❓ Question regarding the release of a repeat offender on parole and bail, and whether the Attorney General's policies influenced the Parole Board's decision. The Attorney General deflects blame, highlighting police opposition to bail and difficulty accessing court records.
AnsweredQoN 540Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Attorney General to the latest debacle in the justice system; namely, the case of Jason David Wimbridge, who has recently been charged with having committed a number of armed robberies while being both on parole and released on bail by the courts. (1) Does the Attorney General concede that his policies and actions aimed at releasing prisoners either into minimum security or onto the streets of Perth have influenced the Parole Board of Western Australia in its decision making, which has resulted in this armed robber being set free and allowed to continue his dangerous rampage in the community? (2) Will the Attorney General now accept responsibility for his decisions, which have resulted in the Parole Board placing the rights of criminals ahead of community safety? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I agree with, and support, the comments that have been made today by the Western Australia Police Service about the circumstances surrounding Jason David Wimbridge. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet - Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
(1) Does the Attorney General concede that his policies and actions aimed at releasing prisoners either into minimum security or onto the streets of Perth have influenced the Parole Board of Western Australia in its decision making, which has resulted in this armed robber being set free and allowed to continue his dangerous rampage in the community? (2) Will the Attorney General now accept responsibility for his decisions, which have resulted in the Parole Board placing the rights of criminals ahead of community safety? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I agree with, and support, the comments that have been made today by the Western Australia Police Service about the circumstances surrounding Jason David Wimbridge. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet - Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
(2) Will the Attorney General now accept responsibility for his decisions, which have resulted in the Parole Board placing the rights of criminals ahead of community safety? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I agree with, and support, the comments that have been made today by the Western Australia Police Service about the circumstances surrounding Jason David Wimbridge. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet - Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I agree with, and support, the comments that have been made today by the Western Australia Police Service about the circumstances surrounding Jason David Wimbridge. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet - Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
(1)-(2) I agree with, and support, the comments that have been made today by the Western Australia Police Service about the circumstances surrounding Jason David Wimbridge. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet - Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
(1) Does the Attorney General concede that his policies and actions aimed at releasing prisoners either into minimum security or onto the streets of Perth have influenced the Parole Board of Western Australia in its decision making, which has resulted in this armed robber being set free and allowed to continue his dangerous rampage in the community? (2) Will the Attorney General now accept responsibility for his decisions, which have resulted in the Parole Board placing the rights of criminals ahead of community safety? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I agree with, and support, the comments that have been made today by the Western Australia Police Service about the circumstances surrounding Jason David Wimbridge. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet - Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
(2) Will the Attorney General now accept responsibility for his decisions, which have resulted in the Parole Board placing the rights of criminals ahead of community safety? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I agree with, and support, the comments that have been made today by the Western Australia Police Service about the circumstances surrounding Jason David Wimbridge. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet - Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I agree with, and support, the comments that have been made today by the Western Australia Police Service about the circumstances surrounding Jason David Wimbridge. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet - Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
(1)-(2) I agree with, and support, the comments that have been made today by the Western Australia Police Service about the circumstances surrounding Jason David Wimbridge. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet - Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Mr R.F. Johnson : Not just about that one, my friend! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Let me make this point. The Police Service has today expressed grave disquiet about all the circumstances. I have spent a significant period of time this morning trying to get to the bottom of what took place. It seems to me that the key question is why was this particular person, with his history of violent, drug-related offending, who was released on parole in November of last year and was charged with a very serious armed robbery of the Bayswater branch of Bendigo Bank on 2 July this year, was released on bail on 12 August. I have tried to get to the bottom of that question. It has been difficult, because the court hearing in which he was granted bail was a closed hearing, for the reason that two very senior police officers were called, one by the prosecution and one by the defence, to give evidence in that bail application. During that hearing, the police strongly opposed the granting of bail. However, notwithstanding that, Magistrate Barbara Lane granted bail. I have been denied today, by the magistrate in question, access to the court records on this matter. I am not happy about that arrangement. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : It has, therefore, been difficult to get to the bottom of what exactly has taken place. This person’s record is that he has been caught and charged for a serious bank robbery offence. An armed robbery charge is a schedule 2 offence. The legal framework is crystal clear: in the case of a schedule 2 offence, bail can be granted only if exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. This bail application was strongly opposed by the police. I think the police were right in the view they put forward. The Parole Board was then faced with the circumstance in which this person had been granted bail by the courts and it had to make a decision about the matter. I also want to get to the bottom of why, even though the court had granted bail, the Parole Board then allowed this person to be released on parole. I have spent a long time today trying to get to the bottom of those questions. At this stage I can say no more than that it leaves me with a great sense of disquiet that this person was granted bail by the court, because I think that is the central question here. I have not yet managed to get to the bottom of why that occurred. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
The SPEAKER : I call to order for the first time the members for Nedlands and Perth.
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.