❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the Attorney General regarding a State Prosecutor's public commentary on a case subject to appeal, questioning the consistency with public policy and potential collaboration with police in generating media controversy. The Attorney General defends the actions as consistent with the DPP's Media Policy.
AnsweredQoN 1492Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that the ABC
Media Watch
web site is carrying an item lodged by a Mr Seamus Rafferty - State Prosecutor from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions - that purports to provide a summary of "evidence that was not disclosed by
Australian Story
" in ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ that concluded on 31 July 2006?
(2) Is it consistent with good public policy for a State Prosecutor to generate, promote and engage in this public debate over a matter of which he has had carriage over two trials and which is the subject of appeal to the Court of Appeal?
(3) Was this letter to Ms Sarah Curnow of
Media Watch
from Mr Seamus Rafferty of the Director of Public Prosecutions lodged with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions? If yes, what public policy was served by that approval?
(4) Has Mr Seamus Rafferty played any role in relation to the letter posted on the same web site that is signed by the eyewitness in the matter, Ms Clare Pigliardo?
(5) Did Mr Seamus Rafferty play any role in relation to the letter sent by Jon Tuttle, Inspector of the Police Media Unit, to the ABC’s managing director, Mark Scott, (which also appears on the
Media Watch
web site), about these same issues?
(6) It would appear from the close similarity of language and content between the letters from Messrs Rafferty and Tuttle that they were largely drafted by the same person. If this is the case, is it within the guidelines for a state prosecutor to act in such a manner with police for the purpose of generating media controversy about a matter that is subject to appeal?
(7) Did Mr Seamus Rafferty provide
Media Watch
with a list of questions that were in turn used as the basis of questions by
Media Watch
and put to
Australian Story
(posted on the
Media Watch
web site) about this matter? And if so, was the Director of Public Prosecutions aware that Mr Rafferty was providing this material to
Media Watch
?
Media Watch
web site is carrying an item lodged by a Mr Seamus Rafferty - State Prosecutor from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions - that purports to provide a summary of "evidence that was not disclosed by
Australian Story
" in ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ that concluded on 31 July 2006?
(2) Is it consistent with good public policy for a State Prosecutor to generate, promote and engage in this public debate over a matter of which he has had carriage over two trials and which is the subject of appeal to the Court of Appeal?
(3) Was this letter to Ms Sarah Curnow of
Media Watch
from Mr Seamus Rafferty of the Director of Public Prosecutions lodged with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions? If yes, what public policy was served by that approval?
(4) Has Mr Seamus Rafferty played any role in relation to the letter posted on the same web site that is signed by the eyewitness in the matter, Ms Clare Pigliardo?
(5) Did Mr Seamus Rafferty play any role in relation to the letter sent by Jon Tuttle, Inspector of the Police Media Unit, to the ABC’s managing director, Mark Scott, (which also appears on the
Media Watch
web site), about these same issues?
(6) It would appear from the close similarity of language and content between the letters from Messrs Rafferty and Tuttle that they were largely drafted by the same person. If this is the case, is it within the guidelines for a state prosecutor to act in such a manner with police for the purpose of generating media controversy about a matter that is subject to appeal?
(7) Did Mr Seamus Rafferty provide
Media Watch
with a list of questions that were in turn used as the basis of questions by
Media Watch
and put to
Australian Story
(posted on the
Media Watch
web site) about this matter? And if so, was the Director of Public Prosecutions aware that Mr Rafferty was providing this material to
Media Watch
?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
17 October 2006
Response time
33 days
(2) The sending of the letter is consistent with the Director of Public Prosecution's Media Policy, the terms of which in my view constitute good public policy. The DPP Media Policy is attached [tabled paper _2109___]. (3) The Prosecutor's letter to the producer was personally settled by the Director of Public Prosecutions and was designed to achieve the policy objectives set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Director's Media Policy. (4) No. (5) Inspector Tuttle sought and was subsequently provided with some factual material by Mr Seamus Rafferty. (6) The letters were each drafted by different authors. (7) No.
(3) The Prosecutor's letter to the producer was personally settled by the Director of Public Prosecutions and was designed to achieve the policy objectives set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Director's Media Policy. (4) No. (5) Inspector Tuttle sought and was subsequently provided with some factual material by Mr Seamus Rafferty. (6) The letters were each drafted by different authors. (7) No.
(4) No. (5) Inspector Tuttle sought and was subsequently provided with some factual material by Mr Seamus Rafferty. (6) The letters were each drafted by different authors. (7) No.
(5) Inspector Tuttle sought and was subsequently provided with some factual material by Mr Seamus Rafferty. (6) The letters were each drafted by different authors. (7) No.
(6) The letters were each drafted by different authors. (7) No.
(7) No.
(3) The Prosecutor's letter to the producer was personally settled by the Director of Public Prosecutions and was designed to achieve the policy objectives set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Director's Media Policy. (4) No. (5) Inspector Tuttle sought and was subsequently provided with some factual material by Mr Seamus Rafferty. (6) The letters were each drafted by different authors. (7) No.
(4) No. (5) Inspector Tuttle sought and was subsequently provided with some factual material by Mr Seamus Rafferty. (6) The letters were each drafted by different authors. (7) No.
(5) Inspector Tuttle sought and was subsequently provided with some factual material by Mr Seamus Rafferty. (6) The letters were each drafted by different authors. (7) No.
(6) The letters were each drafted by different authors. (7) No.
(7) No.
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.