❓ A parliamentary question addresses the release of Martin Rapaera Marks, acquitted of wilful murder due to unsoundness of mind, focusing on victim notification and Attorney General's considerations. The Attorney General's response details dates, considerations, and communication protocols.
AnsweredQoN 209Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I have given more than 48 hours notice of this question so I assume that the minister will have an answer by now. I refer to the recent news article headed “Insane killer out on trips” regarding the release of killer Martin Rapaera Marks. (1) On what date was Marks acquitted of wilful murder due to his defence of unsoundness of mind? (2) On what date did the Attorney General approve Marks’ release into the community for social day release? (3) In approving the release, did the Attorney General consider the victims of Mark’s brutal killing? (4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
I refer to the recent news article headed “Insane killer out on trips” regarding the release of killer Martin Rapaera Marks. (1) On what date was Marks acquitted of wilful murder due to his defence of unsoundness of mind? (2) On what date did the Attorney General approve Marks’ release into the community for social day release? (3) In approving the release, did the Attorney General consider the victims of Mark’s brutal killing? (4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(1) On what date was Marks acquitted of wilful murder due to his defence of unsoundness of mind? (2) On what date did the Attorney General approve Marks’ release into the community for social day release? (3) In approving the release, did the Attorney General consider the victims of Mark’s brutal killing? (4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(2) On what date did the Attorney General approve Marks’ release into the community for social day release? (3) In approving the release, did the Attorney General consider the victims of Mark’s brutal killing? (4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(3) In approving the release, did the Attorney General consider the victims of Mark’s brutal killing? (4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
I refer to the recent news article headed “Insane killer out on trips” regarding the release of killer Martin Rapaera Marks. (1) On what date was Marks acquitted of wilful murder due to his defence of unsoundness of mind? (2) On what date did the Attorney General approve Marks’ release into the community for social day release? (3) In approving the release, did the Attorney General consider the victims of Mark’s brutal killing? (4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(1) On what date was Marks acquitted of wilful murder due to his defence of unsoundness of mind? (2) On what date did the Attorney General approve Marks’ release into the community for social day release? (3) In approving the release, did the Attorney General consider the victims of Mark’s brutal killing? (4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(2) On what date did the Attorney General approve Marks’ release into the community for social day release? (3) In approving the release, did the Attorney General consider the victims of Mark’s brutal killing? (4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(3) In approving the release, did the Attorney General consider the victims of Mark’s brutal killing? (4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(4) If so, what were those considerations? (5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(5) Did the Attorney General or any of his ministerial staff regard Marks as a high-profile prisoner? (6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(6) Did the Attorney General take any steps to advise the Department of Justice of the Attorney General’s decision to release Marks? (7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(7) Are any processes in place to ensure that the Victim Notification Register is notified of decisions by the Attorney General regarding persons confined under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act? (8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(8) Was the registry notified of the decision to release Marks? If so, when and what action was taken? Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The Attorney General has provided the following response to this eight-part question - (1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(1) On 14 April 2003 in the Supreme Court of Perth. (2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(2) Executive Council approval for the release into the community - maximum six hours under staff escort at all times - was granted on 6 January 2004 and signed by the Attorney General, Premier and the Governor. Although the Executive Council approved escorted community access on 6 January, 2004, the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board allowed such leave of absence only on 19 March 2004. (3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(3) Yes. (4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(4) The Attorney General had written to Mrs Hunter on 18 December 2003 stating that he would consider the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board’s recommendations very carefully upon receipt before advising the Governor whether to accept its recommendations. He said further that he would also bear Mrs Hunter’s concerns in mind, including risk to the community or any individual, and the circumstances of the offence. (5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(5) The case has attracted media attention in the past. (6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(6) The Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board was advised by executive council approval dated 6 January 2004. (7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(7) Yes. (8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
(8) No. The current practice is to notify the victim offender mediation unit when a general, “no contact” condition with the victim is placed on the Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board conditional release order. The Victim Notification Register is notified only when a contact condition may indirectly or directly impact upon the victim. Mr Marks was subject to a leave of absence order for a maximum of six hours under supervision and consequently the VNR was not advised. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: If the honourable member wants to hear the answer, perhaps he should listen. In giving the answers, it must be seen to be in context. If the honourable member interjects the way he does, he may prevent other members from appreciating the context of the answer. Having said that, I do not mind his interjecting. Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
Hon Peter Foss interjected. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS: I am sure they would. However, the board forwarded a copy of the order to the VMU and subsequent contact was made with the victim. The Attorney General advises that the Department of Justice will be required to resolve the issues surrounding information-sharing confidentiality between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU as soon as possible. This case has highlighted the department’s need to ensure effective communication between the MIDRB, the VNR and the VMU.
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.