❓ A parliamentary question regarding the WA Police investigation into the alleged leak of an undercover officer's identity and alleged threats made by Mr. John Quigley during the Mallard case. The response indicates no leak occurred and the matter was handled by the Anti-Corruption Commission and Corruption and Crime Commission.
AnsweredQoN 1104Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MEMBER FOR MINDARIE - CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION MALLARD CASE EVIDENCE
I refer the minister to evidence disclosed at the Corruption and Crime Commission inquiry into the Mallard prosecutions that Mr John Quigley had threatened to reveal the identity of an undercover police officer if he did not agree to change his evidence. (1) Has the WA Police investigated the leak of the undercover officer’s identity and of the undercover operation; and, if not, why not? (2) Has the source of the leak been identified; and, if so, who was it and what action has been taken? (3) Why did the WA Police not lay any charges against Mr Quigley or any other person involved in the threat rather than handing the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine? (4) Who decided that the WA Police should leave the matter with the DPP? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
I refer the minister to evidence disclosed at the Corruption and Crime Commission inquiry into the Mallard prosecutions that Mr John Quigley had threatened to reveal the identity of an undercover police officer if he did not agree to change his evidence. (1) Has the WA Police investigated the leak of the undercover officer’s identity and of the undercover operation; and, if not, why not? (2) Has the source of the leak been identified; and, if so, who was it and what action has been taken? (3) Why did the WA Police not lay any charges against Mr Quigley or any other person involved in the threat rather than handing the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine? (4) Who decided that the WA Police should leave the matter with the DPP? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
AnswerView source ↗
I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
(1) Has the WA Police investigated the leak of the undercover officer’s identity and of the undercover operation; and, if not, why not? (2) Has the source of the leak been identified; and, if so, who was it and what action has been taken? (3) Why did the WA Police not lay any charges against Mr Quigley or any other person involved in the threat rather than handing the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine? (4) Who decided that the WA Police should leave the matter with the DPP? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
(2) Has the source of the leak been identified; and, if so, who was it and what action has been taken? (3) Why did the WA Police not lay any charges against Mr Quigley or any other person involved in the threat rather than handing the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine? (4) Who decided that the WA Police should leave the matter with the DPP? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
(3) Why did the WA Police not lay any charges against Mr Quigley or any other person involved in the threat rather than handing the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine? (4) Who decided that the WA Police should leave the matter with the DPP? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
(4) Who decided that the WA Police should leave the matter with the DPP? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
(1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
(1) Has the WA Police investigated the leak of the undercover officer’s identity and of the undercover operation; and, if not, why not? (2) Has the source of the leak been identified; and, if so, who was it and what action has been taken? (3) Why did the WA Police not lay any charges against Mr Quigley or any other person involved in the threat rather than handing the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine? (4) Who decided that the WA Police should leave the matter with the DPP? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
(2) Has the source of the leak been identified; and, if so, who was it and what action has been taken? (3) Why did the WA Police not lay any charges against Mr Quigley or any other person involved in the threat rather than handing the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine? (4) Who decided that the WA Police should leave the matter with the DPP? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
(3) Why did the WA Police not lay any charges against Mr Quigley or any other person involved in the threat rather than handing the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine? (4) Who decided that the WA Police should leave the matter with the DPP? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
(4) Who decided that the WA Police should leave the matter with the DPP? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
I answer on behalf of Hon Jon Ford. I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
(1)-(4) WA Police did initially investigate the matter of the leak in conjunction with the then Anti-Corruption Commission. The investigation into the leak established that there was, in fact, no leak and that the identity of the undercover officer had been sourced through legitimate means. In respect of the allegation against Mr Quigley, as he was a member of Parliament, the complaint was initially investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and later taken up by the Corruption and Crime Commission. WA Police did not correspond directly with the DPP in regard to possible prosecutions.
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.