❓ The Attorney General addresses the government's response to the Don Hancock and Lou Lewis murder trial verdict, focusing on organised crime legislation enhancement and potential double jeopardy law reform.
AnsweredQoN 1256Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the Attorney General advise the House of any measures that are being considered by the Government in the aftermath of yesterday’s jury decision in the trial for the murder of Don Hancock and Lou Lewis? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Bunbury for the question. I think every member of this House shared a sense of shock and revulsion when the car bombing murder of Lou Lewis and Don Hancock took place some time ago. I was pleased when this Parliament reacted to that event during 2002 and passed the organised crime and fortification removal legislation. It was controversial legislation, but in my view it was an appropriate response to the sort of crime that none of us is prepared to tolerate in this community. It was tough legislation. It is the toughest in Australia. It was a response to something that I think shocked and revolted every one of us. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be dealt with by the Legislative Council in the next few weeks. It is caught up with the delays we are experiencing with the Corruption and Crime Commission Bill. It has been delayed for too long. Mr M.J. Birney: Why didn’t you bring it on earlier? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Excuse me! It will significantly streamline the use of those powers against outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime activities in this State. It will provide, among other things, for a commissioner who will exercise those powers, rather than the Government making ad hoc appointments such as the one it recently had to make under the old legislation. It also makes the use of those powers, particularly in relation to the removal of fortifications, less susceptible to legal challenge. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be progressed through the upper House as a matter of priority as a result of some consideration of the outcome of yesterday’s case. The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Bunbury for the question. I think every member of this House shared a sense of shock and revulsion when the car bombing murder of Lou Lewis and Don Hancock took place some time ago. I was pleased when this Parliament reacted to that event during 2002 and passed the organised crime and fortification removal legislation. It was controversial legislation, but in my view it was an appropriate response to the sort of crime that none of us is prepared to tolerate in this community. It was tough legislation. It is the toughest in Australia. It was a response to something that I think shocked and revolted every one of us. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be dealt with by the Legislative Council in the next few weeks. It is caught up with the delays we are experiencing with the Corruption and Crime Commission Bill. It has been delayed for too long. Mr M.J. Birney: Why didn’t you bring it on earlier? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Excuse me! It will significantly streamline the use of those powers against outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime activities in this State. It will provide, among other things, for a commissioner who will exercise those powers, rather than the Government making ad hoc appointments such as the one it recently had to make under the old legislation. It also makes the use of those powers, particularly in relation to the removal of fortifications, less susceptible to legal challenge. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be progressed through the upper House as a matter of priority as a result of some consideration of the outcome of yesterday’s case. The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
I thank the member for Bunbury for the question. I think every member of this House shared a sense of shock and revulsion when the car bombing murder of Lou Lewis and Don Hancock took place some time ago. I was pleased when this Parliament reacted to that event during 2002 and passed the organised crime and fortification removal legislation. It was controversial legislation, but in my view it was an appropriate response to the sort of crime that none of us is prepared to tolerate in this community. It was tough legislation. It is the toughest in Australia. It was a response to something that I think shocked and revolted every one of us. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be dealt with by the Legislative Council in the next few weeks. It is caught up with the delays we are experiencing with the Corruption and Crime Commission Bill. It has been delayed for too long. Mr M.J. Birney: Why didn’t you bring it on earlier? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Excuse me! It will significantly streamline the use of those powers against outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime activities in this State. It will provide, among other things, for a commissioner who will exercise those powers, rather than the Government making ad hoc appointments such as the one it recently had to make under the old legislation. It also makes the use of those powers, particularly in relation to the removal of fortifications, less susceptible to legal challenge. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be progressed through the upper House as a matter of priority as a result of some consideration of the outcome of yesterday’s case. The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
Mr M.J. Birney: Why didn’t you bring it on earlier? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Excuse me! It will significantly streamline the use of those powers against outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime activities in this State. It will provide, among other things, for a commissioner who will exercise those powers, rather than the Government making ad hoc appointments such as the one it recently had to make under the old legislation. It also makes the use of those powers, particularly in relation to the removal of fortifications, less susceptible to legal challenge. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be progressed through the upper House as a matter of priority as a result of some consideration of the outcome of yesterday’s case. The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Excuse me! It will significantly streamline the use of those powers against outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime activities in this State. It will provide, among other things, for a commissioner who will exercise those powers, rather than the Government making ad hoc appointments such as the one it recently had to make under the old legislation. It also makes the use of those powers, particularly in relation to the removal of fortifications, less susceptible to legal challenge. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be progressed through the upper House as a matter of priority as a result of some consideration of the outcome of yesterday’s case. The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: I thank the member for Bunbury for the question. I think every member of this House shared a sense of shock and revulsion when the car bombing murder of Lou Lewis and Don Hancock took place some time ago. I was pleased when this Parliament reacted to that event during 2002 and passed the organised crime and fortification removal legislation. It was controversial legislation, but in my view it was an appropriate response to the sort of crime that none of us is prepared to tolerate in this community. It was tough legislation. It is the toughest in Australia. It was a response to something that I think shocked and revolted every one of us. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be dealt with by the Legislative Council in the next few weeks. It is caught up with the delays we are experiencing with the Corruption and Crime Commission Bill. It has been delayed for too long. Mr M.J. Birney: Why didn’t you bring it on earlier? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Excuse me! It will significantly streamline the use of those powers against outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime activities in this State. It will provide, among other things, for a commissioner who will exercise those powers, rather than the Government making ad hoc appointments such as the one it recently had to make under the old legislation. It also makes the use of those powers, particularly in relation to the removal of fortifications, less susceptible to legal challenge. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be progressed through the upper House as a matter of priority as a result of some consideration of the outcome of yesterday’s case. The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
I thank the member for Bunbury for the question. I think every member of this House shared a sense of shock and revulsion when the car bombing murder of Lou Lewis and Don Hancock took place some time ago. I was pleased when this Parliament reacted to that event during 2002 and passed the organised crime and fortification removal legislation. It was controversial legislation, but in my view it was an appropriate response to the sort of crime that none of us is prepared to tolerate in this community. It was tough legislation. It is the toughest in Australia. It was a response to something that I think shocked and revolted every one of us. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be dealt with by the Legislative Council in the next few weeks. It is caught up with the delays we are experiencing with the Corruption and Crime Commission Bill. It has been delayed for too long. Mr M.J. Birney: Why didn’t you bring it on earlier? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Excuse me! It will significantly streamline the use of those powers against outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime activities in this State. It will provide, among other things, for a commissioner who will exercise those powers, rather than the Government making ad hoc appointments such as the one it recently had to make under the old legislation. It also makes the use of those powers, particularly in relation to the removal of fortifications, less susceptible to legal challenge. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be progressed through the upper House as a matter of priority as a result of some consideration of the outcome of yesterday’s case. The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
Mr M.J. Birney: Why didn’t you bring it on earlier? Mr J.A. McGINTY: Excuse me! It will significantly streamline the use of those powers against outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime activities in this State. It will provide, among other things, for a commissioner who will exercise those powers, rather than the Government making ad hoc appointments such as the one it recently had to make under the old legislation. It also makes the use of those powers, particularly in relation to the removal of fortifications, less susceptible to legal challenge. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be progressed through the upper House as a matter of priority as a result of some consideration of the outcome of yesterday’s case. The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Excuse me! It will significantly streamline the use of those powers against outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime activities in this State. It will provide, among other things, for a commissioner who will exercise those powers, rather than the Government making ad hoc appointments such as the one it recently had to make under the old legislation. It also makes the use of those powers, particularly in relation to the removal of fortifications, less susceptible to legal challenge. I hope that the enhancement of that legislation will be progressed through the upper House as a matter of priority as a result of some consideration of the outcome of yesterday’s case. The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
The Government is now giving earnest consideration to the question of the operation of the law of double jeopardy. The Government will raise this matter for discussion at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General in Tasmania in November. Notwithstanding the trivialising of this matter by the Leader of the Opposition, the Government will look at cases such as those that have occurred in the United Kingdom and what has been recommended in other jurisdictions, so that, subject to appropriate safeguards, when new evidence becomes available against somebody who was acquitted of a very serious charge or when it is clear that an acquittal was obtained by means of perjury or when a confession is subsequently made, the matter can be reconsidered by the courts. It is my view that double jeopardy as an absolute legal principle can operate against the interests of justice in the circumstances that many of us are considering at the moment. I want to make sure that we have on the statute books in Western Australia laws that are appropriately adapted to deal with that issue. I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
I am sure that we all share the disappointment that I am sure is being felt by the police who investigated this matter and did an excellent job, the prosecutors who committed themselves over a long period to this prosecution, and the families of the deceased. This outcome has surprised many of us, but it is also, under our system of justice, an outcome from a jury trial that we must accept.
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.