❓ Question regarding the sentencing of Mr. Spratt for assaulting police and whether the prosecutor should have disclosed information about the assault prior to sentencing. The Attorney General avoids giving a direct opinion, citing lack of information.
AnsweredQoN 623Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
TASER USE INCIDENT — KEVIN SPRATT — SENTENCING
I refer to the sentencing of Mr Spratt on 30 January 2009 for, amongst other things, a number of charges relating to the assault and obstruction of police, which resulted in the court sentencing Mr Spratt to 18 months’ imprisonment. (1) Given that the Minister for Police, the Premier, the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General have described the assault at the Perth watch-house as horrific, indefensible and outrageous, should the prosecutor not have informed the court and the defence counsel of these events prior to the sentence being struck? (2) Did the failure by the police to disclose this information to Mr Spratt’s lawyer and the court prior to sentencing involve a miscarriage of justice in the sentencing process; and, if not, why not? The SPEAKER : Before the Attorney General responds to those questions, I advise the house that the seeking of an opinion is not necessarily a part of question time. The Attorney General can decide whether to provide information in that respect. Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer to the sentencing of Mr Spratt on 30 January 2009 for, amongst other things, a number of charges relating to the assault and obstruction of police, which resulted in the court sentencing Mr Spratt to 18 months’ imprisonment. (1) Given that the Minister for Police, the Premier, the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General have described the assault at the Perth watch-house as horrific, indefensible and outrageous, should the prosecutor not have informed the court and the defence counsel of these events prior to the sentence being struck? (2) Did the failure by the police to disclose this information to Mr Spratt’s lawyer and the court prior to sentencing involve a miscarriage of justice in the sentencing process; and, if not, why not? The SPEAKER : Before the Attorney General responds to those questions, I advise the house that the seeking of an opinion is not necessarily a part of question time. The Attorney General can decide whether to provide information in that respect. Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
(1) Given that the Minister for Police, the Premier, the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General have described the assault at the Perth watch-house as horrific, indefensible and outrageous, should the prosecutor not have informed the court and the defence counsel of these events prior to the sentence being struck? (2) Did the failure by the police to disclose this information to Mr Spratt’s lawyer and the court prior to sentencing involve a miscarriage of justice in the sentencing process; and, if not, why not? The SPEAKER : Before the Attorney General responds to those questions, I advise the house that the seeking of an opinion is not necessarily a part of question time. The Attorney General can decide whether to provide information in that respect. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
(2) Did the failure by the police to disclose this information to Mr Spratt’s lawyer and the court prior to sentencing involve a miscarriage of justice in the sentencing process; and, if not, why not? The SPEAKER : Before the Attorney General responds to those questions, I advise the house that the seeking of an opinion is not necessarily a part of question time. The Attorney General can decide whether to provide information in that respect. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
The SPEAKER : Before the Attorney General responds to those questions, I advise the house that the seeking of an opinion is not necessarily a part of question time. The Attorney General can decide whether to provide information in that respect. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
(1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
(1) Given that the Minister for Police, the Premier, the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General have described the assault at the Perth watch-house as horrific, indefensible and outrageous, should the prosecutor not have informed the court and the defence counsel of these events prior to the sentence being struck? (2) Did the failure by the police to disclose this information to Mr Spratt’s lawyer and the court prior to sentencing involve a miscarriage of justice in the sentencing process; and, if not, why not? The SPEAKER : Before the Attorney General responds to those questions, I advise the house that the seeking of an opinion is not necessarily a part of question time. The Attorney General can decide whether to provide information in that respect. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
(2) Did the failure by the police to disclose this information to Mr Spratt’s lawyer and the court prior to sentencing involve a miscarriage of justice in the sentencing process; and, if not, why not? The SPEAKER : Before the Attorney General responds to those questions, I advise the house that the seeking of an opinion is not necessarily a part of question time. The Attorney General can decide whether to provide information in that respect. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
The SPEAKER : Before the Attorney General responds to those questions, I advise the house that the seeking of an opinion is not necessarily a part of question time. The Attorney General can decide whether to provide information in that respect. Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
I thank the member for Mindarie for his question. (1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the case.
(1)–(2) I understand the rules about offering an opinion. Another legal rule is relevant here; that is, people should never offer an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless they have all the information before them. I have not seen the sentencing transcript. It may be that in certain circumstances it could be arguably relevant to the fact of guilt—that is to say the conviction and what occurred in the time leading up to and surrounding the assaults for which Mr Spratt was eventually convicted. I am not sure whether their relevance to sentencing can be made. In any event, if the member for Mindarie cared to share his information, I could at least assess it and provide a view, if a view can be given. At this point in time, I cannot realistically answer that question. Given the member’s wealth of experience with the law, he knows that to be the 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.