Mr Ripper questions the propriety of information sharing between police interviews, and Mr Prince defends the police actions, stating no confidentiality was breached as no charges were laid.

AnsweredQoN 164Legislative Assembly
Asked
14 September 2000
Member
Portfolio
Police

QuestionView source ↗

Would the minister accept that it would be highly irregular if the events of the first interview had been conveyed to the member for Southern River before she entered her interview? Mr PRINCE

AnswerView source ↗

No, not at all. No-one was charged. Someone was simply spoken to. There is no privity and confidentiality attached to the conversation. There is no reason on earth that the information should not be passed around. If police want to question two or more people, and do not want them to collaborate, they take them into custody. They did nothing of that nature in this case. Nothing was wrong with the handling of this matter. The member is fishing again.
Mr PRINCE replied: No, not at all. No-one was charged. Someone was simply spoken to. There is no privity and confidentiality attached to the conversation. There is no reason on earth that the information should not be passed around. If police want to question two or more people, and do not want them to collaborate, they take them into custody. They did nothing of that nature in this case. Nothing was wrong with the handling of this matter. The member is fishing again.
No, not at all. No-one was charged. Someone was simply spoken to. There is no privity and confidentiality attached to the conversation. There is no reason on earth that the information should not be passed around. If police want to question two or more people, and do not want them to collaborate, they take them into custody. They did nothing of that nature in this case. Nothing was wrong with the handling of this matter. The member is fishing again.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more