❓ Question regarding a Supreme Court decision impacting perjury charges against two individuals investigated by the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC). The Attorney General acknowledges the disappointing outcome and indicates potential legislative amendments to address shortcomings.
AnsweredQoN 676Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the extraordinary and inexplicable bungle in the Supreme Court last week by the Corruption and Crime Commission that appears to have cost Western Australians the chance to bring to justice two organised crime associates, Marco Sorani and Hasaneen Aboudi, for possible perjury charges. Has the Attorney General inquired of the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission or State Counsel, Mr George Tannin, SC, or anyone else if this bungle means that the state has now lost the golden opportunity of bringing prosecutions for perjury against the two men or to re-examine them before the Corruption and Crime Commission; and, if not, why not? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
The decision from the Supreme Court last week was disappointing. For people who have a strong interest in law enforcement to have people come before a very powerful body such as the CCC and have them thumb their noses at it and refuse to answer questions when they are confronted with evidence is something that I believe is contemptuous. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found in its decision last week that the particular provisions in question and the way in which they were applied in that case involved some shortcomings either in the legislation or the way in which it was applied in those circumstances. I have discussed this matter with the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission. I have also received interim advice from counsel involved in the case. It is a matter on which we will be seeking further discussions to ascertain whether an amendment should be brought back to this Parliament concerning the powers of the Corruption and Crime Commission to deal with people who act contemptuously when they are required to give evidence before that commission.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: The decision from the Supreme Court last week was disappointing. For people who have a strong interest in law enforcement to have people come before a very powerful body such as the CCC and have them thumb their noses at it and refuse to answer questions when they are confronted with evidence is something that I believe is contemptuous. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found in its decision last week that the particular provisions in question and the way in which they were applied in that case involved some shortcomings either in the legislation or the way in which it was applied in those circumstances. I have discussed this matter with the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission. I have also received interim advice from counsel involved in the case. It is a matter on which we will be seeking further discussions to ascertain whether an amendment should be brought back to this Parliament concerning the powers of the Corruption and Crime Commission to deal with people who act contemptuously when they are required to give evidence before that commission.
The decision from the Supreme Court last week was disappointing. For people who have a strong interest in law enforcement to have people come before a very powerful body such as the CCC and have them thumb their noses at it and refuse to answer questions when they are confronted with evidence is something that I believe is contemptuous. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found in its decision last week that the particular provisions in question and the way in which they were applied in that case involved some shortcomings either in the legislation or the way in which it was applied in those circumstances. I have discussed this matter with the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission. I have also received interim advice from counsel involved in the case. It is a matter on which we will be seeking further discussions to ascertain whether an amendment should be brought back to this Parliament concerning the powers of the Corruption and Crime Commission to deal with people who act contemptuously when they are required to give evidence before that commission.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: The decision from the Supreme Court last week was disappointing. For people who have a strong interest in law enforcement to have people come before a very powerful body such as the CCC and have them thumb their noses at it and refuse to answer questions when they are confronted with evidence is something that I believe is contemptuous. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found in its decision last week that the particular provisions in question and the way in which they were applied in that case involved some shortcomings either in the legislation or the way in which it was applied in those circumstances. I have discussed this matter with the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission. I have also received interim advice from counsel involved in the case. It is a matter on which we will be seeking further discussions to ascertain whether an amendment should be brought back to this Parliament concerning the powers of the Corruption and Crime Commission to deal with people who act contemptuously when they are required to give evidence before that commission.
The decision from the Supreme Court last week was disappointing. For people who have a strong interest in law enforcement to have people come before a very powerful body such as the CCC and have them thumb their noses at it and refuse to answer questions when they are confronted with evidence is something that I believe is contemptuous. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found in its decision last week that the particular provisions in question and the way in which they were applied in that case involved some shortcomings either in the legislation or the way in which it was applied in those circumstances. I have discussed this matter with the Commissioner of the Corruption and Crime Commission. I have also received interim advice from counsel involved in the case. It is a matter on which we will be seeking further discussions to ascertain whether an amendment should be brought back to this Parliament concerning the powers of the Corruption and Crime Commission to deal with people who act contemptuously when they are required to give evidence before that commission.
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.