❓ The Attorney General addresses the case of Marlon Noble, who was deemed unfit to stand trial for serious sexual offences. He clarifies the legal processes, the role of the DPP, and details Mr. Noble's leave of absence.
AnsweredQoN 114Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MARLON NOBLE — IMPRISONMENT
I refer to the article on the front page of The West Australian today about the case of Mr Marlon Noble. Can the Attorney General please inform the house of the facts and details of that case, and how the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act operates in cases such as this? Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer to the article on the front page of The West Australian today about the case of Mr Marlon Noble. Can the Attorney General please inform the house of the facts and details of that case, and how the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act operates in cases such as this? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. Members present may well have read that article, and it does warrant some detailed explanation. Mr Noble’s case is a very, very difficult one, and it represents all the difficulties the criminal law has in dealing with situations in which people are found unfit to stand trial. The criminal law makes a distinction between people who have a mental condition that is relevant to the time of their offending, and the time at which they appear in court and may have to stand trial—although those two things obviously overlap. What I would say, for members’ information, is that the background to this situation sits in the act. The court has the ability to determine whether a person is fit or unfit to stand trial. If a person is found unfit to stand trial, on less serious offences the person can be released and the charges dismissed. In the case of more serious offences, if the person is found unfit to stand trial, a custody order is generally made by the court. The court makes that custody order taking into account a range of factors, but including the strength of evidence in the matter that is brought before the court. Mr Noble was the subject of a custody order, and on 11 March 2003 he was found unfit to stand trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : He is fit to stand trial now, is he not? Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Members present may well have read that article, and it does warrant some detailed explanation. Mr Noble’s case is a very, very difficult one, and it represents all the difficulties the criminal law has in dealing with situations in which people are found unfit to stand trial. The criminal law makes a distinction between people who have a mental condition that is relevant to the time of their offending, and the time at which they appear in court and may have to stand trial—although those two things obviously overlap. What I would say, for members’ information, is that the background to this situation sits in the act. The court has the ability to determine whether a person is fit or unfit to stand trial. If a person is found unfit to stand trial, on less serious offences the person can be released and the charges dismissed. In the case of more serious offences, if the person is found unfit to stand trial, a custody order is generally made by the court. The court makes that custody order taking into account a range of factors, but including the strength of evidence in the matter that is brought before the court. Mr Noble was the subject of a custody order, and on 11 March 2003 he was found unfit to stand trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : He is fit to stand trial now, is he not? Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
I thank the member for his question. Members present may well have read that article, and it does warrant some detailed explanation. Mr Noble’s case is a very, very difficult one, and it represents all the difficulties the criminal law has in dealing with situations in which people are found unfit to stand trial. The criminal law makes a distinction between people who have a mental condition that is relevant to the time of their offending, and the time at which they appear in court and may have to stand trial—although those two things obviously overlap. What I would say, for members’ information, is that the background to this situation sits in the act. The court has the ability to determine whether a person is fit or unfit to stand trial. If a person is found unfit to stand trial, on less serious offences the person can be released and the charges dismissed. In the case of more serious offences, if the person is found unfit to stand trial, a custody order is generally made by the court. The court makes that custody order taking into account a range of factors, but including the strength of evidence in the matter that is brought before the court. Mr Noble was the subject of a custody order, and on 11 March 2003 he was found unfit to stand trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : He is fit to stand trial now, is he not? Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
What I would say, for members’ information, is that the background to this situation sits in the act. The court has the ability to determine whether a person is fit or unfit to stand trial. If a person is found unfit to stand trial, on less serious offences the person can be released and the charges dismissed. In the case of more serious offences, if the person is found unfit to stand trial, a custody order is generally made by the court. The court makes that custody order taking into account a range of factors, but including the strength of evidence in the matter that is brought before the court. Mr Noble was the subject of a custody order, and on 11 March 2003 he was found unfit to stand trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : He is fit to stand trial now, is he not? Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr J.R. Quigley : He is fit to stand trial now, is he not? Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Members present may well have read that article, and it does warrant some detailed explanation. Mr Noble’s case is a very, very difficult one, and it represents all the difficulties the criminal law has in dealing with situations in which people are found unfit to stand trial. The criminal law makes a distinction between people who have a mental condition that is relevant to the time of their offending, and the time at which they appear in court and may have to stand trial—although those two things obviously overlap. What I would say, for members’ information, is that the background to this situation sits in the act. The court has the ability to determine whether a person is fit or unfit to stand trial. If a person is found unfit to stand trial, on less serious offences the person can be released and the charges dismissed. In the case of more serious offences, if the person is found unfit to stand trial, a custody order is generally made by the court. The court makes that custody order taking into account a range of factors, but including the strength of evidence in the matter that is brought before the court. Mr Noble was the subject of a custody order, and on 11 March 2003 he was found unfit to stand trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : He is fit to stand trial now, is he not? Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
I thank the member for his question. Members present may well have read that article, and it does warrant some detailed explanation. Mr Noble’s case is a very, very difficult one, and it represents all the difficulties the criminal law has in dealing with situations in which people are found unfit to stand trial. The criminal law makes a distinction between people who have a mental condition that is relevant to the time of their offending, and the time at which they appear in court and may have to stand trial—although those two things obviously overlap. What I would say, for members’ information, is that the background to this situation sits in the act. The court has the ability to determine whether a person is fit or unfit to stand trial. If a person is found unfit to stand trial, on less serious offences the person can be released and the charges dismissed. In the case of more serious offences, if the person is found unfit to stand trial, a custody order is generally made by the court. The court makes that custody order taking into account a range of factors, but including the strength of evidence in the matter that is brought before the court. Mr Noble was the subject of a custody order, and on 11 March 2003 he was found unfit to stand trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : He is fit to stand trial now, is he not? Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
What I would say, for members’ information, is that the background to this situation sits in the act. The court has the ability to determine whether a person is fit or unfit to stand trial. If a person is found unfit to stand trial, on less serious offences the person can be released and the charges dismissed. In the case of more serious offences, if the person is found unfit to stand trial, a custody order is generally made by the court. The court makes that custody order taking into account a range of factors, but including the strength of evidence in the matter that is brought before the court. Mr Noble was the subject of a custody order, and on 11 March 2003 he was found unfit to stand trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : He is fit to stand trial now, is he not? Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr J.R. Quigley : He is fit to stand trial now, is he not? Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That has not yet been determined, but I will get to that, because it is an important point. I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
I want to clarify some of the reporting and statements that have been made. There are a few points that need serious clarification with respect to this matter. The first is that the alleged offences for which Mr Noble was charged were very serious. They were two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 13, and three counts of indecent dealing with a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years. The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
The second is that the statement has been put that these charges that were alleged have never been proven. That is correct. But that has to be seriously qualified by the fact that the reason they have never been proven is that the court made a determination that Mr Noble’s mental state was such that he was unfit to stand trial. Although that means that there is, of course, never a trial, in making that determination, the court pays very serious regard to the strength of the evidence that is brought before the court in the brief. Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Member for Mindarie, there was, as I understand it, a private session with a private psychologist in 2010, and the indication was that Mr Noble’s mental state had changed somewhat and it could be argued that he was then fit to stand trial. Naturally enough, the Director of Public Prosecutions considered that at the time. The Office of the DPP made a decision according to its discretion—which it is able to do—that even if it were the case that it could put an argument now, all these years later, that Mr Noble is fit to stand trial, there would be no merit or public interest in proceeding with that trial. Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr J.R. Quigley : After they had spoken to the complainants? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That is correct, yes. That is what I have been briefed on by the DPP. My view, which does not count for much in the exercise of the discretion, is that was a good decision. With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
With respect to the reporting, I think that many members of the public might be led into the error of believing that Mr Noble has been held continuously inside jail for the entire time, without respite or reprieve. That is not entirely the case. One of the things that the system we have in place allows for is leave of absence. In fact, under this government, Mr Noble has had home leave for periods of 24 hours once a week in 2008, 36 hours once a week in 2009, and 48 hours once a week in 2010. The purpose of that is obviously to test the safety for the community and Mr Noble’s ability to reintegrate into the community, using that home leave, which is strictly supervised, as a guide. I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
I am informed that there was a positive test to amphetamine during 2010, and it was that positive test that led the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to cancel — Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr P. Papalia : Are you sure about that? Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That is the information that I have been given. Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr P. Papalia : That does not accord with what I have been told. Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The information I have is that there was a positive urinalysis to amphetamine. Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Could that not be a Sudafed tablet? Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : As I understand it, that is not impossible. I simply do not know whether or not it was a Sudafed tablet. Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr J.R. Quigley : Didn’t in fact the carer supply a statement that she had medicated him with Sudafed? Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I understand that such a statement does exist. I have not seen it. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am trying to give members as fair and balanced an approach as is possible. It is not impossible, as I understand it, but I might stand corrected on that. In any event, the board made a determination based, I would gather, on public safety concerns that the safest thing to do in those circumstances was to have that leave order cancelled and have Mr Noble brought back into Greenough Regional Prison. Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr J.R. Quigley : There was a recommendation from the board to actually release him before the change of chairman. Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That is not entirely correct either, member for Mindarie. The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
The fourth point is that what the board does is recommend to the Attorney General of the day a course of action. That course of action may include maintaining the person’s status as “in custody”, a leave of absence order, or a conditional release or an unconditional release. As I understand the act, as Attorney General I have no independent power to act, other than consequent upon a recommendation. I do not have to follow the recommendation, but the recommendation has to flow. The Attorney General makes an assessment and then either makes a recommendation to the Governor for release or conditional release, or does not. I have never received a report from the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board that recommended conditional or unconditional release; I simply have never received a recommendation. I understand that a variety of reports went to my predecessor and as best I can gather, he also never received a recommendation to suggest release or conditional release. If my predecessor did receive such a recommendation—I do not believe that he did—it would have been in or about April 2008. Had he received such a recommendation, there would have been sufficient time to act upon it, but the best instructions I have are that I have never received a report that recommended release or conditional release, and I certainly do not remember ever receiving such a report; as I understand it, neither did my predecessor. I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
I say to members that this is a very difficult situation; all the recommendations that have come to me and, it seems, to the previous Attorney General from the board have placed particular emphasis on community safety. My assessment of the last report I was given was that this person is very much on the cusp of re-entering the community. I very recently arranged a meeting in my office between Ms Curthoys, an advocate of Mr Noble, and a senior adviser. Based on the content of that meeting as it was related to me by my senior adviser, I have determined to invoke my powers under the act to request a report. Reports should flow every year or upon request. I am going to request that report and, indeed, some other procedural information about the history of this matter, to clarify precisely the points raised by the member for Mindarie. Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr J.R. Quigley : They have failed to do their annual reports on a regular basis, particularly in relation to this business. Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Depending on whether one counts a year from the date of the making of the order or a calendar year, my reading of the time line in this matter is that it could easily be said that a report has been missed, and maybe more than one. But it certainly appears to be possible that one was missed during the time of the previous government, and possibly one during the handover of government in 2008 as well. These are matters on which I will seek further information, but that is separate to invoking my power to have a report brought forward. In effect, I will seek the report for 2011 to be brought forward very rapidly. I understand that the Disability Services Commission has already set aside in its budget $90 000 in recurrent amounts for the care of Mr Noble, if it is the case that a recommendation flows to the Governor. To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
To clarify, yes, these offences have never been proven, but that is because that is precisely what the system envisages in these circumstances; they are very difficult. I have never received a recommendation for release, conditional or unconditional. My assessment is that Mr Noble is very much getting to the point of conditional release; they would have to be very firm conditions, and I will be looking very carefully at the report, with an eye to Mr Noble’s release.
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.