❓ Question on plea bargain in Dante Wyndham Arthurs case, specifically regarding the dropping of charges and the impact on the victim's family. Attorney General states DPP is independent and made the decision based on insufficient evidence for wilful murder.
AnsweredQoN 500Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
DANTE WYNDHAM ARTHURS
I refer to comments made in the press today by Father Bryan Rosling, parish priest and close friend of Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu. Mr J.A. McGinty : I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members, there is a lot of noise and we are having difficulty hearing the member for Nedlands. Will you please start again, member for Nedlands? Ms S.E. WALKER : I refer to comments made in the press today by Father Bryan Rosling, parish priest and close friend of Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu and I quote - “The family cannot understand how a rape that forensic evidence can establish to have occurred can disappear if presented in court. They cannot understand when their child is brutally choked to death, the attack is not wilful, when presented in court.” (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left - Mr J.A. McGinty : Sorry, I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY
I refer to comments made in the press today by Father Bryan Rosling, parish priest and close friend of Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu. Mr J.A. McGinty : I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members, there is a lot of noise and we are having difficulty hearing the member for Nedlands. Will you please start again, member for Nedlands? Ms S.E. WALKER : I refer to comments made in the press today by Father Bryan Rosling, parish priest and close friend of Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu and I quote - “The family cannot understand how a rape that forensic evidence can establish to have occurred can disappear if presented in court. They cannot understand when their child is brutally choked to death, the attack is not wilful, when presented in court.” (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left - Mr J.A. McGinty : Sorry, I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr J.A. McGinty : I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members, there is a lot of noise and we are having difficulty hearing the member for Nedlands. Will you please start again, member for Nedlands? Ms S.E. WALKER : I refer to comments made in the press today by Father Bryan Rosling, parish priest and close friend of Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu and I quote - “The family cannot understand how a rape that forensic evidence can establish to have occurred can disappear if presented in court. They cannot understand when their child is brutally choked to death, the attack is not wilful, when presented in court.” (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left - Mr J.A. McGinty : Sorry, I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members, there is a lot of noise and we are having difficulty hearing the member for Nedlands. Will you please start again, member for Nedlands? Ms S.E. WALKER : I refer to comments made in the press today by Father Bryan Rosling, parish priest and close friend of Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu and I quote - “The family cannot understand how a rape that forensic evidence can establish to have occurred can disappear if presented in court. They cannot understand when their child is brutally choked to death, the attack is not wilful, when presented in court.” (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left - Mr J.A. McGinty : Sorry, I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Ms S.E. WALKER : I refer to comments made in the press today by Father Bryan Rosling, parish priest and close friend of Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu and I quote - “The family cannot understand how a rape that forensic evidence can establish to have occurred can disappear if presented in court. They cannot understand when their child is brutally choked to death, the attack is not wilful, when presented in court.” (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left - Mr J.A. McGinty : Sorry, I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr J.A. McGinty : Sorry, I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr J.A. McGinty : I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members, there is a lot of noise and we are having difficulty hearing the member for Nedlands. Will you please start again, member for Nedlands? Ms S.E. WALKER : I refer to comments made in the press today by Father Bryan Rosling, parish priest and close friend of Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu and I quote - “The family cannot understand how a rape that forensic evidence can establish to have occurred can disappear if presented in court. They cannot understand when their child is brutally choked to death, the attack is not wilful, when presented in court.” (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left - Mr J.A. McGinty : Sorry, I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members, there is a lot of noise and we are having difficulty hearing the member for Nedlands. Will you please start again, member for Nedlands? Ms S.E. WALKER : I refer to comments made in the press today by Father Bryan Rosling, parish priest and close friend of Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu and I quote - “The family cannot understand how a rape that forensic evidence can establish to have occurred can disappear if presented in court. They cannot understand when their child is brutally choked to death, the attack is not wilful, when presented in court.” (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left - Mr J.A. McGinty : Sorry, I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Ms S.E. WALKER : I refer to comments made in the press today by Father Bryan Rosling, parish priest and close friend of Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu and I quote - “The family cannot understand how a rape that forensic evidence can establish to have occurred can disappear if presented in court. They cannot understand when their child is brutally choked to death, the attack is not wilful, when presented in court.” (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left - Mr J.A. McGinty : Sorry, I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr J.A. McGinty : Sorry, I cannot hear. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask members to please desist from their conversations. Perhaps the member for Nedlands can speak up. Sorry for the difficulties. Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Ms S.E. WALKER : The question is: (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defence counsel - Point of Order Mr R.C. KUCERA : Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the week you made a ruling on the sub judice rule. I heard the DPP both yesterday evening and this morning express concerns that this particular person is yet to be sentenced. It would appear that the member is starting to stray into the details of the matter that the judges would have to consider when sentencing comes about. I am becoming very uncomfortable with the line that is being taken. If there is any opportunity for this case to be aborted or affected in any way in terms of sentencing, we should very much take that into account. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The question asked by the member for Nedlands relates to what has happened in this process that has led to the distress of these parents, as they have expressed today. She had every right and, indeed, responsibility to question the Attorney General on that. It is not about sub judice at all. Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr R.C. KUCERA : I did not get to finish my comments. The point I am making is that this is a heinous crime. If anything that is said in this place interfered with any sentence that would come to this person, we should hang our heads in shame. We should make sure that we are very careful about what is happening. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Standing order 91 states - Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter . . . under adjudication in any court of record - (a) in criminal matters from the time a person is charged, until sentence; I believe that in this instance the member for Nedlands was not going to stray in that area in any way, shape or form. Both the member for Nedlands and the Attorney General are cognisant of the earlier ruling and I would like them to continue to be so in the line of questioning and also the answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Ms S.E. WALKER : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to stop me at any stage if you believe that I am straying. (1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(1) Why has the Attorney General allowed the parents of Sofia to be left in confusion and bewilderment in relation to the plea bargain made between the DPP and the defence counsel over the dropping of the wilful murder charge to murder and the evaporating of sexual assault charges? (2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(2) Did the DPP consult with the Attorney General in relation to the plea bargaining that would not see Mr Arthurs’ criminal record reflect his true criminal conduct in relation to these grave offences? (3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(3) If not, has the Attorney General sought from him the reasons for the plea bargain; and, if so, would he please inform the Parliament, the public and, most importantly, Mr and Mrs Rodriguez-Urrutia Shu? The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : I ask the Attorney General not to stray into any area that has anything to do with the sentencing. Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(1)-(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions is an independent statutory office holder that makes these decisions independently of the government of the day and the Attorney General of the day. The answer to question (2) is no. The answer to question (1) is something that the member would need to put to the DPP, because it was not me who made the decision - Ms S.E. Walker : Have you spoken to the parents? Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Sorry, would the member mind listening? The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
The DPP advised me, I think on the day - I am fairly sure that that is the case, or it might have been the day before - that the matter went to the court of what he had done. I had no input into the decisions and the plea bargaining that took place, if that is what it is appropriately called. (3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
(3) This had to do with the reason that the DPP formed the view of his own volition, without reference to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anybody else other than the defence counsel, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a case for wilful murder; that is, the intent element could not be provided in this case. That was a decision made by the DPP without reference to me.
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.