❓ The Attorney General answers a question regarding an ex gratia payment of $3.25 million to Andrew Mallard, explaining the nature of the payment as a discretionary executive gift intended to improve Mallard's life after wrongful imprisonment, without prejudice to further legal action.
AnsweredQoN 345Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ANDREW MALLARD — EX GRATIA PAYMENT
Can the Attorney General provide the house with further information about the ex gratia payment that the state will be making to Mr Andrew Mallard? Mr C.C. PORTER
Can the Attorney General provide the house with further information about the ex gratia payment that the state will be making to Mr Andrew Mallard? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. It is the case that as of today’s date, I have sent a letter to Mr Mallard’s solicitors advising them that the state government is proceeding to arrange an ex gratia payment for Mr Mallard. The amount of that payment is $3.25 million, which is inclusive of the previous interim ex gratia payment of $200 000 made by the previous government on 5 December 2006. I will take this opportunity to briefly explain the manner in which that money will be given to Mr Mallard and the principles that sit behind it. The first and most pertinent point is that that payment is truly in the nature of an ex gratia payment, as the term “ex gratia” is understood legally and by reference to the precedent of other ex gratia payments; that is, no conditions have been placed on that payment that will limit Mr Mallard’s opportunities, if he wishes to pursue them, to take action against the state or its agents with respect to his imprisonment. The only substantive matter that accompanies that payment is that that payment must be set off against any award of damages that Mr Mallard might obtain against the state or its officers in the action he has commenced, or in any other proceedings that he might bring, which is a standard matter of preventing any double dipping. I will mention some further relevant points about that payment. It is obviously a very difficult matter to determine an ex gratia amount because it is, quite literally, a gift of the executive of the government. The award of an ex gratia payment is purely at the discretion of the executive, and is the executive’s prerogative. In this matter we have tried, based on precedents of ex gratia payments, to determine an amount that we consider to be a fair recognition of what Mr Mallard has experienced by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. Ex gratia payments are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for a loss of earnings—for example after a motor vehicle accident; they are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for some physical amount of time that has been spent in incarceration. This government has sought to act on the advice provided to it by the Solicitor-General and by the State Solicitor on what quantum is fair recognition in terms of a gift by this government to Mr Mallard for what he has endured by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. In fact, this is perhaps, if I might say so, a generous interpretation of the advice we received, and, after the due deliberation of this government, what we consider to be a fair amount. We did not seek that advice from the State Solicitor or the Solicitor-General on the basis of having some quantum devised that it was considered could buy Mr Mallard out of his ability, if he so chooses, to litigate against the state or its agents. We simply acted on advice provided about a quantum which was fair to Mr Mallard and which represented an executive gift from this government. I hope this is a life-changing amount of money for Mr Mallard that gives him every opportunity to succeed in future in whatever endeavours he may wish to pursue. It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. It is the case that as of today’s date, I have sent a letter to Mr Mallard’s solicitors advising them that the state government is proceeding to arrange an ex gratia payment for Mr Mallard. The amount of that payment is $3.25 million, which is inclusive of the previous interim ex gratia payment of $200 000 made by the previous government on 5 December 2006. I will take this opportunity to briefly explain the manner in which that money will be given to Mr Mallard and the principles that sit behind it. The first and most pertinent point is that that payment is truly in the nature of an ex gratia payment, as the term “ex gratia” is understood legally and by reference to the precedent of other ex gratia payments; that is, no conditions have been placed on that payment that will limit Mr Mallard’s opportunities, if he wishes to pursue them, to take action against the state or its agents with respect to his imprisonment. The only substantive matter that accompanies that payment is that that payment must be set off against any award of damages that Mr Mallard might obtain against the state or its officers in the action he has commenced, or in any other proceedings that he might bring, which is a standard matter of preventing any double dipping. I will mention some further relevant points about that payment. It is obviously a very difficult matter to determine an ex gratia amount because it is, quite literally, a gift of the executive of the government. The award of an ex gratia payment is purely at the discretion of the executive, and is the executive’s prerogative. In this matter we have tried, based on precedents of ex gratia payments, to determine an amount that we consider to be a fair recognition of what Mr Mallard has experienced by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. Ex gratia payments are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for a loss of earnings—for example after a motor vehicle accident; they are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for some physical amount of time that has been spent in incarceration. This government has sought to act on the advice provided to it by the Solicitor-General and by the State Solicitor on what quantum is fair recognition in terms of a gift by this government to Mr Mallard for what he has endured by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. In fact, this is perhaps, if I might say so, a generous interpretation of the advice we received, and, after the due deliberation of this government, what we consider to be a fair amount. We did not seek that advice from the State Solicitor or the Solicitor-General on the basis of having some quantum devised that it was considered could buy Mr Mallard out of his ability, if he so chooses, to litigate against the state or its agents. We simply acted on advice provided about a quantum which was fair to Mr Mallard and which represented an executive gift from this government. I hope this is a life-changing amount of money for Mr Mallard that gives him every opportunity to succeed in future in whatever endeavours he may wish to pursue. It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
I thank the member for his question. It is the case that as of today’s date, I have sent a letter to Mr Mallard’s solicitors advising them that the state government is proceeding to arrange an ex gratia payment for Mr Mallard. The amount of that payment is $3.25 million, which is inclusive of the previous interim ex gratia payment of $200 000 made by the previous government on 5 December 2006. I will take this opportunity to briefly explain the manner in which that money will be given to Mr Mallard and the principles that sit behind it. The first and most pertinent point is that that payment is truly in the nature of an ex gratia payment, as the term “ex gratia” is understood legally and by reference to the precedent of other ex gratia payments; that is, no conditions have been placed on that payment that will limit Mr Mallard’s opportunities, if he wishes to pursue them, to take action against the state or its agents with respect to his imprisonment. The only substantive matter that accompanies that payment is that that payment must be set off against any award of damages that Mr Mallard might obtain against the state or its officers in the action he has commenced, or in any other proceedings that he might bring, which is a standard matter of preventing any double dipping. I will mention some further relevant points about that payment. It is obviously a very difficult matter to determine an ex gratia amount because it is, quite literally, a gift of the executive of the government. The award of an ex gratia payment is purely at the discretion of the executive, and is the executive’s prerogative. In this matter we have tried, based on precedents of ex gratia payments, to determine an amount that we consider to be a fair recognition of what Mr Mallard has experienced by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. Ex gratia payments are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for a loss of earnings—for example after a motor vehicle accident; they are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for some physical amount of time that has been spent in incarceration. This government has sought to act on the advice provided to it by the Solicitor-General and by the State Solicitor on what quantum is fair recognition in terms of a gift by this government to Mr Mallard for what he has endured by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. In fact, this is perhaps, if I might say so, a generous interpretation of the advice we received, and, after the due deliberation of this government, what we consider to be a fair amount. We did not seek that advice from the State Solicitor or the Solicitor-General on the basis of having some quantum devised that it was considered could buy Mr Mallard out of his ability, if he so chooses, to litigate against the state or its agents. We simply acted on advice provided about a quantum which was fair to Mr Mallard and which represented an executive gift from this government. I hope this is a life-changing amount of money for Mr Mallard that gives him every opportunity to succeed in future in whatever endeavours he may wish to pursue. It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
I will mention some further relevant points about that payment. It is obviously a very difficult matter to determine an ex gratia amount because it is, quite literally, a gift of the executive of the government. The award of an ex gratia payment is purely at the discretion of the executive, and is the executive’s prerogative. In this matter we have tried, based on precedents of ex gratia payments, to determine an amount that we consider to be a fair recognition of what Mr Mallard has experienced by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. Ex gratia payments are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for a loss of earnings—for example after a motor vehicle accident; they are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for some physical amount of time that has been spent in incarceration. This government has sought to act on the advice provided to it by the Solicitor-General and by the State Solicitor on what quantum is fair recognition in terms of a gift by this government to Mr Mallard for what he has endured by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. In fact, this is perhaps, if I might say so, a generous interpretation of the advice we received, and, after the due deliberation of this government, what we consider to be a fair amount. We did not seek that advice from the State Solicitor or the Solicitor-General on the basis of having some quantum devised that it was considered could buy Mr Mallard out of his ability, if he so chooses, to litigate against the state or its agents. We simply acted on advice provided about a quantum which was fair to Mr Mallard and which represented an executive gift from this government. I hope this is a life-changing amount of money for Mr Mallard that gives him every opportunity to succeed in future in whatever endeavours he may wish to pursue. It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
We did not seek that advice from the State Solicitor or the Solicitor-General on the basis of having some quantum devised that it was considered could buy Mr Mallard out of his ability, if he so chooses, to litigate against the state or its agents. We simply acted on advice provided about a quantum which was fair to Mr Mallard and which represented an executive gift from this government. I hope this is a life-changing amount of money for Mr Mallard that gives him every opportunity to succeed in future in whatever endeavours he may wish to pursue. It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. It is the case that as of today’s date, I have sent a letter to Mr Mallard’s solicitors advising them that the state government is proceeding to arrange an ex gratia payment for Mr Mallard. The amount of that payment is $3.25 million, which is inclusive of the previous interim ex gratia payment of $200 000 made by the previous government on 5 December 2006. I will take this opportunity to briefly explain the manner in which that money will be given to Mr Mallard and the principles that sit behind it. The first and most pertinent point is that that payment is truly in the nature of an ex gratia payment, as the term “ex gratia” is understood legally and by reference to the precedent of other ex gratia payments; that is, no conditions have been placed on that payment that will limit Mr Mallard’s opportunities, if he wishes to pursue them, to take action against the state or its agents with respect to his imprisonment. The only substantive matter that accompanies that payment is that that payment must be set off against any award of damages that Mr Mallard might obtain against the state or its officers in the action he has commenced, or in any other proceedings that he might bring, which is a standard matter of preventing any double dipping. I will mention some further relevant points about that payment. It is obviously a very difficult matter to determine an ex gratia amount because it is, quite literally, a gift of the executive of the government. The award of an ex gratia payment is purely at the discretion of the executive, and is the executive’s prerogative. In this matter we have tried, based on precedents of ex gratia payments, to determine an amount that we consider to be a fair recognition of what Mr Mallard has experienced by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. Ex gratia payments are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for a loss of earnings—for example after a motor vehicle accident; they are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for some physical amount of time that has been spent in incarceration. This government has sought to act on the advice provided to it by the Solicitor-General and by the State Solicitor on what quantum is fair recognition in terms of a gift by this government to Mr Mallard for what he has endured by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. In fact, this is perhaps, if I might say so, a generous interpretation of the advice we received, and, after the due deliberation of this government, what we consider to be a fair amount. We did not seek that advice from the State Solicitor or the Solicitor-General on the basis of having some quantum devised that it was considered could buy Mr Mallard out of his ability, if he so chooses, to litigate against the state or its agents. We simply acted on advice provided about a quantum which was fair to Mr Mallard and which represented an executive gift from this government. I hope this is a life-changing amount of money for Mr Mallard that gives him every opportunity to succeed in future in whatever endeavours he may wish to pursue. It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
I thank the member for his question. It is the case that as of today’s date, I have sent a letter to Mr Mallard’s solicitors advising them that the state government is proceeding to arrange an ex gratia payment for Mr Mallard. The amount of that payment is $3.25 million, which is inclusive of the previous interim ex gratia payment of $200 000 made by the previous government on 5 December 2006. I will take this opportunity to briefly explain the manner in which that money will be given to Mr Mallard and the principles that sit behind it. The first and most pertinent point is that that payment is truly in the nature of an ex gratia payment, as the term “ex gratia” is understood legally and by reference to the precedent of other ex gratia payments; that is, no conditions have been placed on that payment that will limit Mr Mallard’s opportunities, if he wishes to pursue them, to take action against the state or its agents with respect to his imprisonment. The only substantive matter that accompanies that payment is that that payment must be set off against any award of damages that Mr Mallard might obtain against the state or its officers in the action he has commenced, or in any other proceedings that he might bring, which is a standard matter of preventing any double dipping. I will mention some further relevant points about that payment. It is obviously a very difficult matter to determine an ex gratia amount because it is, quite literally, a gift of the executive of the government. The award of an ex gratia payment is purely at the discretion of the executive, and is the executive’s prerogative. In this matter we have tried, based on precedents of ex gratia payments, to determine an amount that we consider to be a fair recognition of what Mr Mallard has experienced by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. Ex gratia payments are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for a loss of earnings—for example after a motor vehicle accident; they are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for some physical amount of time that has been spent in incarceration. This government has sought to act on the advice provided to it by the Solicitor-General and by the State Solicitor on what quantum is fair recognition in terms of a gift by this government to Mr Mallard for what he has endured by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. In fact, this is perhaps, if I might say so, a generous interpretation of the advice we received, and, after the due deliberation of this government, what we consider to be a fair amount. We did not seek that advice from the State Solicitor or the Solicitor-General on the basis of having some quantum devised that it was considered could buy Mr Mallard out of his ability, if he so chooses, to litigate against the state or its agents. We simply acted on advice provided about a quantum which was fair to Mr Mallard and which represented an executive gift from this government. I hope this is a life-changing amount of money for Mr Mallard that gives him every opportunity to succeed in future in whatever endeavours he may wish to pursue. It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
I will mention some further relevant points about that payment. It is obviously a very difficult matter to determine an ex gratia amount because it is, quite literally, a gift of the executive of the government. The award of an ex gratia payment is purely at the discretion of the executive, and is the executive’s prerogative. In this matter we have tried, based on precedents of ex gratia payments, to determine an amount that we consider to be a fair recognition of what Mr Mallard has experienced by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. Ex gratia payments are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for a loss of earnings—for example after a motor vehicle accident; they are not wholly, or even predominantly, compensation for some physical amount of time that has been spent in incarceration. This government has sought to act on the advice provided to it by the Solicitor-General and by the State Solicitor on what quantum is fair recognition in terms of a gift by this government to Mr Mallard for what he has endured by virtue of his conviction and imprisonment. In fact, this is perhaps, if I might say so, a generous interpretation of the advice we received, and, after the due deliberation of this government, what we consider to be a fair amount. We did not seek that advice from the State Solicitor or the Solicitor-General on the basis of having some quantum devised that it was considered could buy Mr Mallard out of his ability, if he so chooses, to litigate against the state or its agents. We simply acted on advice provided about a quantum which was fair to Mr Mallard and which represented an executive gift from this government. I hope this is a life-changing amount of money for Mr Mallard that gives him every opportunity to succeed in future in whatever endeavours he may wish to pursue. It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
We did not seek that advice from the State Solicitor or the Solicitor-General on the basis of having some quantum devised that it was considered could buy Mr Mallard out of his ability, if he so chooses, to litigate against the state or its agents. We simply acted on advice provided about a quantum which was fair to Mr Mallard and which represented an executive gift from this government. I hope this is a life-changing amount of money for Mr Mallard that gives him every opportunity to succeed in future in whatever endeavours he may wish to pursue. It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
It is incredibly difficult to determine an ex gratia payment, which is basically a determination about fairness. There will be an almost infinite variety of views on what is fair or unfair in any given circumstance. I say to the house, to Mr Mallard and to his friends, supporters and solicitors that we have done our utmost to come up with a figure which we consider will contribute to the betterment of his life and which is a fair recognition of what he has endured, on the part of this government.
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.