, if not, why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Some of the assertions in the preamble to the question are not correct. (1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(1) $1 777.30. (2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(2) The government did not place the interests of the offender ahead of the victim. Douglas Thomas successfully participated in and completed a pre-release program. He was subsequently released on a two-year parole order on 1 July 2002 after Executive Council’s approval was obtained. He successfully completed the parole period on 30 June 2004. The Department of Justice provided assistance to the victim in terms of her welfare needs, at a difficult time. (3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
(3) The briefings and documentation provided to Executive Council are not public documents and therefore will not be tabled.
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.